@agnophilo - I’m not talking about anyone blogging, I’m talking about Obama using this to advocate gun control.  Every time something happens we have to hear about gun control.  You can’t call a defensive reaction exploiting a situation.  We are fighting to preserve our freedom.

@soccerdadforlife - A couple of possibilities present themselves.  One is the UN, which Obama tends to see as an authority higher than the US Constitution, another are shadow groups such as the Masons and Buildaburgers, and another possibility is the Muslims, since he seems to have a lot of loyalty to them and is willing to do their dirty work.

@virtus1 - But of course, as fake as he is, there will be lots of idiots who think he is sincere and who will take his actions as more than a show.

@agnophilo - I was talking about this incident, not Columbine, and I stated very clearly that Obama and the Dems are using this to take away our freedom, and that it’s shameful for them to use this to push a statist agenda. 

Your “solution” to everything is authoritarianism and more government.  You want the people to be unarmed while the state has abundant weapons.  I trust the average citizen more than I trust government, and if the average citizen can go nuts and shoot people then so can anyone in the government, and the higher up the person is who goes nuts the worse it is for everyone, which is WHY our founding fathers wrote the 2nd ammendment. 

That being said, if you want to outlaw factors involved in this incident why don’t we look at everything?  What kind of perscription drugs was this kid taking?  Maybe we should outlaw those.  Why was he spending so much time on the internet?  Maybe we should outlaw the internet, after all, allowing the citizenry free and unlimited access to information only makes them more dangerous to the state.  Maybe we should outlaw drinking?  His mom spent a lot of time going to bars and socializing while this guy was left home alone.  Negligent.  Maybe we should outlaw divorce?  You know his parents got divorced about 2 years prior to this, can’t remember exactly when, but you know divorce has all sorts of profound psychological effects on the emotions of youngsters.  A lot of children could be spared a lot of issues if the parents never divorced. 

Or we could forget about that and require teachers to bring guns to work.  I think there have been more than enough school shootings to justify that.  Another positive thing we could do is put prayer and God back into schools.  Society has decayed rapidly since God was taken out.

@virtus1 - Well said brother.  Either way it’s a lose lose scenario.  I don’t trust men who cry, or men who smile too much.  I don’t see how anyone can be considered qualified to lead when they cannot even rule themselves properly.  That being said, it ought to be obvious to anyone that Obama is a faker.  As you said, he’s guilty of mass murder on a world scale, whether you’re talking about selling guns to gangsters in Mexico, or bombing kids in Central Asia with drones.  Also let us not forget his support for abortion domestically.  Given his record and his blatant contempt for America there is no reason for him to care that a few kids in an elementary school got shot.  He only cares as much as he can leverage it for his own benifit.

@nimbusthedragon - You mean people who love freedom?  Yes.  What you are looking at is the traditional American.  This country was founded by people like me.

BTW, been to your page, and anyone who would give up freedom for security does not deserve to have either.

@LadyboyRevolution - Those filthy animals.  It’s absolutely disgusting that this sort of stuff is happening in the US, and those guys who beat up the old woman should be ashamed to show their faces in public after that.

@lessh91 - Obama sucks.

@nimbusthedragon - Do you actually think that you are clever?  Just wondering.

@LadyboyRevolution - Yea everything about that man is fake, and everything he does is aimed at permanently changing things here.  Disarming us is only one of the things he wants to do.  He is an anti-nationalist, preferring world government instead.  He wants to regulate our personal lives, dictating what sort of medical care we have access too, and probably also how long we can live.  All these idiots who voted for him need to understand what kind of man he is and what he is doing, but they don’t.  They don’t recognize that he causes any problems, and when they do recognize that a problem exists they are still blaming it on Bush.  I have come to believe that Obama could literally kill and eat a baby on live TV and at least 80% of the Obamanites would still support that man.

Yea the Fed controls the government, and the Fed is a private bank.  Every time the government needs money they take a loan from the Fed.  It’s quite infuriating.  Ron Paul was the only one who was going to do something about the Fed and they shoved him out.  There is a good documentary called “America, from freedom to fascism” that I watched a few years back.  IT goes into detail on how corrupt the Fed is and how it got started.  It seems to me that the world is actually controlled by a shadow government of elitists, and that most of the national governments we have are just fronts and puppets.

@nimbusthedragon - OK let me clarify what I meant by research.  I don’t know Canadian history that well.  I don’t know when you got your independence from England or what the basis for that was, or what the divorce rate is there.  As a result I don’t talk about those issues with respect to Canada, actually I don’t really talk about Canada much at all.  That being said, what you need to understand about the US is how we got our independence in the first place and why.  We had a rebellion against England because the majority of colonists here felt that the English government no longer represented their interests.  They were able to rebel because the majority of them had guns.  It’s not like there was a huge US military that was well equipped.  The colonists had their own guns to begin with, and they came together to form their own army.  Ideologically they believed in things like self sufficiency and personal responsibility/self ownership.  Meaning, you can work, keep what you earn, and as long as you didn’t mess with anyone else then no one would mess with you.  Back then the individual was more important than any group.

That being said, the founders wanted to make certain that individual rights would never be trampled on again.  To that end they created a statement of principles (the Declaration of Independence) and they also wrote them into law (Bill of Rights), in an effort to create a system where rule of law prevailed.  The 2nd Ammendment states that the government will not impenge on the right of the people to bear arms.  That does not mean that the government can have weapons X, Y, and Z, while the people can only have weapon Z, because part of the purpose of the 2nd ammendment was to make it possible for people to overthrow the government again if it became necessary to do so.

I don’t know where the comment about beating our wives came from.  It looks like you may have gotten the US confused with the Islamic world. 

Having guns and defending ourselves is part of our culture, and is part of our Constitution.  As for shooting someone, hopefully I would never have to do that, but if someone breaks into my house I have no problem with shooting him.  If I don’t have a gun then I have no problem with stabbing or cutting him.  If I have no weapons then I have no problem with snapping his neck.  That may sound mean or harsh, but I don’t care at all about the man who breaks into my house,and I do care a lot about my wife (fiance at present).  I’m not going to spare someone else if they pose a potential threat to her.  I don’t care.  The fool should never have broke into my house in the first place. 

If you want to be disarmed then that’s your choice, but I should be able to choose to be armed without Big Brother coming down on me. 

Oh yes, and as for Adam Lanza, I would never have a kid grow up to be such a piece of crap?  Why?  Because if he’s acting crappy I’m going to beat the crap out of him.  Also, there won’t be any divorce.  If you read about that woman she was divorced, and she was going out drinking and bars and such and leaving her kid at home.  She was a negligent mother, and the father was probably not any better.  Crappy parents and crappy upbringings usually add up to crappy kids. 

@agnophilo - OK sorry for the delayed response…

Again, I didn’t say anything about the Columbine shooting or any NRA meeting that followed.  I don’t know enough about that to give a comprehensive opinion on the matter.  However, I do believe there is a difference between underscoring the freedoms we already have, vs. using a tragedy to campaign for removing freedom. 

Depends on what the “conservatives” do.

The government is not society, it’s a group of elitists who think they know better than we do.  Also, as you know the US is not a society, it’s a group of different societies living together under one government, which many of us would like to have gone.  You are drawing a line which is entirely arbitrary, and the thing about such lines is that they can be pushed back.  I don’t know where the line is for what weapons the people should have vs. those which should be restricted to military use.  It’s a gray area, but I definitely would not draw it at any sort of gun that shoots bullets.  Also, I’m not really trying to attack you per se, mainly I am just trying to respond to your comments here in a thorough fashion.

It’s a different kind of people who get in the government from the average person.  I agree with Plato when he said that good men only go  into government to prevent bad men from ruling over them.  People go into government because it is a quick path to power.  That is the appeal of government vs. the private sector.  In the private sector you have to earn your money, and you don’t get to have any control over the lives of others, or make decisions for how they live their lives and what they do, unless they work for you.  In government you get to do all those things, and you collect money from the people through the use of force, and give them nothing immediately in return for their money.  Now there are some things government does with our money which is positive, like building roads, exploring space, and establishing a military to protect us from external threats, however, most of the money gets squandered and a lot of those guys are grossly overpaid.  Let’s not forget that you have to have lots of money and connections to get into government in the first place, or you have to make a deal with wealthy backers (which can make you their puppet).  No sir, they are not just citizens, they are elitists, even most of the Republicans as well.  I’m not exempting them.  They are a fairly worthless lot as well, but not as close to pure evil as the Democrats.  A prime example of the elitist mentality of politicians is how Congress passed Obamacare while EXEMPTING themselves.  Meaning that they want to subject you to a program that they don’t want any part of.  That in and of itself should make them appear suspect to you, and illustrate how detatched they are from the common man.

First of all, all of the scenarios I presented to you were rhetorical.  I couldn’t care less about outlawing any of those things.  As for the drugs though, you do realize that just because a doctor says something is OK doesn’t make it so, yes?  Any time you put something unnatural into your body you pay a price for it on some level.  If you want to talk about corruption in the medical industry we can go into detail on that.

In any case, my point was that there are a multitude of things that contributed to this.  The kids drugs may be one factor, the divorce of his parents was certainly another, parental neglect was probably one.  My guess is that you had bad parents and a poor upbringing, and that the mother decided to medicate the kid to change his mental or emotional structure (generally a bad idea), and one day the kid got the guns and went nuts.  But prior to the guns there are a multitude of preventative measures that could have been taken.

He didn’t kill with the computer but maybe he got his ideas online, or the location of the school.  He didn’t kill with the drugs but maybe they were what made him go nuts. 

See, you want to use incidents like this to argue that all guns should be taken away, or even all of a certain type of guns.  OK, then the government and police, and especially all of the criminals need to have their guns taken away as well so that everything can be balanced.  Then it’s matter of who has the longest or sharpest melee weapon, the best training, or the highest level of physical strength that needs to be watched out for or regulated.  Half the point of law abiding citizens being able to arm is so that they can defend themselves when they are overmatched, whether it be in terms of numbers or a physically superior oponent.  The other purpose is to defend ourselves from a government gone haywire.

Yes they could bomb the crap out of us, but then they lose their food and production, and they won’t be able to use the land for anything.  The guns help when a people are occupied.  Look at the trouble the Muslims are giving our military.  Of course, I don’t like the Muslims, but it illustrates my point about occupation not being easy.

You can’t call me a fascist if you are going to advocate trashing the 2nd ammendment or confiscating property from law abiding citizens.  See, you can say “how many incidents have to happen before the government takes the guns?” and I can turn around and say “how many incidents have to happen before the government encourages people to carry guns?” 

@LadyboyRevolution - You know most of the time when I debate with liberals it’s for the spectators.  You probably can’t reacn 99.99% of them.

@LadyboyRevolution - Thanks man.  You know that’s a difference I noticed between the right and the left.  It seems that the leftists are straight up party shills.  They always support the Dems even if Obama does the exact same things they previously criticized Bush for.  For example, when Bush was there Petraeus was bad, and they were calling him “Betray us.”  When Obama appoints the man he’s suddenly this wonderful guy… until he got caught sleeping around and leaking classified information.  Also they complained about the wars non-stop, and sometimes for good reason, but then Obama comes and continues them, and starts new ones, and the left is mum.

We on the other hand tend to be more critical of our politicians.  If they do something we don’t like then we call them out, and sometimes sign petitions.  Just like how we stopped that internet regulation crap.  We don’t take it personally if a liberal insults one of those guys, and many of us will even vote 3rd pary.  On state elections I often vote Libertarian.  Of course there are those dumb conservatives who will defend anything a Republican does, but usually they are under 20. 

Yea I wonder what the story is behind this guy.  I know some of the story behind Godlessliberal but not Agnophilo.  I always wonder how anyone can be that much of a party supporter.  I used to feel like that about the Republicans, but I grew out of it at a young age.

@LadyboyRevolution - Sorry for the delayed response.

As depressing as it is, everything you just said is absolutely right.  Man…  I really think that our government is following a 1984 type of plan.  By that I mean waging an endless war, not for the purpose of winning but for the purpose of having a war as a means to burn off resources and energy in a useless way. 

Property taxes are one of the things that pisses me off the most.  How is it Constitutional to force someone to keep paying in order to maintain posession of something they already own?  Although supposedly in Texas if you don’t pay your property taxes they don’t kick you out of your house, but they take possession of the house when you die or something.

Sometimes I think I might bail on the US, but my whole family is here.  If they werent here I would certainly bail and never come back.