DescentBB

Will the moderator please close my thread. It started out as a fun video about a cat rescuing a toddler and it has degraded into foul, untruthful and hateful comments on U.S. policy, MOST OF WHICH I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. I'm sorry, sigma, that you had to derail the whole thing by constantly injecting politics into the discussion.

Leave at least one of my comment - "It's a cool cat and a great video!"

I'll leave splitting off the relevant posts to the local moderators...

Isaac wrote:Again, you confuse the us government with its people. I, the American, have a right to bear arms, which is a right put in place so that i can join a militia to fight the US Government if it becomes tyrannical, as a last resort against tyranny. Again, that's what a free country has.

NO, NO, NO!! You have that right, so you could form a militia to defend the US against enemies external and internal. It was written at a time of Indian Wars on the frontiers, and an unsettled situation with England. While some suggested it allowed for governmental overthrow, that was NOT the intent of the Amendment, whatsoever.

a militia forms:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local ... 05021.html




and on that note, I'm outta here for 9 days. Gone Fishing.

Krom wrote:I'll leave splitting off the relevant posts to the local moderators...

At least, I see that there are no anti-Russian censorship.
I'm starting to believe in freedom of speech in the West and that the West is able to listen and show respect even to those opinions, which cut his eyes.

tunnelcat wrote: untruthful and hateful comments on U.S. policy

It's not a lie and not hatred. This is a view from the side and righteous indignation.

Thanks Krom. I split the original topic back here.

callmeslick wrote:

Isaac wrote:Again, you confuse the us government with its people. I, the American, have a right to bear arms, which is a right put in place so that i can join a militia to fight the US Government if it becomes tyrannical, as a last resort against tyranny. Again, that's what a free country has.

NO, NO, NO!! You have that right, so you could form a militia to defend the US against enemies external and internal. It was written at a time of Indian Wars on the frontiers, and an unsettled situation with England. While some suggested it allowed for governmental overthrow, that was NOT the intent of the Amendment, whatsoever.

Boy you sure do love absolutes.

So exactly what options would the people have if the government were to become tyrannical?

(putting aside the constitutional argument)

callmeslick wrote:a militia forms:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local ... 05021.html




and on that note, I'm outta here for 9 days. Gone Fishing.

Yes, lets all concentrate on the tool used, and not the reason the fool had to take "retribution" and "revenge against humanity".

Better hope wackos don’t ever figure there are plenty of ways to kill lots of people without guns, bombs or knives.

But, what the hell…guns get the headlines, and that is part of the issue. Of course the government and the media would probably conspire to cover up any mass murder that wasn’t gun related or terrorism, to “avoid panic”.

/paranoia

And no, I won’t debate that issue here because I don’t want to give people any ideas.

sigma wrote:

tunnelcat wrote: untruthful and hateful comments on U.S. policy

It's not a lie and not hatred. This is a view from the side and righteous indignation.

Some of the stuff you've claimed is pure fantasy, dreamed up by a government that used to controlling the media. Yes, our country has done things that are evil, but so has yours. However, our evil deeds tend to NOT stay buried for very long, BECAUSE our media is not controlled by our government.

Slick is once again full of crap and spewing it here.

Read Federalist No. 46 and you will know that James Madison, who authored most of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, was specifically interested in the citizens being able to use their own personal weapons to fight against the tyranny of government.
When his peers raised concerns that he was allowing the federal government the authority to raise a standing army he assured them that the citizens would outnumber the army and be armed with their own personal weapons that government, State nor Federal, could take from them.

Nowhere does he mention 'Indians' .

And read the commentary of any scholar from the era and you will inevitably read how the second amendment is specifically designed to allow the citizens to overcome tyranny of their own government.

Examples:

Abolitionist Lysander Spooner, commenting on bills of rights, stated that the object of all bills of rights is to assert the rights of individuals against the government and that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was in support of the right to resist government oppression, as the only security against the tyranny of government lies in forcible resistance to injustice, for injustice will certainly be executed, unless forcibly resisted. Spooner's theory provided the intellectual foundation for John Brown and other radical abolitionists who believed that arming slaves was not only morally justified, but entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.[137] An express connection between this right and the Second Amendment was drawn by Lysander Spooner who commented that a "right of resistance" is protected by both the right to trial by jury and the Second Amendment.

The congressional debate on the proposed Fourteenth Amendment concentrated on what the Southern States were doing to harm the newly freed slaves, including disarming the former slaves.

Tucker/Blackstone
The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker. He annotated a five-volume edition of Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, a critical legal reference for early American attorneys published in 1803.[126] Tucker wrote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game : a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

William Rawle
Tucker's commentary was soon followed, in 1825, by that of William Rawle in his landmark text, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. Like Tucker, Rawle condemned England's "arbitrary code for the preservation of game," portraying that country as one that "boasts so much of its freedom," yet provides a right to "protestant subjects only" that it "cautiously describ[es] to be that of bearing arms for their defence" and reserves for "[a] very small proportion of the people[.]"[129] In contrast, Rawle characterizes the second clause of the Second Amendment, which he calls the corollary clause, as a general prohibition against such capricious abuse of government power, declaring bluntly:

Speaking of the Second Amendment generally, Rawle said:[131]

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

Slick loves to proclaim his views as facts and very often reality is completely at odds with his assertions. As it is in this case.
Maybe he can find some wisdom on his trip, stop pulling things from his ass and learn to use the truth to engage people in debate.

tunnelcat wrote:

sigma wrote:

tunnelcat wrote: untruthful and hateful comments on U.S. policy

It's not a lie and not hatred. This is a view from the side and righteous indignation.

Some of the stuff you've claimed is pure fantasy, dreamed up by a government that used to controlling the media. Yes, our country has done things that are evil, but so has yours. However, our evil deeds tend to NOT stay buried for very long, BECAUSE our media is not controlled by our government.

I honestly do not understand what materials in the Russian media you call a lie Russian government.
But I can cite many examples of Western media fantasies, bordering on outright lies and anti-Russian propaganda, which for some reason Americans tend to perceive as truth or the official viewpoint.

I will say more. Vaunted freedom of the Western press is manifested only in criticism and mockery of Russia. I'm no longer see that when it comes to criticism of the U.S. government, or the UN or NATO or the OSCE, etc. from Russia, the Western media instantly silenced and always try to keep silent than to express their "independent opinion."
I clearly see that Western journalists or policy, very rarely, reluctantly and cautiously allow themselves independent policy analysis whether criticism of U.S. policy. Perhaps the Western press is not engaged by the Government of the United States directly, but it is obvious that they are afraid to express their opinion, which is against even tyrannical, anti-human, authoritarian, despotic, aggressive, anti-Russian, predatory, corrupt, monopolistic, deceitful U.S. foreign policy.

And besides, it's the United States suffers from paranoia, not Russia. NATO refused to sign a nonaggression pact toward Russia. While the U.S. military is constantly waving a red flag in front of Russia, trying to provoke it by military action, And at the same time, when at least one Russian soldier peacemaker appears in the conflict zone in another country, the Western media immediately raised a cry to the world that Russia is being aggressive and wants to capture half of the planet.
Generally, I do not see any signs of the friendliness of the U.S. Russia. Maybe you see reasons for optimism in Russian-American relations, which I do not know?

Here it is, the true face of the U.S.
quote
Latvia takes naval exercises NATO Open Spirit 2014. Vessels engaged in maneuvers close to the port city of Ventspils. A week after the start of the exercise Ventspils Mayor demanded an apology from the head of NATO: men behave like "pig-invaders"...
" Brave sailors " behaved like " pig - occupiers who do not recognize the laws of Latvia - the mayor said in comments to journalists . - They are sharing a bottle of alcohol on the streets , defecate in the windows . Not spared no local flower bed ... ". "Taking into account the behavior of NATO military , it is impossible to predict what threats they are residents. It is not known what they can do , being in such a strong influence of alcohol and having such a powerful ship on military equipment and weapons , "- expressed concern in a letter Aivars Lembergs Anders Fogh Rasmussen ... After the mayor spoke on the topic in the media , the Latvian military officials began to put pressure on him to deny talk about the facts related to the behavior of NATO sailors in Ventspils .
Reacted strongly to the words of Aivars Lembergs misconduct NATO troops Latvian Defense Minister Raymond Vejonis . He said that strengthening NATO's military presence - a very important contribution to the defense and security of the country . " Using the word" occupation " to the military NATO Lembergs promotes divisive that can be regarded as a threat to national security ", - said the minister of war Latvia. In addition, the minister demanded the convening of an extraordinary meeting of the National Security Council to assess the actions Lembergs .
Lembergs in response to accusations VEJONIS stated that the minister does not know what they were doing in NATO drunken sailors . Opinion Ventspils Mayor after defense minister criticized the head of the National Security Commission of the Latvian Saeima Valdis Zatlers . "Events in Ventspils with NATO soldiers not endanger national security, but to ignore the statements Ventspils Mayor Aivars Lembergs in this regard can not be , as Mayor speaks in one voice with the Russian propaganda," - he said. Latvian radio Zatlers said that becomes no laughing matter when a public official harshly criticized the allies of Latvia, who have come here to "defend our country."
However , for the sake of fairness , we note that the plume scandals and accusations of war crimes pursues NATO troops wherever they were sent to fight the ambitious leaders of the USA and other countries - members of the alliance . And the evidence of this - a lot ."
http://chelovek-online.ru/zakon/article ... skandalom/

Americans in general should not be allowed in a decent society.

Put it this way sigma. I don't deny much of what NATO and U.S. soldiers do in foreign lands because we DO hear about it on occasion. I agree that it's shameful behavior and that it's unbecoming of an American soldier, yet it keeps going on because the military puts up with the drunken antics of bored soldiers, until it embarrasses the Commander in Chief of course. And yes, we are a paranoid lot when it comes to communism. Why that is, I don't know. It' will never take hold here under any circumstances, yet people still go crazy with worry about it like it's going to happen the next time a liberal gets elected president. I guess that's a "tick" we Americans have.

But if you think Russian soldiers behave like church choir boys all the time, you've got a slight case of myopia. Vodka is the fuel of choice for bored, mistreated and disillusioned young Russian soldiers and they can lash out just as easily as bored NATO troops.

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/47-2094.aspx

http://englishrussia.com/2012/11/12/twe ... n-soldier/

In fact, Russia consumes the most alcohol in the world, mostly vodka.

http://chartsbin.com/view/1016

Spidey wrote:So exactly what options would the people have if the government were to become tyrannical?

(putting aside the constitutional argument)

once you had a standing Federal Army, very little.......ask the Confederate Army. Nowadays, you have exactly ZERO chance to overthrow a tyrannical government unless you turned the standing army against it.

Your scenarios always seem to rely on a fallacy or two.

Governments are overthrown all of the time, with loyal standing armies…and again I would suggest that our armed forces would not remain loyal very long, if the government started using them against citizens.

The Civil War is an invalid example, as the federal government was clearly not tyrannical. (not to mention all of the reasons the north won, and it wasn’t because they had better fighters or leaders) But that’s a different thread.

callmeslick wrote:
Nowadays, you have exactly ZERO chance to overthrow a tyrannical government unless you turned the standing army against it.

Tell that to the Egyptians. Or the Libyans. Or the people of India. Or the Russians

You can't defeat slicks argument in slicks world because reality is what ever he says it is up there in his sphincter galaxy.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
Nowadays, you have exactly ZERO chance to overthrow a tyrannical government unless you turned the standing army against it.

Tell that to the Egyptians.

Army backed the demonstrators....and then took back power.

Or the Libyans. Or the people of India. Or the Russians

defectors, foreign army, army backed demonstrators. Thanks for bolstering the point.
Saw a funny photo which I wasn't allowed to copy, today:

A guy is standing in front of a large scoreboard, entitled: Second Amendment Scoring. On the left side of the board is the section marked, Tyrants Overthrown. It is empty. The other is marked, Students, CoWorkers, Spouses, Children and other citizens Killed. It was covered by chalk marks in the hundreds. Pretty well sums up the point. Sort of funny to watch the usual suspects harumph their intellectual superiority and mock my assertion.....and then, go and prove my whole point.

I don't know of any series of terribly flawed conclusions than the ones strung together that you are clinging to right there.
But based on watching you I have faith you will eventually construct some even more convoluted ill logic to surpass your current best effort.

no major twists involved. My original point is this: you are not, via the 2nd Amendment, going to overthrow a tyrannical US government with a loyal military. It just is not going to happen. Thus, clinging to that as one's rationale for having the 'right to bear arms' is, at best, specious.

callmeslick wrote:no major twists involved. My original point is this: you are not, via the 2nd Amendment, going to overthrow a tyrannical US government with a loyal military. It just is not going to happen. Thus, clinging to that as one's rationale for having the 'right to bear arms' is, at best, specious.

You assume the loyalty lies with a tyrant that proceeds to give them unlawful orders...ie; fire on civilians...
I think you have misjudged terribly.

Also, even if that false premise were proven true it is no good reason for citizens to disarm unilaterally. There is no logic in that.

A recent example of the effect of armed citizens is the crazy rancher who had too many armed friendlies rush to his aid to stop the BLM. Even though the 'government' has superior firepower they calculated it was becoming a fight they didn't want to win at such a cost. If the citizens in that example were unarmed the BLM wouldn't have had any cause to stop their actions.

The subtleties within those calculations are proof that an armed citizenry is a detterent to government running the masses under the wheels of its war machines.

so, we should therefore allow open carry of long guns in public, squelch any sane background system, extend private sale loopholes and look the other way every time another tragic shooting rampage occurs, all because we 'just might' one day all get together and try and overthrow the government? Yeah, that sounds enlightened.....

callmeslick wrote:so, we should therefore allow open carry of long guns in public, squelch any sane background system, extend private sale loopholes and look the other way every time another tragic shooting rampage occurs, all because we 'just might' one day all get together and try and overthrow the government? Yeah, that sounds enlightened.....

Why is it that when reality shoots down your ridiculous argument you propose a new ridiculous tangent?

callmeslick wrote:so, we should therefore allow open carry of long guns in public, squelch any sane background system, extend private sale loopholes and look the other way every time another tragic shooting rampage occurs, all because we 'just might' one day all get together and try and overthrow the government? Yeah, that sounds enlightened.....

Sure why not, in fact we should abandon all gun laws and start handing out free machine guns in grade school.

callmeslick wrote:so, we should therefore allow open carry of long guns in public, squelch any sane background system, extend private sale loopholes and look the other way every time another tragic shooting rampage occurs, all because we 'just might' one day all get together and try and overthrow the government? Yeah, that sounds enlightened.....

Look, shootings happen because of a fucked up person who figures shooting everyone around them is the only way to deal with it. Not because everyone carries long guns.

Christ, this is like blaming school shootings on video games.

Ferno wrote:

callmeslick wrote:so, we should therefore allow open carry of long guns in public, squelch any sane background system, extend private sale loopholes and look the other way every time another tragic shooting rampage occurs, all because we 'just might' one day all get together and try and overthrow the government? Yeah, that sounds enlightened.....

Look, shootings happen because of a **** up person who figures shooting everyone around them is the only way to deal with it. Not because everyone carries long guns.

Christ, this is like blaming school shootings on video games.

my point is this: I don't wish to live in a place where nitwits feel carrying long guns around in public is a good thing(except for a hunting trip). My other part regarding background is speaking to just what you note.....fff'd up people who are crazy having guns. None of the discourse around guns in the US today has the slightest thing to do with the functional reason we all have the Constitutional right.

callmeslick wrote: .... None of the discourse around guns in the US today has the slightest thing to do with the functional reason we all have the Constitutional right.

Lol! and you do your very best to make sure reason is completely misrepresented! So what the hell are you trying to preach about there?

callmeslick wrote:my point is this: I don't wish to live in a place where nitwits feel carrying long guns around in public is a good thing(except for a hunting trip). My other part regarding background is speaking to just what you note.....fff'd up people who are crazy having guns. None of the discourse around guns in the US today has the slightest thing to do with the functional reason we all have the Constitutional right.

Well, I live in canada. Lots of people around me have guns, including my boss who's not to far from where I live. Personally, I feel mighty comfortable with that thought. Mainly because no one here is whacked out of their skull.

Maybe that's what's missing. The feeling of knowing you're safe around people with any kind of firearms and knowing they won't go batshit.

Ferno wrote:

callmeslick wrote:my point is this: I don't wish to live in a place where nitwits feel carrying long guns around in public is a good thing(except for a hunting trip). My other part regarding background is speaking to just what you note.....fff'd up people who are crazy having guns. None of the discourse around guns in the US today has the slightest thing to do with the functional reason we all have the Constitutional right.

Well, I live in canada. Lots of people around me have guns, including my boss who's not to far from where I live. Personally, I feel mighty comfortable with that thought. Mainly because no one here is whacked out of their skull.

Maybe that's what's missing. The feeling of knowing you're safe around people with any kind of firearms and knowing they won't go ****.

There definitely seems to be some kind of cultural thing in America that some people who get crazy feel a need to call attention to themselves by going out in a violent fashion designed to capture notoriety.

Is it a coincidence that during the time frame this trend has developed we simultaneously reduced the use of phrases like 'Suck it up'...'Get over it'...Brush yourself off and get back in the fight'...Life is tough, get a helmet'......etc. when advising our youth and at the same time they have developed addictions to My Space and FaceBook and Twitter...where their every thought and activity is supposed to be of value to all?!

People like slick look at the results of those events and all they can do is focus on the tool used to create the mayhem. I guess the larger, much more complex issue that causes the violence is too much for them.
That or they are callous cold hearted manipulative opportunists who never let a tragedy go by without using it to create an opportunity for their own agenda....

Will Robinson wrote:Is it a coincidence that during the time frame this trend has developed we simultaneously reduced the use of phrases like 'Suck it up'...'Get over it'...Brush yourself off and get back in the fight'...Life is tough, get a helmet'......etc. when advising our youth and at the same time they have developed addictions to My Space and FaceBook and Twitter...where their every thought and activity is supposed to be of value to all?!

People like slick look at the results of those events and all they can do is focus on the tool used to create the mayhem. I guess the larger, much more complex issue that causes the violence is too much for them.
That or they are callous cold hearted manipulative opportunists who never let a tragedy go by without using it to create an opportunity for their own agenda....

I'm not sure if we can even call it a coincidence. From what I've seen, the two are isolated from each other. The only thing I have seen that is anyway related to the proliferation of people going postal is the news coverage has reached international levels, possibly making us think there are more whackjobs than is actually out there.

We reduced using phrases like 'get over it princess', because some genius thought those phrases did harm to a person's self-esteem (and boy, is THAT a load of horseshit). And if I recall correctly, high self esteem is part of being a sociopath. not a crazed gunman. Related paper

They tried to connect music to people going postal first, that was proven not to be the case. Then it was videogames. Don't fall into the trap that social media is the cause.


As for "people like slick", I'm not convinced he's the kind of guy who thinks music/games/whatever is the cause for shootings.

Ferno wrote:.. Don't fall into the trap that social media is the cause.


As for "people like slick", I'm not convinced he's the kind of guy who thinks music/games/whatever is the cause for shootings.

I don't think it is a cause, I think it is an illustration, a symptom, of the evolution of the self indulgent nature of the recently over-coddled generations. call it a sign post.

And no slick knows as well as anyone what's up, thats why I have so much contempt for his ways.
I'm calling him out for being a demagogue and a party hack for reflexively exploiting tragedy and telling lies simply to advance his political party's power.

Maybe it's because in this country they think every problem can be treated with a pill. I've read that most mass shootings have been committed by people either taking or just recently stopped taking psychiatric drugs. A lot of times these people don't even remember drowning their children in the bathtub....etc. It's like taking people who already have chemical imbalances and screwing up their brain chemistry even more, but no matter your opinion, psychiatric drugs always seem a common factor.

I am definitely NOT in the camp that would ever blame music, games or the like. EASY, UNMONITORED, access to firearms is merely an unsafe route to go in our society. They knew that in places like Dodge City and Tombstone in the supposed 'Wild West', when they banned firearms in town. We seem to have gone crazy in recent years, collectively, and lost all contact with common sense.

Ferno wrote:As for "people like slick", I'm not convinced he's the kind of guy who thinks music/games/whatever is the cause for shootings.

No, he thinks it’s the guns.

callmeslick wrote:I am definitely NOT in the camp that would ever blame music, games or the like. EASY, UNMONITORED, access to firearms is merely an unsafe route to go in our society. They knew that in places like Dodge City and Tombstone in the supposed 'Wild West', when they banned firearms in town. We seem to have gone crazy in recent years, collectively, and lost all contact with common sense.

Thing is slick, I don't think any sort of regulation can obtain the results you wish would happen.

Would you entertain the notion that maybe a cultural shift might be the solution instead?

Ferno wrote:

callmeslick wrote:I am definitely NOT in the camp that would ever blame music, games or the like. EASY, UNMONITORED, access to firearms is merely an unsafe route to go in our society. They knew that in places like Dodge City and Tombstone in the supposed 'Wild West', when they banned firearms in town. We seem to have gone crazy in recent years, collectively, and lost all contact with common sense.

Thing is slick, I don't think any sort of regulation can obtain the results you wish would happen.

Would you entertain the notion that maybe a cultural shift might be the solution instead?

a cultural sea-change would be needed to address our violent cultural nature(one which has been developing for a long, long time). My point is that GIVEN this nature, the idea of making firearms readily available, with little or no measures to ensure that mentally unstable people or kids get their hands on a gun, is LUDICROUS.

callmeslick wrote:

Ferno wrote:

callmeslick wrote:I am definitely NOT in the camp that would ever blame music, games or the like. EASY, UNMONITORED, access to firearms is merely an unsafe route to go in our society. They knew that in places like Dodge City and Tombstone in the supposed 'Wild West', when they banned firearms in town. We seem to have gone crazy in recent years, collectively, and lost all contact with common sense.

Thing is slick, I don't think any sort of regulation can obtain the results you wish would happen.

Would you entertain the notion that maybe a cultural shift might be the solution instead?

a cultural sea-change would be needed to address our violent cultural nature(one which has been developing for a long, long time). My point is that GIVEN this nature, the idea of making firearms readily available, with little or no measures to ensure that mentally unstable people or kids get their hands on a gun, is LUDICROUS.

You must be furious with your side for pursuing all sorts of legislation and dishonest rhetoric that doesn't do anything to address the problems you just pointed to and instead polarizes both sides of the debate to the point they are all completely entrenched in their position so that no progress will be made.

That's what happens when leaders are self serving opportunists who sacrifice good for power. I bet you don't vote for any of them again, boy I betcha! Huh?

Laws upon laws have been tried, to no avail.

We could try and make the waiting period two months, make bullets cost 5000 dollars a piece, and make the guns themselves biodegrade in two weeks after purchase. But that sort of stuff would be at the very least a bandage solution to a mental health problem.

We can't really predict when someone's going to go off the deep end. Not now, anyways. If they didn't have a gun, they would have a knife. If they didn't have a knife, they'd use a hammer. If not a hammer, then a saw.


Just recently, we've had a shooting in Moncton where some whacko opened up on three rcmp officers. We have stricter laws, yet they did nothing to prevent this. I wish I could agree with you on this, but the reality shows me otherwise.

I'm just wondering at the lack of mass murders with firearms back in the fifties. Back then you could:

1) Buy rifles through mail order catalogs

2) Go into Kresge's and buy WW2 surplus rifles from wooden barrels filled with them

3) Wear your cowboy out fit to school and not be sent home

4) Kids openly wore their cap guns in the neighborhood

5) The NRA was not a evil organization

6) There were not background checks to buy a firearm

You get the drift. The question is, what happened over the years?

What happened was decades of ★■◆● economic policy, violence and poverty go hand in hand.