March 14, 2013
-
Photos of Dead Children and Gun Control
Michael Moore believes that we should post photos of the dead children of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.
His thinking is that posting the photos of bodies “blown apart” would change how people feel about gun control. Here is the link: LinkShould we post the photos of the bodies of the dead children?
Comments (95)
I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 several times. After that piece of fictional lunacy he created, I take each and every idea that Michael Moore puts out as automatically insane.
What an insult that would be to the families of these dead children…to have them memorialized in such a way. If they were posted, I would not look and I know of many who would say the same.
I don’t think it will change anything. But I also don’t see anything wrong with posting the photos. Pictures of awful crimes get printed all the time, or put up on the internet. They’re not special just because they happened to be American children.
It would work just as well as showing pictures of aborted fetuses change people’s minds about being pro-choice.
More meaningful than pictures of dead fetuses.
@MomWithoutaMinivan - ”What an insult that would be to the families of these dead children…to have them memorialized in such a way.”
Fuck you. The insult– the indignity– is the lot of you being deaf and dumb to meaningful gun reform.
@Erika_Steele - It would work just as well as showing pictures of aborted fetuses change people’s minds about being pro-choice.
The difference is that both gun nuts and gun activists both actually agree that school children are people.
The idea of advancing an agenda by exploiting someone, especially by showing photos of them being dead, is just plain wrong.
We do not show the body parts of aborted fetuses and I do not think we should show the ripped up bodies of those school children. It would be to grim.
It is a lost cause. Some feel passionately about their right to bear arms and will resist most controls.
I have never owned a firearm and I am 79. That is my right under the Constitution–not to own a firearm.
To those who want one, be my guest.
Terrible idea, it would spark more outrage than meaningful change in conviction.
@TakingxOverxMe - “The idea of advancing an agenda by exploiting someone, especially by showing photos of them being dead, is just plain wrong.”
This is precisely what free speech is. The antidote to raising of awareness to gun violence isn’t censorship.
If you have an argument make it. Don’t flap your arms and to prevent the other side from making theirs.
I’d be offended if someone used gruesome pictures of my child to further their own political views. Just because you legally can doesn’t make it respectful or polite. So be prepared for a lot of outrage. If anything, it would turn people off to gun control even more. Just like pictures of aborted fetuses has turned many people off to the pro-life view.
If the parents are okay with it, then it really doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks. Now, if someone got a hold of the pictures through other means and used them to further their agenda without the parents consent, then they should get ready to get their asses sued.
Either way, the only “gun control” I am in favor of is tighter background checks. But I’m sure even if they were instituted, it wouldn’t do shit. CA has some of the strictest gun regulations in the country (behind NY) and we have some of the highest gun violence in the country.
I would love that. http://www.reddit.com/r/picsofdeadkids
@firetyger - “I’d be offended if someone used gruesome pictures of my child to further their own political views. Just because you legally can doesn’t make it respectful or polite.”
Truth is often rude and inconvenient.
It is in the interest of the American people– regardless of political affiliation– to fully understand the magnitude and consequence of their policy choices, and often times, that is pictorially.
When we go to war, the government shouldn’t be able to protect itself by banning footages from the front lines or from flag-draped coffins being shipped home. When guards torture and degrade prisoners at Abu Ghraib or anywhere in the United States, we, as the voting public, deserve a right to know. And if our paralysis in gun policies lead to the death of twenty-six dead children, we should be able to fully appreciate the gravity of the tragedy– even if it tips the delicate sensibilities of some.
I don’t think anyone would react any differently than they already reacted when they heard the news the first time.
Although there’d probably be a whole lot more unproductive outrage about respecting the dead/their families, which would lead to petty name-calling and “how can you side with the heartless bastards who would show you pictures of people’s dead kids to make a point,” yadda yadda yadda.
Go ahead. It won’t change anything. We need to reform people not gun laws. Killers don’t care about gun laws.
Only with parents permission I believe. I dont think anyone should lose their guns because of this criminals if you havent noticed dont follow the rules.
@YourOuterCritic - Wow, you’re so fucking bright. This must explain why the vast majorities of spree shooters obtain their guns legally.
@Celestial_Teapot - I’m not saying that such pictures should be banned or made illegal. I’m simply stating it is in poor taste and will come across as repulsive. I don’t need pictures to appeal to my “feelings” so that I might be persuaded by my emotions. I find such a notion offensive that anyone would think me so easily swayed. I base my beliefs on logical thought processes, considerations, data, and research.
Though the deaths of 26 children are indeed tragic, I do not see how banning the other 300+ million Americans from owning weapons like an AR-15 (which was not even used in the shooting) will stop such things from happening. Nor do I think it would be right to infringe on law-abiding citizens’ rights just because criminals have done horrible things.
@YourOuterCritic - Agreed. We have a people problem, not a gun problem.
Don’t think it’ll make a difference. If anything I feel like it’ll reinforce the pro-gun talking points.
posting photos of the inside of my toilet bowl might make me eat less Mexican food…soo…what?
let the dead have their last moments in dignity at least.
@Celestial_Teapot - I haven’t seen this Teapot in quite awhile. Debating a lot of different people and insulting some of them. You must be bored tonight.
Or just making up for lost time on here.
I don’t see why not if the parents approved.
@Celestial_Teapot - Sorry J,you are dead wrong with your thinking.Slaughter is an innocent unborn baby is allowed.Showing a slaughtered unborn babies pic is no where NEAR showing the slaughter of innocent grade school children.Guns don’t slaughter people,sick people with guns slaughter people.And sick THINKING people are allowed to slaughter innocent defenceless unborn babies and it be allowed and justified under the guise that it’s a persons choice.I think a great deal of you J,but you need to do some DEEP soul searching if you think abortion is ok.Anything and EVERYTHING should be done to prevent it.Yes this is your Memphis buddy.Go Tigers and Grizz!!!!
First of all whoever wants to post photos of those precious angels dead bodies need to get permission to do so, and I can not imagine any parent allowing such a thing to happen.
Michael Moore is nothing more than a moronic asshole anyway.
Pictures of dead people only prove that if one of those dead people or someone else in the room or building, had a gun it is possible those people might not be dead. A lunatic is going to kill people and only a law abiding armed person can prevent it. If you can’t see that you are a complete waste of air. Just move to Washington DC or CHicago or New York where gun control has been around a long long time… oh and of course they are the highest crime areas in the US if not the world. But idiots never let facts persuade them anyhow. I literally hope every gun control advocate get’s shot by a criminal as a small piece of Cosmic justice.
Makes me sick!
@Grannys_Place - thank you. that was exactly what i was going to say!
Not every murderer uses a gun. Tim McVey killed hundreds, never pulled a trigger. Hijacker brought down the World Trade center, killed over 3000 without pulling a trigger. Abortion kills over 3000 daily, and is legal, and sanctioned with taxpayer dollars. More victims are killed yearly with a hammer and a bat, than firearms. The media sensationalizes deaths by firearms because they are part of the lefts agenda to demonize firearms, so those firearms can be confiscated from law abiding gun owners. A disarmed populace is far easier to control than an armed one. Even now, the semi-autos that people have, are no match for the fully auto, military grade firearms our police and military have.
Celestial Teapot – some of us pick up those arms and defend all of our rights, not just the Second Amendment but the First too, giving you the right to say stupid shit.
the fact of the matter that never changes is it is the PEOPLE who decide what to do with guns.i understand the points of either side. But there is a compromise that can be had here without showing people the deaths of my little statesmen.
@firetyger - “We have a people problem, not a gun problem.”
Guns *are* our problem.
We own more guns per capita than any other country in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
We also have far more gun-related killings than any other developed country in the world:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/
@firetyger – …Though the deaths of 26 children are indeed tragic, I do not see how banning the other 300+ million Americans from owning weapons like an AR-15 (which was not even used in the shooting) will stop such things from happening….
1. As a matter of fact an AR-15 was used at Sandy Hook. Autopsy and police reports both demonstrate this clearly.
2. Political paralysis isn’t limited to merely an assualt weapons ban but to nearly any other meaningful reform: extended magazine ban, universal background check. etc.
3. While banning any single gun or type of gun probably won’t prevent the occurance of the shooting it would, with great liklihood, prevent those particular guns from being used. Banning assualt weapons would limit how quickly, effectively, and devestatingly a criminal goes about his buisness before armed civilians or law enforcement can respond.
… Nor do I think it would be right to infringe on law-abiding citizens’ rights just because criminals have done horrible things.
(Also, @Ork58)
The second amendment doesn’t extend infinitely in the direction of ctizien ownership of guns and other arms.
The second amendment, for instnace, doesn’t grant us legal protection for the ownership of anti-aircraftguns, grenate launchers, automatic chain guns, and tanks; and nor does it ban basic background checks, serial numbers on guns, or mandates that guns must be made of metal.
I do not care to see photos of ANY dead bodies, much less that of dead children!
@Brian_Jeremiah - Pictures of dead people only prove that if one of those dead people or someone else in the room or building, had a gun it is possible those people might not be dead.
Several replies:
1. Pictures would bring to the forefront the stakes and devestation of gun violence. It is very different, for instance, being told of the suffering in German internmnet camps than being shown pictures of them.
2. Pictures would illustrate the particular devestation of assualt-weapons type killings. It means something if we see a buncha little bodies densely slumped togther.
A lunatic is going to kill people and only a law abiding armed person can prevent it.
1. Better than giving your lunatic a gun and shoving him into the streets is identifying this indivitual through universal background checks.
2. Limiting the sort of gun and sort of ammunition your lunatic may utilize in a shooting and thereby limiting the damage and giving first responders– whether ordinary citizens or law enforcement– the best opportunity to take down the shooter.
Using massacred children to take away the basic human rights of innocent citizens is stupid.
And believe me. I’m an expert on stupid.
Well, that might work but I for one wouldn’t want to see it.
It would violate privacy laws. If the parents of those children are ok with it, then yes, it could be done. However, I don’t think it would change too many minds. Even the principal of Sandy Hook said there is little that can be done to stop these horrific acts.
I find it so funny that the left wants to do this. They talk and talk and talk about logic, yet are pushing to play off emotions instead of using logic to address the real issue. Then, 10 minutes later, they’ll attack a Christian for not using logic because they believe in God.
These mass shootings aren’t spur of the moment, nor are they taking place in the heat of the moment. They are planned, calculated, brutal attacks. You could ban every gun known to man, and these killings will continue. People continue to act as if there was no such thing as violence before gunpowder, when in fact, if one were to look at history, mass killings are actually less common now.
@Celestial_Teapot - The vast majority of mass shooters, do NOT obtain their guns legally. Let’s look at the most famous ones over the years:
Columbine: illegally obtained firearms. 99 IEDs (so they still had 99 other methods of killing people, even if guns were banned) Harris even was able to fire a 9mm with 10 round magazines 96 times. That means 9 reloads. Small capacity magazines wouldn’t have slowed him down much. Not one gun they used was legally obtained
Gabby Giffords Shooting: Legally obtained, but shows the failure in the system, as the shooter has a criminal record. However, Wal-Mart employees did indeed deny the sale of more ammunition to him the morning of the attack.
Aurora: While legally obtained, it’s proof that new measures would be irrelevant as his history should have prevented the sale. The background checks need to be better. Another calculated attack, he set explosive booby traps in his apartment. Even if he didn’t have access to guns, based on the amount of explosives in his apartment, he still would have murdered. Over 30 homemade grenades were found in his apartment, along with other explosives.
Virginia Tech: While legally purchased, flaws in the system kept him from being listed on the “do not sell” list
Binghamton NY shooting: Killer did purchase legally, but background check failed to detect history (he had made threats to assassinate the president)
Sandy Hook: Not one legally obtained weapon. Every gun used was stolen.
The Holocaust: Killers were the ones that made the gun control laws.
Bottom line, most spree shooters do not get their guns legally. Those that do, have records that should have been caught. Use logic. Fix the system, not infringe on the rights of others. In your argument, if someone were to start a riot or get someone trampled to death by yelling “fire” in a crowded place, free speech would be banned. It’s the exact same argument you make in regards to guns.
What each and every spree shooter has in common are mental health issues that went unadressed. Keep in mind, Sandy Hook still isn’t the worst school massacre. The worst was Bath, MI and carried out without a single firearm.
So, based on your own statement, that the bodies should be shown, in order to play off emotions, you may never again downtalk to a Christian for abandoning logic and choosing to believe in God. By playing off emotions in the debate on how to stop spree killers, you are saying to abandon logic and use emotions. Funny how you do exactly what you berate others for doing.
He is a jerk. Our poor kids are scared enough as it is.
@Celestial_Teapot - Are innocent drivers limited in their privilege to drive because of the carnage caused by drunk drivers?
No. Because that would be stupid.
Are property owners told what they can and cannot own and how they should own it because of thieves?
No. Because that would be stupid.
Should innocent gun owners be penalized and deprived of their basic human rights because crazy wackos go out and kill people?
No. Because that would be stupid.
Should smart people listen to stupid people?
No. Because…
@grim_truth - ”The vast majority of mass shooters, do NOT obtain their guns legally. Let’s look at the most famous “
Do you have numbers to back it up?
“Of the 143 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. The arsenal included dozens of assault”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - Welcome to Xanga! We can use some brand new users here. =P
“Should smart people listen to stupid people?”
Be careful who you’re calling “stupid,” Curtis A. Bell. If you were careful to avoid personal attacks, LoBornlytesThoughtpalace would still be an active account.
” Are innocent drivers limited in their privilege to drive because of the carnage caused by drunk drivers?”
There are government bodies set safety requirements and conduct reviews of cars. Cars too dangerous– due to flawed design or defects– are recalled or prevented from market.
In the same way, guns too dangerous (certain assualt rifles) should be prevented from even entering civilian market.
“Are property owners told what they can and cannot own and how they should own it because of thieves? “
Property owners required to register their property and the design of their homes are governed by safety regulations.
In the same way, gun owners register their guns and certain modification of guns are banned.
“Should innocent gun owners be penalized and deprived of their basic human rights because crazy wackos go out and kill people?”
Yes, We all are baned from owning anti-aircraft guns, grenade launchers, and land mines because there are little to no legitimate use for them and because the cost of making them widely avaliable is high.
@Celestial_Teapot - Also, printing some’s full name on the Internet without their permission is just plain criminal.
Should everyone on Xanga be punished because a stupid psychotic can’t control himself?
Michael Moore, like you, is a hater.
Smart people don’t listen to haters.
I don’t want to dive into a gun-control battle and this one seems to be in full swing. Just to answer your question, I don’t think showing the pictures would make a bit of difference. The gun advocates already know those little children were gunned down and still care mostly about keeping their guns.
sometimes I wonder… usually, I turn the page
@Celestial_Teapot - numbers? I just gave them. Yes, some were possessed legally, but it was because the current system failed. The numbers in your source are highly misleading as well. In Newtown, the guns were stolen from his mother. Yet, the source you provided counted them as being obtained legally. How were they legally obtained when they were stolen?
The article also tossed out any data related to gang crimes, even if high numbers of innocents were killed. One must question why they would do that.
The article also says many would be outlawed by the proposed assault weapons ban of 3013, yet it doesn’t mention how many were used when there WAS an assault weapons ban.
Bottom line, since they did not cite a source in their report, and they lied about the Newtown guns being obtained legally, I have no choice but to wholly dismiss the article you provided. Even though, the article did mention that pretty much all of the mass killers had histories that should have been caught by the current background check system.
And of course, there’s the simple fact that the largest mass killings in history were all perpetrated by tyrannical governments.
@EmilyandAtticus - The question is not whether using the tragedy of slaughtered children for political purposes is effective. The Democrat Party knows that it is. And that’s why they do it.
The question is whether using the slaughter of children for political propaganda is ethical.
So what do you think? Is it ethical to use the mass murder of children to further a political agenda right or wrong?
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - I wasn’t seeking clarification of the question. I answered Dan’s question. I am not interested in joining your debate.
Michael Moore is an asshole, everyone knows that.
Events like this only serve as a reminder of why I paid so much to get the gun I did, and to make sure my child will know his/her way around weaponry. I’m thinking pepper spray might be a good 5th birthday present….
Should rich people like Michael Moore be allowed to have ARMED bodyguards while he tries to disarm the American people??? Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns, Mao Zedong took the guns.
This reminds me of RICH fast-ass loudmouth Rosie O’donnell preaching against guns while she has ARMED bodyguards. Only the rich are allowed to have guns. Poor people have to call the police AFTER they get sodomized.
No.
That’s manipulative. They’re desperately trying to use emotion now.
@grim_truth - funny you mention Binghamton. I am from Binghamton. The Binghamton shooter was being harassed constantly day and night for being a “chink”. He could not get a job because he was a “chink”. I am not condoning what he did but I completely understand why he did it and I would never ever want to walk in his shoes. Funny how all the privileged self righteous average American suburbanites who have never handled a gun or studied simple elementary psychology are “experts” in gun control.
@Celestial_Teapot - This was the last video I had watched on the Sandy Hook shooting http://www.today.com/video/today/50208495#50208495 So that was the information I was going off. The disclaimer at the beginning of the video was not added at the time when I watched it in February.
As for gun stats worldwide, Switzerland also has high gun ownership like the U.S. But their gun crime is significantly lower than ours. So we cannot simply conclude more guns equals more crime.
People make the choice to shoot people. What we need to figure out is why. If we really want to prevent violent crime in the future, understanding what drives people to do these things is a good place to start. It is not guns that drive people to commit murder. If that were the case, our violent crime rates would be off the charts. Which they’re not. We’re in a decline and have been for awhile. I read this article from Mother Jones awhile back that I think we should consider very seriously: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline I also think that we need to look more closely at the psychotropic medications for mental illness.
This is an EXCELLENT idea! We should have a poster contest and put these pictures on posters next to pictures of Native Americans being massacred by the US government immediately after they were disarmed by that government, Russian peasants being massacred by their own government immediately after they were disarmed by that government, German citizens being slaughtered immediately after they were disarmed by the government, Japanese citizens in the US being locked in cages by their government (those of them that hadn’t already volunteered to give their lives in a war by the same government that used force to lock them in cages, or those who were too old or too young whose sons and fathers were giving their lives for that government) because they trusted the government to have their best interests at heart, and millions of law-abiding citizens being murdered in their own homes by criminals using already illegal weapons that the citizens didn’t have because they respected and trusted their government to protect them. See which of these gets more votes for the most heinous. Then we could pass out t-shirts with the winning picture.
@VampireOfSeduction -
Events like this only serve as a reminder of
why I paid so much to get the gun I did, and to make sure my child will
know his/her way around weaponry. I’m thinking pepper spray might be a
good 5th birthday present….
I like the way you think!!! You sound like a very smart and excellent parent. Keep up the good work!!! We must destroy the enemies of the second amendment.
@blonde_apocalypse - very very good point!!!
@YourOuterCritic – But you can control how difficult it is for killers to get hold of a gun. That’s what we do here in the UK, and it works pretty well – Only 3 mass killings involving guns, or any other weapon, in the last 100 years, compared to 62 is it in the US?
That is no more acceptable than is the opposite- people attacking the parents and grandparents, which has already happened.
I think the idea of using the pictures of these children is reprehensible. I don’t think it would serve the purpose intended, and it most likely would contribute to the ongoing desensitization of both adults and children to the gore and horror of mindless violence.
Has anyone seen my stapler?
That would just be giving the pro-gun nuts free porn. They cream in their pants at the thought of dead kids blown apart by bullets, the sick sonovabitches. If they actually cared about children dying they would support gun control.
@SKANLYN - Kiddie Porn no less.
Well, all i got to say is.. if we persecute him for that, tho I do consider it in hugely poor taste, We should also persecute people who take the moment right after a mass tragedy to get on the horse about gun rights and about what kinda gun they’re gonna buy because the government’s obviously about to take their precious machine guns and anti-tank rifles that they never will use against what it’s intended for anyway…
…that, so far, has invaded my eyeballs and is considerably more irritating, to me.
If true, what MM is doing isn’t right, but then neither is excusing exactly what led to that tragedy: a legal gun user not being responsible enough so as to relocate, padlock, or otherwise thoroughly secure her firearm so that it didn’t ever get used by her mentally-deranged son.
Our gun laws do need reform.. TO THE TUNE of.. we need to be being way more careful about who has them and who around them can potentially access them.
To my knowledge, that’s what’s being done. Nobody’s losing anything that would actually be of consequence in a legitimate firearm’s principal use anyway.
@Celestial_Teapot - It is truly stunning how you can throw so many replies out there and not address a single thing anyone has said. You don’t even do it masterfully, like a politician would, you just literally don’t answer a single thing the person has said, yet you direct it as a reply to someone’s comment. It’s people like you that make meaningful discussions equivalent to hard labor because every 2 seconds you I would have to stop you and ask you to actually address the issue at hand.
@TheyCallHerEcho88 - totally agree
@Celestial_Teapot – you’re a troll.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - That looks more like a speech than a question and I am still not interested. You should calm down.
@AutumnStrength - how can we control how “difficult” it is to get a gun and make the world a happy peaceful place by pissing on the second amendment??? I live in east bumb fuck coutryland but I can travel 20 minutes and buy unlimited amounts of firearms from unlimited amounts of niggers. I completely love my nigger friends because they tell me the TRUTH about gun control. Are you gonna argue with the logic of a street wise nigger???
@SKANLYN -
That would just be giving the pro-gun nuts
free porn. They cream in their pants at the thought of dead kids blown
apart by bullets, the sick sonovabitches. If they actually cared about
children dying they would support gun control.
Words cannot express how much of a stupid person you really are. How did you learn about collectivism and how hard was it for you to have your opinion already formed for you???
PS History books are highly recommended.
@LadyboyRevolution – I don’t understand your point to be honest. But yes, I AM going to argue with a ‘street-wise nigger’. Guns are extremely difficult to get hold of here and we have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. Australia’s gun crime rate fell dramatically after they introduced gun control in the early 90′s.A large amount of ‘armed’ robberies here are carried out with replica’s that don’t even work because people can’t get hold of the real thing, so technically our we have a lot less ‘armed’ robberies than you lot do. If something is generally legal to own and easy to obtain then it will always be a lot easier for people to make money from that product on the black market, hence why your ‘niggers’ can sort you out with guns. If guns weren’t easy to get hold of, the black market would have a harder time obtaining them, hence the situation here. You need to look to other countries and see that we’re all doing fine without guns in our houses. And fuck the second ammendment. It was written in cowboy times! Move with the times bitch.
@AutumnStrength - LMAO! “fuck the second amendment”??? Why don’t you tell the TRUTH about the stabbing statistics and the home robberies that have increased in your pathetic piece of real estate you call a country??? It’s a “secret” right???? The day you downgrade George Washington and the “cowboys” is the day your credibility will be exposed. 1776!!!
@LadyboyRevolution – We don’t have a stabbing problem here, we have a problem with violence, just like every other country on the planet. You will never stop violent people from existing, but you can control what weapons are available to the violent people. More people use knives here because the guns aren’t available. Would you rather be attacked by someone with a gun or a knife? Would a depressed teenager even attempt to go on a killing spree in a school with a knife, having to actually plunge a knife into a child’s neck or heart several times, with no guarantee of not being apprehended by teachers or being able to commit suicide before the police get there? Guns are TOO lethal and TOO easy to kill lots of people with. You can run away from someone with a knife or even fight them, but not from someone with a gun. It’s common sense.
FUCK THE SECOND AMMENDMENT!!! It’s 2013 now, not 1776.
@AutumnStrength - “
We don’t have a stabbing problem here, we have a problem with violence
“
Thank you. Funny how gun control failed. I thought that was the point???
“
but you can control what weapons are available to the violent people
“
Really??? Would you like to discuss that retarded statement with my black criminal friends (Who are here beside me right now laughing as we speak) or would you rather admit you are complete retard???
“
If guns weren’t easy to get hold of, the black market would have a harder time obtaining them
“
“
If heroin wasn’t easy to get hold of, the black market would have a harder time obtaining it
“
My black “nigger” friends are laughing at your rich privileged white suburbanite ass. They want you to show yourself in our neighborhood gun free zone. Stop down and talk to us with your cock in your hand:
26 Tompkins Street, Binghamton, NY, 13903.
@LadyboyRevolution - they are stupid, especially people from the middle class. If a sunshine is a beam, it’s really a turtle.
I woke up from my coma when I moved out on my own. I was 17.
Now I’m trying to get the big criminals to hand it over. The world is messed up. I quit. They win. I hope they’re happy with themselves.
I want the house. I wonder if my neighbors would like me. Maybe I’d have friends.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - Calm down. I’ve told you several times I am not interested in your comments or in otherwise having a conversation with you.
@AutumnStrength - The 2nd Amendment is a basic human right that is derived from Natural Law. Since man, by nature, is born into a state of liberty, he then has the basic human right to defend that liberty.
The rights to life, freedom of speech, religion and private property are all worthless without the right to use deadly force in defense of those rights.
We have a very high level civilization at present. But so did the Romans. Civilizations come and go. The right to defend life, property and liberty is constant because it comes from our human nature.
Let’s say that we do it…what does this accomplish? You’re in one of two camps already: Camp A believes that if there had been better gun control, this terrible thing would never have happened. Camp B believes that this happened because a mentally ill person obtained a gun and then disregarded a very basic and widely known law already by going on to murder these people/kids, so another law prohibiting him from owning the gun by legal means would have done nothing, in the big picture. He simply would have found a way to obtain a gun as so many people already do with everything from illegal drugs to firearms while they’re not legally supposed to own one due to probation, etc.. Camp A and Camp B are both going to continue to feel the same way, the only difference is that then there would pictures of these poor kids, that have already been used to further that political agenda, shoved in everyone’s face just for the sake of shoving them in people’s faces. No one’s mind is really going to change if no other argument could have changed it anyway. So, to do so, would be gross to the decent people of the world at best and entertaining to the mentally ill at worst.
@Elsuth - “you’re a troll.”
No. It’s worse. I’m Chinese.
@Brian_Jeremiah - “It is truly stunning how you can throw so many replies out there and not address a single thing anyone has said.”
Rather than running your ass like a bagpipe, you should actually do the work and justify your claims. In no point of your reply did you actually refer to any particular argument of mine or even the opposing arguments that I’m supposedly miscasting.
You’re an indigent HIV-positive hemadrophite with Down’s syndrome. (See! LIke you, at no point did I properly support my assertion. And unsupported claims are largely worthless)
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - “The 2nd Amendment is a basic human right that is derived from Natural Law. “
How so?
@Celestial_Teapot - I explained it in my comment to @autumnstrength. Our human rights are based on our human nature.
Human beings are naturally free and defending that freedom with lethal force is ethical.
Hence the right to bear arms.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - What if circumstances are such that guns are taking away freedom? Think of North Korean dictators with nuclear-tipped intercontinal ballistic missiles or of African warlords with his cache of AK-47′s.
@Celestial_Teapot - The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is power to the people.
An armed populous is less subject to tyranny either by individuals, gangs, or governments.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - “An armed populous is less subject to tyranny either by individuals, gangs, or governments. “
So you think civilians with semi-automatic rifles stand a chance against the United States military?
@Celestial_Teapot - The military R us. A president who ordered widespread massacre of American citizens wouldn’t be alive for very long.
Also, take a look at ancient China and Japan where they developed very deadly martial arts. Karate = open hand, where killing takes place in a split second.
The notion that individuals can train themselves to use lethal force against oppressors is as old as the hills and not restricted to America.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - I give up. =P
I think it would just add to the suffering their parents and loved ones are going through…so no it is not a good idea.
Sick people kill people not guns!!! The same gun is viewed differently whether in a murders hand or a cop…
@Celestial_Teapot - When the Second Amendment was written, many of the firearms you mentioned hadn’t been invented yet. It did extend to firearms and munitions needed to quickly assemble a militia. The average citizen could not afford a mortar or cannon, but groups of them pooled together, created “regiments” and equipped themselves with them, much the way communities pool together to create a volunteer fire department.
The Second Amendment doesn’t specify the type of firearm or the use. It was not intended to protect our “hunting” rights. SCOTUS has ruled that indeed it does extend the intent to the individual citizen, no matter how badly you wish it didn’t. It wasn’t until the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 that military style equipment such as mortars, cannons, Gattling guns, and Thompson style fully automatic firearms were prohibited, and restrictions were placed upon ownership and transfer of them. Then the Gun Control Act of 1968 further defined and prohibited the sale and trade of fully automatic firearms. This was signed by President Johnson and was largely a result of Kennedy’s assassination, although his killer used a high powered bolt action rifle with a simple scope.
We have had countless additional restrictions placed on us, including the Brady Bill, the “1994 Assault Weapons Ban” (which had no effect on gun violence whatsoever) and now we have Schumer and Feinstein chomping at the bit to further shred our Second Amendment rights, while both have admitted to possessing, using, and even concealed carrying of firearms themselves. It’s Ok for them, not for you and me. Bull shirt.
For nearly 150 years this nation got along just fine with no restrictions on firearms, but in the last 80 years, we have continually restricted and legislated and infringed the legal citizen’s Constitutional Right to Bear Arms. And the places with the most restrictive gun laws, such as New York and Chicago, also have the highest rates of gun violence in the nation.
Moore’s idiotic idea of “displaying the dead bodies of children” will backfire and come down on him, and the lunatic left. Frankly, I hope he does it. I hope that is what it takes to fully energize the right to rise up and put down this emotion driven nonsense. What does it take? What does it take for the law abiding citizen to put a stop to their rights being chipped away, legislated out of existence, restricted so badly they are useless, then one day they wake up and find there are no rights and privileges left to enjoy?
The nanny state government has taken over all aspects of your lives, and like lemmings, you do nothing to stop it or turn it back. Move to New York where the Mayor decrees what size of pop you drink, cause you are obviously too stupid to make that decision yourself.
He is an idiot! NO!
michael moore is a total asshole !
Michael Moore’s reasoning is an insane as the reasoning here of Celestial Teapot. Xanga keyboard warriors…sad, very sad indeed
Michael Moore is a propogandist. Some people subscribe to this type of messaging but frankly – putting the pictures of dead children on the internet in order to sway public opinion to support legisaltion that is going to make no difference in the long run to the prevention of school massacres is offensive.