Infowars attacking Ed

jbalicki10

Mawky1103 wrote:

What he said in Hartford was spot on. It was a really emotional night. He has every right to say whatever he wants. I love it. Never afraid to speak his mind in 20+ years. You have to admire that, no matter what you believe in.

+1
I agree. I also want to say thanks to all who disagree with me and have a normal conversation about this without any personal attacks. It shows the quality of people who follow the band we all love and enjoy.

silentJ

scalelokt wrote:

I guess what I dont understand is since Ed isnt a politician and has no say whatsoever in whether you can have a gun or not, who cares what he thinks about it? I don't see why it matters. If you like owning a gun Ed can't take it from you, if you are against guns Ed can't do a thing about that either. I guess you can argue that his stature as a musician gives his opinons some extra weight? But I'm not sure I agree with that, I doubt anything Ed has ever said has changed anyone's minds on guns one way or another, so who cares what he says about it? I dont see why the people at infowars feel so threatened by it, kind of silly. Now if Obama made a speech like that I could at least understand their concern since he actually has the power to do something about it. But a whole article about something Ed said? Who cares? Pretty paranoid if you ask me.

I think the extra weight comes from the extra amount of spotlight he has due to his celebrity. If I made the same speech probably not one person would listen to me let alone write an article about it. I do agree who cares what someone thinks who has no power to change policy. Definitely not something to get up in arms about. The reason (IMO) that people do write articles like these is to try and rally others to their cause. "Look what X said, I'm so outraged! Let's unite!" A pathetic attempt to recruit more believers using shock strategies.

South of Seattle

brianlux wrote:

Two of the same threads started by the same person in two different forum categories (here and AMT). OK, I'll repeat myself as well:

Well not many are active in the Train these days.

ski4

PureandEasy wrote:

I could say I'm conflicted about taking away the rights of lawful "responsible" gun owners.

Until one of the best people that ever walked on this Earth died as the result of a loaded gun being left where it had no business being.

It was in a kitchen drawer, she reached for a kitchen towel, the gun went off and wreaked havoc on her intestines, her liver, her insides.

She used to tell me how much hated guns, but she loved her husband and I know he loved her.

In my opinion, if you're that into guns, having to store them at a gun range isn't too much to ask.

Nor is accepting background checks or waiting periods TOO much to ask to keep the guns away from mentally unstable people.

this is a irresponsible gun owner and a tragic story. this is something that many should learn from.

i am against gun control beyond our current laws but all for responsible ownership and storage, ESPCECIALLY when kids are around

ski4

BinFrog wrote:

klusterfuk wrote:

gun control hurts the law abiding owners. bad guys don't give a shit. they will always get their guns. I'm all for background checks and a waiting period but that won't fix the problem.

Then feel free to suggest a place to start. Because we HAVE to start somewhere.

As a nurse with nearly 20 years in the field I will tell you exactly where to start.
Mental health. All of the mass killers were either diagnosed already or most likely would be if they had seen a professional.

most are on SSRI. these drugs work wonderfully for depression. they make you numb ( so to speak)
that is also why there is a warning on these drugs about higher potential for suicide. it numbs that part of you that would not do this normally. guess murder is pretty related to that.

Now working in this field, I can tell you that most people do not have access to good mental health, or if they do it's not easy to get in when you need to. If you have a psychiatric emergency, you go to the er, they sit on you for 3 days and let you go home. For the vast majority of people this is how it goes.

we need to really get mental health under control in this country. if you look at the pyschological health of this nation vs. other industrialized nations you will find a large disparity. to compound that problem we don't have the needed caregivers and science/meds to help . that's my 2 cents anyhow on how to start the conversation. thanks

PJ_Soul

Champagne Breakfast wrote:

I personally, in my opinion, agree 100% with EV and want stricter gun laws. The thing that I don't love is that PJ and EV solo tours often have gun images in their posters. I know there are hidden anti-gun statements in there. Even the mind your manners art & shirt I find to not be the greatest idea, just my personal preference.

I wouldn't call the statements hidden! I think they are pretty blatant anti-gun statements. So if that's not your thing and the posters are making purposeful statements that you don't agree with (or you just don't like the message in the artwork, which is where you seem to stand), you probably shouldn't buy the poster.
(do people just forget that PJ is and always has been a very politically and socially outspoken band, or are they in conscious denial?? I mean, EV does anti-gun speeches at the shows and wrote Glorified G and MYM and shit... how are people just now complaining about "hidden" anti-gun messages in posters? I don't get it... why wouldn't their messages be reflected in the artwork when it's reflected in their music?... I know you don'tndisagree with the actual message.itself C-B. Just talking more generally here.).

actonplp

I live in ME, where hunting and guns are a big way of life & most homes have guns in them (including mine). But until the past few years, gun violence was fairly rare here & it’s scary to consider that the knock on the door may be some desperate junkies waiting to force their way in get your prescription drugs and weapons.

I am not totally against people arming themselves for protection, but I feel better relying the Bear Spray & stun gun for my personal safety. I’d rather blast some young punk with high powered pepper spray, or zap the shit out of him than end up killing someone.


Oct. 15, 2013 Worcester, MA

Bant

ski4 wrote:

BinFrog wrote:

klusterfuk wrote:

gun control hurts the law abiding owners. bad guys don't give a shit. they will always get their guns. I'm all for background checks and a waiting period but that won't fix the problem.

Then feel free to suggest a place to start. Because we HAVE to start somewhere.

As a nurse with nearly 20 years in the field I will tell you exactly where to start.
Mental health. All of the mass killers were either diagnosed already or most likely would be if they had seen a professional.

most are on SSRI. these drugs work wonderfully for depression. they make you numb ( so to speak)
that is also why there is a warning on these drugs about higher potential for suicide. it numbs that part of you that would not do this normally. guess murder is pretty related to that.

Now working in this field, I can tell you that most people do not have access to good mental health, or if they do it's not easy to get in when you need to. If you have a psychiatric emergency, you go to the er, they sit on you for 3 days and let you go home. For the vast majority of people this is how it goes.

we need to really get mental health under control in this country. if you look at the pyschological health of this nation vs. other industrialized nations you will find a large disparity. to compound that problem we don't have the needed caregivers and science/meds to help . that's my 2 cents anyhow on how to start the conversation. thanks

Finally. We have a winner.

polaris_x

scalelokt wrote:

I guess what I dont understand is since Ed isnt a politician and has no say whatsoever in whether you can have a gun or not, who cares what he thinks about it? I don't see why it matters. If you like owning a gun Ed can't take it from you, if you are against guns Ed can't do a thing about that either. I guess you can argue that his stature as a musician gives his opinons some extra weight? But I'm not sure I agree with that, I doubt anything Ed has ever said has changed anyone's minds on guns one way or another, so who cares what he says about it? I dont see why the people at infowars feel so threatened by it, kind of silly. Now if Obama made a speech like that I could at least understand their concern since he actually has the power to do something about it. But a whole article about something Ed said? Who cares? Pretty paranoid if you ask me.

someone actually admitted earlier that ed changed his/her opinion on abortion ...

as someone who was at the show ... the main part of his message which has been lost in all of this is that he believes that people need to make their voice heard ... that the only reason a particular agenda is being pushed is because they are very loud ... nothing wrong in trying to rally the troops ... if he gets 2 people to write a letter to their representatives - it would have been worth it to him ...

curmudgeoness

ski4 wrote:

most are on SSRI. these drugs work wonderfully for depression. they make you numb ( so to speak)
that is also why there is a warning on these drugs about higher potential for suicide. it numbs that part of you that would not do this normally. guess murder is pretty related to that.

Now working in this field, I can tell you that most people do not have access to good mental health, or if they do it's not easy to get in when you need to. If you have a psychiatric emergency, you go to the er, they sit on you for 3 days and let you go home. For the vast majority of people this is how it goes.

... except when they make the depression worse. The problem with so many of these meds is that they work well for some people, but not for everyone.

What's available as far as mental health care goes in this country is, by and large, garbage. A good pediatric psychiatrist has a six-month waiting list; when you REALLY need one, six months is as good as never, and the docs available on short notice are not worth the time and effort.

Mental health care is more art than science, and properly treating many people involves time, money and attention -- good luck with that!

So, yes, I'd like to see major changes in that realm. I'd also like to see more open dialogue about mental health issues and a lessening of the stigma associated with those issues. The hate and fear that come out of so many people when the issue is raised is counterproductive on so many levels.

Signed, mother of special-needs child.

RKCNDY

South of Seattle wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Two of the same threads started by the same person in two different forum categories (here and AMT). OK, I'll repeat myself as well:

Well not many are active in the Train these days.

I think most of them got a permanent time out...

BinFrog

ski4 wrote:

BinFrog wrote:

klusterfuk wrote:

gun control hurts the law abiding owners. bad guys don't give a shit. they will always get their guns. I'm all for background checks and a waiting period but that won't fix the problem.

Then feel free to suggest a place to start. Because we HAVE to start somewhere.

As a nurse with nearly 20 years in the field I will tell you exactly where to start.
Mental health. All of the mass killers were either diagnosed already or most likely would be if they had seen a professional.

most are on SSRI. these drugs work wonderfully for depression. they make you numb ( so to speak)
that is also why there is a warning on these drugs about higher potential for suicide. it numbs that part of you that would not do this normally. guess murder is pretty related to that.

Now working in this field, I can tell you that most people do not have access to good mental health, or if they do it's not easy to get in when you need to. If you have a psychiatric emergency, you go to the er, they sit on you for 3 days and let you go home. For the vast majority of people this is how it goes.

we need to really get mental health under control in this country. if you look at the pyschological health of this nation vs. other industrialized nations you will find a large disparity. to compound that problem we don't have the needed caregivers and science/meds to help . that's my 2 cents anyhow on how to start the conversation. thanks

You won't find me disagreeing with this at all.

South of Seattle

RKCNDY wrote:

South of Seattle wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Two of the same threads started by the same person in two different forum categories (here and AMT). OK, I'll repeat myself as well:

Well not many are active in the Train these days.

I think most of them got a permanent time out...

I miss the old train :(

Emm

brianlux wrote:

Emm wrote:

Hi guys, im new here, not new to PJ or there feelings on the current gun laws in America. This is a topic ive discussed with my hubby so many times and leaves us both scratching our heads as to why the American government chooses to do nothing at all about gun control in your country. Im sure this is going to make me unpopular with many here but I have always had trouble holding my tongue and this is something im pretty passionate about.

Im in Australia and I grew up around guns, my dad has always had them and used them for hunting. It must be nearly 15 years ago now that Australia brought in tighter gun laws outlawing automatic weapons and restricting semi automatic guns among other things. The laws restricted gun owners on what they could and couldn't be in possession of as well as how guns must be housed. (ie; in a gun safe which is locked at all times and ammunition stored in a separate housing). It made people be responsible for their guns and who had access to them.

The restructure of our laws came about after Australia's worst massacres and since the laws have been enforced we have not had another mass killing.
When the laws came into effect my dad had to hand in a couple of semi auto guns ... and many 1000's had to do the same, some of the guns had been in families for a long time ... these people had the option to have the guns disabled and retain ownership of them.
Now my Dad still has guns and he still goes hunting, it hasn't really effected his time as a hunter .... I imagine the US government would also benefit from similar laws.

I don't understand why any one who is not fighting in a war needs a automatic or semi automatic weapon ... take these weapons off the streets and then you stop a large percentage of mass killings

I don't think Ed, PJ (or your government) is talking about taking all guns out of American homes

Welcome to the PJ forum and thank you for very sensible comments!

Thank you! Its refreshing to read an adult debate on this subject for once ... I must have found myself in the right place

Given2Fly-Fish

Probably should have posted this here instead of starting a thread. Anyway, here is why it is so F'N difficult to get common sense gun laws in our country:

Here is what the NRA spent on elections in 2012 and more info on outside spending by NRA:

Grand Total Spent on 2012 Federal Elections: $19,767,043

http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespend ... cycle=2012

BaileyT

Just gotta say that I love the fact that, even though Eddie was recently ripped on by Fox (whatever :roll: ) for what he said in the Mark Richards interview, he continues to speak his mind. He embodies the full meaning of patriotism. I kinda enjoyed the infowars article, admittedly because the thought of the "experience of bearing witness to Ed Vedder piss on himself" and Eddie "Speaking in a sermonic manner over soft organ notes" really turns me on... :nono:

jbalicki10

Given2Fly-Fish wrote:

Probably should have posted this here instead of starting a thread. Anyway, here is why it is so F'N difficult to get common sense gun laws in our country:

Here is what the NRA spent on elections in 2012 and more info on outside spending by NRA:

Grand Total Spent on 2012 Federal Elections: $19,767,043

http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespend ... cycle=2012

So what "common sense gun laws" do speak of that are not already on the books? Do these apply to our Government? (IE police, military, body guards?)

Yes, I agree on your second point. Lobby groups and Corps. have destroyed our Senate and House of Rep. including the NRA.

Given2Fly-Fish

jbalicki10 wrote:

Given2Fly-Fish wrote:

Probably should have posted this here instead of starting a thread. Anyway, here is why it is so F'N difficult to get common sense gun laws in our country:

Here is what the NRA spent on elections in 2012 and more info on outside spending by NRA:

Grand Total Spent on 2012 Federal Elections: $19,767,043

http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespend ... cycle=2012

So what "common sense gun laws" do speak of that are not already on the books? Do these apply to our Government? (IE police, military, body guards?)

Yes, I agree on your second point. Lobby groups and Corps. have destroyed our Senate and House of Rep. including the NRA.

First, there is a long tradition of hunting and gun ownership in the US which I have no problem with. However, I believe that we need to adopt "common sense" legislation that restricts automatic weapons, like Australia (and longer waiting periods/background checks). The only thing automatic weapons are good for is killing a bunch of people. But this will cut down on gun sales and ammo sales and the NRA will never budge on this issue because the board of directors is made up of gun & ammo manufacturers.

jbalicki10

Given2Fly-Fish wrote:

jbalicki10 wrote:

So what "common sense gun laws" do speak of that are not already on the books? Do these apply to our Government? (IE police, military, body guards?)

Yes, I agree on your second point. Lobby groups and Corps. have destroyed our Senate and House of Rep. including the NRA.

First, there is a long tradition of hunting and gun ownership in the US which I have no problem with. However, I believe that we need to adopt "common sense" legislation that restricts automatic weapons, like Australia (and longer waiting periods/background checks). The only thing automatic weapons are good for is killing a bunch of people. But this will cut down on gun sales and ammo sales and the NRA will never budge on this issue because the board of directors is made up of gun & ammo manufacturers.

When you say automatic weapons. Do you mean Semi Auto or Full Auto?

Assuming you are referring to selective fire firearms (AKA full automatic) most states do not prevent outright ownership. However the federal government has extremely stringent requirements for a private citizen to be able to posess a selective fire firearm. They are also extremely expensive in the 20-30K$ range.

A federal Form 4 must be filled out to make an application for a selective fire firearm. You need to be 21 years of age to start this process. Then you need to be approved by your police cheif and pass an FBI background check and pay for this work and wait for many months.

Now if just Semi Auto, every state in the union allows it.

Given2Fly-Fish

jbalicki10 wrote:

Given2Fly-Fish wrote:

jbalicki10 wrote:

So what "common sense gun laws" do speak of that are not already on the books? Do these apply to our Government? (IE police, military, body guards?)

Yes, I agree on your second point. Lobby groups and Corps. have destroyed our Senate and House of Rep. including the NRA.

First, there is a long tradition of hunting and gun ownership in the US which I have no problem with. However, I believe that we need to adopt "common sense" legislation that restricts automatic weapons, like Australia (and longer waiting periods/background checks). The only thing automatic weapons are good for is killing a bunch of people. But this will cut down on gun sales and ammo sales and the NRA will never budge on this issue because the board of directors is made up of gun & ammo manufacturers.

When you say automatic weapons. Do you mean Semi Auto or Full Auto?

Assuming you are referring to selective fire firearms (AKA full automatic) most states do not prevent outright ownership. However the federal government has extremely stringent requirements for a private citizen to be able to posess a selective fire firearm. They are also extremely expensive in the 20-30K$ range.

A federal Form 4 must be filled out to make an application for a selective fire firearm. You need to be 21 years of age to start this process. Then you need to be approved by your police cheif and pass an FBI background check and pay for this work and wait for many months.

Now if just Semi Auto, every state in the union allows it.

Both. See post above on Australia...makes a lot of sense to me.