What to do after Newtown

[Simon Dog]

Like clockwork, every time the dems try to pass more legislation restricting gun ownership, sales go up - exponentially.  Here are just a few articles from newspapers in areas holding gun shows this weekend...

The AR15 buying frenzy resembles depression era bank runs, some firms have suspended taking orders or started waiting lists, and at least one company has resorted to taking their phones off the hook so they can get some work done on their backlog.   You know supply is tight when you start hearing from cops asking if you have any extras you are willing to sell (yes, really).  I've seen "crisis runs" on guns before, but nothing on the scale of what is happening now.

[jbeany]

There was a similar run right after Obama's first election - on guns and ammo of all kinds.  Stores had empty shelves.  I think that one WAS the NRA - they were pushing the idea that Obama was going to pass really harsh gun laws.  However, he didn't really do much at all with them the first 4 years.

[noahvale]

*

[MooseMom]

I wasn't going to comment on this thread again until my husband showed me this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/gun-violence-united-states_b_2358115.html#comments

I know, I know...Michael Moore is very liberal/progressing, and this piece appears on a very liberal/progressive website, but please, everyone, have a read of it and let me know your thoughts.  He has put into words many of the ideas that have been running around in my mind for a while now.  All of you know that I have often asked what makes America so different from other societies where violent games and entertainment are just as prevalent as here yet don't experience the same sort of every day gun violence that we do here in the US.

He actually agrees with those of you that guns, in and of themselves, are probably the smallest part of the problem.  It's why we feel we need guns and how we use them that is at the heart of this dilemma.

I remember asking several times here on IHD, "What are we so afraid of?" that we believe we need to have our own personal arsenals.  Mr. Moore puts forth some theories; do you agree with him, or do you have your own possible explanations?

After reading Mr. Moore's essay, do you think he is wrong, and if so, why?  Are there other elements of this problem that you think he failed to articulate?  Do you have anything to add?

I appreciate any and all reasonable discussion and am grateful for your thoughts.

Have a Merry Christmas whether you are armed or not!  LOL! 

[Hemodoc]

I wasn't going to comment on this thread again until my husband showed me this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/gun-violence-united-states_b_2358115.html#comments

I know, I know...Michael Moore is very liberal/progressing, and this piece appears on a very liberal/progressive website, but please, everyone, have a read of it and let me know your thoughts.  He has put into words many of the ideas that have been running around in my mind for a while now.  All of you know that I have often asked what makes America so different from other societies where violent games and entertainment are just as prevalent as here yet don't experience the same sort of every day gun violence that we do here in the US.

He actually agrees with those of you that guns, in and of themselves, are probably the smallest part of the problem.  It's why we feel we need guns and how we use them that is at the heart of this dilemma.

I remember asking several times here on IHD, "What are we so afraid of?" that we believe we need to have our own personal arsenals.  Mr. Moore puts forth some theories; do you agree with him, or do you have your own possible explanations?

After reading Mr. Moore's essay, do you think he is wrong, and if so, why?  Are there other elements of this problem that you think he failed to articulate?  Do you have anything to add?

I appreciate any and all reasonable discussion and am grateful for your thoughts.

Have a Merry Christmas whether you are armed or not!  LOL!

I don't have an "arsenal" as you state. I have one carry gun, several hunting rifles and two woods handguns.  We have big bears here in Idaho. You have to have something loose in your brain to walk around the woods up here without something.

The biggest reason I carry a handgun is the huge number of pit bulls that you see everywhere today. Most dogs I could handle with my bare hands, not a pit bull.

Secondly, it is an American right that if not exercised will disappear.

[Hemodoc]

I wasn't going to comment on this thread again until my husband showed me this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/gun-violence-united-states_b_2358115.html#comments

I know, I know...Michael Moore is very liberal/progressing, and this piece appears on a very liberal/progressive website, but please, everyone, have a read of it and let me know your thoughts.  He has put into words many of the ideas that have been running around in my mind for a while now.  All of you know that I have often asked what makes America so different from other societies where violent games and entertainment are just as prevalent as here yet don't experience the same sort of every day gun violence that we do here in the US.

He actually agrees with those of you that guns, in and of themselves, are probably the smallest part of the problem.  It's why we feel we need guns and how we use them that is at the heart of this dilemma.

I remember asking several times here on IHD, "What are we so afraid of?" that we believe we need to have our own personal arsenals.  Mr. Moore puts forth some theories; do you agree with him, or do you have your own possible explanations?

After reading Mr. Moore's essay, do you think he is wrong, and if so, why?  Are there other elements of this problem that you think he failed to articulate?  Do you have anything to add?

I appreciate any and all reasonable discussion and am grateful for your thoughts.

Have a Merry Christmas whether you are armed or not!  LOL!

Sorry, I read that article which I would challenge just from the title, since when has Michael celebrated the prince of peace? He is completely antithetical to a Christian view point.

In addition, I don't carry a gun because of racism or other of his convoluted reasons. Michael Moore has a very perverted view of common folks that are simply living in a traditional America. Thank the Lord that there are still places in America that remember what it means to be an American. Michael Moore is NOT one of them nor are most of the folks at the Huff post.

[Simon Dog]

Michael Moore has a very perverted view of common folks that are simply living in a traditional America

Michael Moore has a privately hired armed security detail.  Back in 2005, one of his bodyguards was arrested in NY as he did not have a valid carry permit in that state and attempted to declare a gun at an airport.   The old "guns for me but not for thee" cry of the elite.

[Chris]

Moosemom, I done shot that reindeer that ran over my grandma!

[noahvale]

^

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, most Americans do not live in Idaho under threat from big bears.  You have explained why you yourself carry/own guns (and I never claimed that you have an "arsenal"), but I am asking you to give your thoughts about why majority of gunowners feel the need to carry so many weapons.  You do not have to have a shred of respect for the likes of Michael Moore.  My question isn't about Michael Moore but is, rather, about some of the explanations he offers, and I'd be interested in your thoughts.  Furthermore, I respectfully submit that you do not get to define "American".  Michael Moore and "the folks at Huffpost" are as American as you are.  You're just going to have to live with that fact, hard as it may be.

Noahvale, there is no need for you to be snide.  I have noticed that you often give very valuable information to people who have dialysis related questions, and I am very glad that you are kind enough to take the time and effort to respond to members here on this forum.  It would be really nice if you could use the same helpful, even thoughtful tone in discussions such as these.  I ask you to go back and reread my post with the link to Mr. Moore's essay.  I defy you to find one single aggressive word from me.  Why must you be so snide and condescending?  I do not require you to "humor me", sir, so get the hell out of my face.  The abundant quotes that you have provided are familiar to me, and I understand that many thoughtful people are looking inward to their own communities to identify and cope with problems.  Maybe next time you could respond using your own words instead of those of countless other people.

"Humor" is obviously not in your lexicon.  Please do not burden yourself with "humoring me".

[MooseMom]

Michael Moore has a very perverted view of common folks that are simply living in a traditional America

Michael Moore has a privately hired armed security detail.  Back in 2005, one of his bodyguards was arrested in NY as he did not have a valid carry permit in that state and attempted to declare a gun at an airport.   The old "guns for me but not for thee" cry of the elite.

Michael Moore is an elitist?  I guess I am not sure how you define "elite".  Maybe Mr. Moore has an armed security detail because he knows he is controversial and suspects some crazy person with a gun might show his, urm, disagreement.

[noahvale]

*

[MooseMom]

I wasn't trying to be snide or condescending.

I don't believe you for a single second.

- that is your projection.

Don't put the blame on me.  Take personal responsibility for your words.

  So, ma'am get the hell out of my face!

Then be more mindful of your words and your tone.

I quote others because they can better articulate my feelings and views.  At least I give credit where due.

That's fair enough.  I can respect that.

[Hemodoc]

Hemodoc, most Americans do not live in Idaho under threat from big bears.  You have explained why you yourself carry/own guns (and I never claimed that you have an "arsenal"), but I am asking you to give your thoughts about why majority of gunowners feel the need to carry so many weapons.  You do not have to have a shred of respect for the likes of Michael Moore.  My question isn't about Michael Moore but is, rather, about some of the explanations he offers, and I'd be interested in your thoughts.  Furthermore, I respectfully submit that you do not get to define "American".  Michael Moore and "the folks at Huffpost" are as American as you are.  You're just going to have to live with that fact, hard as it may be.

Noahvale, there is no need for you to be snide.  I have noticed that you often give very valuable information to people who have dialysis related questions, and I am very glad that you are kind enough to take the time and effort to respond to members here on this forum.  It would be really nice if you could use the same helpful, even thoughtful tone in discussions such as these.  I ask you to go back and reread my post with the link to Mr. Moore's essay.  I defy you to find one single aggressive word from me.  Why must you be so snide and condescending?  I do not require you to "humor me", sir, so get the hell out of my face.  The abundant quotes that you have provided are familiar to me, and I understand that many thoughtful people are looking inward to their own communities to identify and cope with problems.  Maybe next time you could respond using your own words instead of those of countless other people.

"Humor" is obviously not in your lexicon.  Please do not burden yourself with "humoring me".

Dear Moosemom,

If you look at a map of those counties that went to the GOP in the last several elections, you will find that the Dems hold only urban areas. The vast majority of rural counties which comprise the majority of land mass in America are conservative.  I will leave the demographics of urban vs rural to someone else, but the majority of US counties are rural and conservative. Once again, it is the urban centers that keep electing democrats.  It seems most the folks in that "traditional America" want to keep things the way that they are. Those folks in the urban centers are the ones that want a United States of Europe here in the US.  Many in the Urban centers are not even citizens, so not sure what point you are trying to make about me "defining" what is an America. You asked why I carry and use firearms and I answered. I would have to state almost universally, my answer is what my friends I know would answer as well.

http://notesironbound.blogspot.com/2012/11/fun-with-county-by-county-election.html

Lastly, I don't believe Noah was snide, he simply answered your question in frank manner. I did not find them slyly disparaging at all, just quite frank and to the point.

Look at who Michael Moore glorifies such as Chavez and Castro and his health care system for instance and you get know what Michael Moore is all about. He is a leftist elitist just as Noah stated.  Moore has close family connections to large labor, his uncle was one of the founders of the United Auto workers union. Understanding the connection between big labor and leftists movements including the ACORN group gives you a lot of understanding of what Michael Moore is all about.

I answered your question first and then I went and read Michael Moore's essay. He is way off base especially when it comes to the racism issue.  In any case, have a great day.

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, thank you for your thoughts.  However, I'm not sure what "urban areas" is code for, but for anyone to say that "many" people who live in "urban areas" aren't even citizens is a bit of a sweeping statement.  If so many of those people are really not citizens, then they wouldn't have voted, anyway, so their voices don't count for much.  How citizenship or the definition of being "American" applies to Michael Moore and those on HuffPost is unclear to me.  I apologize if I am not understanding what exactly you mean.

And thank you for your explanation for why you yourself carry guns.  I didn't mean to imply that your answer was irrelevant, rather, I meant to point out that it would be interesting to hear your thoughts as to why other people carry guns, but if you do not know and do not want to put words into other peoples' mouths, then I can certainly respect that.

I'm afraid we're getting sidetracked, and perhaps that's because I used Michael Moore as a template for asking some questions about society in general.  I'm not particularly interested in Michael Moore himself, and he is not supposed to be the issue.  Anyone can dispute his ideas without having to disparage him personally.

If you feel that Mr. Moore is way off base when it comes to the racism issue, then I respect your opinion.  You didn't feel that you had to "humor me" by bothering to reply.  Yours was a "frank" reply, and I appreciate it.

I am the most thick skinned person I know.  I truly can remember only one instance in which I felt personally jabbed, so I know "frankness" from "snideness".  I am not so easily insulted that I jump on anyone who has a "frank" difference in opinion. 

[Hemodoc]

Hemodoc, thank you for your thoughts.  However, I'm not sure what "urban areas" is code for, but for anyone to say that "many" people who live in "urban areas" aren't even citizens is a bit of a sweeping statement.  If so many of those people are really not citizens, then they wouldn't have voted, anyway, so their voices don't count for much.  How citizenship or the definition of being "American" applies to Michael Moore and those on HuffPost is unclear to me.  I apologize if I am not understanding what exactly you mean.

And thank you for your explanation for why you yourself carry guns.  I didn't mean to imply that your answer was irrelevant, rather, I meant to point out that it would be interesting to hear your thoughts as to why other people carry guns, but if you do not know and do not want to put words into other peoples' mouths, then I can certainly respect that.

I'm afraid we're getting sidetracked, and perhaps that's because I used Michael Moore as a template for asking some questions about society in general.  I'm not particularly interested in Michael Moore himself, and he is not supposed to be the issue.  Anyone can dispute his ideas without having to disparage him personally.

If you feel that Mr. Moore is way off base when it comes to the racism issue, then I respect your opinion.  You didn't feel that you had to "humor me" by bothering to reply.  Yours was a "frank" reply, and I appreciate it.

I am the most thick skinned person I know.  I truly can remember only one instance in which I felt personally jabbed, so I know "frankness" from "snideness".  I am not so easily insulted that I jump on anyone who has a "frank" difference in opinion.

Come on Moosemom, there is NO CODE WORD for urban areas. look at the maps and you can see the urban west, the urban Chicago and and other areas and the urban east coast. Urban means large cities and not rural areas. Superimpose a map of the cities of the US and you will see that the blue areas are almost uniformly urban centers in those states. When you drive across this nation and see all of the open areas and farmland, that is almost uniformly conservative republican areas and almost all of the areas with tall buildings close together are democratic. Check it out for yourself. These urban centers are also the centers of the union labor movements as well for the most part.

No hidden code or underlying meanings whatsoever. Sometimes you don't have look any further than the end of your nose.

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, I'm afraid that there are many people for whom "urban areas" are code for "non-white areas".  I'm glad you are not one of those people.

You are absolutely correct in your observation that people in big cities do tend to vote one way and those in rural areas in another way.  But the majority of Americans live in or around big cities these days.  We are no longer an agricultural/rural society.  We are now a nation of service industries and tech innovation, and those economic activities do tend to be concentrated in more highly populated areas.

[Simon Dog]

No hidden code or underlying meanings whatsoever. Sometimes you don't have look any further than the end of your nose.

I think Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".

[KarenInWA]

I've also noticed that the majority of blue votes tend to live in areas near large bodies of water - the coasts, the Great Lakes, etc. In my own state, WA, there are more "blue" voters near the Puget Sound/Pacific Coast than there is on the east side of the state, which has mainly rivers and some lakes. This is just a simple observation, and not a political statement.

KarenInWA

[Hemodoc]

Hemodoc, I'm afraid that there are many people for whom "urban areas" are code for "non-white areas".  I'm glad you are not one of those people.

You are absolutely correct in your observation that people in big cities do tend to vote one way and those in rural areas in another way.  But the majority of Americans live in or around big cities these days.  We are no longer an agricultural/rural society.  We are now a nation of service industries and tech innovation, and those economic activities do tend to be concentrated in more highly populated areas.

If you look at the demographics of those areas, there are obviously larger minority involvement in some of those areas, but many of the blue counties out west are rural and have a large hispanic population such as in New Mexico and Colorado for instance. The hispanic population is growing faster than any other demographic and the cities in many ways are losing populations in some areas. Yes, demographics obviously matter in national political elections, but that is not the point I was making. We are talking about traditional America which is still alive and well in the majority of rural areas. It has not nor will die off any time soon. Simply because urban areas have more of a vote does not in the least mitigate the millions of people who still are old school conservatives. If anything, we really have two America's now in many ways. Traditional America is still out there folks.

[MooseMom]

"Old school conservatism" is what is now in peril.  There is a more virulent element now that doesn't resemble what "conservatism" used to be and that now has ignored the tradition of compromise when creating policy. 

We've always had two Americas, Hemodoc.  We've always had an underclass upon whose cheap labor has enabled "traditional America" to thrive.  We've always had "us" and "them". 

[Hemodoc]

"Old school conservatism" is what is now in peril.  There is a more virulent element now that doesn't resemble what "conservatism" used to be and that now has ignored the tradition of compromise when creating policy. 

We've always had two Americas, Hemodoc.  We've always had an underclass upon whose cheap labor has enabled "traditional America" to thrive.  We've always had "us" and "them".

Sorry, that is once again a skewed view of the traditional America. You are wrong. America is instead the common market place where if you wished to work you could and America is still one of the only nations where you can rise from poverty to great wealth in only one generation. Once again, that is a leftist view of the world. America is the one place where workers have thrived. Sorry, can't agree at all with that type of leftist propaganda.

Your view of conservatism compromising is also silly since conservatives more often than not had a clear Christian base for their morals. There are some things that there is no compromise such as abortion for instance. If you believe life began at conception, where is the point of compromise?  No, that is once again a leftist view of conservatives that is just frankly silly.

[MooseMom]

Sorry, that is once again a skewed view of the traditional America. You are wrong. America is instead the common market place where if you wished to work you could and America is still one of the only nations where you can rise from poverty to great wealth in only one generation. Once again, that is a leftist view of the world. America is the one place where workers have thrived. Sorry, can't agree at all with that type of leftist propaganda.

Your view of conservatism compromising is also silly since conservatives more often than not had a clear Christian base for their morals. There are some things that there is no compromise such as abortion for instance. If you believe life began at conception, where is the point of compromise?  No, that is once again a leftist view of conservatives that is just frankly silly.

OK, Hemodoc.  I think everything that anyone has had to say has been said.  I guess there is nothing more to discuss.  Except for one thing...

As I have pointed out before, I have read many of your posts for a long, long time.  It occurs to me, and forgive me if my memory is faulty, that not once have you ever expressed any curiosity about anyone else's views or opinions.  You do not ask questions, and I must assume it is because you have no interest in what anyone else has to say, what they believe and/or why they believe as they do.

It seems that if someone does not share your opinion, then that person is silly or is labouring under leftist propaganda or is part of some conspiracy to turn America into a God-hating culture that makes Sodom and Gomorrah look like the Queen's tea party.  Your world view seems to be shrouded in fear and loathing that must be either defended by the institutionalization of hatred of "the other" or abandoned with the slogan, "Your side won, so go live in the putrid world that you are creating."

Perhaps I do have a skewed view of the "traditional America", but maybe, just maybe, you do, too.  And that's why I asked this question in the first place.  I was curious to know how other people defined it.  Our definition of what is "traditional" is a reflection of our own life experiences, but apparently that has not occurred to you.  Your definition of "traditional America" will surely not be the same as someone's who was unable to eat at a certain restaurant in 1960 because of their skin color.  Hemodoc, surely you have some modicum of imagination.

Conservatives and their left leaning counterparts have been compromising since this nation began.  Our Constitution, which I know you hold dear, demands it.  The nation today demands it of our Congress.

Actually, today there are many more nations where one can rise to great wealth very quickly.  Those happen to be the same nations that are starting to see ever widening gaps between the wealthy and the poor.  Brazil is a prime example (they are quickly buying up expensive and desireable American real estate and are paying in cash!), and Russia is right there, too.  Sadly, the fact that personal wealth in Russia is rising is due often to crime and corruption engendered in the new freer market economy.  China is seeing the same phenomenon with the loosening of Communist strings, but even there you can see yet another country experiencing the same economic gap between the haves and the have nots.  In this country, the rich are getting richer and the poor are working harder to keep what they have.  While there is certainly nothing wrong with being very wealthy, that ever widening gap just feels immoral.

I can certainly understand why someone would refuse to compromise on abortion.  But surely there are other issues that this nation cares about on which our policymakers (ie, Congress) can compromise.  This is how Congress traditionally has functioned.  What's different now? 

Oh, never mind.  I keep asking the same questions over and over yet get no replies that don't have disparaging remarks in them.  I truly do not care if anyone thinks I am wrong or silly or a doormat for commies.  In fact, I am quickly becoming majorly uninterested in what anyone believes.  It's just too much like hard work to expect thoughtful opinions thoughtfully expressed.  I don't give up easily, but I am now.

(PS...I do want to make it clear, Hemodoc, that I have a great deal of affection for you although I have no idea why.  You can be utterly frustrating, but I admire your passion.  I will refrain, however, from asking more questions of you as I am probably being intrusive although I do not mean to be.  I can see where some might construe my curiosity as nosiness.)

[jbeany]

"Your argument on the internet has completely changed both my mind and my vote."
Said no one.
Ever.

[KarenInWA]

My thought on the abortion issue:

This is a support forum for people of both genders, of many ages, who all suffer from renal failure. This is, as we all know, a life-threatening disease that requires essentially life support and other beyond-the-norm treatment to keep said individual alive. This technology was not available just a mere 50 years ago.

Out of respect, there are women of child-bearing age who are on this forum, some of them who may have had abortions - not because they chose to, mind you - but because they *HAD* to. These are women who, if they had the gift of being healthy enough, would never have chosen that path for their pregnancies. They would have chosen to *have* the baby. There are also other women on here who have had painful pregnancy experiences that have ended tragically. As well, there are also women who have been able to carry their pregnancies either to term, or far along enough to give birth to a healthy or healthy-enough child. There is no way to predict how these high-risk pregnancies will turn out, there are only statitistics that their doctors, and these women, can go by. To keep bringing up the abortion issue like it keeps being brought up by certain individuals - and *ESPECIALLY* comparing it the outright EVIL that was done in Newtown, CT just a short time ago, is a show of disrespect to these women. Until you have been in *their* shoes - who is ANYONE on this page or ANYWHERE to judge?

I am 39 years old, a woman who has known about her CKD since the young age of 23. Having children was not an option for me. Thankfully (more or less) that hasn't been an issue for me, since men do not like me. Given that, it has never been an issue in my life. But, if I had become pregnant at anytime in my CKD/ESRD journey, I would have been faced with making a HUGE decision that is not an easy one to make. That does NOT make me a "baby killer". What that makes me is this - a woman with a serious disease that does not allow my body to fully support a pregnancey in the way it should be able to. Hell, my body couldn't even keep my own self alive w/o a machine, then a major surgery where I now have someone else's kidney. And guess what?? I am not the only one on this page who has this problem!!!!!!!

So please, going forward, RESPECT the women on this page/forum who have had to go through the painful decision of terminating a pregnancy due to the fact that she has one of the many kidney-killing diseases we all know and hate. To do otherwise is absolutely tasteless.

KarenInWA