Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I don't think just sitting back and throwing up your hands and sayin "Shit happens, not use to try to stop it." I don't think any person thinks they can (or we as a society) stop everything bad that happens. But I think we can do a lot more to protect especially kids who cannot protect themselves. Otherwise, why not just descend into a state of anarchy? If bad stuff is just going to happen and we can't do anything about any of it, and it's all karma anyhow, then why have laws? It would be ideal of all of a sudden everyone lived by the N8FP. But it's not going to happen, and sometimes to live by it it means doing something to stop bad stuff and not just letting it happen because sometimes it does even when we try to stop it and can't.
101 views and 4 comments....wow. I might have misjudged this site.
What are you hoping for?
Not hoping for anything. I just find it to be a lack of caring when more people are leaving comments on much less important things. Granted nobody is obligated to leave any comments....but....this is a forum where thats the whole idea. It shows people do not care enough to say anything about more important issues but will comment all over topics like "Should a buddhist give up cake?" or something stupid to that effect.
Kashi, we've been through similar topics with other incidents; the Virginia Tech shooting was the most recent, as I recall. No, wait, then there were stand-your-ground law incidents, too. Huge fights over gun-control have erupted in the past. I dunno, but some people might be drained. And this recent event is so overwhelming. I think we can't really blame people for not being able to find the words or the psycho-emotional energy to comment or discuss.
All I have to say is, if you're going to try to make a change, I suggest doing it through peaceful civil disobedience. Our opinions are outweighed from the inside 1,000,000 to 1, Gandhi figured out that no matter what you change from the inside, there will always be 100 people with more power and interests in different things changing back everything you work to change. His methods are the only successful ones I've seen that didn't involve beating their opponent into submission. Martin Luther King used Gandhi's methods to make perhaps one of the biggest changes in attitude in the 20th century here in the US. We have to work from the root, change the hearts of the people, change the laws in which they allow themselves to be governed. That part was Buddha's idea.
All I have to say is, if you're going to try to make a change, I suggest doing it through peaceful civil disobedience. Our opinions are outweighed from the inside 1,000,000 to 1, Gandhi figured out that no matter what you change from the inside, there will always be 100 people with more power and interests in different things changing back everything you work to change. His methods are the only successful ones I've seen that didn't involve beating their opponent into submission. Martin Luther King used Gandhi's methods to make perhaps one of the biggest changes in attitude in the 20th century here in the US. We have to work from the root, change the hearts of the people, change the laws in which they allow themselves to be governed. That part was Buddha's idea.
While, in general, to a large degree I agree with your stance, please keep in mind that the Civil Rights movement in America did not succeed to the extent that it did simply because of peaceful protesters like Martin Luther King. There were also riots, the burning and looting of large sections of Watts and D.C. and a number of other cities, and many civil rights figures who were anything but peaceful.
All I have to say is, if you're going to try to make a change, I suggest doing it through peaceful civil disobedience. Our opinions are outweighed from the inside 1,000,000 to 1, Gandhi figured out that no matter what you change from the inside, there will always be 100 people with more power and interests in different things changing back everything you work to change. His methods are the only successful ones I've seen that didn't involve beating their opponent into submission. Martin Luther King used Gandhi's methods to make perhaps one of the biggest changes in attitude in the 20th century here in the US. We have to work from the root, change the hearts of the people, change the laws in which they allow themselves to be governed. That part was Buddha's idea.
While, in general, to a large degree I agree with your stance, please keep in mind that the Civil Rights movement in America did not succeed to the extent that it did simply because of peaceful protesters like Martin Luther King. There were also riots, the burning and looting of large sections of Watts and D.C. and a number of other cities, and many civil rights figures who were anything but peaceful.
Completely agree, I'll be the first to admit I'm an idealist at heart when it comes to serious matters. MLK to me, was the spark, it was in the end Lincoln who declared the slaves free men. There will always be extremists who take things too far, even Gandhi faced the same problem. I can't say how much of whose actions contributed to the change, because I simply do not know, but I'd like to think that the original visionaries had the biggest impacts.
I have said this before about twice in this thread.. but doing a reading of "the four foundations of mindfulness in plain english" by Bhante G.. I came upon this passage that sums it up nicely
"I walk as much as I can every day. Often I see deer that have been shot by hunters. Sometimes the hunters cannot find them, and the carcasses rot by the roadside. I also see trash thrown by the road - beer cans, liquor bottles, tv antennas, refrigerators, tables, and other household junk. Throughout the spring and summer, this garbage also rots.
Because I desire to see a clean environment, these sights sometimes disturb my mind. But then mindfulness intervenes. I remind myself that desire does me more harm then good. Even the wholesome wish for people to stop hunting or to dispose properly of their trash unsettles my mind and causes me to suffer. So instead of being attached to my environmental principles, I remind myself that I cannot fix the whole world, and I let go of my desire. I may not be able to remove the world's greed, but I can get rid of my own. The moment I do I begin to relax, and there I experience peace"
Where he walks are quiet mountain country roads near the Bhavana Society forest monastery in West Virginia(where all them gun tote'n red necks are!). I've walked those roads with the monks a few times now and I've seen all of that stuff he describes. I agree totally with what Bhante says here. We have this "wholesome" desire to try and find some way.. IF IT SAVES JUST ONE CHILD!!! .. to "fix the world".. it can't be done and it causes us suffering and a vexed mind in trying to find a way.. any way, but we can only fix ourselves.
Bhante G and all the monks give metta to everyone who drives by and waves to them all, this is a practice that I've also adopted when I go for the walks alone or with the monks. Instead of abiding in those negative mind states of " those damn hunters" " those damn rednecks look what they did" .. we abide in metta and our minds are calm
But what if our city leaders, principals, police, health care workers, president or other abided by that? I understand what you are saying, I do get it. But if the only thing we can or should do is fix ourselves, then why try to help anyone else? How is me donating food to the hungry helping me? Am I fixing world hunger by donating something to the food shelf? Of course not, and I wouldn't pretend I was. But if it helps a family have a meal they might otherwise have not, then good, that is the point.
But what if our city leaders, principals, police, health care workers, president or other abided by that? I understand what you are saying, I do get it. But if the only thing we can or should do is fix ourselves, then why try to help anyone else? How is me donating food to the hungry helping me? Am I fixing world hunger by donating something to the food shelf? Of course not, and I wouldn't pretend I was. But if it helps a family have a meal they might otherwise have not, then good, that is the point.
Helping others is one method of cultivating compassion, and self-less-ness. Of course it's key to our practice. :thumbsup:
Does anyone know how the boy got hold of his mother's firearms? Were they not under lock and key? Or did he know where the key was? I didn't see that in the newspaper report today.
I haven't heard yet either, where the guns were stored or anything. Though 20 years old really isn't a child anymore. He was old enough to buy his own rifles and not far from being old enough to buy his own handguns. Generally I doubt most parents think they need to lock up their guns when an adult "child" is at home. But perhaps with him she should have known given the problems he supposedly had the she had to deal with. But this story has more holes than a soap opera, so it's hard to say much about any of it other than 28 people died needlessly (yes, I include the shooter in that) and it's just very sad.
But what if our city leaders, principals, police, health care workers, president or other abided by that? I understand what you are saying, I do get it. But if the only thing we can or should do is fix ourselves, then why try to help anyone else? How is me donating food to the hungry helping me? Am I fixing world hunger by donating something to the food shelf? Of course not, and I wouldn't pretend I was. But if it helps a family have a meal they might otherwise have not, then good, that is the point.
I don't think that this means " well screw everything on earth" kind of attitude.. of course we can do good deeds to try and help others. But we also have to know our limits of what we can and cannot do and be able to accept this and be at peace with it.
I haven't heard yet either, where the guns were stored or anything. Though 20 years old really isn't a child anymore. He was old enough to buy his own rifles and not far from being old enough to buy his own handguns. Generally I doubt most parents think they need to lock up their guns when an adult "child" is at home. But perhaps with him she should have known given the problems he supposedly had the she had to deal with. But this story has more holes than a soap opera, so it's hard to say much about any of it other than 28 people died needlessly (yes, I include the shooter in that) and it's just very sad.
According to the news the guy was 24, ended up killing his mother who worked at that school, maybe his father too, can't remember the exact details surrounding the father. Another day another tragedy in samsara. It really is a sad story all around.
Actually most of that is older news. The brother is 24. The shooter was 20. His mom didn't work at the school but possibly volunteered at one point. Police have found no records of it though. The dad and mom were divorced, dad is remarried and lives in the state elsewhere. He killed his mom and then drove her car and her guns to the school, broke a window to get in (doors locked automatically) and just went room to room killing anyone he could until the police arrived. It's just such a shattering thing. I remember watching it on tv when it happened with Columbine. My oldest was 2 years old and I remember thinking I hoped he would never go through such a thing. He'll be 16 a week from today, and now he wants to know what to do if it happens at his school.
You know, these massacres are taking place more and more often. We saw, by the way, today a very similar incident in China, where a mad man attacked an elementary school in China with a knife, with 22 injured children. Injured, not dead. That's the difference. In the United States, we have 9,000 people killed with guns last year. In similar countries like Germany, 170. You have Canada, 150. There is a reason for that.
There are no answers. Life is fleeting and samsara is a dangerous place. We are all hanging by a thread all the time. It is safety and security, and the apparent solidity of this life, that are illusions.
a well armed population protects freedom as the fathers intended.
:thumbdown:
What, are you expecting an Indian attack? Or perhaps an invasion by the Red Coats/
those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.. The Romans thought they were in a civilized age where nothing like that could happen to them as well
No, Republicans and Democrats are not two sides of the same coin. Republicans want to lock people up without trial and torture them as "enemy combatants" while Democrats want to give them a fair trial. Republicans think anyone who receives a welfare check or food stamps is a "moocher" who should be cut off and forced to starve or work for slave wages, while Democrats want everyone to have a fair chance. I could go on, about women's rights, the rights of undocumented immigrents, etc. This isn't me just being a liberal. This is the Republican party platform.
And the Republican's answer to anyone being able to easily buy assault rifles designed only for killing lots of people without reloading is to say everyone should be armed so they can shoot back. Again, their own words. And those rednecks that don't go around shooting up schools? Let a black man try to move into their neighborhood and marry one of their daughters, and see just how peaceful and enlightened they are with those guns. I know. I come from a huge redneck family.
Maybe Republicans are right. Maybe a society works best when it's survival of the richest and most violent and everyone should just look after themselves. Me, I don't call that much of a society.
Nor do I expect it to change much.
1
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
No, Republicans and Democrats are not two sides of the same coin. Republicans want to lock people up without trial and torture them as "enemy combatants" while Democrats want to give them a fair trial. Republicans think anyone who receives a welfare check or food stamps is a "moocher" who should be cut off and forced to starve or work for slave wages, while Democrats want everyone to have a fair chance. I could go on, about women's rights, the rights of undocumented immigrents, etc. This isn't me just being a liberal. This is the Republican party platform.
And the Republican's answer to anyone being able to easily buy assault rifles designed only for killing lots of people without reloading is to say everyone should be armed so they can shoot back. Again, their own words. And those rednecks that don't go around shooting up schools? Let a black man try to move into their neighborhood and marry one of their daughters, and see just how peaceful and enlightened they are with those guns. I know. I come from a huge redneck family.
Maybe Republicans are right. Maybe a society works best when it's survival of the richest and most violent and everyone should just look after themselves. Me, I don't call that much of a society.
Nor do I expect it to change much.
Did Obama give the american citizen muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki a fair trial when he drone bombed his vehicle.. killing both Anwar and his son? or were the Republicans behind that as well
These kinds of debates never get anywhere because people are stuck to their fixed views.. only practice can change that. If I've learned anything from this thread is that I should avoid them in the future.. but this has been a wonderful thread for self reflection though.
No, Republicans and Democrats are not two sides of the same coin. Republicans want to lock people up without trial and torture them as "enemy combatants" while Democrats want to give them a fair trial. Republicans think anyone who receives a welfare check or food stamps is a "moocher" who should be cut off and forced to starve or work for slave wages, while Democrats want everyone to have a fair chance. I could go on, about women's rights, the rights of undocumented immigrents, etc. This isn't me just being a liberal. This is the Republican party platform.
And the Republican's answer to anyone being able to easily buy assault rifles designed only for killing lots of people without reloading is to say everyone should be armed so they can shoot back. Again, their own words. And those rednecks that don't go around shooting up schools? Let a black man try to move into their neighborhood and marry one of their daughters, and see just how peaceful and enlightened they are with those guns. I know. I come from a huge redneck family.
Maybe Republicans are right. Maybe a society works best when it's survival of the richest and most violent and everyone should just look after themselves. Me, I don't call that much of a society.
Nor do I expect it to change much.
Did Obama give the american citizen muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki a fair trial when he drone bombed his vehicle.. killing both Anwar and his young son? or were the Republicans behind that as well
These kinds of debates never get anywhere because we are all stuck to our fixed views.. only practice can change that. If I've learned anything from this thread is that I should avoid them in the future.. but this has been a wonderful thread for self reflection though.
I've had this debate/conversation many times over the years, with family and friends who are gun owners, and with those who aren't. Here's my compromise solution:
Gun people want to keep their guns. Gun people believe keeping guns in their home somehow "protects" them from our (secretly evil) government going 'rogue' and interfering in their lives; from home intruders; robbery, etc. Gun people think because the constitution provides a stipulation that citizens have the "right to bear arms" (against the government and/or other political intrusions) that means they can arm themselves like a para-military force- against their own neighbors and other citizens.
Personally, I believe this is all merely a false sense of security, because these things (robbery, B&E, peepers, creepers, etc) happen to people every day around the country, gun in the house or not. But whatever, keep guns in the house- for what it's worth. It doesn't affect me or my family or friends, because we won't be intruding into your sacred space or trying to attack your family, so I'm not concerned. And if your child or grandchild is accidentally killed or wounded by that gun in the house, that too is on your head, not mine or anyone else's.
That said, here's where I draw the line and where I believe our laws should also draw the line: Keep your guns in your home, not out in public! I don't want to go to a playground with my grandchildren, to the beach, to the bowling alley, to the movies, to the supermarket, to Temple, to Church, to school, to a play, to the mall, or ANYWHERE knowing that any asshole with a sense of paranoia, and a clean record can get and carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. No way, no how, NO.
Keeping a gun in your home amongst your family and children is your business, and your risk. But once that weapon is out in public it becomes my business.
Laws need to change. Home protection weapons need to be limited to small-medium caliber handguns ONLY- NO semi-automatics, no huge ammo clips, no shotguns or rifles, no scopes.
I think ALL carry/conceal laws should be repealed. The only people who should be legally carrying weapons in public are police, military, FBI and other professionally trained personnel.
I believe ALL "home protection" weapons should be registered, alarmed and monitored so they never leave the home. Every gun legally bought and sold (including hunting weapons) should come with a built in tracker/alarm system (much like the bracelet criminals wear on home-arrest) and no guns get grandfathered in. This way when a gun leaves its home base, an alarm is sounded and that gun can be tracked and confiscated if necessary- maybe even BEFORE someone gets hurt or it's used in a crime. Give people with guns time to comply, but if they don't join the tracking/alarm system, they get fined - $$ BIG BUCKS $$. If they still refuse to comply, guns are confiscated. No ifs, ands or buts. We've got the technology to do this.... there is no reason not to, except gun people are too paranoid to play by these or ANY rules which protect and benefit us all. The NRA, gun makers, retailers, etc are selfish and $$ minded so they won't go for it.
[edited] The people who insist on carry/conceal weapons feel it's their right to be able to blow some 15 yr old kid's brains out on the sidewalk, all because he tried to rob them of $20 in their wallet. But I guess we all have our values and priorities in life, right?
a well armed population protects freedom as the fathers intended.
:thumbdown:
What, are you expecting an Indian attack? Or perhaps an invasion by the Red Coats/
those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.. The Romans thought they were in a civilized age where nothing like that could happen to them as well
It's equally true that those who dwell on history are doomed to repeat it...just look at the Middle East.
It isn't that we can solve all problems totally. We all know that. But man-made problems can almost always be improved, if not solved.
Did Obama give the american citizen muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki a fair trial when he drone bombed his vehicle.. killing both Anwar and his son? or were the Republicans behind that as well
These kinds of debates never get anywhere because people are stuck to their fixed views.. only practice can change that. If I've learned anything from this thread is that I should avoid them in the future.. but this has been a wonderful thread for self reflection though.
I'm shocked that you can't see the difference between a man who has declared war against the US and a 6 year old child.
I've had this debate/conversation many times over the years, with family and friends who are gun owners, and with those who aren't. Here's my compromise solution:
Gun people want to keep their guns. Gun people believe keeping guns in their home somehow "protects" them from our (secretly evil) government going 'rogue' and interfering in their lives; from home intruders; robbery, etc. Gun people think because the constitution provides a stipulation that citizens have the "right to bear arms" (against the government and/or other political intrusions) that means they can arm themselves like a para-military force- against their own neighbors and other citizens.
Personally, I believe this is all merely a false sense of security, because these things (robbery, B&E, peepers, creepers, etc) happen to people every day around the country, gun in the house or not. But whatever, keep guns in the house- for what it's worth. It doesn't affect me or my family or friends, because we won't be intruding into your sacred space or trying to attack your family, so I'm not concerned. And if your child or grandchild is accidentally killed or wounded by that gun in the house, that too is on your head, not mine or anyone else's.
That said, here's where I draw the line and where I believe our laws should also draw the line: Keep your guns in your home, not out in public! I don't want to go to a playground with my grandchildren, to the beach, to the bowling alley, to the movies, to the supermarket, to Temple, to Church, to school, to a play, to the mall, or ANYWHERE knowing that any asshole with a sense of paranoia, and a clean record can get and carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. No way, no how, NO.
Keeping a gun in your home amongst your family and children is your business, and your risk. But once that weapon is out in public it becomes my business.
Laws need to change. Home protection weapons need to be limited to small-medium caliber handguns ONLY- NO semi-automatics, no huge ammo clips, no shotguns or rifles, no scopes.
I think ALL carry/conceal laws should be repealed. The only people who should be legally carrying weapons in public are police, military, FBI and other professionally trained personnel.
I believe ALL "home protection" weapons should be registered, alarmed and monitored so they never leave the home. Every gun legally bought and sold (including hunting weapons) should come with a built in tracker/alarm system (much like the bracelet criminals wear on home-arrest) and no guns get grandfathered in. This way when a gun leaves its home base, an alarm is sounded and that gun can be tracked and confiscated if necessary- maybe even BEFORE someone gets hurt or it's used in a crime. Give people with guns time to comply, but if they don't join the tracking/alarm system, they get fined - $$ BIG BUCKS $$. If they still refuse to comply, guns are confiscated. No ifs, ands or buts. We've got the technology to do this.... there is no reason not to, except gun people are too paranoid to play by these or ANY rules which protect and benefit us all. The NRA, gun makers, retailers, etc are selfish and $$ minded so they won't go for it.
[edited] The people who insist on carry/conceal weapons feel it's their right to be able to blow some 15 yr old kid's brains out on the sidewalk, all because he tried to rob them of $20 in their wallet. But I guess we all have our values and priorities in life, right?
I agree with you. I might be slightly more liberal about it simply to get some legislation passed that improves the situation.
Joe Scarborough speaks out...and his message is surprising.
I was truly surprised at his message. It is encouraging to know that even the most stubborn, conservative, corporate mindset can change position when desperate times calls for desperate measures. I was moved by his change of heart... and I believed every word he said was really heartfelt. Thanks, Joe. I really hope Newtown IS the pivotal point (finally!) and we get something done.
Did Obama give the american citizen muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki a fair trial when he drone bombed his vehicle.. killing both Anwar and his son? or were the Republicans behind that as well
These kinds of debates never get anywhere because people are stuck to their fixed views.. only practice can change that. If I've learned anything from this thread is that I should avoid them in the future.. but this has been a wonderful thread for self reflection though.
I'm shocked that you can't see the difference between a man who has declared war against the US and a 6 year old child.
when a mind of equanimity.. a being is a being no?
and besides that was in response to the comment about democrats giving fair trials to people and how evil republicans are.
I've had this debate/conversation many times over the years, with family and friends who are gun owners, and with those who aren't. Here's my compromise solution:
Gun people want to keep their guns. Gun people believe keeping guns in their home somehow "protects" them from our (secretly evil) government going 'rogue' and interfering in their lives; from home intruders; robbery, etc. Gun people think because the constitution provides a stipulation that citizens have the "right to bear arms" (against the government and/or other political intrusions) that means they can arm themselves like a para-military force- against their own neighbors and other citizens.
Personally, I believe this is all merely a false sense of security, because these things (robbery, B&E, peepers, creepers, etc) happen to people every day around the country, gun in the house or not. But whatever, keep guns in the house- for what it's worth. It doesn't affect me or my family or friends, because we won't be intruding into your sacred space or trying to attack your family, so I'm not concerned. And if your child or grandchild is accidentally killed or wounded by that gun in the house, that too is on your head, not mine or anyone else's.
That said, here's where I draw the line and where I believe our laws should also draw the line: Keep your guns in your home, not out in public! I don't want to go to a playground with my grandchildren, to the beach, to the bowling alley, to the movies, to the supermarket, to Temple, to Church, to school, to a play, to the mall, or ANYWHERE knowing that any asshole with a sense of paranoia, and a clean record can get and carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. No way, no how, NO.
Keeping a gun in your home amongst your family and children is your business, and your risk. But once that weapon is out in public it becomes my business.
Laws need to change. Home protection weapons need to be limited to small-medium caliber handguns ONLY- NO semi-automatics, no huge ammo clips, no shotguns or rifles, no scopes.
I think ALL carry/conceal laws should be repealed. The only people who should be legally carrying weapons in public are police, military, FBI and other professionally trained personnel.
I believe ALL "home protection" weapons should be registered, alarmed and monitored so they never leave the home. Every gun legally bought and sold (including hunting weapons) should come with a built in tracker/alarm system (much like the bracelet criminals wear on home-arrest) and no guns get grandfathered in. This way when a gun leaves its home base, an alarm is sounded and that gun can be tracked and confiscated if necessary- maybe even BEFORE someone gets hurt or it's used in a crime. Give people with guns time to comply, but if they don't join the tracking/alarm system, they get fined - $$ BIG BUCKS $$. If they still refuse to comply, guns are confiscated. No ifs, ands or buts. We've got the technology to do this.... there is no reason not to, except gun people are too paranoid to play by these or ANY rules which protect and benefit us all. The NRA, gun makers, retailers, etc are selfish and $$ minded so they won't go for it.
[edited] The people who insist on carry/conceal weapons feel it's their right to be able to blow some 15 yr old kid's brains out on the sidewalk, all because he tried to rob them of $20 in their wallet. But I guess we all have our values and priorities in life, right?
Not everyone feels that way. If someone came to my door and said "we are here to take your guns, we passed new laws that keeps schools, children, and other people safer" I'd hand them over with no problem whatsoever. I don't think that'll ever happen, but we do not have guns in our house for protection whatsoever. They wouldn't even be accessible to us in an emergency or in the event of a break in. Lots of other people are rethinking their stances on gun rights right now too. Finally. Other than that, I agree with your post. But just know that not all gun owners are "OMG! You will take my guns out of my cold dead hands" types. We aren't.
I actually came just to pass along that there is a movement started by Ann Curry to help generate acts of kindness. It's a good idea, I think, even though we should practice all year round, many people do not and if it gets people doing that, then some people's lives are better for it. It's called #26Acts and you can of course do them just on your own, in honor off the 26 who died, I'd actually include his mother in that, and him, because perhaps if he'd had more acts of kindness, his life would have been better, who knows. If you want to share, you can do it on twitter, or FB, or in private or whatever. Kickstarting kindness is always a nice thing.
there is plenty logical reason for guns to exist.. people fear for the safety of themselves and their family so they wish to have means to protect themselves.
Wrong. Statistically, owning a gun makes you much more likely to be killed our injured by a gun.
well said friend.. there is no easy answer, no black and white, to these situations.
Wrong. There IS a simple answer. Ban all guns. End of story. It's happened in other countries and - guess what - the incidents of death by guns drops dramatically.
There IS a simple answer. Ban all guns. End of story. It's happened in other countries and - guess what - the incidents of death by guns drops dramatically.
Yes, that's right. It would be nice to think that something good could come out of this latest sad event, but even if they ban assault rifles there would still be so many guns of various types floating around... :-/
Banning assault weapons will take the cool factor away from owning a rifle for many. Without them being available, someone would have only the same assortment of hunting rifles that are available here in Canada to choose from. They would then have to consider " do I want to be a hunter or not", instead of "do I want to be Rambo". When they were outlawed here, owners had to relinquish them or face stiff fines or jail time. I don't recall any type of buyback like they had in Australia. The US government should buy back these type of guns. It will likely cost hundreds of millions of dollars but perhaps they could use some of them in the military.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
I have friends that have a WIDE assortment of assault rifles and whatnot. They only use them for target practice and it's really about the 'cool factor' like @robot says. They even have a target that is painted like a nazi zombie that bleeds when you shoot it. I have to agree, it's pretty awesome. I also agree that shooting an AK-47 is pretty awesome. But the real question is... is it necessary? Sure, it's cool and fun... but do we need to have such powerful weapons legalized just because they're cool and fun? They don't serve any real purpose unless you ACTUALLY think that America might be invaded by some outside force someday. I guess some people really do...
Buddhist ethics aside, I think it is important to keep in mind the historical context of the second amendment and why the founding fathers added it to the constitution. It is/was important to not let the government suppress the people to a point where the people don't/didn't have a way to fight back against that government. The balance is already greatly skewed in the military/government's favor.
Buddhist ethics in play, I feel we should be able to find other means than violence to overcome our oppression by a less than ethical government.
Buddhist ethics aside, I think it is important to keep in mind the historical context of the second amendment and why the founding fathers added it to the constitution. It is/was important to not let the government suppress the people to a point where the people don't/didn't have a way to fight back against that government. The balance is already greatly skewed in the military/government's favor.
Buddhist ethics in play, I feel we should be able to find other means than violence to overcome our oppression by a less than ethical government.
However, not everyone is a buddhist.
Heres the best Idea for people who are "gun ho"...lets go back to the use of muskets. Then they can have their guns, and stop ranting about the right to bear arms, but wont be able to kill 20 ppl in seconds flat. sigh..... the truth is violence will never stop.
Comments
"I walk as much as I can every day. Often I see deer that have been shot by hunters. Sometimes the hunters cannot find them, and the carcasses rot by the roadside. I also see trash thrown by the road - beer cans, liquor bottles, tv antennas, refrigerators, tables, and other household junk. Throughout the spring and summer, this garbage also rots.
Because I desire to see a clean environment, these sights sometimes disturb my mind. But then mindfulness intervenes. I remind myself that desire does me more harm then good. Even the wholesome wish for people to stop hunting or to dispose properly of their trash unsettles my mind and causes me to suffer. So instead of being attached to my environmental principles, I remind myself that I cannot fix the whole world, and I let go of my desire. I may not be able to remove the world's greed, but I can get rid of my own. The moment I do I begin to relax, and there I experience peace"
Where he walks are quiet mountain country roads near the Bhavana Society forest monastery in West Virginia(where all them gun tote'n red necks are!). I've walked those roads with the monks a few times now and I've seen all of that stuff he describes. I agree totally with what Bhante says here. We have this "wholesome" desire to try and find some way.. IF IT SAVES JUST ONE CHILD!!! .. to "fix the world".. it can't be done and it causes us suffering and a vexed mind in trying to find a way.. any way, but we can only fix ourselves.
Bhante G and all the monks give metta to everyone who drives by and waves to them all, this is a practice that I've also adopted when I go for the walks alone or with the monks. Instead of abiding in those negative mind states of " those damn hunters" " those damn rednecks look what they did" .. we abide in metta and our minds are calm
Does anyone know how the boy got hold of his mother's firearms? Were they not under lock and key? Or did he know where the key was? I didn't see that in the newspaper report today.
Somalia?
............?
:thumbdown:
What, are you expecting an Indian attack? Or perhaps an invasion by the Red Coats/
And the Republican's answer to anyone being able to easily buy assault rifles designed only for killing lots of people without reloading is to say everyone should be armed so they can shoot back. Again, their own words. And those rednecks that don't go around shooting up schools? Let a black man try to move into their neighborhood and marry one of their daughters, and see just how peaceful and enlightened they are with those guns. I know. I come from a huge redneck family.
Maybe Republicans are right. Maybe a society works best when it's survival of the richest and most violent and everyone should just look after themselves. Me, I don't call that much of a society.
Nor do I expect it to change much.
These kinds of debates never get anywhere because people are stuck to their fixed views.. only practice can change that. If I've learned anything from this thread is that I should avoid them in the future.. but this has been a wonderful thread for self reflection though.
Did Obama give the american citizen muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki a fair trial when he drone bombed his vehicle.. killing both Anwar and his young son? or were the Republicans behind that as well
These kinds of debates never get anywhere because we are all stuck to our fixed views.. only practice can change that. If I've learned anything from this thread is that I should avoid them in the future.. but this has been a wonderful thread for self reflection though.
Gun people want to keep their guns. Gun people believe keeping guns in their home somehow "protects" them from our (secretly evil) government going 'rogue' and interfering in their lives; from home intruders; robbery, etc. Gun people think because the constitution provides a stipulation that citizens have the "right to bear arms" (against the government and/or other political intrusions) that means they can arm themselves like a para-military force- against their own neighbors and other citizens.
Personally, I believe this is all merely a false sense of security, because these things (robbery, B&E, peepers, creepers, etc) happen to people every day around the country, gun in the house or not. But whatever, keep guns in the house- for what it's worth. It doesn't affect me or my family or friends, because we won't be intruding into your sacred space or trying to attack your family, so I'm not concerned.
And if your child or grandchild is accidentally killed or wounded by that gun in the house, that too is on your head, not mine or anyone else's.
That said, here's where I draw the line and where I believe our laws should also draw the line: Keep your guns in your home, not out in public!
I don't want to go to a playground with my grandchildren, to the beach, to the bowling alley, to the movies, to the supermarket, to Temple, to Church, to school, to a play, to the mall, or ANYWHERE knowing that any asshole with a sense of paranoia, and a clean record can get and carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. No way, no how, NO.
Keeping a gun in your home amongst your family and children is your business, and your risk. But once that weapon is out in public it becomes my business.
Laws need to change.
Home protection weapons need to be limited to small-medium caliber handguns ONLY- NO semi-automatics, no huge ammo clips, no shotguns or rifles, no scopes.
I think ALL carry/conceal laws should be repealed. The only people who should be legally carrying weapons in public are police, military, FBI and other professionally trained personnel.
I believe ALL "home protection" weapons should be registered, alarmed and monitored so they never leave the home.
Every gun legally bought and sold (including hunting weapons) should come with a built in tracker/alarm system (much like the bracelet criminals wear on home-arrest) and no guns get grandfathered in.
This way when a gun leaves its home base, an alarm is sounded and that gun can be tracked and confiscated if necessary- maybe even BEFORE someone gets hurt or it's used in a crime.
Give people with guns time to comply, but if they don't join the tracking/alarm system, they get fined - $$ BIG BUCKS $$. If they still refuse to comply, guns are confiscated. No ifs, ands or buts. We've got the technology to do this.... there is no reason not to, except gun people are too paranoid to play by these or ANY rules which protect and benefit us all. The NRA, gun makers, retailers, etc are selfish and $$ minded so they won't go for it.
[edited] The people who insist on carry/conceal weapons feel it's their right to be able to blow some 15 yr old kid's brains out on the sidewalk, all because he tried to rob them of $20 in their wallet. But I guess we all have our values and priorities in life, right?
It isn't that we can solve all problems totally. We all know that. But man-made problems can almost always be improved, if not solved.
Joe Scarborough speaks out...and his message is surprising.
I was truly surprised at his message. It is encouraging to know that even the most stubborn, conservative, corporate mindset can change position when desperate times calls for desperate measures. I was moved by his change of heart... and I believed every word he said was really heartfelt. Thanks, Joe. I really hope Newtown IS the pivotal point (finally!) and we get something done.
and besides that was in response to the comment about democrats giving fair trials to people and how evil republicans are.
Democrats are proposing legislation to make semi-automatic weapons illegal for the general public to own.
I actually came just to pass along that there is a movement started by Ann Curry to help generate acts of kindness. It's a good idea, I think, even though we should practice all year round, many people do not and if it gets people doing that, then some people's lives are better for it. It's called #26Acts and you can of course do them just on your own, in honor off the 26 who died, I'd actually include his mother in that, and him, because perhaps if he'd had more acts of kindness, his life would have been better, who knows. If you want to share, you can do it on twitter, or FB, or in private or whatever. Kickstarting kindness is always a nice thing.
It reminds me of the years when so many folks passionately said there was no evidence that smoking was harmful.
Sigh
When they were outlawed here, owners had to relinquish them or face stiff fines or jail time. I don't recall any type of buyback like they had in Australia.
The US government should buy back these type of guns. It will likely cost hundreds of millions of dollars but perhaps they could use some of them in the military.
Buddhist ethics in play, I feel we should be able to find other means than violence to overcome our oppression by a less than ethical government.
However, not everyone is a buddhist.