Amen. People who make these claims don't remotely understand the history of what led to Hitler's rise to power and that Germany was suffering for years partially due to some of the demands in the Treaty of Versailles. German's I assume welcomed someone who gave them some hope. To think that guns would have mattered in terms of the Holocaust is ludicrous when the majority of your population supported the government that was in power and turned a blind eye to what I assume many knew what was going on because things for them were better. Sounds familiar to me.
Marceline was right. That ideology that existed in Germany at the time has more in common with the gun culture and the gun advocates in the US than anything else.
Why is more guns always the answer? I am a high school teacher at an inner city school in Chicago, you know the city that has the second highest murder rate in the country and I can tell you the last thing most parents and teachers in our schools want are our security personnel armed with guns. We already have metal detectors and unarmed security personnel in our schools and we have NEVER had a shooting in our schools. It's got nothing to do with arming security personnel. It has to do with controlling who gets them and the number of guns that are allowed to be sold every year(yeah unlimited). If our security personnel each had a handgun, that wouldn't change anything if a nutcase with several automatic weapons walked into the school and started shooting it up. How would having one or two security guards each with a handgun have changed anything at Sandy Hook? The weapons the shooter had couldn't be countered and he also had the element of surprise. We have had fights and the occasional lockdown where the police have to come to the school for a day or two but outside of that no guns and for the most part our schools are secure and that's with all the gang problems we have to deal with. School and church should be the two safe havens where people should not have to worry about being shot up and should feel free, safe, and secure. Outside of school is a different issue. It sickens me when I hear people saying that those 9 people who were shot in that church should have been carrying guns. Until people realize the volume of guns out there is a problem and that more stringent background checks are needed nothing will change. I don't have the magic answer but I know I don't want to live in a place where having to carry a gun is the new normal. I for one was not born and raised in a place where that was the norm. And wake up. The NRA doesn't give a crap about you or the rest of it's members. If they did they'd be willing to allow a dialogue and contribute to controlling the problem. There is no need for semi automatic weapons, automatic weapons, or bullets being sold that can now penetrate police vests. Explain to me why any gun owner is allowed to purchase that kind of ammunition. It's ludicrous. Why don't you ask how so many guns got out there in the first place that criminals can easily acquire and purchase and you'll realize that the NRA and gun manufacturers who don't give a damn about human life and are the problem. They are not protecting anything but their bottom line.
That's not victim blaming now ur calling people sheep? Not u or anyone else knows for a fact how they would react I don't give a crap what you or Dr Ben Carson says. Unless you've been trained and prepared for specifically these type of situations you have no clue. As I pointed out, even people trained to deal with this have had issues and don't act flawlessly. I'm not sure how running up to a gunman with an automatic weapon is going to stop anything. It might just make the shooter angrier and cause him or her to go on another rampage and kill even more people. Until you are personally in that situation or know the psychology of the shooter it's a completely baseless claim.
Sorr but that is victim blaming. Not one person knows how they would react in this type of situation including Dr. Ben Carson. It's why I cringe when I hear people talking about how the answer is to give everyone a gun? Really? Don't we see how many problems there are with personnel such as police officers and military personnel, people who are allegedly trained for these situations, much less someone who has never touched a gun. And no I don't believe that even those out there who have been trained including you, know how you would react if someone with several automatic weapons suddenly started shooting people up. And just how many other innocent people would get hurt. Not one person including the president has talked about taking guns away from legal and law abiding guns owners. I would think even gun owners are smart enough to see how the NRA isn't representing them but the gun manufacturers yet it's the same sound bites about how rights are being taken away etc. As someone who is deathly afraid of guns, when do my rights get taken into consideration or the rights of the victims, because I am tired of mass shootings being all about the how persecuted gun owners and not the victims or the real problems.
I guess maybe I am naïve but even putting the issue of slavery aside, why is anyone associated with the confederacy being honored? Wasn't the secession and formation of the confederacy an act of treason?
Except people in this country realized driving drunk was a hazard and killer which is why over the last 25 years drunk driving laws have become much more strict and the number of deaths caused by drunk drivers is down. So in this world why can't we apply the same logic and incorporate tougher gun laws. For example someone needs to explain to me WHY anyone needs an automatic weapon. For protection really? Those are weapons used for combat not something every Tom Dick and Harry are entitled to own. That's what the man who killed those 26 people at Sandy Hooke had.
I live in Chicago and people always hold up the failure of Chicago's strict gun control laws as a reason they don't work. Well I can also say that law enforcement here had no interest in enforcing those laws because in their mind "let them kill each other". Those are words by the way from a Chicago Police office I know talking about what they see as the "undesirable" element. And the occasional bystander who happens to get killed as a result is just a casualty of that mentality.
It's funny to me how all these so called "patriots" are pro life also believing that something like abortion (which since it's been legalized the rate of abortions is down), don't see guns as a death tool yet feel that legal adults can own a gun no problem but should not have the right to control their own life and bodies and use their own judgment to make sound decisions. As if the millions of people who carry guns do since they don't seem to have to undergo less scrutiny than someone wanting to get a legal abortion.
So I wonder if this guy is going to be treated for what he is, a TERRORIST or will he get the "he has mental problems" excuse. Not that I don't think there are lots of people out there who have serious mental problems but I am damn tired of this term being used when it's a white guy shooting people up. When someone black does it(and I can't even remember when) they need to be controlled and killed when Muslims do it they are deemed "terrorists" so why aren't the white guys. It brings to memory Timothy McVay and how before it was known a white man was responsible for Oklahoma City people were blaming Muslim terrorists.
Why is it that a terrorist action in this country is defined based on race not on the actions of the perpetrator?
And I agree with the president. I am so sick and tired of the lame excuse guns don't kill. The United States is the ONLY country in the western world with this kind of gun violence. If guns are not the problem, someone needs to explain to me what is? Oh right, we have more people with "mental problems" than any other country. (insert eye roll)
I am not watching any of the shows anymore, but did they really acknowledge not writing for the black cast members because ONE of the members of "that group"(eyeroll) is pregnant in real life? Is this character the only black character on the show? And since when has being pregnant impacted anything. They wrote for AH up until she left for her maternity leave at over 8 months pregnant(an actress they could have sidelined) with no issue yet they can't write for the Winters because ONE of them is pregnant.
I have to say for someone who some have claimed has primetime credentials(and why does this matter), he's utterly clueless. What shows in primetime were hits this year? Yep shows that centered on diverse casts. Empire was the biggest success story. Idiot. These two should be fired pronto.
Yeah I am happy they didn't kill off Kalinda because while I thought killing off Will would have really shaken things up and changed a lot of dynamics between the characters, what it did was push Alicia to the center of the show and honestly I discovered that I might be interested in her but I don't really like her much. Sidelining someone like Diane/Christine Baranski most of the season was also a disappointment and I love Cary but what on earth happened to him the second half of this season. And Finn was another character wasted. Then Canning showing up at Alicia's door at the end of season 6 was so reminiscent of Cary showing up at her door at the end of season 4, except that was a welcome surprise, Canning is good in small doses but I am not really that interested in he and Alicia teaming up.
That final scene with Kalinda and Alicia was unsatisfying. Even if it was pieced together using CGI or whatever, after how many seasons of not interacting it just felt false. I am disappointed in the Kings for such a lackluster season, particularly the second half, and Marguiles if indeed she really was the one who was a factor in getting Archie/Kalinda sidelined after the first few seasons. I'm still invested but here is hoping next season they rebound.
One positive this season. I loved David Hyde Pierce's character and the dynamic with he and Alicia. It's just so disappointing how that whole storyline ended. Very lackluster.
Not sure if anyone here is still watching. I have enjoyed some of the season. Cary's arc and getting a chance to be center in a story was enjoyable. He's always been one of my favorites but the entire State's Attorney race has been a big disappointment, and that has taken up so much of the season, particularly the second half.
The episode last night just sort of continued to highlight my own disappointment with the season. Don't get me wrong, the acting on the show continues to be first rate, particularly the scenes last night with Diane and Alicia and Peter and Alicia. But it felt like they shoved what should have covered 3 episodes into one. Alicia stepping down and her disgrace, Bishop arrested, and Kalinda being discovered and departing.
By far the most disappointing to me has been how Kalinda has been handled. I have enjoyed that she's gotten more focus this season but the fact that she's was relegated to the Bishop storyline was disappointing and her departure with the moments in Alicia's apartment felt false, mostly because Kalinda and Alicia have not had any kind of relationship in so long, so trying to milk that didn't work for me. And for a character that started out with so much promise and complexity, I felt the Kings actually did her a disservice. I was pressed to buy the fact that Marguiles and Archie had some sort of falling out that caused the lack of them working at all together in the last few seasons, but it seems that might have been the case and if so, shame on Marguiles because Alicia's relationship with Kalinda was one of the few genuine relationship's that Alicia had.
What I still actually do enjoy is Peter and Alicia's relationship. It's very Clintonesqe and I do think there is some level of love and mutual respect but they obviously have a relationship where they use each other for their own benefit. I did really like the scene towards the end with Peter and Alicia, with him talking to her about what she should do next. He's right, he's been down that path himself and managed to pick himself up and move on successfully.
On a side note, I think the biggest problem with the State's Attorney storyline is that they spent far too much time on it(although I loved David Hyde Pierce) without really understand WHY Alicia wanted the job.
Except it's never been said that the agent Chastain portrayed is white or a red head. The person still worked for the CIA at the time the film was made, so it would kind of blow her cover if she was still a field agent, had they cast someone who looked exactly like her. For all anyone knows she might be of Hispanic, Asian, or even Middle Eastern descent. Heck Rooney Mara was originally cast to play that role before Chastain and had to drop out and she's Caucasian but is certainly not a redhead. I don't see that casting a black actress would have changed the story at all, especially since most of the characters in the film were allegedly supposed to be a combination of a number of agents involved over the years, aside from the recognized names in the film. But that's typical of Hollywood, when it's white the actor has to be white when it's not white, it's ok to whitewash a character. Heck Rooney Mara has been cast to play Tiger Lily in the new Peter Pan film and since when is Tiger Lily a lily white brunette? She was of American Indian descent but somehow it's ok to cast a lily white actress to play her.
Countdown to someone now coming in and posting or insinuating she asked for it because she had no business being at the Playboy mansion.
It's honestly really shocking and shows such a lack of understanding how people to this day still blame the woman. Beverly Johnson was drugged yet somehow she should have had the sense to get herself to a hospital and be checked out, forget that she was fairly out of it and it was a different time and place. People are so willing to bash the women and hold them accountable for Cosby's alleged behavior, but I have not heard ONE PERSON question whether he drugged these women or not. Most seem to believe he did give them pills that they either had no knowledge of receiving or took willingly. I would love to know why no one is questioning his judgement and asking why HE gave these women drugs versus trying to push the blame on them for in some cases accepting them.
No matter what the situation, nothing justifies abuse or rape I don't care how many pills someone allegedly willingly took or why someone was at the playboy mansion. Yet I bet not one person will ask why Cosby, married, was there and just happened to be carryiing drugs with him.
This is more disturbing than the Rubin/Pascal emails but not really shocking.
I don't care about what Pascal and Rubin said regarding Obama but business emails, hacked or not, are not private. Anyone with brains working for a business knows that they are the property of the business.
Let's be honest I have not heard one community leader, one black community leader condoning the riotous behavior that went on in Fergusen. But they have also called for understanding. Isn't that what the president said the night the verdict in Fergusen was announced as well? So rather than understanding, they are now arresting Michael Brown's stepfather?
This "task force" that the president is forming really needs to look into hiring practices for law enforcement officials. That officer's history, the officer in Cleveland, indicated that even his superiors felt he had no place being a police officer, even putting it on his record I believe, yet nothing was done.
My classes in high school are primarily hispanic and black students and like all other schools, EVEN THOSE FILLED WITH WHITE STUDENTS, there is good and bad. But for the most part the kids are decent and want to learn. Guess what, just like white kids. But it dishusts me that the parents of these kids have to worry about their kids being targeted by police simply due to their ethnicity, something white parents don't have to worry about, and having to go out of their way to educate their kids on how to deal with this. I wonder if those who are so intent on labeling minorities as 'animals' even want to understand the significance of this?