Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    7:36 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Mr. Darrell Scott whose daughter was killed in the Columbine shootings absolutely nails it Back to Topics
sissurf

Champion Author
Virginia Beach

Posts:22,468
Points:1,979,590
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 23, 2012 10:43:27 PM


Guess our national leaders didn't expect this, hmm?

Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's sub-committee.

What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful. They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert!

These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers." "The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field.

The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart. "In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA.

I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent."

"I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy-it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room.

Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. "I wrote a poem that expresses my feelings best. This was written way before I knew I would be speaking here today:"

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.

Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"

You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, soul, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and reek havoc. Spiritual influences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact.

What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties.

We do not need more restrictive laws." Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

Political posturing and restrictive legislation are not the answers. The young people of our nation hold the key. There is a spiritual awakening taking place that will not be squelched! We do not need more religion. We do not need more gaudy television evangelists spewing out verbal religious garbage. We do not need more million dollar church buildings built while people with basic needs are being ignored.

We do need a change of heart and a humble acknowledgment that this nation was founded on the principle of simple trust in God!" "As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, He did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right!

I challenge every young person in America, and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA- I give to you a sincere challenge.

Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"

Do what the media did not... let the nation hear this man's speech.

REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,699
Points:2,532,455
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 3:24:24 AM

Pard - "You are SO right, RAB, most people seem to think the Republicans are the oppressors, when they are not. Dems have a long, bloody history."

While that may have been true in the late 1800s, the roles largely reversed last century.

Of course, now neither party seems to have much connection with reality.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,699
Points:2,532,455
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 3, 2013 3:24:04 AM

RNorm - "Yeah, those nutty indefensible positions like "Obama will take away your guns" (and all the rightie lemmings run to the stores and spike those gun sales)."

As I said before, Obama is the gun manufacturers' current best friend.
Profile Pic
Pard
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:89,835
Points:3,458,060
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 1:41:37 PM

You are SO right, RAB, most people seem to think the Republicans are the oppressors, when they are not. Dems have a long, bloody history.
Profile Pic
RAB2010
All-Star Author Kalamazoo

Posts:579
Points:69,300
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 12:47:50 PM

The sad reality is those who would disarm the People and enslave them are truly responsible for these horrendous deeds. Historically, it has been the Democratic party that has been pro-slavery and pro-gun control. When the American Civil War was lost by Southern Democrats, the K.K.K. was instituted to revive the party and regain its power. These are the people that have blood on their hands.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,422
Points:302,880
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 11:37:27 AM

"I figured this was worth posting again to show how extreme MTM really is... "

Thank you for the free advertising.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,413
Points:2,899,725
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 11:05:25 AM

>>There's no deception in posting a message that is as true today as it was 13 years ago.<<

That is correct. Of course, 2+2=5 is also "as true today as it was 13 years ago", which is to say not at all. Also, while she originally may not have been attempting to deceive (although her entire OP was word-for-word from a chain e-mail without any acknowledgment that it was not her words), she has done nothing but attempt to deceive since then.

- She was more concerned with the fallacious claim (taken from the last line of the e-mail) that the media would "squash such a story"; that is, until Marty showed a listing of newspapers that carried the story. Only then did she mention the "message".
- Asked where her OP came from, she continually and dishonestly referred to someone else's link (yours - congrats!) to "answer" that question.
- She finally claims to have found the "original link that I posted in my Topic heading" and posts the part where it specifically says, "Darrell Scott's speech was covered nationally by the Scripps Howard and Associated Press wire services, not to mention in daily newspapers across the U.S., such as...". But if that's true, if that's REALLY her "original link", then she knew her claims about the media "squash(ing) such a story" were false.
- She claims that no one is answering her question, but she never asked one.

And on and on and on... When put on the spot, when she can't back up her story, she just starts making up stuff.

>>There's nothing you can point to that indicates sissurf intended to deceive anyone.<<

I just did.

Also, of the 8 people who addressed the subcommittee on that day (for those interested, this is the entire hearing), sissurf claimed only that the media was trying to "squash" Darrell Scott's story, but have any of you ever heard the stories of the others who addressed the subcommittee that day? Have any of you ever heard of Byrl Phillips-Taylor, whose son was killed by a teen with an AK-47? Or how about Gerald Flynn, a Massachusetts police officer representing the International Brotherhood of Police Officers? She bemoaned the "easy availability of guns", and they each implored Congress to get rid of the gun-show loophole, which allows individuals to sell guns from their "private collection" without a waiting period or background check on the purchaser.

I had never heard of either of these people, nor their "stories". Have you? I seriously doubt it. But you don't see any of us whining about the media trying to "squash" their stories, do you? No, of course not. Is sissurf upset that Byrl Phillip-Taylor's and Gerald Flynn's "message" is being "squashed" by the media? No, of course not, because their stories don't jibe with her position. Her outrage towards the media is simply invented outrage, contradicted by the facts - and that's both dishonest and deceitful.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,753
Points:1,021,175
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 8:45:52 AM

"There's no deception in posting a message that is as true today as it was 13 years ago. Evidently, such a message for the gun-grabbing liberals is like garlic is to a vampire."


Evidently, you don't read what is posted as I've stated numerous times that I'm not for taking away guns for law abiding citizens.






"There's nothing you can point to that indicates sissurf intended to deceive anyone. All she's guilty of (I'm assuming sissurf is a "she") is pointing out a powerful message and attempting to broadcast it to those who hadn't heard it before (I am one of them). As she stated earlier, that message was buried before because the liberal media is so effective at suppressing any viewpoints that could adversely affect the immoral liberal agenda"

Kinda like the conservative media blaming Obama for things he never did, but y'all believe it anyway? You know, stupid things like "The Obama Phone" (which was actually initiated by Bush). Ok, gotcha.






"Thus, like so many liberals who try to dismiss the message by discrediting the messenger ("WhirledNutsDaily","FauxNoise",e.g.) liberals use the tactic to avoid the embarrassment of trying to defend their indefensible positions. "

Yeah, those nutty indefensible positions like "Obama will take away your guns" (and all the rightie lemmings run to the stores and spike those gun sales).

Gotcha again.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,614
Points:1,580,390
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 7:59:13 AM

MTM: "I advocate repealing the Second Amendment except in cases of the military and law enforcement, and that is as valid a position as Scott's."

I figured this was worth posting again to show how extreme MTM really is...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,699
Points:2,532,455
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2013 3:23:58 AM

jeskibuff - "There's nothing you can point to that indicates sissurf intended to deceive anyone."

That is probably true.

"All she's guilty of (I'm assuming sissurf is a "she") is pointing out a powerful message and attempting to broadcast it to those who hadn't heard it before (I am one of them). As she stated earlier, that message was buried before because the liberal media is so effective at suppressing any viewpoints that could adversely affect the immoral liberal agenda."

Funny, as I said earlier, I remember seeing almost the exact same email at least 4, and probably more, times in the last 13 years, not just in my email, but quoted on discussion boards. There's also been a snopes article on the claims in that email for almost that long.

"Thus, like so many liberals who try to dismiss the message by discrediting the messenger ("WhirledNutsDaily","FauxNoise",e.g.) liberals use the tactic to avoid the embarrassment of trying to defend their indefensible positions."

How are they any different from many so-called conservatives?

[Edited by: rjhenn at 1/2/2013 3:29:11 AM EST]
Profile Pic
mswiggy
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:2,299
Points:403,155
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 6:42:18 PM

These words are old, but the message is clearer today than ever before.
In my opinion if this was the premiss of the thread then I see nothing wrong with it. I do have a different opinion if and when this happened it was covered by the news. Many may not remember and many may not have seen, watching congress is time consuming and boring most of the time. One can not be faulted for that however once its shown its easier in my opinion to say thank you and let it go.
Guess thats one of the fun parts of being human, we error and we are all different and of different minds.
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:9,641
Points:1,767,110
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 6:21:27 PM

RNorm said: "I point out that pointing out the deceptiveness of promoting a 13-year article as contemporary, talked to YOUR heart and there is no way you will acknowledge that clarifying the age of the message diminishes its present relevance..."

There's no deception in posting a message that is as true today as it was 13 years ago. Evidently, such a message for the gun-grabbing liberals is like garlic is to a vampire.

There's nothing you can point to that indicates sissurf intended to deceive anyone. All she's guilty of (I'm assuming sissurf is a "she") is pointing out a powerful message and attempting to broadcast it to those who hadn't heard it before (I am one of them). As she stated earlier, that message was buried before because the liberal media is so effective at suppressing any viewpoints that could adversely affect the immoral liberal agenda. Thus, like so many liberals who try to dismiss the message by discrediting the messenger ("WhirledNutsDaily","FauxNoise",e.g.) liberals use the tactic to avoid the embarrassment of trying to defend their indefensible positions.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,699
Points:2,532,455
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 1, 2013 4:08:35 AM

sissurf - "rjhenn, you really don't expect that either normie or marty would point to their own faults now would you?"

I don't expect very many from either 'side' to "point to their own faults". It's usually only those between the extremes who are both willing and able to consider that there might be faults in their position.

RNorm actually has a fairly good record in that respect.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,699
Points:2,532,455
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 2:12:48 AM

MiddletownMarty - "Pointing out the deceptiveness of your OP is not the equivalent of attacking you. Disagreeing with you also does not constitute an attack. If one is going to post in a forum like this one, one must be prepared to receive contrary opinions."

True. That includes you.

"The feelings of Mr. Scott are not the issue; the issue is how we as a nation address the proliferation of guns and the resultant mayhem and carnage made possible by them."

Perhaps "made possible by them", but certainly not caused by them.

"Mr. Scott is entitled to his own views, but his view regarding gun control are not more valid simply because his daughter died in the Columbine massacre."

The only valid view on gun control is the fact that it doesn't work, and never has worked, to reduce the total rates of violence or violent death. Since that's true, what's the point, except to try to appease fear and ignorance about firearms?

"I advocate repealing the Second Amendment except in cases of the military and law enforcement, and that is as valid a position as Scott's."

And here you demonstrate your own fear and ignorance. The 2nd Amendment has got nothing to do with either the military or law enforcement.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,699
Points:2,532,455
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2012 2:11:23 AM

ministorage - "jd, Did you catch the "/sarc" at the end of my post? Were you addressing your post to me or to those who had earlier in this thread accused sis of posting a topic that has diminished relevance because Columbine happened 13 years ago?"

I didn't see anyone stating that the topic had "diminished relevance because Columbine happened 13 years ago". It seemed to me that they were criticizing the fact that the OP is simply a cut-and-paste of a chain email that's been circulating for 13 years now. I know I've seen the same thing in my inbox at least 4 times over that period.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:28,988
Points:3,201,985
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 10:09:01 PM

Marty said: "I advocate repealing the Second Amendment except in cases of the military and law enforcement, and that is as valid a position as Scott's."

--In your mind it is, but legalistically, you lose. The language of the Second Amendment is identical to the first in that it says the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed. Not the right of the government. Thank the Lord we live in a constitutional democratic republic, and a nation of laws. And its nice that those laws have meanings.

Speaking of which, I wonder how Justice Louis D. Brandeis would have weighed in on the topic of firearms and firearms banning?
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,422
Points:302,880
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 10:00:58 PM

Sure. First chance I get.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:10,757
Points:943,285
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 9:38:12 PM

Comrade Marty: "I advocate repealing the Second Amendment except in cases of the military and law enforcement, and that is as valid a position as Scott's."

Valid for some purposes, but not for Liberty. Adolf and Josef depended on people just like you.

--Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
--Benjamin Franklin
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:22,468
Points:1,979,590
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 6:14:59 PM



"drivel" is it?

Yea, well, I figured that coming from you.

I guess the next thing you will be doing is sending me a dozen red roses in a box, huh?

Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,422
Points:302,880
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 5:42:36 PM

I'm not that interested in finding it if it means re-reading all your drivel.
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:22,468
Points:1,979,590
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 5:32:06 PM

"Now, do you have a valid criticism of my position on the substance of the OP or not?"

I've already addressed it.

Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,422
Points:302,880
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 5:21:40 PM

"I guess, marty, you didn't attack me either when you started having a joy ride at my expense correcting my spelling along with others in your own thread."

Making fun of one's misspellings equals attacking? Acquire thicker skin.



"By the way, I so ?fully enjoyed the educated posing of links by the gentlemen in here, mini and jdhelm."

That's nice. I don't read their postings.



Now, do you have a valid criticism of my position on the substance of the OP or not?



[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 12/28/2012 5:24:48 PM EST]
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:22,468
Points:1,979,590
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 5:13:01 PM



That was a great article, jdhelm, on gun control or violence control. You should share it on Facebook and every where else you can. It's a great eye opener. I'm going to do the same.
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:22,468
Points:1,979,590
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 5:06:32 PM



I guess, marty, you didn't attack me either when you started having a joy ride at my expense correcting my spelling along with others in your own thread. Instead of stopping it, you joined in, but hey I'll take it were it comes from.

You four amigos will never get it, it's not the guns, it's the attitude towards others.

I feel this statement says it the best:

"they have more negatives than plusses. just look around at this forum - not a lot of positives in the political threads, lot of bully tactics going on like the Harris and Klebold's experienced, name calling, put downs - well, you get the picture. so is it irrelevant? you be the judge."

By the way, I so ♥fully enjoyed the educated posing of links by the gentlemen in here, mini and jdhelm. Thanks!
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,422
Points:302,880
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 5:00:04 PM

"So I guess this link was found long ago..."

I found the list of newspapers on December 25th, the day I posted it.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,422
Points:302,880
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 4:50:31 PM

Pointing out the deceptiveness of your OP is not the equivalent of attacking you. Disagreeing with you also does not constitute an attack. If one is going to post in a forum like this one, one must be prepared to receive contrary opinions.


I found the same list of newspapers on several other websites but was unable to verify that they carried the story of Mr. Scott's testimony--probably because 13-year old archives aren't kept available for online perusal. At least one of those newspapers requires a subscription before you can search their archives. Feel free to conduct the search yourself, if you're so inclined.


In he meantime, I will reiterate my position:

The feelings of Mr. Scott are not the issue; the issue is how we as a nation address the proliferation of guns and the resultant mayhem and carnage made possible by them. Mr. Scott is entitled to his own views, but his view regarding gun control are not more valid simply because his daughter died in the Columbine massacre.

I advocate repealing the Second Amendment except in cases of the military and law enforcement, and that is as valid a position as Scott's.


[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 12/28/2012 4:53:19 PM EST]
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:22,468
Points:1,979,590
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 4:27:17 PM



Finally found my original link that I posted in my Topic heading.
I noticed marty had quoted the last section of this link about newspapers. So I guess this link was found long ago, before all the hype of attacking me and belittling me went on by four amigos in here.

Mr. Darrell Scott, the father of a victim of the Columbine shootings, did in fact deliver the stirring testimony before Congress

Analysis: Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Joy Scott — a student killed in the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado — did make this speech during testimony on May 27, 1999 before the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee. It was the first of many similar talks he has delivered on the subject.

Spurred on in part by writings in the notebooks and diaries left behind by his daughter, Mr. Scott — the son of an Episcopalian minister, though he himself is adamantly non-denominational — quit his job, set up a non-profit organization called The Columbine Redemption, and embarked on a grueling schedule of speaking engagements all across the United States to spread his message.

Was Scott's testimony inadequately covered by the press, as most versions of this forwarded email suggest? Opinions will differ. There wasn't a great deal of major news coverage — you aren't likely to have seen it on television, for example — but there was coverage. (The same goes for the testimony given by several other of the parents of the Columbine victims who appeared before the same committee, some of whom expressed opinions which differed considerably from Mr. Scott's.) Darrell Scott's speech was covered nationally by the Scripps Howard and Associated Press wire services, not to mention in daily newspapers across the U.S., such as the Denver Rocky Mountain News, the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the Washington Times, the Boston Globe, the Arizona Republic, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Chicago Sun-Times... well, you get the idea.

[Edited by: sissurf at 12/28/2012 4:29:32 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:10,757
Points:943,285
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 10:54:41 AM

jd, I wasn't offended, just curious. I didn't know how far down in the thread you had read. Thanks.

Gun Control Actually Increases Gun Violence

"The city of Chicago currently has the most restrictive gun control laws on the books, has been declared a “gun free zone” where handguns are banned, yet it is the most bloody city in the world in terms of gun-related deaths. The city averages 40 deaths per month from guns, and is nearing 500 for the year. Chicago’s murder rate is 19.4 per 100,000, which is by far the highest rate in the nation, at nearly 3 times New York which is at 6, and nearly 2 ½ times Los Angeles’ 7.5. In fact, Chicago ranks as the number one deadliest Alpha city (significant urban center in the global economic system) on the planet. Since it is no longer possible to legally own guns within city limits, the only ones who still have them are criminals. It doesn’t appear gun control works for Chicago. In fact, the city illustrates how correct the aphorism is that if guns are outlawed, only the outlaws have guns. The law-abiding citizens do not.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC), in 2003 thoroughly analyzed fifty-one in-depth studies dealing with gun control. Those studies included everything from the effectiveness of gun bans to laws requiring gun locks. From their objective analysis, they “found no discernible effect on public safety by any of the measures we commonly think of as ‘gun control.’”

In 2005, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine conducted a similar analysis of extant gun laws across the country. They arrived at a similar conclusion, as the abstract for their research concludes, “that evidence for the effectiveness of a given firearms law on an outcome is insufficient.”

After reviewing over fifty different gun control laws, and coming to the conclusion that their effectiveness on an outcome is “insufficient” is euphemism for “they had no discernible effect.” "
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,833
Points:1,257,025
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 10:39:32 AM

jdhelm - liked your post. Seemed to tell the truth.
Profile Pic
jdhelm
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:14,168
Points:1,516,795
Joined:Dec 2009
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 10:25:32 AM

. . . and by the way, there are 2 good related articles at the bottom of the thread, I'll not post them, you people can read them yourself if you care to look - if you don't oh well . . .

I'm not a right religious nut, but some of these 3 articles makes some sense - to me.
Profile Pic
jdhelm
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:14,168
Points:1,516,795
Joined:Dec 2009
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 10:22:55 AM

mini, yes I did catch that and please accept my apology if it offended you, as I did not mean my comment specifically at you, but rather at the whole group and to people in general. The effect of what a bully does in school seems to be a common thread in most of these killings (in my opinion) and it has only recently been "kind of" addressed by school administrations and some of the population, but the news/press appears to have other agendas instead of what the apparent real problem is, it is not ar15s nor is it 30 or 100 round magazines.I recently came across an article on a web site, I'll try to post the link

gun control or violence control

I'll post some of the article, but not all of it:

ok, I'll post it all, because I doubt many people will go to the article and if they do, most won't read it all, so here's the whole article:

It’s hard to see clearly when you are crying. And you don’t want to operate heavy machinery, drive, or vote on major legislation until you can see clearly.

We mourn the tragic loss of life that occurred at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. What captured our attention most was the fact that most of the victims were young children.

But I have to ask: are my sons less precious or less important because they are adults and no longer cute? One son is a teacher. Would his death be less tragic if he were killed outside of school? If these twenty children and seven adults were killed separately and individually all across the country, would we have less of a crisis?

The fact is that they are. In Chicago alone, where guns are illegal, about twenty-seven people—men, women, and children—are killed every two weeks. Every two weeks.

So, yes, we have a problem. And there are two basic approaches to solving it.

One approach is to try to eliminate or minimize the possible weapons that people use to kill each other. The fact is that people have been killing each other since the Garden of Eden. As technology has improved, so has our ability to make weapons that can kill more efficiently and at a quicker pace.

So people are trying to limit access to the more efficient weapons in order to limit the number of people who can be killed at one time by one person. An improvement? Yes. But at what cost?

It’s a bit like requiring every car to make a complete stop at all intersections and no car being able to drive over thirty miles per hour in an effort to limit automobile fatalities. It can help, but trying to eliminate all the risks and dangers in life will only engender a docile and fearful populace more concerned about not failing rather than achieving success.

So why do people need these more advanced weapons anyway? First we need to ask why we need weapons at all. Self-defense and protection of property. But we have police. But sometimes we need to act before the police can arrive.

But why do we need “assault weapons?” Because we can’t assume that it will only be individuals who may threaten us or that their weaponry will be as primitive as that which lawmakers would like to leave us.

When the Second Amendment was written, our nation had just recently freed itself from a tyrannical government, and it acknowledged in its Declaration of Independence that the people have a right to change their government if it abuses its power. Having an armed populace is one of the checks on a growing government encroaching on the rights and freedoms of its people.

But I mentioned a second approach to solving the problem of people killing people. This approach involves inculcating in people respect and even love for each other.

This approach requires the help and support of both the government at all levels and our public schools.

We used to teach in our schools a code of ethics based on the Bible and the Ten Commandments. We acknowledged that there was a God, that there were rules in life, and by implication we would be held accountable for those rules.

Now we teach that life is a chance event of nature and that human beings are simply more intelligent apes. Essentially life has no meaning but what you make it, but you can’t assume that anyone else will have the same values as you.

The survival of the fittest is the basic law of life. What we used to call “dog eat dog.” It’s no wonder that life has become cheap. We abort a million babies a year. We don’t regard life as sacred any more.

We have been lied to about this idea of separation of church and state, such that we have removed God as much as we can out of public life. So as a nation we feel compelled to live and act as if there were no God at all. All our decisions and actions must be predicated on the axiom that there is no God to inform our plans, direct our lives, or judge our deeds.

We are told that schools cannot teach or even mention anything about God, because that would be the government establishing religion. Yet that is precisely what our public schools did for the first 175 years or so that we existed as a nation and which, of course, we had done all the years prior to becoming a nation.

Our Founders knew that a government of the people could not and would not endure without a moral and religious people. Their objection was with a state Church as existed throughout much of Europe. All of the state churches were Christian. They just didn’t want the Federal government running any of them. But prayer and Bible use in schools were common and expected.

We believed in truth, and a truth that we all agreed upon.

In a nation that does not acknowledge God, we should not be surprised when people do things that exhibit no sense of conscience or morals. When we learn to value and love each other out of respect for God, then violence and crime altogether will diminish.

Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:10,757
Points:943,285
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 10:01:04 AM

jd, Did you catch the "/sarc" at the end of my post? Were you addressing your post to me or to those who had earlier in this thread accused sis of posting a topic that has diminished relevance because Columbine happened 13 years ago?

[Edited by: ministorage at 12/28/2012 10:02:14 AM EST]
Profile Pic
jdhelm
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:14,168
Points:1,516,795
Joined:Dec 2009
Message Posted: Dec 28, 2012 9:31:27 AM

perhaps people should be required to read Harris and Klebold's journals, perhaps it should be required for school administration and faculty and students to read also? as I remember the two boys were filled with hatred because of the bully treatment they claim to have received by students, school persoannel and parents and siblings, but if that is irrelevant, maybe that is the problem then? it seems to be a common theme in most of these student age mass shootings, and history like this should never seem or be irrelevant - or should it as you claim?

it is unknown (as I recall) how many or how deep the tcm was back then. i do remember looking up the visitor to my door, on a "yahoo profile" back then yahoo had profile pages (like a pre-facebook) with their public and private chat rooms, which was later moved to (if memory serves me) to multiply, then to facebook. social networking has it's positives and it's negative problems - which in my opinion, they have more negatives than plusses. just look around at this forum - not a lot of positives in the political threads, lot of bully tactics going on like the Harris and Klebold's experienced, name calling, put downs - well, you get the picture. so is it irrelevant? you be the judge.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:10,757
Points:943,285
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 10:55:10 PM

Okay jd, TCM = "trench coat mafia." I had forgotten Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold referred to themselves as that. (After all, it was 13 years ago, so that makes it irrelevant. /sarc)

Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:10,757
Points:943,285
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 9:24:42 PM

jd, I'm fairly familiar with the alphabet soup of acronyms, but "TCM person" has me stumped.
Profile Pic
jdhelm
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:14,168
Points:1,516,795
Joined:Dec 2009
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 6:59:39 PM

I don't recall seeing this on any news around here about Darrell Scott and I appreciate you posting this sis. I did have a TCM person show up 13 years ago and I immediately called my friends at the FBI and ATF. They were on him fairly quick and I've never seen him again, thank God.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:10,757
Points:943,285
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 4:00:23 PM

>>"Message Posted: Dec 26, 2012 12:35:28 AM
sissurf: "I didn't get it in a e-mail"

Does that PROVE "that sissurf didn't receive an email"?"<<

Oh, I missed that one. That's very different.

[Edited by: ministorage at 12/27/2012 4:03:09 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,575
Points:341,440
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 1:28:02 PM

Oh yeah. That will solve everything. Have school prayers. Yeah. Right.

And there is some doubt as to why the media has not picked this up?

Here's the news that many need to hear:

There is a perfectly good life without God.

Forcing your beliefs upon others will not solve anything, certainly not mass shootings. You can't MAKE somebody believe something if they don't believe it on their own.

You have the freedom to believe in any kind of supernatural being you want to. Forget wondering why this being 'created' our existence or what he was doing for all eternity prior to that. Don't try to answer the tough questions. Perhaps he got bored; sought amusement; and we are it. Who knows what people will grasp onto? Of if they will even seriously entertain the tough questions about the existence of a God. (most believers won't) Forget the absurdity of the theory that animals share 99% of our own DNA but have no 'soul'. Or that the world is obviously far older than religious theory allows. Forget all of that. Just believe. Because it sounds so good. Life after death. Right. As if death is not the end of life. Dream on. Just don't force it on me. You have the freedom to believe in all of this if you choose. And I have the freedom to believe otherwise. And we are keeping it that way. And it has nothing to do with whackos shooting up public places.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,753
Points:1,021,175
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 1:02:52 PM

"Yet, when sissurf posted from an email she received, a big deal is made about the fact that was 13 years ago, implying what the father of a victim had to say was somehow irrelevant (or has "dimished relevance" today), let alone any absurd suggestion that sis was purposefully trying to deceive us into thinking it was recent."

Actually, a big deal was made about where did she get the post from. And again, when you try to cite something from years ago as if it was from days ago, it does diminish the impact sought by the messenger.





"If gun control advocates think what a father of a Columbine shooting victim said 13 years ago is ancient history, or has "diminished relevance," then perhaps Columbine should not be listed by gun control advocates as more proof for gun control. Columbine is either relevant to the discussion today, or it is not."

Columbine is not as relevant as you would think because the two kids plotted that for a long time and from what I've read about the recent shooting, it wasn't planned but seemingly a reaction to the mom's plan to have him put in a place where he could get help...that's a big difference.

And again, I don't think you honestly could call me a "gun grabber" and/or "gun control advocate" because I've said several times in many threads that guns ain't the problem.
Profile Pic
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:22,918
Points:1,924,240
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 12:54:13 PM

"now the wh shuts down a 'we the people website' in bho's response to all the signed petetions - what a coward bho is"

Wrong!

Not shutdown. Now on the Whitehouse.gov website.


[Edited by: jayrad1957 at 12/27/2012 12:56:39 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:10,757
Points:943,285
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 10:55:16 AM

Nick Hammer to sissurf: "As the saying goes, "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up". And while it may never have been your intent to deceive when you started this thread, that's all you've done since."

A crime? *ROTFL* Can you provide some proof that sissurf didn't receive an email and is now lying and covering up?

Nick Hammer: "My guess is that, once your OP was outed for what it was, you were too embarrassed to admit that you got duped by a right-wing blog of one of your friends' Facebook posts or wherever it was you found you OP."

Never mind. I get it now. You're guessing.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:18,413
Points:2,899,725
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 10:41:24 AM

>>Here's the facts hitting you square in the face once more, Mr Hammer.
It seems to be you have a problems with Mr. Scotts views for some reason.<<

Uh, not quite, sissurf. Copying jeskibuff's link, which contains completely different wording from you OP, does not answer the question of where you got your OP - and that's "the facts".

My guess is that, once your OP was outed for what it was, you were too embarrassed to admit that you got duped by a right-wing blog of one of your friends' Facebook posts or wherever it was you found you OP. But instead of saying, "Oops, my bad, just ignore all the crap that is not Mr. Scott's words" you decided instead to make matters worse by resorting to:
- using a strawman argument ("I see no one is denying that this speech is the feelings of Mr. Darrell Scott")
- accusing others of not answering a question that you never asked
- repeating the nonsense from the last line of the OP that people are trying to suppress Mr. Scott's statement
- name-calling (which you have since stopped - thank you)
- lying by implying that someone else's link answers the question of where you got your OP

As the saying goes, "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up". And while it may never have been your intent to deceive when you started this thread, that's all you've done since.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:10,757
Points:943,285
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 10:40:33 AM

"I pointed out that the messenger could have better delivered the message by clarifying the history and background of the message."

You didn't just point out that she could have done a better job in her OP; you judged her and accused her of being deceptive--and you implied that 13 years ago is somehow less relevant to the discussions we're having today on the subject:

Message Posted: Dec 26, 2012 2:14:43 PM Ignore RNorm Report Abuse: >>"And I point out that pointing out the deceptiveness of promoting a 13-year article as contemporary, talked to YOUR heart and there is no way you will acknowledge that clarifying the age of the message diminishes its present relevance..."<<

(From here it doesn't look to me like you were trying to encourage her to do a better job in her OP--you berated her and accused her of deception--you shot the messenger.)

--------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning relevance, one thing I find curious is that since the Sandy Hook shooting, I have read more than one post where the Columbine shooting was listed alongside other shootings--by anti-gun advocates as one of the reasons for gun control.

Yet, when sissurf posted from an email she received, a big deal is made about the fact that was 13 years ago, implying what the father of a victim had to say was somehow irrelevant (or has "dimished relevance" today), let alone any absurd suggestion that sis was purposefully trying to deceive us into thinking it was recent.

If gun control advocates think what a father of a Columbine shooting victim said 13 years ago is ancient history, or has "diminished relevance," then perhaps Columbine should not be listed by gun control advocates as more proof for gun control. Columbine is either relevant to the discussion today, or it is not.

IMHO

[Edited by: ministorage at 12/27/2012 10:44:06 AM EST]
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:20,422
Points:302,880
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 10:28:15 AM

"Mr. Scott is right on point."

Actually, the very first quote of Scott's address is incorrect but don't let that stop you.
Profile Pic
cbuck80
Champion Author Massachusetts

Posts:2,576
Points:692,275
Joined:Jan 2012
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 10:24:27 AM

Mr. Scott is right on point. Sadly no one will pass his message on. The media and Washington are run by corrupt individuals that refuse for some reason to take care of what matters most our children.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,753
Points:1,021,175
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 8:52:48 AM

"Yeah, maybe so, but shooting the messenger was much more fun wasn't it? "


I didn't shoot the messenger. I pointed out that the messenger could have better delivered the message by clarifying the history and background of the message.

You know, the same things righties around here demand when there are no links in an OP.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:10,757
Points:943,285
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 8:39:44 AM

sissurf, I almost began to weep watching Mr. Scott's interview at the bottom of the article. Thank you for posting it. I am going to try to remember and take that message with me throughout the day.

Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:10,757
Points:943,285
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 8:37:07 AM

"Maybe there simply should have been a link posted in the OP in the 1st place..."

Yeah, maybe so, but shooting the messenger was much more fun wasn't it?
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:49,753
Points:1,021,175
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 7:43:47 AM

Maybe there simply should have been a link posted in the OP in the 1st place...
Profile Pic
jdhelm
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:14,168
Points:1,516,795
Joined:Dec 2009
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 5:43:46 AM

now the wh shuts down a 'we the people website' in bho's response to all the signed petetions - what a coward bho is
Profile Pic
sissurf
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:22,468
Points:1,979,590
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 27, 2012 1:15:43 AM



Here's the facts hitting you square in the face once more, Mr Hammer.
It seems to be you have a problems with Mr. Scotts views for some reason.
Post a reply Back to Topics