all gun talk aside, do you all plan on doing anything in light of this?
im not talking about storming the castle or going guerilla warfare. altho those did seem like viable opitons when i was 20.
for real though....what steps are you taking? day to day or long term?
instead of nit picking at each other, share some thoughts.
i try to be conscious of every dollar i spend. nothing to corporations if at all possible. its close to meaningless, but its a day to day thing that makes me feel good.
there have got to be lawyers trying to attack this. right??
if corporations are people, who gets imprisoned when they break laws?
Like you, I try to do what I can day to day.
I try to be thoughtful about my food and consumer choices.
Right now I have 3 regular volunteer jobs.
All aimed at making a small difference in my community.
But that is what I am already doing.
The good lawyers have lost. This supreme court is not changing course. This congress is not going to tighten campaign finance laws.
As for your last question. Things are bleaker than bleak.
After the S&L Crisis in the 1980s more than a thousands bankers were convicted of crimes, many went to jail. A 90% conviction rate.
From wiki a quick explanation of the S&L crisis:
by inventing creative accounting strategies that turned their businesses into Ponzi schemes that looked highly profitable, thereby attracting more investors and growing rapidly, while actually losing money. This had two effects: it meant that the fraud continued longer and substantially increased the economic losses involved, and it attracted "opportunistic" control frauds who were looking for businesses they could subvert into Ponzi schemes
Which is what happened in 2008.
Congress appropriated money to go after the perpetrators of the fraud. Obama and Holder promised to hold them responsible. But in reality they didn't even spend the money appropriated. No one has gone to jail. Instead tax payers paid for their bonuses.
BP has new leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
and check out Anadarko who I was talking about before.
As long as they fund the 2 political parties no corporation is going to suffer for breaking the law.
thanks for contributing, patrick. that was helpful.
dan, both of us have been doing that stuff for a while now. what are next steps?
the only thing keeping my spirits up is the new planet of the apes movie. TeamCeasar
I'm pretty certain that the next logical step is pushing for State Conventions to ratify the constitution and end corporate person-hood and get money out of politics. The states will be the only ones who can do it. (unless Harv's doomsday scenario of private foreign armies killing the unarmed US Citizens happens first)
I mean, thats not impossible dudes. Its very possible, 38 out of 50 states could be down with us
"Opinion, dogma and bias remain common political operating system and, as a result, our politics are still an unaffordable game of chance. The optimists may be right, but discussions in social media on issues ranging from Ukraine to gun control reveal more deep bias and the lure of excitement than the pursuit of a constructive answer.
People crave excitement in their politics. Whether it is through asserting their own opinion or in battling others, politics offers a great ground for this high. The cost, however, comes in poor judgment and dangerous decisions. George W. Bush was elected twice, Vladimir Putin has much support, climate change is denied, and an intoxicated Mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, may be re-elected.
Few are willing to admit their role in this state of affairs, but they will gladly see the ill in others. Even fewer, including often myself, will admit that they don't really know how to think through a challenge, political or otherwise. This may seem absurd, thinking feels as natural as walking, but the formation of political opinion is a complex affair, a flawed duet between our minds and outside input. Media, government propaganda, family, culture, and our own unique set of personal experiences, from traumas to chance meetings, all play into the mix. High states of emotion, "excitement", also weigh in, making us dumb and easily manipulated."
thanks for contributing, patrick. that was helpful.
dan, both of us have been doing that stuff for a while now. what are next steps?
the only thing keeping my spirits up is the new planet of the apes movie. TeamCeasar
I'm pretty certain that the next logical step is pushing for State Conventions to ratify the constitution and end corporate person-hood and get money out of politics. The states will be the only ones who can do it. (unless Harv's doomsday scenario of private foreign armies killing the unarmed US Citizens happens first)
I mean, thats not impossible dudes. Its very possible, 38 out of 50 states could be down with us
Sounds right to me. It is going to cost a lot of money.
State Conventions=To amend the constitution states hold ratifying conventions to vote on the amendment the constitution.
More often Congress and individual states legislatures amend the constitution.
I don't know how a convention is formed or who would be on it.
Back in the late 70s we tried to pass a constitutional amendment to give women equal rights.
The ERA passed congress, and a majority of states.
Oregon was one of the few states to vote against the ERA and prevent equal rights for women from being part of our constitution.
And shit, last killing spree was down here, just yesterday. But guess what, it was a PTSD soldier at a spot that has had recurring incidents. And hey, he used a .45 pistol. So of course throw a new law out there and some insults at the NRA and that totally wouldn't have happened.
Hold the phone. A shooting spree happened at a military base in Texas. Even the most armed place in Texas couldn't stop one guy from killing multiple people before killing himself. Maybe more guns aren't the answer?
If this has already been addressed I apologize.....but as absurd as this is going to sound, Military bases are "Gun Free Zones" where even soldiers are not allowed to carry guns unless they are MP's on duty.
The great majority of mass shootings that have taken place in the U.S. over the last 20 years have been in "Gun Free Zones".
As others have said I try to vote with my dollar. Stay out of debt. Eat sustainable. Donate to worth while charities. Volunteer when possible. Recycle. Enjoy my life and contribute to society.
T
This ruling, and money in politics generally, is symptom.
The problem is wealth inequality. Which, slowly, is becoming a hot political topic. Thanks in part to Occupy.
So helping Bernie Sanders, Robert Reich, and Occupy get their message out is one thing we can do.
And shit, last killing spree was down here, just yesterday. But guess what, it was a PTSD soldier at a spot that has had recurring incidents. And hey, he used a .45 pistol. So of course throw a new law out there and some insults at the NRA and that totally wouldn't have happened.
Hold the phone. A shooting spree happened at a military base in Texas. Even the most armed place in Texas couldn't stop one guy from killing multiple people before killing himself. Maybe more guns aren't the answer?
If this has already been addressed I apologize.....but as absurd as this is going to sound, Military bases are "Gun Free Zones" where even soldiers are not allowed to carry guns unless they are MP's on duty.
The great majority of mass shootings that have taken place in the U.S. over the last 20 years have been in "Gun Free Zones".
A gun free zone doesn't mean much when it's surrounded by guns. It's like Bill O'Riley's no spin zone where he spins the shit out of everything. Tons of public places have a no guns sign on the door but no one is actually checking people.
If a military base can't enforce this, nowhere can. Event the reports coming out of Fort Hood are saying the no gun policy there is basically on an honor system.
The only thing we might stop is a couple of looters. When the government shows up with their tyranny we are dead meat. That was your original claim that owning guns stops political tyranny. Guns don't beat tanks and drones.
Way to put up a fight there, buddy.
I don't believe that at all. Most of the US military would refuse to turn on us like that. And when their bosses start using all the foreign troops they've been bringing in, the US military defectors will be on our side.
This whole scenario is beyond preposterous.
Sorry, but the world has long since passed you by.
The government hasn't needed the military/force model for many decades.
Flat screen TVs, smart phones, fast food and poverty are far more effective than guns. People only revolt when they are starving. A population fattened up on Big Macs and staring at glowing screens is not going to revolt.
You can sit at home with your gun waiting as long as you want, but that knock that will never come because you lost years ago and just don't know it yet.
If the world has indeed passed me by , it's because it knows better than to fuck with me.
Seriously, a well armed populace is better able to shield itself from all of the psychological and economic warfare y'all are speaking of.
Nobody needs to fuck with you.
Do you pay taxes? Earn and spend money in conventional ways? Don't commit too much crime?
That's pretty much all they need from you.
If your guns give you the illusion that you're above that, then all the better.
There's already a legit 28th amendment movement that includes constitutional law lawyers, and it is building steam and working at the state legislature level to put pressure on state reps. to call for an Article V. Convention to propose amendments to the constitution and get big money out of politics: http://www.wolf-pac.com/
And shit, last killing spree was down here, just yesterday. But guess what, it was a PTSD soldier at a spot that has had recurring incidents. And hey, he used a .45 pistol. So of course throw a new law out there and some insults at the NRA and that totally wouldn't have happened.
Hold the phone. A shooting spree happened at a military base in Texas. Even the most armed place in Texas couldn't stop one guy from killing multiple people before killing himself. Maybe more guns aren't the answer?
If this has already been addressed I apologize.....but as absurd as this is going to sound, Military bases are "Gun Free Zones" where even soldiers are not allowed to carry guns unless they are MP's on duty.
The great majority of mass shootings that have taken place in the U.S. over the last 20 years have been in "Gun Free Zones".
You mean like your house?
So you're saying you're endangering your family by not having a gun?
That's not actually how reality works.
And military bases with MPs on duty who have guns are not, by any sane definition, "Gun Free Zones."
But keep on echoing Wayne LaPierre, a fucking ghoul whose wallet goes ka-ching every time a mass shooting happens.
And shit, last killing spree was down here, just yesterday. But guess what, it was a PTSD soldier at a spot that has had recurring incidents. And hey, he used a .45 pistol. So of course throw a new law out there and some insults at the NRA and that totally wouldn't have happened.
Hold the phone. A shooting spree happened at a military base in Texas. Even the most armed place in Texas couldn't stop one guy from killing multiple people before killing himself. Maybe more guns aren't the answer?
If this has already been addressed I apologize.....but as absurd as this is going to sound, Military bases are "Gun Free Zones" where even soldiers are not allowed to carry guns unless they are MP's on duty.
The great majority of mass shootings that have taken place in the U.S. over the last 20 years have been in "Gun Free Zones".
You mean like your house?
So you're saying you're endangering your family by not having a gun?
That's not actually how reality works.
And military bases with MPs on duty who have guns are not, by any sane definition, "Gun Free Zones."
But keep on echoing Wayne LaPierre, a fucking ghoul whose wallet goes ka-ching every time a mass shooting happens.
I'm echoing the truth...and it's not putting any money in MY pocket.
There are no laws that state you are not allowed to enter my house with a legal, registered gun.
However, that is not the case at Fort Hood and my comment was to simply correct a post that stated a Military base is filled with gun carrying soldiers...just not true.
"Military installations are technically ÔÇ£gun freeÔÇØ zones meaning that military and civilian personnel are prohibited from possessing weapons without special authorization. This policy includes those living on military bases who are not allowed to keep personal weapons in their domiciles. Regulation 90-114 regulates firearms on military bases"
And I'm not saying they SHOULD have guns, just stating the facts.
And shit, last killing spree was down here, just yesterday. But guess what, it was a PTSD soldier at a spot that has had recurring incidents. And hey, he used a .45 pistol. So of course throw a new law out there and some insults at the NRA and that totally wouldn't have happened.
Hold the phone. A shooting spree happened at a military base in Texas. Even the most armed place in Texas couldn't stop one guy from killing multiple people before killing himself. Maybe more guns aren't the answer?
If this has already been addressed I apologize.....but as absurd as this is going to sound, Military bases are "Gun Free Zones" where even soldiers are not allowed to carry guns unless they are MP's on duty.
The great majority of mass shootings that have taken place in the U.S. over the last 20 years have been in "Gun Free Zones".
You mean like your house?
So you're saying you're endangering your family by not having a gun?
That's not actually how reality works.
And military bases with MPs on duty who have guns are not, by any sane definition, "Gun Free Zones."
But keep on echoing Wayne LaPierre, a fucking ghoul whose wallet goes ka-ching every time a mass shooting happens.
I'm echoing the truth...and it's not putting any money in MY pocket.
There are no laws that state you are not allowed to enter my house with a legal, registered gun.
However, that is not the case at Fort Hood and my comment was to simply correct a post that stated a Military base is filled with gun carrying soldiers...just not true.
"Military installations are technically ÔÇ£gun freeÔÇØ zones meaning that military and civilian personnel are prohibited from possessing weapons without special authorization. This policy includes those living on military bases who are not allowed to keep personal weapons in their domiciles. Regulation 90-114 regulates firearms on military bases"
And I'm not saying they SHOULD have guns, just stating the facts.
No, you're not.
You're using the pure bullshit term "Gun Free Zone" to describe a place which is, in, fact, loaded with guns.
You're doing that because in almost every instance I've observed you swallow and regurgitate wingnut terminology just as you're doing here.
A military base is a "Gun Free Zone" like a Texas Rangers home game is a "Beer Free Zone."
In other words, the term only applies if there is something seriously wrong with the mental apparatus of the person using it.
Are airports "Plane Free Zones" because only actual qualified pilots are allowed to fly planes in and out of them?
You're not a stupid man. Stop using the arguments of stupid men. It's beneath you.
Guns are to protect individual selves as well as to protect us collectively from tyranny.
You can't want freedom and not want individuals to be free to own their own guns.
I'm not against gun ownership per se but I'm for strict gun control and don't believe just any individual should be able to have one and that no civilian should be able to obtain assault rifles. Guns for home protection, no problem. I didn't feel the need for that while living in NYC but we had guns in Guinea and now in Costa Rica we have a 12 gauge and a 9mm semi. However, I would prefer if the country we currently live in wouldn't have an epidemic of violent home invasions, a totally useless police force and a legal system with a conviction rate of under 20% for accused violent offenders, laughably low prison sentences and a curious number of random pardons that probably are connected with cash donations.
First of all, liberal gun laws are no indicator of freedom but the result of millions of dollars spent by gun industry lobbyists (which -sort of -brings us back to the original post) and the whole thought that you need guns to protect yourself against a highly armed police force is nuts any angle you look at it.
If you really buy into a "them against us" ideology then why not consider the perspective that your people owning guns is them putting those guns into your hands so you can go and kill each other. I'm too lazy to look this shit up cause I have plants that need watering but what do you think the numbers of civilian on civilian gun killings are compared to civilian on pig gun killings. No cop is worried about you owning a gun. If they feel like coming though your door they'll just blow the damn thing off the hinges and march in with their robocop gear strapped on, just waiting for you to brandish a weapon and make their day. If they're not so lucky and you don't have a gun they might just put you down anyway and pry one into your cold dead hands.
You're using the pure bullshit term "Gun Free Zone" to describe a place which is, in, fact, loaded with guns.
.
The four deceased people at Fort Hood were forbidden, by law, to carry guns on the grounds of the base.
They were allowed to carry guns off the base.
You can come up with any politically correct pseudo-intellectual term you want to describe that..
I'll call it a sensible policy.
Your wingnut term "Gun Free Zone" is not only inaccurate, stupid and ridiculous - it's also a pseudo-intellectual and highly political term of the sort that the wingnuts you're surrounded by have been shitting out for decades.
Do you know who Frank Luntz is, or what his career has been all about? He told the GOP to start calling estate taxes "death taxes." Just one of his many rhetorical inventions.
Watch a guy who knows what he's talking about demolish an idiot who thinks your non-point is worth making:
Although I do have to admit that a mass shooting with thousands of Cowboys fans shooting each other has definite comedic (and gene pool enhancing) possibilities, I still think preventing all those yahoos from bringing their trusty gats into the stadium is a good idea.
Comments
im not talking about storming the castle or going guerilla warfare. altho those did seem like viable opitons when i was 20.
for real though....what steps are you taking? day to day or long term?
instead of nit picking at each other, share some thoughts.
i try to be conscious of every dollar i spend. nothing to corporations if at all possible. its close to meaningless, but its a day to day thing that makes me feel good.
there have got to be lawyers trying to attack this. right??
if corporations are people, who gets imprisoned when they break laws?
I try to be thoughtful about my food and consumer choices.
Right now I have 3 regular volunteer jobs.
All aimed at making a small difference in my community.
But that is what I am already doing.
The good lawyers have lost. This supreme court is not changing course. This congress is not going to tighten campaign finance laws.
As for your last question. Things are bleaker than bleak.
After the S&L Crisis in the 1980s more than a thousands bankers were convicted of crimes, many went to jail. A 90% conviction rate.
From wiki a quick explanation of the S&L crisis:
by inventing creative accounting strategies that turned their businesses into Ponzi schemes that looked highly profitable, thereby attracting more investors and growing rapidly, while actually losing money. This had two effects: it meant that the fraud continued longer and substantially increased the economic losses involved, and it attracted "opportunistic" control frauds who were looking for businesses they could subvert into Ponzi schemes
Which is what happened in 2008.
Congress appropriated money to go after the perpetrators of the fraud. Obama and Holder promised to hold them responsible. But in reality they didn't even spend the money appropriated. No one has gone to jail. Instead tax payers paid for their bonuses.
BP has new leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
and check out Anadarko who I was talking about before.
As long as they fund the 2 political parties no corporation is going to suffer for breaking the law.
I thought Obama fixed everything
dan, both of us have been doing that stuff for a while now. what are next steps?
the only thing keeping my spirits up is the new planet of the apes movie. TeamCeasar
I'm pretty certain that the next logical step is pushing for State Conventions to ratify the constitution and end corporate person-hood and get money out of politics. The states will be the only ones who can do it. (unless Harv's doomsday scenario of private foreign armies killing the unarmed US Citizens happens first)
I mean, thats not impossible dudes. Its very possible, 38 out of 50 states could be down with us
You can say I'm a pleb, but; believing in government is s'pose to include demoncray.
When the republicans and democrats ignore each other, and don't even talk, then it will get much worse.
People crave excitement in their politics. Whether it is through asserting their own opinion or in battling others, politics offers a great ground for this high. The cost, however, comes in poor judgment and dangerous decisions. George W. Bush was elected twice, Vladimir Putin has much support, climate change is denied, and an intoxicated Mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, may be re-elected.
Few are willing to admit their role in this state of affairs, but they will gladly see the ill in others. Even fewer, including often myself, will admit that they don't really know how to think through a challenge, political or otherwise. This may seem absurd, thinking feels as natural as walking, but the formation of political opinion is a complex affair, a flawed duet between our minds and outside input. Media, government propaganda, family, culture, and our own unique set of personal experiences, from traumas to chance meetings, all play into the mix. High states of emotion, "excitement", also weigh in, making us dumb and easily manipulated."
The Intelligent Citizen
Take it any way you like.
Sounds right to me. It is going to cost a lot of money.
State Conventions=To amend the constitution states hold ratifying conventions to vote on the amendment the constitution.
More often Congress and individual states legislatures amend the constitution.
I don't know how a convention is formed or who would be on it.
Back in the late 70s we tried to pass a constitutional amendment to give women equal rights.
The ERA passed congress, and a majority of states.
Oregon was one of the few states to vote against the ERA and prevent equal rights for women from being part of our constitution.
If this has already been addressed I apologize.....but as absurd as this is going to sound, Military bases are "Gun Free Zones" where even soldiers are not allowed to carry guns unless they are MP's on duty.
The great majority of mass shootings that have taken place in the U.S. over the last 20 years have been in "Gun Free Zones".
This ruling, and money in politics generally, is symptom.
The problem is wealth inequality. Which, slowly, is becoming a hot political topic. Thanks in part to Occupy.
So helping Bernie Sanders, Robert Reich, and Occupy get their message out is one thing we can do.
A gun free zone doesn't mean much when it's surrounded by guns. It's like Bill O'Riley's no spin zone where he spins the shit out of everything. Tons of public places have a no guns sign on the door but no one is actually checking people.
If a military base can't enforce this, nowhere can. Event the reports coming out of Fort Hood are saying the no gun policy there is basically on an honor system.
Nobody needs to fuck with you.
Do you pay taxes? Earn and spend money in conventional ways? Don't commit too much crime?
That's pretty much all they need from you.
If your guns give you the illusion that you're above that, then all the better.
There's already a workable plan.
Been had.
You mean like your house?
So you're saying you're endangering your family by not having a gun?
That's not actually how reality works.
And military bases with MPs on duty who have guns are not, by any sane definition, "Gun Free Zones."
But keep on echoing Wayne LaPierre, a fucking ghoul whose wallet goes ka-ching every time a mass shooting happens.
I'm echoing the truth...and it's not putting any money in MY pocket.
There are no laws that state you are not allowed to enter my house with a legal, registered gun.
However, that is not the case at Fort Hood and my comment was to simply correct a post that stated a Military base is filled with gun carrying soldiers...just not true.
"Military installations are technically ÔÇ£gun freeÔÇØ zones meaning that military and civilian personnel are prohibited from possessing weapons without special authorization. This policy includes those living on military bases who are not allowed to keep personal weapons in their domiciles. Regulation 90-114 regulates firearms on military bases"
And I'm not saying they SHOULD have guns, just stating the facts.
No, you're not.
You're using the pure bullshit term "Gun Free Zone" to describe a place which is, in, fact, loaded with guns.
You're doing that because in almost every instance I've observed you swallow and regurgitate wingnut terminology just as you're doing here.
A military base is a "Gun Free Zone" like a Texas Rangers home game is a "Beer Free Zone."
In other words, the term only applies if there is something seriously wrong with the mental apparatus of the person using it.
Are airports "Plane Free Zones" because only actual qualified pilots are allowed to fly planes in and out of them?
You're not a stupid man. Stop using the arguments of stupid men. It's beneath you.
::eye roll::
I'm not against gun ownership per se but I'm for strict gun control and don't believe just any individual should be able to have one and that no civilian should be able to obtain assault rifles. Guns for home protection, no problem. I didn't feel the need for that while living in NYC but we had guns in Guinea and now in Costa Rica we have a 12 gauge and a 9mm semi. However, I would prefer if the country we currently live in wouldn't have an epidemic of violent home invasions, a totally useless police force and a legal system with a conviction rate of under 20% for accused violent offenders, laughably low prison sentences and a curious number of random pardons that probably are connected with cash donations.
First of all, liberal gun laws are no indicator of freedom but the result of millions of dollars spent by gun industry lobbyists (which -sort of -brings us back to the original post) and the whole thought that you need guns to protect yourself against a highly armed police force is nuts any angle you look at it.
If you really buy into a "them against us" ideology then why not consider the perspective that your people owning guns is them putting those guns into your hands so you can go and kill each other. I'm too lazy to look this shit up cause I have plants that need watering but what do you think the numbers of civilian on civilian gun killings are compared to civilian on pig gun killings. No cop is worried about you owning a gun. If they feel like coming though your door they'll just blow the damn thing off the hinges and march in with their robocop gear strapped on, just waiting for you to brandish a weapon and make their day. If they're not so lucky and you don't have a gun they might just put you down anyway and pry one into your cold dead hands.
The four deceased people at Fort Hood were forbidden, by law, to carry guns on the grounds of the base.
They were allowed to carry guns off the base.
You can come up with any politically correct pseudo-intellectual term you want to describe that..
I'll call it a sensible policy.
Your wingnut term "Gun Free Zone" is not only inaccurate, stupid and ridiculous - it's also a pseudo-intellectual and highly political term of the sort that the wingnuts you're surrounded by have been shitting out for decades.
Do you know who Frank Luntz is, or what his career has been all about? He told the GOP to start calling estate taxes "death taxes." Just one of his many rhetorical inventions.
Watch a guy who knows what he's talking about demolish an idiot who thinks your non-point is worth making:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/04/watch-a-medal-of-honor-recipient-smack-down-a-p/198747
(Video embedded in the article.)
Although I do have to admit that a mass shooting with thousands of Cowboys fans shooting each other has definite comedic (and gene pool enhancing) possibilities, I still think preventing all those yahoos from bringing their trusty gats into the stadium is a good idea.
http://aattp.org/texas-mayor-drops-gun-in-the-middle-of-city-council-meeting-felony-investigation-en-route/