Ask Me Help Desk - When is the storming of a Capitol building acceptable ?

When is the storming of a Capitol building acceptable ?

When it happens in Nashville Tennessee .

Gun control activists storm Tennessee State Capitol as fears of a left-wing uprising loom | Daily Mail Online
Prior to forcing themselves into the building, hundreds were seen gathering outside airing chants of 'Save our children!' - phrase that reportedly echoed through the hallways between the state Senate and House chambers this afternoon.
Some remained peaceful as they filed into the Senate building - while others yelled at officials trying to make their way into areas protected by police.

This is what Kam the Sham said about the incident .

“A Democracy allows for places where the People’s voice will be heard and honored…”

The whole thing just drips with hypocrisy. The white legislator was not voted out because of her own testimony that she did not engage in the worst part of the demonstration. She then, of course, after protesting her own innocence, accused the TN legislature of racism for voting out the two black men but not her.

That's not how the people's voices are to be heard in a democracy. As Mrs. Harris said, "A Democracy allows for places where the People’s voice will be heard and honored…”

She implied that the attack on the state capitol was acceptable if the cause was right .

No longer called an insurrection

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FtITyTPa...jpg&name=small

Where was the pee and poop smeared on the floors and walls? The broken windows? The weapons? The costumes and makeup? Offices trashed and looted? Members of Congress ushered to safety?

Where were the politicians actually involved and leading the whole thing??? Oops. I’m sorry. They actually did have that element in Tennessee with the three dems.

And Trump in Washington. I think it was in 2021. January? Maybe on the 6th? You know, those tourists taking pictures.

Trump was not at all involved in that demonstration.

Only as the instigator. He certainly wouldn't want to be with that mob and get his outfit soiled or his shoes coated with poop or his hair mussed.

Tennessee state law enforcement had no idea the state capitol would be stormed .Still they did their jobs and prevented a more serious incident from happening .

Maybe if the Feds did their job instead of planning more ways to get Trump, the US Capitol could've been defended better
Maybe US Capitol police should not have had stand down orders from Madam Mimi and from the DC Mayor. Maybe Trump's offer to have the National Guard on duty at the Capitol should've been accepted .

What happened in Nashville was; without warning , a mob bum rushed the doors of the Capitol. They were unsuccessful . January 6 everyone knew of the possibility of a riot for more than a month . The unanswered question is why wasn't the Capitol protected given the importance of the event being held there that day ?????

Two totally different situations.

Quote:

Maybe Trump's offer to have the National Guard on duty at the Capitol should've been accepted .

Awfully strange behavior from the guy who supposedly was the "instigator" of the disturbance.

Yes, it was two totally different situations. 1/6 was strictly civilians. The Tennessee demonstration was led and REALLY instigated by liberal dem pols, so your observation is quite correct, though perhaps not in the way you intended.

Hope all you have a wonderful Easter tomorrow and worship the risen Christ.

nothing says 'democratic process' like drowning out debate in a state house with a bull horn. When you don't have the votes shout loud enough to disrupt normal legislative procedures.
Kam the Sham flew to Nashville to praise such disruption of the legislative process . Did she take the time to meet with the victim's families of the shooting ? Nah But last year she was in Buffalo to comfort the victims of a similar attack

In Nashville you see .It is not that a majority is denying the legislative process from taking place that they object to because that is not what's happening .. They object that the majority is preventing the outcome they desire.

Politicians are tearing down the guardrails because they're convinced they're always right (nypost.com)

Quote:

Expelled Tennessee Democrat blames 'White supremacist system' for being removed from House seat.

As predictable as the sun rising in the east.

Ran across this today while helping a weak as water preacher prepare a sermon. In 1644, a Scottish Presbyterian minister named Samuel Rutherford wrote the book Lex, Rex, Latin for "The law is King." It was revolutionary. In it, he made these four points. Oh that we would go back to them.

1, What is the purpose of government? The glory of God and the wellbeing of the people in both outward and spiritual terms.

2. Who or what brings government into being? It is brought into being by God and the people by means of a contract or covenant.

3. What is the nature of government? Government involves declaring, applying and enforcing the law.

4. What are the limits on government? Government cannot go beyond God’s law and command what is contrary to it or abuse the people.

What is the purpose of guns? Weekly (or more often) mass murder.

P.S. The 2nd Amendment was about guns for a well-regulated militia, not for individual use.

Why did you bring up the subject of guns?

At any rate, what was a militia in colonial times?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Why did you bring up the subject of guns?

To quote you and add to your list, "oh that we would go back to" a country without many guns.

Quote:

At any rate, what was a militia in colonial times?

Well-regulated. Controlled. Responsible. Use guns only to protect the people's freedom and rights.

Colonial militias were assemblies of local men, usually poorly trained and organized and generally not having uniforms, which could be assembled quickly for local defense. It was not the army. They relied on men owning their own guns.

Quote:

To quote you and add to your list, "oh that we would go back to" a country without many guns.

When was the U.S. a country "without many guns"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Colonial militias were assemblies of local men, usually poorly trained and organized and generally not having uniforms, which could be assembled quickly for local defense. It was not the army. They relied on men owning their own guns.

Now the Army can own all the guns and distribute them when needed to fight a war. Otherwise, no private gun ownership, especially not asssult-type weapons.

Quote:

When was the U.S. a country "without many guns"?

When I was growing up until fairly recently. Now there's a mass murder weekly or even more often.

Quote:

the Army can own all the guns and distribute them when needed to fight a war.

When has that ever happened? Did it happen in Germany, Japan, and Italy in the 30's? Did it happen in North Vietnam? Is it happening now in Russia or North Korea? If you are counting on an oppressive government to hand out guns to citizens in general, you'll be waiting a long time.

Quote:

When I was growing up until fairly recently.

Oh come on. Surely you must know that's a silly contention, that there was not widespread gun ownership in your childhood. There is no data to support that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

When has that ever happened?

The Army doesn't supply guns and ammunition to its soldiers?

Quote:

Oh come on. Surely you must know that's a silly contention, that there was not widespread gun ownership in your childhood. There is no data to support that.

There were few if any mass killings. Guns were used for target shooting and for hunting. My dad owned guns (bb gun and a .22 -- no assault weapons) and taught me how to load, unload, and target shoot. And the fact that there wasn't widespread gun ownership kept the murder and suicide rates low.

Distributing guns "to its soldiers" (who would already have them since...they are soldiers) is not the point. It's civilian ownership that we are talking about and which is important. It allows the populace to overthrow a repressive government just as happened in the Revolution.

First you refer to mass killings (There were few if any mass killings.), but then you refer to gun ownership (there wasn't widespread gun ownership). The first I agree with. The second is flat wrong and you have no data at all to support such a false contention. It shows what I really dislike about trying to discuss anything with you. It just strikes me repeatedly that you have too little regard for the truth.

But perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you can defend that???

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Distributing guns "to its soldiers" (who would already have them since...they are soldiers) is not the point. It's civilian ownership that we are talking about and which is important. It allows the populace to overthrow a repressive government just as happened in the Revolution.

The military (composed of the populace) has truckloads of guns, cannons, and ammunition. The general population doesn't need any of it.

Quote:

First you refer to mass killings (There were few if any mass killings.), but then you refer to gun ownership (there wasn't widespread gun ownership). The first I agree with. The second is flat wrong and you have no data at all to support such a false contention.

How many mass murders were there in the U.S. between 1950 and 1955?

Mass Public Shootings per Decade
1900s : 0
1910s: 2
1920s: 2
1930s: 9
1940s: 8
1950s: 1
1960s: 6
1970s: 13
1980s: 32
1990s: 42
2000s: 28
2010s (three years): 14
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/the-h...gs-in-the-u-s/

Quote:

It shows what I really dislike about trying to discuss anything with you. It just strikes me repeatedly that you have too little regard for the truth.

This is why I stop posting here. You just cannot leave your little feelies out of any discussion. Goodbye.

You did not carefully read my post about repressive governments.

I have already told you that I would agree that mass murders have increased greatly. It is gun ownership that has NOT increased greatly.

Instead of leaving, why don't you simply find data to support your positions? I assure you that if you said that of me, it would not bother me a bit. I would either support my position or admit to being wrong. Why don't you try that? I say that objectively, with no meanness intended.

A person can be too sensitive, you know. I guess I'm not accustomed to talking with someone who gets upset so easily. I actually remind myself to be kind when I post with you.

1 Attachment(s)

Attachment 49459

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I have already told you that I would agree that mass murders have increased greatly. It is gun ownership that has NOT increased greatly.

Of course it has, as has the population -- as has the problem of mental illness and mental struggles. Individuals only recently have owned assault-type weapons.

Quote:

Instead of leaving, why don't you simply find data to support your positions?

I did and posted it in my previous reply.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...r%20possession.

“Half of all mass killings in the United States have occurred since the assault weapons ban expired in 2005, half of all of them in the history of the country.”
— Former President Bill Clinton, at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Jan. 9, 2013

A colleague spotted this eye-popping statistic by the former president and wondered if it was correct.

Clinton signed the assault weapons ban into law in 1994, but it expired after 10 years and was not renewed. Even supporters have said it was riddled with loopholes, limiting its effectiveness. But the rash of mass shootings in recent years, including the Newtown, Conn., tragedy, have provided new impetus for a renewed ban.
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/the-h...gs-in-the-u-s/

Quote:

Of course it has, as has the population

The rate of gun ownership has stayed steady. Mass shootings have increased greatly, and no one has suggested otherwise.

You posted data to support mass shootings, but I have repeatedly said that I agree with that. It is gun ownership that is the disagreement. You claimed initially there were "not many guns" which was clearly wrong. Now I'm not sure what you are claiming. Perhaps you referring to the total number of guns?

But there is an interesting question in all of this. Using your very good data, what has changed since the 1950's and now? It is not gun ownership. That has stayed pretty consistent, so what has changed to explain this phenomenon? Why have mass shootings increased so very dramatically?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

But there is an interesting question in all of this. Using your very good data, what has changed since the 1950's and now? It is not gun ownership. That has stayed pretty consistent, so what has changed to explain this phenomenon?

I went back and posted that too -- mental illness and mental struggles. As you have already posted elsewhere, the dissolution of the American family, plus the recent work, family, and personal upsets by Covid, and possibly even climate change (all the especially recent weather upheavals by storms, winds, tornadoes, hurricanes, widespread fires, et al.).

Quote:

“Half of all mass killings in the United States have occurred since the assault weapons ban expired in 2005, half of all of them in the history of the country.”

Using your data, that is clearly not correct. Just in the three decades of the 70's, 80's, and 90's, there were nearly 100. Since 05 the number is somewhere around 30. Again, that is using the data you posted.

Quote:

I went back and posted that too -- mental illness and mental struggles. As you have already posted elsewhere, the dissolution of the American family, plus the recent work, family, and personal upsets by Covid, and possibly even vlimate change (all the especially recent weather upheavals by storms, winds, tornadoes, hurricanes, widespread fires, et al.

I actually rather agree with that answer, except for the part about climate disasters which have NOT been increasing. Covid is much too recent. It can't account for the 50 years before 2020.

I would add that the rise of atheism and the decline of the Christian faith has made a large difference. Atheism cannot assign any inherent worth to people, so killing a person seems to be a great deal less serious using that world view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The rate of gun ownership has stayed steady. Mass shootings have increased greatly, and no one has suggested otherwise.

Please read my Post #30.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Using your data, that is clearly not correct. Just in the three decades of the 70's, 80's, and 90's, there were nearly 100. Since 05 the number is somewhere around 30. Again, that is using the data you posted.

Asssult weapons were always used, as they are now?

And mental problems have skyrocketed. I know that just from being a Facebook member and chatter.

I already have and have responded to it in post 33, so I don't know what your point is. What Clinton said, according to your data, is not even close to being correct.

Again:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images...post-right.png
Using your data, that is clearly not correct. Just in the three decades of the 70's, 80's, and 90's, there were nearly 100. Since 05 the number is somewhere around 30. Again, that is using the data you posted.

Asssult weapons were always used, as they are now?

And mental problems have skyrocketed. I know that just from being a Facebook member and chatter.

Either Clinton's statement was wrong, or your data, which I used, was wrong, so I really don't know what your point is. As I posted, "Just in the three decades of the 70's, 80's, and 90's, there were nearly 100. Since 05 the number is somewhere around 30."

Assault weapons? I don't know what was used in the 80's and 90's. It really doesn't matter. A man with two semi-auto pistols can do as much damage as a man with a so-called "assault weapon". It's the heart that is the problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It's the heart that is the problem.

And the brain. Again, along with the population, mental problems have skyrocketed. I know that just from being a Facebook member and chatter.

After every shooting, I whisper, "Why?!"

That does seem to be the case. I wonder why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That does seem to be the case. I wonder why?

As I posted in #32, "As you have already posted elsewhere, the dissolution of the American family, plus the recent work, family, and personal upsets by Covid, and possibly even climate change."