Gun Legislation

[Vrede too]

What would be assault/battery/violence/hit/beat if done to a nonconsenting adult magically becomes "punishment that is in reality, corporal and/or disciplinary" if done to a defenseless child. Seems the self-serving euphemisms are on the other foot. Ah, the depths that child abusers will sink to in order to rationalize themselves.

It's not "the liberal left". You lie, as usual. Why didn't being beaten as a child knock this chronic dishonesty out of you? It's EVERY psychiatric, psychological and pediatric professional organization, all backed up by undeniable science. Do you really want to argue that only "the liberal left" accepts professionals and science?

Yeah, but them guys is probably just the highly educated elite that don't know how to find the WalMart.

Like so many issues these days. Remember when cons claimed to be the "rational" ones not governed by feelings?

[Vrede too]

This Is the Grotesque Republican Response to Yet Another American Mass Shooting
More guns, with some lip service to "mental health." (with video)

We've begun the ritual: Tally the victims. Note the location—this time, Thousand Oaks, California. Search for answers about the (white, male) shooter. And then it's time for Republicans to explain that the most important thing, now, is to "protect the Second Amendment." That's the first thing Senator-Elect Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee said when asked about the newest outbreak of American mass murder in an appearance on Fox News this morning.

And remember, as she discusses the need for better mental health treatment, that Blackburn voted for Republicans' American Health Care Act—various versions of which would have cut Medicaid funding to the tune of up to $800 billion and stripped 23 million of their healthcare coverage. That coverage, of course, includes mental-health treatment.

Senator-elect Marsha Blackburn gets asked about the Thousand Oaks mass shooting, and literally the first thing she says is "What we do is say how do make certain that we protect the 2nd Amendment." This is why the NRA spent over $1 million supporting her.

It's not about mental health.

It's not about safety.

It's about a culture of fear that sells more guns.

... Maybe somebody has sent thoughts and prayers.

She gets to that, long after parroting the NRA.

[Whack9]

We got whipped a few times as kids, but it was really rare. My parents would instead usually just guilt me and my siblings into feeling real bad when we did something wrong, like we betrayed their trust and let them down.

But you did get a few whippings. You seem to be right knowledgeable, learned and intelligent, and I'm guessing since you've not trashed your parents over your whippings, you learned from them and respected their authority; and unlike the "experts" and liberal whiners would insist would happen, you've not turned into a babbling basket case ready to lash out at anyone who dared to instruct or criticize you.

How many times did you tell your parent(s) to shut up, GF themselves, you're not going to do it, or pitch a screaming tantrum when told to do something? I assuming never, but what would have happened if you had? Told to go to your room? "Time out" in the corner? Grounded for X amount of time? Maybe a good old fashioned spanking (whipping)?

Man I'm writing the from the dumpster I live in behind waffle house using a busted blackberry.

[Vrede too]

No one has insisted that every child that's abused will turn "into a babbling basket case ready to lash out at anyone who dared to instruct or criticize" them. All that science has done is PROVE that it's more likely than with the unbeaten child. Leo Lyons lies, again. Why didn't being whipped as a child knock this chronic dishonesty out of him?

Oh wait, I get it now. He's slyly making the case that abused kids learn not respect, but rather to become habitual liars like he is as a defense mechanism to avoid the beatings. Good one, bravo.

[O Really]

There probably are some people, and Leo may be one of them, whose picture of a "spanking" is a flat hand hitting a kid's butt just hard enough to be uncomfortable, and enough to make the experience humiliating. This may be followed by a clear statement of why the kid was "spanked" and what s/he did wrong, hopefully getting a promise out of the kid not to do it again, and wrapped up with a hug and a "I love you." Sure, it's hard to say that if that's all there was to it that it would be likely to harm anybody. Unfortunately, that's not a universal vision of the practice and a lot of people like to use the "spanking" concept to justify a beating. If the experience makes the kid afraid of the parent, it's harmful. If the kid is injured, it's harmful. If the kid gets the idea that violence is a good answer to disapproval, it's harmful. If the kid gets the idea that force is the best way to get somebody to do something, it's harmful.

[Leo Lyons]

Despite that many have endured such treatment in the past without (apparent) permanent damage, it is not an effective teaching process.
Not effective for animals, not effective for adults, not effective for kids.

I wouldn't say that; it's worked for thousands of years.

Anything can be carried too far:
Overly disciplining
Overdosing
Excessive alcohol use
etc,etc,etc,
Most of the above can be endured "without (apparent) permanent damage" too. Each can be used/applied in moderation with no harmful results.

[Leo Lyons]

No one has insisted that every child that's abused will turn "into a babbling basket case ready to lash out at anyone who dared to instruct or criticize" them. All that science has done is PROVE that it's more likely than with the unbeaten child. Leo Lyons lies, again. Why didn't being whipped as a child knock this chronic dishonesty out of him?

Oh wait, I get it now. He's slyly making the case that abused kids learn not respect, but rather to become habitual liars like he is as a defense mechanism to avoid the beatings. Good one, bravo.

You just described your childhood? Good one, bravo.
Maybe if you had been whipped/spanked/beaten as a child, you would have turned out to be a better person; instead of a full-blown jerk.
(pardon me; my psychological profiling is showing)

[Leo Lyons]

There probably are some people, and Leo may be one of them, whose picture of a "spanking" is a flat hand hitting a kid's butt just hard enough to be uncomfortable, and enough to make the experience humiliating. This may be followed by a clear statement of why the kid was "spanked" and what s/he did wrong, hopefully getting a promise out of the kid not to do it again, and wrapped up with a hug and a "I love you." Sure, it's hard to say that if that's all there was to it that it would be likely to harm anybody. Unfortunately, that's not a universal vision of the practice and a lot of people like to use the "spanking" concept to justify a beating. If the experience makes the kid afraid of the parent, it's harmful. If the kid is injured, it's harmful. If the kid gets the idea that violence is a good answer to disapproval, it's harmful. If the kid gets the idea that force is the best way to get somebody to do something, it's harmful.

You started out well, then you blew it out of proportion.

[Vrede too]

So, guy shoots up a club, kills 12 people including a cop....

Found:

We have to stop migrants from coming because its just not safe for them.

[Leo Lyons]

Man I'm writing the from the dumpster I live in behind waffle house using a busted blackberry.

Dinner with Vrede?

[O Really]

Why is "hit" more of a "liberal word" than "spanked" is a euphemism?
The words ''hit" and "beat" conjures up visions of violence; visions that the liberal left want people to see in their minds when discussing punishment that is in reality, corporal and/or disciplinary in nature.

Should they have thrown up their hands and say "nothing can be done?"
Umm...I can't seem to connect the two examples in any similarity.

OK, here's a simpler one. In 1965, over half of adults (including 16-year olds) smoked. Tobacco companies were powerful, cigarette ads were everywhere - print, TV, billboards. There were few if any restrictions on where people could smoke, and no real restrictions on age of purchase. Cigarette machines were all over, and lots of "sample" cigarette packs were given away. "Smoking in the boys' room" was officially against the rules, but lightly enforced. Who in their right mind would have bet that any effort to curtail smoking would be successful, and certainly not that by 2018 smoking would be down to under 15%, most public places are smokeless, tobacco companies are selling other stuff and mostly selling tobacco overseas and having to run ads saying they lied to the public and their products are deadly. All while leaving tobacco sale and use legal.

In 1965, you would have lots of people saying "too little too late" and believing the tobacco companies were too big to tame, particularly when they owned so many legislators in the tobacco states, and when such a majority of people were either smokers or smoker-tolerant. It would be almost 30 years before the first "clean air" acts were passed in California and Florida, and there were screams about "nanny states" and "losing their rights" and all the usual drabble. But once the stone started rolling downhill, it was unstoppable. As more people quit, and more health risks became understood, more people supported new restrictions. So now, cigarettes get hidden behind the customer service counter at groceries, some pharmacies have dropped them entirely, office buildings and workspaces are smokeless, and the remaining few smokers are relegated to huddling by a barrel out in the far end of parking lots.

The "opioid crises" is no bigger problem than smoking was in 1965, nor is it bigger than the gun problem, except that death by guns are quicker and more visible. Despite the plethora of nay-sayers, ya gotta start somewhere if you want things to be different in 50 years.

[billy.pilgrim]

Despite that many have endured such treatment in the past without (apparent) permanent damage, it is not an effective teaching process.
Not effective for animals, not effective for adults, not effective for kids.

I wouldn't say that; it's worked for thousands of years.

Anything can be carried too far:
Overly disciplining
Overdosing
Excessive alcohol use
Excessive drug laws
etc,etc,etc,
Most of the above can be endured "without (apparent) permanent damage" too. Each can be used/applied in moderation with no harmful results.

Fixed it for you

[billy.pilgrim]

CBS News: Bar massacre survivor: "My friend killed my other friends".
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/thousand-o ... 00-10aag7e

"Long's high school track coach said he physically assaulted her his senior year, but she never filed charges."
I bet she wishes she had.


Looks as if he's always been a punk. Wonder how many he murdered in Afghanistan.

[Leo Lyons]

Despite that many have endured such treatment in the past without (apparent) permanent damage, it is not an effective teaching process.
Not effective for animals, not effective for adults, not effective for kids.

I wouldn't say that; it's worked for thousands of years.

Anything can be carried too far:
Overly disciplining
Overdosing
Excessive alcohol use
Excessive drug laws
etc,etc,etc,
Most of the above can be endured "without (apparent) permanent damage" too. Each can be used/applied in moderation with no harmful results.

Fixed it for you

Only if it affected you personally.

[Leo Lyons]

Looks as if he's always been a punk. Wonder how many he murdered in Afghanistan.

I'm not defending this jerk, but that would depend on your definition of murder.
If you were in that war zone, would you go ask the enemy if they were going to kill you before you shoot at them?

[billy.pilgrim]

Looks as if he's always been a punk. Wonder how many he murdered in Afghanistan.

I'm not defending this jerk, but that would depend on your definition of murder.
If you were in that war zone, would you go ask the enemy if they were going to kill you before you shoot at them?

Considering the sexual assault in high school, my guess is that he joined so he could kick in doors and shoot whoever is on the other side of it.

A Jesse V. Spielman or Brian L. Howard kinda guy.

[Vrede too]

Idk, but he sounds like a coward to me. He may not have killed anyone that was shooting back.

[billy.pilgrim]

Idk, but he sounds like a coward to me. He may not have killed anyone that was shooting back.

That's what I meant. Look up Spielman. He had the power to rape children and murder their unarmed parents, but he was good at it kicking in doors.

[Vrede too]

Idk, but he sounds like a coward to me. He may not have killed anyone that was shooting back.

That's what I meant. Look up Spielman. He had the power to rape children and murder their unarmed parents, but he was good at it kicking in doors.

I've been avoiding quoting Leo Lyons, but I guess it can come off looking like I'm correcting you rather than backing you up. Sorry.

[Leo Lyons]

I've been avoiding quoting Leo Lyons...

Don't worry, I've already got a real nice condo on the 10th. floor; I don't need to move into your head.
It appears it's already overpopulated in there anyway.