• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which of these memorials is appropriate?

Which of these memorials is appropriate?

  • A Mathew Sheppard memorial built by Fred Phelps.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • A gun-free zone memorial honoring all the people murdered by guns in gun free zones.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • A 2nd amendment memorial honoring all the people murdered with guns.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • None of those are appropriate.

    Votes: 5 83.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 16.7%

  • I do not know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    6
jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Which of these memorials is appropriate?

A Mathew Sheppard memorial built by Fred Phelps.
A gun-free zone memorial honoring all the people murdered by guns in gun free zones.
A 2nd amendment memorial honoring all the people murdered by guns.
None of those are appropriate.
Other
I do not know.
 
A monument built to honor all the dead who were murdered with guns would fill city blocks if all from today and history were included upon it. There is not a monument large enough to accommodate all the people murdered with guns so I could not vote for any of them as it is not practical.

I would vote for a memorial to the innocent victims of national mass murder tragedies like Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine and others in that category. There are individual such monuments built or in the planning stages. However, they tend to be local and rarely seen by anyone other than the locals who live there. In that regard they are just like local Viet Nam memorials to honor local townspeople who died there. We still built a national monument in Washington as a national tribute for all the American people. We should do the same with innocent victims of mass murders.
 
Agenda driven memorials are just plain offensive.
 
Ray410 said:
Agenda driven memorials are just plain offensive.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because you perceive their purpose to be against YOUR OWN AGENDA.
 
haymarket said:
A monument built to honor all the dead who were murdered with guns would fill city blocks if all from today and history were included upon it. There is not a monument large enough to accommodate all the people murdered with guns so I could not vote for any of them as it is not practical.

I would vote for a memorial to the innocent victims of national mass murder tragedies like Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine and others in that category. There are individual such monuments built or in the planning stages. However, they tend to be local and rarely seen by anyone other than the locals who live there. In that regard they are just like local Viet Nam memorials to honor local townspeople who died there. We still built a national monument in Washington as a national tribute for all the American people. We should do the same with innocent victims of mass murders.
Click to expand...

We can call it a monument to gov't trusting morons, reminding us of those killed in "gun free" zones, and can list the response time of police in each case. I see you express "special" concern only for those that died in a group due to gunfire, the poor slob killed in their sleep so that a criminal could ransack their home does not make the grade, or the child hit with a stray bullet from a drive by shooting. Sad that to be "innocent", in your warped world, one must be included in a "big" crime involving a gun, fleeing like a bunny or cringing like a coward as they await armed assistance from the gov't, not those just beaten to death in their sleep or mowed down by a drunk running a red light in a car. Dead is dead, being an "innocent" crime victim is being an "innocent" crime victim - unless you have a political agenda in mind, of course.
 
As long as it is a memorial paid for with private funds placed on private property, build memorials to anything you want as far as I am concerned.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We can call it a monument to gov't trusting morons,
Click to expand...

A rather callous way to characterize the people killed in Sandy Hook. But it is revealing.
 
That's easy - none of the above. Ray and others already said why.
 
jamesrage said:
Which of these memorials is appropriate?

A Mathew Sheppard memorial built by Fred Phelps.
A gun-free zone memorial honoring all the people murdered by guns in gun free zones.
A 2nd amendment memorial honoring all the people murdered by guns.
None of those are appropriate.
Other
I do not know.
Click to expand...

Whichever one the local people desire.
 
haymarket said:
A rather callous way to characterize the people killed in Sandy Hook. But it is revealing.
Click to expand...

No more callous that your treatment of all non-mass murder victims. Did the rest simply have it comming? Did those not killed, but merely injured, raped or beaten not suffer as well from crime? It is silly to elevate only a few selected crime victims to "memorable" status. Get over yourself! Your concern is obviously not for all crime victims but for trying to assert some "root cause" nonsense, specifically the right to self armed defense, as a major "contributing factor" to being a crime victim. Focus upon the mass shooting crimes, averaging two per year, in a nation of 310 million people, with about as many guns as people, is a great for the liberal cause of gun control, but is hardly adressing the majority of crime victims, or even gun crime victims. A gun alone, has not committed a single crime, that requires a criminal, with intent (or insanity) to abuse it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
No more callous that your treatment of all non-mass murder victims. Did the rest simply have it comming? Did those not killed, but merely injured, raped or beaten not suffer as well from crime? It is silly to elevate only a few selected crime victims to "memorable" status. Get over yourself! Your concern is obviously not for all crime victims but for trying to assert some "root cause" nonsense, specifically the right to self armed defense, as a major "contributing factor" to being a crime victim. Focus upon the mass shooting crimes, averaging two per year, in a nation of 310 million people, with about as many guns as people, is a great for the liberal cause of gun control, but is hardly adressing the majority of crime victims, or even gun crime victims. A gun alone, has not committed a single crime, that requires a criminal, with intent (or insanity) to abuse it.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense on any level.

You call the victims of mass murders morons. How does that equate with anything I have said?
 
haymarket said:
That makes no sense on any level.

You call the victims of mass murders morons. How does that equate with anything I have said?
Click to expand...

Anyone that accepts legally requiring all to remain unarmed, in a "gun free" zone, while offered no other other means of protection, not so much as a single security officer or even locked doors, is indeed a moron. Try placing a large sign on your lawn decalring it to be a gun free zone and see if that makes you feel safer, or just more of a moron. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Anyone that accepts legally requiring all to remain unarmed, in a "gun free" zone, while offered no other other means of protection, not so much as a single security officer or even locked doors, is indeed a moron. Try placing a large sign on your lawn decalring it to be a gun free zone and see if that makes you feel safer, or just more of a moron. ;)
Click to expand...

So those 26 people slaughtered at Sandy Hook were then morons in your estimation.
 
More memorials we need NOT.
No vote...
What we do need is to learn as a nation ...to better ourselves...I doubt if the first step has been taken....the first step is to repeal the 2nd amandment....and rewrite it concisely and for the times..
I'll give Congress 50 years for this task...
 
Last edited:
Memorials have and will always be a waste of time, land, and money. I see absolutely no reason they should exist to begin with let alone add more memorials on top of the ones we already have. I don't frankly care if people want to build them on their own property for whatever purpose they desire, but like memorials built by the government they are also entirely pointless. Just an enormous waste of resources, time, labor, land, and money standing there for all to see demonstrating how stupid the person that put that thing there is.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Memorials have and will always be a waste of time, land, and money. I see absolutely no reason they should exist to begin with let alone add more memorials on top of the ones we already have.
Click to expand...

Some years ago I was in Washington DC on business and accompanied a friend to the Viet Nam Memorial as he had a brother who died there. I left him to be alone with his experience and I wandered up and down the structure. Along the way there was an older woman who was watching a hippy-ish looking man on a ladder up near the top of the wall where it gets taller in the middle. He had a piece of paper and was doing a rubbing of a name. He climbed down and presented it to the woman who clutched it to her chest and would not let go. She was crying and tried to mouth the words 'thank you' to the man but the words just would not come out. Some other person - probably a relative thanked the man and the woman buried her head into the persons chest and really sobbed. I had to wipe away tear just witnessing this amazing moment and wondering what it could possible have meant to her.

Yeah - we got too many damn memorials..... freakin waste of time, land and money. :roll:
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Anyone that accepts legally requiring all to remain unarmed, in a "gun free" zone, while offered no other other means of protection, not so much as a single security officer or even locked doors, is indeed a moron. Try placing a large sign on your lawn decalring it to be a gun free zone and see if that makes you feel safer, or just more of a moron. ;)
Click to expand...
Disagree, of course, and what you say, ttwwt, is not true..
I do feel that a "no guns" zone is a poor idea given the quality of people that we have...Buy backs are another concept of dubious worth..
Now I believe that the 2nd amendment should be repealed. Concisely and properly rewritten for the times of the 21st century, not 300 years ago..
 
haymarket said:
So those 26 people slaughtered at Sandy Hook were then morons in your estimation.
Click to expand...

Only if they are allowed to be memorialized rather than have action taken to prevent a recurrence. You do realize that every gun "banned" from 1994 to 2004 was still "on the street", that adding registration/taxation to all existing "legal" guns, or any other crime "prevention" program based on gun control, will not stop those intent on "going out with a bang" from doing so.

My point is that you do not have to lock yourself in a vault to be less likely to be a crime victim, you simply have to make it a bit harder to get to you than to get to your neighbor. Criminals are basically lazy cowards and will hit the easiest perceived target of opportunity.

The CT school target was known to the perp, as his mother volunteered there, so that was sort of a special case, as was the Columbine deal, the targets were familiar territory. The fact remains that the softer the target the more likely it is to be tried. It still amazes me that the first victim, the perps own mother, executed in her own bed, is excluded as a crime victim in your mind.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Only if they are allowed to be memorialized rather than have action taken to prevent a recurrence.
Click to expand...

I know of no memorial where it is built and part of the deal is that action is taken to prevent a recurrence.

Do you?
 
Henrin said:
Memorials have and will always be a waste of time, land, and money. I see absolutely no reason they should exist to begin with let alone add more memorials on top of the ones we already have. I don't frankly care if people want to build them on their own property for whatever purpose they desire, but like memorials built by the government they are also entirely pointless. Just an enormous waste of resources, time, labor, land, and money standing there for all to see demonstrating how stupid the person that put that thing there is.
Click to expand...

You are not a "lover of mankind" are you ?
Closer is the opposite of that, IMO.
 
haymarket said:
Some years ago I was in Washington DC on business and accompanied a friend to the Viet Nam Memorial as he had a brother who died there. I left him to be alone with his experience and I wandered up and down the structure. Along the way there was an older woman who was watching a hippy-ish looking man on a ladder up near the top of the wall where it gets taller in the middle. He had a piece of paper and was doing a rubbing of a name. He climbed down and presented it to the woman who clutched it to her chest and would not let go. She was crying and tried to mouth the words 'thank you' to the man but the words just would not come out. Some other person - probably a relative thanked the man and the woman buried her head into the persons chest and really sobbed. I had to wipe away tear just witnessing this amazing moment and wondering what it could possible have meant to her.

Yeah - we got too many damn memorials..... freakin waste of time, land and money. :roll:
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are saying its used as a source to remember those we lost, but then, there is thousands of things that do the same thing and don't have any of the down sides as this.
 
Henrin said:
Sounds like you are saying its used as a source to remember those we lost, but then, there is thousands of things that do the same thing and don't have any of the down sides as this.
Click to expand...

Down sides? What are you talking about?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We can call it a monument to gov't trusting morons, reminding us of those killed in "gun free" zones, and can list the response time of police in each case. I see you express "special" concern only for those that died in a group due to gunfire, the poor slob killed in their sleep so that a criminal could ransack their home does not make the grade, or the child hit with a stray bullet from a drive by shooting. Sad that to be "innocent", in your warped world, one must be included in a "big" crime involving a gun, fleeing like a bunny or cringing like a coward as they await armed assistance from the gov't, not those just beaten to death in their sleep or mowed down by a drunk running a red light in a car. Dead is dead, being an "innocent" crime victim is being an "innocent" crime victim - unless you have a political agenda in mind, of course.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of the posts written by children on CraigsList.
 
earthworm said:
Disagree, of course, and what you say, ttwwt, is not true..
I do feel that a "no guns" zone is a poor idea given the quality of people that we have...Buy backs are another concept of dubious worth..
Now I believe that the 2nd amendment should be repealed. Concisely and properly rewritten for the times of the 21st century, not 300 years ago..
Click to expand...

I gave you a "like" for both your honesty and your clearly stated 2A position. Of the two, I really like only the former. ;)

Out of cuiousity, just what exactly would you recommend as the "up to date" 2A wording?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom