“Private sales forces aggressively seek and obtain user data all the time in their never ending quest to separate people from their money. This we accept. But when the government tries to do the same thing in their never ending quest to foil nefarious plots and attacks, it's unacceptable? The NSA is one name on a very, very long list of entities "snooping around" and looking at your data. But it's the whipping boy.
Don't be fooled. Private sales forces don't like the NSA's activities because snooping counter measures may impede their own ability to get your data. Your habits and activities are worth a lot of money to some and don't think for a minute that this information isn't being sold for profit.”
“Yes, I saw the original movie too. And I enjoyed that version as well. I feel no need grade the acting and compare them. Like people, no two are alike. And like people, if their heart is in the right place, its beautiful.”
“I think it's a pretty versatile teaching that applies to national policy makers who make decisions on wars, all the way down to children insulting each other on the playground. It's all about attitude, at all levels.”
“My wife and kids (both 11) watched this and I saw some of it too. The story line is wholesome (to state the obvious). There were singing children, no one was killed, everyone wore their clothes and it had a happy ending. We all loved it. Thank You Miss Underwood & fellow actors/actresses for this positive holiday experience.
I might have been able to find better acting in some other broadcast at that time which features hatred, spite, greed, selfishness, nudity and violence. If "superior acting" is all that you're after, go for it. I happen to think there's more to entertainment than that. And I commend Ms. Underwood for not going down a negative path in her response to these "critics". I will be able to go home and tell my kids how she was not only playing a kind person in the movie, she's kind in real life too.
As for the critics, there's another Biblical teaching to consider... "Judge and you shall be judged".”
Spartan112 on Dec 9, 2013 at 15:10:54
“Yes...I should never expect "superior" acting... or even "credible" for that matter.”
In the Sixties on Dec 9, 2013 at 14:57:06
“Have you never seen the movie? You act like this was your time with the story line.
I agree with your second paragraph, but you got to admit Carrie is not a Julie. There is only one Sound of Music.”
montanahighline on Dec 9, 2013 at 14:54:38
“I doubt if that teaching was aimed at something as significant as Carrie Underwood and her performance in The Sound of Music.”
“I think that is less bad than suffering a Sandy-Hook every so often, not to mention the thousands of others who get slaughtered with these weapons. I would be open to compromises which enable hunting (single or double shot, no semi-auto). I see no need for handguns in the hands of the general pubic. All they do is create a self-perpetuating justification for weapons of self defense. The citizens of GB seem to get along just fine without them. And even though they've been a "democracy (rough term) for almost as long as we have, guess what? No need to overthrow a tyranny with armed civilians.
If I were a gun advocate, a hunter, a collector, a target shooter, etc..., and God offered me a deal... give up all my guns for the rest of your life and all he Sandy Hook victims will be restored to life, I'd jump on it in a heartbeat. I'd jump on it for any one of those children. I hope most gun owners would to. Although it would never be provable, that's what you get with a gun ban. How many thousands of lives have been spared in GB because of their restrictions? No one can say. But thousands to be sure.”
Timothy Osman on Dec 9, 2013 at 15:13:59
“Are the single shot weapons you would allow the same that Charles Whitman killed 17 people with at the University of Texas with in 1966? If God assured me that he would never allow a totalitarian government to come to power here then I would give up all of mu "assault weapons". Since that is not likely to happen though lets look at whats currently happening in the US. Let me reiterate again that the NDAA 2012 allows for indefinite detention of American citizens without charges or trial. This would have never been possible if 9/11 never happened. I can list hundreds of examples if you would like to prove which direction the "ebb and flow" of our rights have gone since 9/11 if you would like. Now seeing how easily Americans gave up their rights for what they believe to be more security, then what do you think would happen if an even larger attack occurred? What would people be willing to accept if a nuclear bomb went off in a city? Do you know that Congressman Brad Sherman stated on the House floor that members of Congress were told that if they didnt vote to bailout the banks in 2008 that martial law would be declared by the end of the week? You may not believe that acollapse of our financial system can happen but I can assure you that it can. I can list a lot of Reichstag fire type events that are very possible to happen.”
“>>...that any action that violates the liberty of another is unlawful.
Someone wants the liberty to walk across my property, but the fence I erected gets in his way. Am I violating his liberty? Is that unlawful ?
Owning a shoulder fired surface to air Stinger missiles doesn't violate anyone's liberty either, until it gets used to shoot down an airliner. Is it unlawful to take that thing away from someone if they are found possessing it?
My logic is flawed???
Not zero probability, just a low enough probability that the negative consequences for keeping firearms outweighs the loss of the liberty of possessing them.
>>To believe this is the epitome of naivete to anyone with an understanding of history
Please, spare me the insults. I understand history. I understand that there's a non-zero probability that the US government may become a tyranny that might be brought back with an armed civilian population. I just put it in the same category as getting hit by lightening, pretty much ignore it, and get on with my life.
"I was just protecting the minority from the majority" doesn't fly in a court of law when that minority decides to break the laws they personally deem tyrannical. When a minority starts ignoring the laws (or as you may see them,"tyrannical violations of liberty"), THAT's when society and civility break down leaving the doors wide open for tyrannies to walk in.
Yes, atrocities like Sandy Hook. That knife cuts both ways.”
Timothy Osman on Dec 9, 2013 at 14:03:02
“So just to be clear, it is your opinion that we should ban all private ownership of firearms?”
Timothy Osman on Dec 9, 2013 at 13:28:30
“So to be clear you are in favor of banning all privately owned firearms?”
“Someone I know has an ailment which I researched on the web. Since then, I've been inundated with ads for pharmaceutical remedies for that ailment. Guess what, the NSA is not the only entity out there "spying" on me. The difference is that the NSA really doesn't care about 99.99999% of the stuff people do and ignore it.
It's like having a conversation with someone in open air at a café on a sidewalk and getting offended if someone overhears it.
Executions were permitted. I don't know the details on how they determine who can be killed, the trial requisites, was possessing a firearm a capital offense, etc... H was pretty intolerant of dissent. Yes, the Nazis were horrible people. But regarding those 300,000 killed, did the majority approve? I'm not so sure the Nazis were a minority out of control in that place and time. The Bolsheviks were armed civilians. They probably would have been better off with the Czar. Also, the US wasn't so kind to the armed Philipiinos in the Philippine–American War where some 1,000,000 civilians died. Every nation has moments its not so proud of. But I really don't think it's very productive to swap these anecdotes. I don't see the point.
Rights ebb and flow with the definition of a society. I do no t have the right to murder others in my society or steal their stuff. I cannot open up a chemical dump in my back yard, shoot off fireworks at 3:00 in the morning, etc... . Civilized life is impossible without curtailing what some would call "rights". That's a fact that has and will always exist.
“All of the theoretical crimes that you posited violate an easy litmus test of what is lawful, that any action that violates the liberty of another is unlawful. That is the premise our society is built on. Owning firearms do not violate anybody's liberty yet most progressives still want to incrementally curtail the the rights of citizens to own firearms. If you are a progressive that claims you dont want a ban on firearms then you need to reevaluate your logic and follow it through to its natural conclusion. No amount of legislation, short of an outright ban, will stop evil people from shooting others. After every law you would support, another shooting will still happen necessitating the need for more laws until the final conclusion of an outright ban is determined. In order to find this solution acceptable, one must make the determination that there is a zero probability that we would ever face a threat to our liberty from either our own government or an outside threat. To believe this is the epitome of naivete to anyone with an understanding of history and the pervasive human condition of lust of power. The atrocities committed are not an anecdote, but rather an example of exactly how the path to tyranny travels. I fail to understand how anyone could not comprehend that the same could happen to us. Democracy is mob rule and thats why we are a constitutional democratic republic, in order to protect the minority from the majority.”
“I heard a great "Planet Money" radio show on unemployment... http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/21/161562276/episode-404-what-if-you-controlled-the-economy. The intrepid Planet Money reporters tried to bring unemployment down to 5% by 2016 in a computer model of the US economy. No matter how hoard they tried, no matter what they did to all the variables everyone points to as the problem, they just couldn't get it down to 5%. They fixed the US balance sheet and created a surplus. They fixed Europe. They cut oil prices I half. They sent consumer confidence through the roof. They even made all of Africa a big US market to sell out stuff in. No good. They doubled all the fixes. Still no good.
The reality is that it took us decades to get here and it'll take about that long to get out. We have made a small number of people fantastically wealthy at the cost of the middle class.. today's middle class and tomorrow's too. And you just can't fix that in a few years. No democrat, republican, libertarian... no one can fix this that fast. Tough love but its the truth.”
“The Nazis happened to be very popular in Germany in the 30's and early 40's. I'm not defending their moral choices, but it was a majority that made those choices. BTW, executions were allowed in that system. Sandy Hook happens here. From the victim's perspective, not much difference.
If you think the current system is oppressive, look here in the early 40's during the war. Price and wage fixing, rationing commodities across the board, the government spying anything/anyone that looked suspicious without warrants, mandatory "lights out" in all coastal cities, government take-over of the rail system, etc... . The public (majority) by and large supported all of this. We unwound all that.. "fixed it"... eventually and "moved on". The way you do it is by electing officials that do what you want. That's our system. The ebb and flow of what rights we choose to allow ourselves in our society is dynamic, as it should be. That's the forest.
Yes, the US is imperialistic, always has been to some degree (War of 1812 was really a grab for Canada). This is why we have all those bases and outsized ~defense~ budget. I'm disappointed in Obama for not educating us about that.”
Timothy Osman on Dec 6, 2013 at 11:51:09
“Your link is to a Blip that has apparently sailed. You are incorrect in your assertion that summary executions were not permitted under Nazi rule. Of the 20 million people that the Nazis killed approximately 300,000 were German citizens that were executed. Jews compromised around 6 million while the bulk of the rest were people in Nazi controlled territories. From 1900-2000 an estimated 200 million people were killed by their own governments that had banned private firearm ownership. This is not including casualties of wars. So if you are trying to equate the unfortunate deaths suffered by allowing the private possession of firearms to those suffered by not allowing them then your risk analysis logic has been obscured by propaganda instead of facts. Your belief that rights should ebb and flow based on what the majorities current opinion is truly frightens me. It is this exact type of rationale that leads to atrocities. The protection of the rights of the minority is the entire purpose of a representative Republic. Your proposal of majority rule is nothing but mob rule. It is the exact mindset that makes the ownership of firearms one of the most important issues to those of us that have taken the time to educate ourselves on the incrementalism necessary for totalitarianism. Your equating the existential threat that made the erosion of Liberty during WWII necessary to needing to give up rights in the name of "the war on terrorism" is the exact type of naivety I fear.”
“One man's tyranny is another man's "government". The people get to decide what they want and the labels really don't matter. The Constitution is completely flexible. Amendments can change anything. We could amend away the entire Bill of Rights if that's what the super majority required to do something like that really want to do. Or we could enact something like the ACA which some equate to "tyranny".
Is it possible that the government might do something the majority disapprove of, revoke the BOR for example, via some sort of gigantic conspiracy theory involving all of Congress, all the governors and the President? Sure, in some snow globe world that sort of thing might be possible. But it would take the support of the military, including all the soldiers at the grunt level, to enforce it. The probability that all of these orbs would line up perfectly to have something like this vanishes to insignificance.
In the meantime, from the perspective of those children and teachers as Sandy Hook, there was no act of tyranny greater than being slaughtered like they were. You swallow that as perfectly acceptable in order to protect your ability to revolt in a scenario that is less likely than getting hit by a meteorite. You strain for a gnat yet swallow a camel.
As for the specific cases where the government overreached... detainees, spying on citizens, etc... that stuff has been happening since 1779. Fix it and move on.”
Timothy Osman on Dec 6, 2013 at 10:21:09
“You are apparently missing the forest through the trees. The Bill of Rights has not been amended but are being usurped and flagrantly violated constantly. Germany was the most advanced nation in the world in the 1930's and they had a Constitution too. Being lined up and shot as a warning to other citizens for dissenting against the Nazis was not permitted by their Constitution. When government power is allowed to rise to a certain level, the consent of the governed is no longer necessary and the rule of law is not longer enforceable. Our Constitution is being incrementally destroyed but because of the 2 party paradigm we are trapped in so how do you propose to "fix it and move on". How much evidence do you need to see before you will realize that both parties are controlled by the same elite? All of Bush's substantive policies are being continued under Obama. They use a few wedge social issues to maintain the illusion of choice, but on policies that matter to the military industrial complex and the hegemony of our elite there are no differences between the parties. Once you understand that our Federal Reserve is private and is a Ponzi scheme you will see that anybody that challenges the status quo will be derided by both sides of the political spectrum. Do you know that the US has over 700 foreign military bases while Russia has 21? Do you not recognize blatant imperialism for what it is?”
“Which goes to my point that Heller was wrong. The ratifiers of the 2nd agreed to let civilians be armed with their muskets and join militias because that was state of the art for that time and that's what was needed to defend the country. Today, we'd have to arm them with "arms" like nuclear submarines, ICBMs, F22's and Apache helicopters, hardly the kind of thing you want the Adam Lanzas of the world to have control of. And so we no longer defend the nation with armed civilians, we have a formal, professional military, and we give them the jets, tanks and submarines.
The 2nd needs to be repealed and replaced with something that fits our needs here in the 21st century. If that means protecting people's right to bear certain kings of arms, so be it. But lets speak in 21st century terms and put to bed this arcane notion that we still need to defend the country with militias.
And that goes for the 1st too. Have it mean what we want and need it to mean in clea, 21st century terms.
These are 10 amendments to a human written document, not the 10 Commandments cast in stone.”
Dimensio on Dec 6, 2013 at 09:52:36
“Declaring a Supreme Court of the United States ruling to be "wrong" does not negate legal precedent.
You are free to advocate amendment of the United States Constitution. Until and unless such amendment occurs, however, the protections established by it remain law.”
“Do you really want to swap gospel verses, you defending the position that Jesus was prepared to kill others in his own defense and I defending the position that he was a pacifist who sacrificed himself FOR the sake of all, including his enemies?”
“We have an opportunity to completely overthrow everyone in the Executive and Legislative branches of our government every 6 years, incrementally in 2 year periods. You do know that, don't you? You do know that you don't need to be armed to vote, don't you? Have you read the Constitution? You should broaden your knowledge base by reading the history of this country and observing how leaders were ushered into and out of power by the people many, many times by virtue of how they voted. You should broaden your knowledge base more by reading about the Civil War and how a minority took it upon themselves to revolt against what they saw as tyranny in defense of slavery and how big a mistake that was. Or was Grant violating the 2nd amendment rights of the Confederate soldiers when Lee surrendered and he had them leave their guns behind?
Democracy is 2 lambs making sure the well armed wolf is properly restrained so that he doesn't kill other lambs and even himself.”
Timothy Osman on Dec 5, 2013 at 17:28:26
“So the crux of your position is really that we as Americans are somehow immune to tyranny because we have the right to vote regardless of all of the examples in history where the people voted in their own suppressor. Remind me again who it was that supposedly stated that "it doesnt matter who votes, only who counts the vote"? Do you find it surprising that every dictator who allowed voting always got a close to unanimous result? Believing that tyranny could never appear here just because it hasnt is the epitome of normalcy bias. Are you aware that the NDAA 2012 allows for indefinite detention without charges or trial of American citizens? If I told you 5 years ago that the NSA would have carte blanche to do whatever it wanted to do in the name of national security would you have believed it. Do you think Edward Snowden, who had a low level security clearance, was privy to parts of their programs are are even more nefarious in design? You might not have been paying attention the last 12 years on how easily manipulated public opinion is on whether giving up liberty for perceived security is, but some of us have. Those of us that have are not so prone to flippantly disregard the warnings of history of incremental tyranny and are not willing to bet the liberty of our children and their children on your naive beliefs that it cant happen here.”
“Sure, ban them too. And ban handguns too. Ban them all.
The AR15 was designed to be able to shoot more rounds in less time than a shotgun. Reloading by swapping out magazines is quicker and you have more rounds in each magazine. The overall firing rate and quantity of an AR15 is far, far superior to a shotgun.
As for devastating effects, it was said that many of the Sandy Hook child victims were unrecognizable by their parents. They had to be identified by the clothes they were wearing. Is that "devastating" enough for you? If you understood the basics of the projectiles that flowed from the barrel of that thing you would understand that they are designed to become unstable upon hitting something at which point they tumble and tear and rip flesh far, far more than a good-ole fashion WWI rifle round.”
157R4 on Dec 5, 2013 at 19:58:42
“Read and be enlightened -
Joint Service Combat Shotgun Program
W. Hays Parks
Special Assistant for Law of War Matters,
Office of The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army
“Yes, it's outdated because it speaks of defending the nation with militias composed of armed civilians. When's the last time we did anything like that? I never said the 2nd has anything to do with dodo birds. Reread.
The Sandy Hook massacre was the result or mixing a violent and mentally ill young man with very lethal weapons that were legally purchased and possessed. AL's mother did nothing illegal and as it turns out, was a victim of her own weapons (so much for her self defense justification for owning those things, huh?). This massacre, like others, comes from a society that values gun possession above that of the lives of its children. That much is abundantly clear.”
rlellis828 on Dec 5, 2013 at 16:29:00
“I believe you do NOT know the reason for "militias"”
rlellis828 on Dec 5, 2013 at 15:54:11
“Lanza's mother caused this........and this is NOT about gun possession but about a mother who REFUSED to take care of her sone”
“Yes, they're afraid. Unarmed students walk past them, off to class and unafraid. Children, unafraid, walk past on their way to the park armed only with frisbees. Old people with canes and walkers walk past unarmed on their way to the same park to watch the children. No fear, people just living their lives. But that's just too frightful a scenario for some. Guns are needed. The boogey-man could be anywhere. That or a tyrannical government.”
John Shuck on Dec 5, 2013 at 17:03:57
“Also afraid someone might have bigger gun. :-) Gun envy is a major mental health issue with these people.”
papa bear on Dec 5, 2013 at 16:57:15
“and then there was the 1400 people everyday that are saved with a gun, then there are the thousands of people every day that are victims of violent crimes, that didn't have a gun to protect them”
“You're right, trying to keep the guns out of these tiny, privately owned stores is not practical. On the other hand, a nation wide gun ban is both practical and has been demonstrated to be effective. So pick what works, right?”
“The issue is that guns can be used to kill others and they don't want that to happen in their stores. They could also go off accidentally, like that woman who shot herself in the hand, and they don't want that either. Neither do they want stray bullets from accidents like this flying around their stores. And they may also want to encourage people who dislike guns to enter their store, a "safe zone".
Sure, gun owners can walk past the signs with their guns. But they'd be breaking the law and would be subject to punishment. If nothing else, that's a deterrent.”
“But they do have the right to be free of the bullets that often spew from the barrels of their guns, whether intentionally or not. That woman shot herself in the hand and, I'm assuming, the bullet didn't hit anyone else. But it could have.”
“Fear is a tough thing to overcome. Gun owners are often afraid of each other and are thus motivated to arm themselves. They are afraid of their government and feel a need to be armed should it become necessary to stage a revolution. Its a tough nut to crack because the more you try to convince them that their fear is unfounded, the more frightened they get.”
“Had that Staples disarmed that woman shot herself in the hand, they would have been doing exactly that, keeping her safe, (from herself).”
ehouse463 on Dec 6, 2013 at 19:18:16
“she obviously was not carrying her firearm in a safe manner, she would've probably reached in her purse and accidently shot someone. Or they would've ended up fighting over the gun because at the time there was not law or "rule" the store had prohibiting from carrying.”
dennism123 on Dec 5, 2013 at 13:33:51
“They have no responsibility to keep her safe from herself. Her negligence is owned by her alone. I have no problem with a store posting a no gun sign, their property their rules.”