There have now been 12 school shootings, where someone has died, in the first 9 weeks of 2018. Yet we have morons talking about defending the rights of mentally defective people to get guns.
What about the doctors and pharma who drug these people? Listen to the disclaimers on drug ads and how they say they may cause suicidal thoughts, delusions, aggressive behavior, etc. when these drugs went into use is when the shootings started.
^^^No longer interested in debating with anyone, that doesn't think something needs to change. I'll gladly debate the nature of the change, but doing nothing is a non-starter.
Not real sure but raising the age to by a gun doesn’t seem like a terrible or restrictive idea to start. I also believe if there is a question of behavior, removing the guns from those individuals, and make them prove their competence, might be a bit harsh but given what is happening it is no worse than allowing these folks unfettered access.
It is also a fact that when the assault rifle ban was in effect there was a drop in these mass shooting events, and immediately after the ban expired the mass casualty events started to climb up. That is not fake news it is real and verifiable.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died over the centuries simply to protect our liberties. Yet now a relatively small numbers of deaths, albeit tragic, and certain types are tripping over themselves to give up the freedoms that were purchased so dearly. The feel good and most obvious solution for emotionally weak types who lack historical perspective is to hand over this part or all of this particular right in the name of safety, but this simplistic solution ignores the much larger issues at play. I too mourn over the loss of young lives (especially Sandy Hook, which hit way too close to home), but I am not willing to mortgage my kids' and grandkids' future freedoms for a feel good solution today.
^^But the death rate from mass shootings has been climbing, is that the convo you want to have. At some point the arc s will converge, that’ll be the end of your argument.
Don’t you think it might be smarter to get a handle on this before that happens, jes sayin.
Shit dumbass Dugan you just parrot the shit that the NRA spoonfeeds you, you never did shit to protect anybody’s freedom, all you ever do is wrap yourself in the flag, and prove over again that you are a fool, totally tone deaf, and a fake tough guy.
"Yet now a relatively small numbers of deaths, albeit tragic, and certain types are tripping over themselves to give up the freedoms that were purchased so dearly."
When did we purchase the freedoms you're referring to? Because the ArmaLite wasn't sold until the 1960s and is a military grade assault rifle... I'm all for the 2nd amendment, but when the 2nd amendment was created, the frickin ar-15 wasn't even a thought, let alone invented yet.
"Not real sure but raising the age to by a gun doesn’t seem like a terrible or restrictive idea to start."
This doesn't specifically bother me, as long as A) we acknowledge that it won't have any statistical effect at all because most mass shooters are well over 21 years old, and B) we redefine the term "adult," across the board. That means you also can't smoke, or have sex, or do lap dances, or especially join the military until you turn 21. After all, why should you be allowed to shoot terrorists if you can't even go duck hunting, right?
You also said:
"It is also a fact that when the assault rifle ban was in effect there was a drop in these mass shooting events, and immediately after the ban expired the mass casualty events started to climb up."
This is not true. Please stop saying this. Even left-of-center outlets acknowledge that this isn't true. It may be the case that more people are being shot *per incident,* but it is NOT the case that more incidents are occuring. The trendline for mass shootings has been flat since before I was born.
@Nina engaging in convo with Dumbass Dugan is retarded, every time he posts his drivel I feel dumber. Remember it’s difficult to win an argument with a smart person with a dummie it’s impossible.
History and predictive models show that increased gun ownership restrictions result in a SHORT TERM decrease in violent crime, but it is 75% likely that the trend will have returned to previous levels after only 56 days, 95% likely within 137 days. It is 98.6% likely that the violent crime rates will be higher than before the restrictions in less than a year.
There is no such thing as mental illness or mental defectives. But there are people who have been marginalized and delegitimated. If you keep jabbing at an animal with a stick for long enough, then eventually something will happen.
This article is from the hateful right-wing outlet called Politico Magazine, and was written by the research director for the Minnesota Department of Corrections (obviously an NRA front):
@bhf I’m sorry I can’t get the link active just copy and paste in your browser the facts should come up it has been vetted by Snopes and Fact Check . Org
I can't find your article, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that all of my sources are wrong and all of your sources are completely 100% right, and that mass shootings are somehow becoming more frequent. Well, the thing is, they're still very rare. And meanwhile the overall murder rate has declined steeply. You have to acknowledge this.
So how would you feel if we make gun control more strict and the mass shooting rate does decline as a result, but the overall murder rate also increases at the same time? That wouldn't be a good outcome, right?
I’m not claiming to have all or even any of the answers, I’m saying that we have to do something, we owe it to our children, and our grandchildren.
I’m speaking as a gun owner with two handguns a CCP and a shotgun at home. I’m also speaking as a father and a parent, who has empathy for what these families that buried children are going through. I don’t know how I would bear the thought of one of my children predeceasing me. Especially in the circumstances that are being discussed.
Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer were real frightening. But they were not born that way. And of particular note of Manson, he did not act alone, mostly he had young attractive women doing the butchery.
I won't say that they were misunderstood. I would just stay that they were marginalized, though in different ways. The first as a pimp and cult leader, and the other as the stereotyped psychopath. But none of this in any way suggests anything like ~~mental illness~~ or anything like ~~mental defectiveness~~. But we have a monumental epidemic of diagnoses of ~~mental illness~~.
If anything, the mental health industry contributes to the marginalization and to the number of dangerous people walking the streets.
We have cops at malls, cops at concerts, cops at festivals and fairs, cops at sports events. Whats wrong with a small satellite office at every school that has 3 or 4 cops work out of it on a daily basis. Its something. I had 2 officers everyday at my high school. Didnt bother anyone. We in America have to realize that school shootings are now common so lets spend some money for kids safety.....
@galiziabob- nothing wrong with your suggestion, but remember there was a police officer at Parkland and he cowered outside and never entered the building untill the shooter was long gone.
If someone really wants to kill people, nothing is going to stop them except maybe for a prison style security wall with limited controlled entry points. We may have reached this point.
And then saying that some percentage of the population is ~~mentally ill~~ also accomplished absolutely nothing.
Central is a good college here, this kid murdered his parents. The authorities continue to search for him. We'll watch the judicial process after he is apprehended.
Well SJG if he had a muzzle loader like an old Kentucky rifle that was available when the constitution and the bill of rights was written or maybe a pair of flintlock pistols he might have been able to get off one or three shots, before he could have been overpowered, or maybe a sword or bow and arrows, there wouldn’t be 17 dead These folks claiming the 2nd amendment gives them the right to own semi automatic guns with 30 round magazines were unheard from in 1775-6.
When I was a kid two events turned me completely against gun control, long before I even became a libertarian.
The first was the Rodney King riot in LA. I watched some of the news coverage of the riot as part of a homework assignment. And what I noticed was that some businesses were looted and destroyed and some weren't. And it seemed that the ones that survived were the ones that were being protected by armed guards on rooftops, holding very big guns. You could see them patrolling on the rooftops from the aerial camera shots. The lesson was simple: a handgun isn't enough when you're out there on your own, outnumbered, and facing mob-justice with no cops around to protect you. The store owners who had big guns kept their properties safe; the ones who followed the rules and failed to protect themselves lost everything. So even though some wackos will use "assault" weapons to kill people, I still wouldn't want to take away someone else's right to use these guns to protect themselves.
And the second event was a police officer who visited my school and spoke about crime and safety. This was in NYC, at a time when the only public debate about guns was whether to completely ban them or to register them and make would-be gun owners jump through endless hoops. Outspoken citizen activists like then-future-mayor Michael Bloomberg were pressuring City Hall and the Council to do more to stop gun violence. And then this cop comes in and explains to us that cops actually prefer to investigate a gun homicide rather than a knife homicide, because he said it was easier to trace a gun. He explained that even without a registry, a cop can usually figure out which gun fired a bullet and where the bullet was purchased. I really don't think he was trying to make a case against gun control, but the lesson stuck in my mind nonetheless.
25, don't worry, I don't take the 2nd Amendment that way. It is supposed to be about preventing tyranny. In fact it supports the Republican Right, and this is tyranny. Maybe the NRA used to support gun owners, or may gun makers. But now it supports the broadest of idiotic political tyrannies.
If some one really wants to fight with a gun, whether or not that is legal will make no difference.
@BHF all of this is very well and good but I I owned a business in NYC before moving to Florida and I had a CCP there as well. All of these folks you are citing are people that were both vetted and trained, the armed guards on the rooftops weren’t just a bunch of kids with ARs and in NYC it was legal to own a weapon in your home at that time but to be armed in public you needed to get a permit at the precinct and they did background checks and to own a CCP you needed to demonstrate proficiency with a weapon as well as show a need (why you might be a target for a robbery) little known factoid from then, if you were tied to OC but didn’t have an arrest record they issued CCPs to many Mafiosa.
I take your point, but I don't think these were all licensed guns in LA. Some of the guns were illegal. And some of the gun owners were probably illegal immigrants from Asia and Mexico, so I doubt they had gun licenses. Also, being trained to use a gun doesn't make you any less likely to want to kill people. Consider Fort Hood, for example.
Not arguing with you about FT Hood I’m more concerned about the amount of schools getting shot up, and I realize no solution is perfect, but I think making the perfect the enemy of the good is just another excuse for leaving the unacceptable in place.
There was a significant series of failures by law enforcement in the Parkland School shooting. Over 20 visits by law enforcement to murderer''s house. School resource officer waiting outside while people are being murdered inside the school building. A possible partial solution to the problem is to provide emergency hearing and order procedures to detain an individual and confiscate firearms and place them on the background check list when an individual makes threats to kill or cause bodily harm to others. This could include vague and generalized threats. Many of these individuals give plenty of warning before they murder. This would avoid depriving people who are old enough to serve in the military and vote part of the Bill of Rights.
@twentyfive
True but I am not going to think that one coward cop will be the case with all cops across the nation. Can't let his one choice be the deciding factor for all officers. I hope it never happens again!
Twenty, I’m usually pretty aligned with many of your views. I see what the bad guys are armed with on the streets of Atlanta. They don’t follow anyone’s rules and don’t value any life including their own. That’s the conundrum...
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . .” The 2d Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with the citizenry having the means to resist an oppressive state, just as our Founders did. The fact that the AR-15 is a military type arm is precisely the reason it should be protected by the 2d Amendment. A secondary reason for the 2d Amendment is protect the inherent right to self defense, as recognized by recent Supreme Court decisions. The AR-15, and in particular the carbine M-4 clone version, is an excellent self defense weapon.
By the way, if you are male, at least 17 but under 45, and not already in the military, you are in the militia of the United States, whether you know it or not. 10 U.S.C. 246.
^^^so go join a well regulated militia.
I’m not trying to take your guns away I’m saying that something needs to be done about what is going on with people shooting up schools, be part of the solution not part of the problem.
@galiziabob I agree that all cops wouldn’t flake like this guy did I’m for your idea, problem is our representatives say they don’t have the extra money it would take, I’ll give them back the $3.47 a week tha Trumps tax cut added to my paycheck, just let them stop flying around in first class or buying $31,000 dining tables tor Doc Carson’s office and the rest of the crap the spend our money on and use the money the way it was intended, not so those greedy fat bastards can have a fucking barber and makeup artist come to their office before they come on TV to tell us how terrible it is that 17 people died in a high school.
@bubba I agree with you it is a conundrum, but we need to solve it.
We need to change the justice system. Step one; Make capital punishment for heinous crimes swift when there's no question as to guilt. Step two; make the capital punishment a ppv event with proceeds going to victims families. That Nickolas Cruz & every other single piece of shit that's still alive on the American tax payers dime should be fed through a wood chipper, s l o o o o w l y feet first with a zoom in camera on his face. Then let all of these little attention whore copy cats (kids or not since the fucking parents don't parent anymore) know what their fate is for killing. We sensationalize these useless fucks that kill and every other piece of human garbage thinks cool I can do the same thing. In metro Detroit alone the past two weeks there have been numerous threats against schools by idiot students. Turned on the news this am after dealing with my hangover in SW Florida and it's the same shit kids threatening schools. FUCK THAT. Let's scare the ever lasting shit out of criminals and/or would be criminals. Idgaf if you're mentally disturbed or not. You fuck up and you're dead. That's the way to fix this shit not by fucking with my guns.
25: You implied AR-15s should be banned. “These folks claiming the 2nd amendment gives them the right to own semi automatic guns with 30 round magazines were unheard from in 1775-6.”. I’m not part of the problem by pointing why this statement is wrong. Violating constitutionally protected rights is not the answer. Crime prevention would be so much easier without the 4th Amendment. And governing in general would be so much easier without the 1st Amendment.
Sal69. Agee to a point. Capital punishment has been sanitized to the point it is pointless. But of course cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional.
^^^ No I stated that that type of weapon was never considered when the the constitution and bill of rights was written, and I know your USC 246 the code does not say that it is a well regulated militia it just states that men of military age can be drafted into a service,
If you read the federalist papers it indicates amendments may be modified the only actual rights are those endowed by our creator suggesting a living document with forethought that times and conditions change and the constitution is supposed to be difficult to change but not inflexible. Not really interested in the debate back and forth as I’m not going to change your view, just like you won’t change mine, at the end of the day it will eventually go up for a vote then we’ll see what happens.
What I'm suggesting will work, it will just never happen. Look at some of the Asian countries they don't fuck around over there with their criminals. Same with the Arabs. This country is to soft and has to many lawyers (& not enough good ones) and a whole generation of boys being raised by single mothers that are total and complete pussies. I remember one of my secretaries was so excited one day telling me how her 3 yo son finally sat down to go pee instead of wearing a diaper. Wtf? I can't wait to retire in a couple of years, get my cock sucked every night by a different woman and not give a shit about any of this. I'm thinking Brazil or Australia
25: You apparently don’t know 10 USC 246 because it has nothing to do with the draft. And yes, your statement that AR-15 type weapons where never considered when the bill of rights was written suggests they are not protected. One could likewise argue there is no freedom of speech on the radio, television, or internet because those things were never considers when the bill of rights was written. Yes, there is a means to change the constitution, but it’s highly unlikely that amendment procedure will be followed to eliminate the 2d Amendment. Clearly, I won’t change your mind, but others are reading this too.
I totally agree. Saying that the Second Amendment is only about hunting is the equivalent of saying that the First Amendment is only about pornography.
It's kind of ironic, but I've never owned a gun, I don't want one, I've only fired a gun once at a firing range, I've never felt like I needed a gun for protection (and I've never even been hunting), but I think I'm the most hardcore pro-Second Amendment supporter here. As I've said in the past, I'm fine with people owning machine guns, tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. I don't believe in background checks or licensing, and I'm ok with mentally ill people owning a gun, too.
Really the only restriction I can think of should be prison: if you're behind bars, you can't pack heat. And if you've made threatening statements about shooting up a school, then you probably belong behind bars. Also adulthood: guns aren't for children, and it's up to society and lawmakers to decide what constitutes an adult. But any adult who's not in prison should have the right to own whatever he wants.
No offense, but it sounds like you don't think much of the Constitution - you just really like guns. Otherwise you wouldn't want to impose cruel and unusual punishments, which would have horrified the Founding Fathers.
Also, you're worried about sensationalizing these psychos and making them famous... which is exactly what putting them on a PPV special would do! Most of them seem to want to die anyway. So you would be giving the murderers everything they want, while contributing to the coarsening of our culture at the same time.
I don't know about the rest of you, but holding up Vietnam and Saudi Arabia as models of success and saying that our criminal justice system should be more like theirs... that seems a little short-sighted to me. I'm not willing to throw away the American Experiment just because of a few school shootings. And I don't think you'll like it in Brazil and Australia: they don't have a Second Amendment.
@DrEvil do you know what the Florida Legislature did when the Parkland high school kids went to Tallahassee, I’ll tell you they pretty much ignored them, and went on to consider a bill to ban pornography, if that’s not the height of arrogance I don’t know what is. I’m done debating with people that think nothing needs to change, I said it before and I’ll repeat it one more time, if you want to talk about the solution to this very real problem I’ll gladly discuss them sanely, if you don’t think change is going to happen, or don’t want to see this solved in a real way, get out of my face, I’m not going to discuss side issues or constitutional issues any more. Step up or step aside I don’t care which, but trust me this will be fixed one way or another. BTW blocking background checks is pretty much the equivalent of allowing mental defectives to aquire these types of weapons, that is not a straw man that is a fact.
I believe we could use a better balance between our second amendment rights and the rights of everyone to live free with less worry some drug crazed lunatic is going to go shoot and kill a bunch of defenseless people or school kids. I don't believe the answer is to take away the guns of any law abiding people. Obviously there may be a real conspiracy with the left instructing officers to stand down and do other tactics such as not apprehending kids 21 and under who are armed, on drugs, and making online shooting threats so that when they start shooting and killing, they can try to remove gun rights and ban guns by claiming it's a crisis every time it happens when they know they helped cause it by standing down and not doing anything to stop it.
We have that issue I believe with a group letting shootings happen with an agenda to ban guns or remove rights of law abiding people. Either there is an agenda or dereliction of duty I believe, The NRA and gun rights people oppose these groups at every turn I believe because they may know there is a group with an agenda.
To protect schools we could make them like a court. Limited access points with metal detectors and armed security guards on duty. No access except past security. Thus would be expensive I believe. Training police to go arrest kids who make online threats and who are heavily armed might be a good first step. Training police not to set up a perimeter but go in to stop a shooter might be another good step. Training FBI to share tips with local police who could go visit a kid making online threats might be another step. Improving background checks another good step. Making people give up their guns and access before a doctor is allowed to give them psychiatric drugs another good check. As a requirement to take the drugs, the police or an trained agent could inspect the residence to verify no visible guns on premises with access to safes and storage or wherever. This would be a requirement to take the drugs. Want to keep your guns, don't take the drugs nor make online threats that you want to do a mass shooting.
In Israel I heard the age is like 27 and if you have certain medical issues for which you are prescribed medication, you can't have guns. Law abiding people have gun rights it sounds like without mass shootings. The far right alternative is like the Wild West where everyone carries a gun. I'm personally ok with someone trained with firearms with carrying a weapon at school. Police officers do this already don't they? Even a stupid school kid would have to be really stupid to show up at a school if several teachers were waiting outside or behind barricades with several guns. They do have better things to do like teach. Police and FBI should be sharing tips and arresting people making online shooting threats.
I read about very old guns just as legal as the AR-15 made before the 1960's. I also read long ago, school kids used to carry guns to school in some areas and there were no mass shootings. In one article, I read a school kid threatened to bring a gun and shoot. It was from a long time ago. Several people at the school were waiting and well armed. The kid never showed up. He must not have been on drugs. I read those drugs can make you feel suicidal and violent.
Conspiracy people believe those with an agenda do mass shootings and cover up anything that points to any kind of devious alternatives. I've read about possible agendas associated with 911. I've also read reports in the Las Vegas shooting, that some reported gun fire from multiple directions as if there were multiple shooters. It could be hearsay by confused people but it's what I read. When I read and hear odd things, then no hesitation in the left calling for gun bans on everyone, it leads me to think someone with an agenda might be in on it. If they aren't , several people are not doing what they could to save lives.
If you’re done debating, why did you post in a discussion site? These are not side issues, they are issues at the heart of the matter. I don’t pretend to have the answers, but so far, I haven’t seen you propose any answers either, other than the insinuation that AR-15s should be banned. And who is blocking background checks? A strawman to support another strawman. Get out if my face and I’ll get out of yours.
No offense taken, however, most of these gutless pukes want to live not die. Sure I like my guns, but I'm not a criminal either. I think severe, swift capital punishment/justice would be a crime deterant. It's really a moot point we're not going to change anything. It's just my preference and suggestion. No one has to like it and no one's changing my mind either.
2nd amendment certainly made sense 250 years ago... There was still a West to be won, and the country was basically a war zone on both sides.
Nowadays, it's completely different... But don't let anyone tell you that America has more freedoms than half the other Western countries of the world, or that not owning a gun would somehow make you less free than you are now.
DrEvil If you want to allow background checks and have the database brought up to date, write to Paul Ryan he won't allow it to come up for debate on the floor. I didn't insinuate that ARs should be banned, I stated that when they were not allowed, school shootings went down, when the ban expired, the school shootings jumped up.I get that you don't see a coincidence between the two things. This isn't a debate this is you telling me I'm wrong and using NRA talking points, many which have been discredited. I was an NRA member for years, they left me when they joined the extreme right wing groups. I believe in the center, Right now the center is not holding, that is dangerous. Idealogues of any stripe are never welcome, simply put , if there is no compromise, the lunatics take over.
A moron is anyone who believes there have been 12 school shootings in the first 9 weeks of 2018 . Slanted numbers like everything else leftists put out for headline readers to quote as fact. Non student Idiots shooting each other in the middle of the night for whatever reason and just happens to be within a school's property is counted by anti-clowns as a school shooting. They do the same thing with " Mass " shootings . 3 or more is counted as a mass shooting. Rahm " the gnome" Emanuel invented that one.
25: I’m not arguing anyone’s talking points other than my own. And yes, I’ll point out where you are wrong when you are wrong. You were clearly wrong to state that 10 USC 246 deals with the draft. And it’s an indisputable fact that the purpose of the 2d Amendment was to protect the right of the citizenry to “keep and bear arms” of the type suitable for a militia, i.e., weapons suitable for military use. This is reflected in the Federalist Papers and other writings contemporaneous with the establishment of our Constitution, as well as the Supreme Court’s 1939 Miller case. I agree the Founders never probably envisioned that the single shot muzzle loaders of the day would evolve into an AR-15, but that doesn’t make it any less protected under the 2d Amendment than freedom of expression on radio, television, or the internet is protected under the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court recently ruled that it was a 4th Amendment violation to attach a GPS tracker to a suspect’s car without a warrant. I’m pretty sure that the Founders never envisioned that orbiting geosynchronous satellites could be used to track automobiles. If the 2d Amendment is no longer relevant today, there is a means to fix it, but I don’t believe three fourths of the state will ever agree to change it.
I know you didn’t explicitly call for an assault weapons ban, but that was certainly the implication of what you wrote: (1) school shootings decreased during the 10 year “assault weapons” ban and increased after the ban expired, (2) the Founders never envisioned AR-15s when the 2d Amendment was ratified, and (3) _____. I can fill in the blank. My reading comprehension is documented to be above the third grade level. If you are against an assault weapons ban, why don’t you say so?
By the way, I don’t believe it has been documented that the expired assault weapons ban had any effect on gun violence. From the Politico article someone else cited in this thread:
“It may be tempting to conclude this increase is because of the expiration of the assault weapons ban in 2004—after all, the increase began shortly after the ban ended. But the limited research that’s been done suggests it had little short-term impact on gun violence.”
What’s your source for saying otherwise? And please don’t cite the Brady Center or some other agenda driven organization. It think Politico is pretty well recognized as a generally neutral, slightly left of center organization. But quite frankly, even if you are correct, I’m not sure it matters. I don’t think we are ever going to stop crazy, evil people from doing crazy, evil things. Should we try? Sure, but not if it involves passing unconstitutional laws.
We already have background checks, contrary to your suggestion (“if you want to allow background checks”), and I’m not sure what you mean by “have the database brought up to date.” As far as I know, it’s up to date, although no system is fool proof. Due to human error, the Texas church shooter was not entered into the system after a domestic violence conviction in the Air Force and, consequently, he was allowed to purchase an AR type weapon when he shouldn’t have. I’m sure the Department of Defense will fix that problem (or at least try to) given that fiasco. If you are referring to updating the system to include more mental health records, this is not something I am blindly going to support.
I agree that crazy people should not be allowed to purchase weapons. The question is how do you define a crazy person? Clearly, someone that has been adjudicated by a court as a danger to him/her self or others and involuntarily committed should not be able to purchase a weapon. I’m pretty sure those records are already in the National Instant Background Check System, and if not, I’m all for including them. But what about someone who saw a psychiatrist once because of a mild generalized anxiety disorder? Should that person be barred from owning a gun merely because of an entry in a medical record? Should anyone barred from owning a gun on anything less than a ruling from a court? We have this little thing in our country called “due process” that prevents the government from invading our rights without, well, due process.
I am not going to write to Paul Ryan and advocate for something when it has not been fully thought out, when there is no reasonable expectation it will have any impact on the problem, and that may be unconstitutional. Doing something is not always better than doing nothing, particularly when the something is ineffective (or not demonstrated to be effective) and merely burdens or invades the rights of the law abiding. You are demonstrating the classic liberal penchant for a knee jerk, feel good solution that involves passing a new law, even if there is no evidence the “solution” will really solve anything.
If I am demonstrating a “classic liberal knee jerk reaction” than you are reading me wrong and that’s your problem.
The background check system is full of loopholes and any thinking individual knows this. Just to keep it short I’ll give you a simple example. In Florida you can buy or sell a gun privately and at a gun show without a requirement that there be a background check, while that doesn’t seem to be the case in Parkland, there is documented evidence that even after multiple contacts with the BSO no one had the ability to remove these weapons don’t you think that is a failure, forgetting about the FBI and FDLE just for the purpose of simplifying this discussion.
I’m not reading the code wrong no less of a conservative than the late Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion that I am using as my basis, additionally he was part of an earlier decision that found banning certain classes of guns was not only constitutional but wise. I’m not there just yet on outright bans but the lack of willingness on the part of gun rights advocates to seek a workable compromise is taking us in that direction.
@twentyFive - the moron - I have been for raising semi-auto rifles to 21 for a long time as well as a few other things. Like parents acting like parents instead of being their kids pothead friends. What I am sick and tired of is leftists who go through life with Nancy Pelosi mule blinders on. Where is the outcry over the hundreds of teens ages 15-19 who die from ODs . In 2016 it was almost 800. 80% of that is illegal drugs yet leftists say nothing because to stop it we need to tighten up the border and throw the drug traffickers, here illegally, out of the country.
A well regulated militia, such as our state National Guards, can train people, but hold the weapons. And also, such a well regulated militia will be careful about who they arm.
If someone wants to fight a revolution, then it won't matter if guns are illegal or illegal, and the same if someone wants to engage in revolution by what will be called te**o*ism.
Learn what brave people do when they want to risk their lives in opposing tyranny. Totally the opposite of the American right wingers claiming to support the 2nd Amendment, those guys are chickenshits.
Well yes, there are just too many guns out there. And having more people armed just increases the danger. By about a 4 to 1 ratio, people have guns in their homes, they get used to kill family members or neighbors. Sometimes by accident, sometimes by malice. But it far and away exceeds their legitimate uses.
Old-school leftists used to support gun rights, because they wanted to overthrow the government. It's really sad watching you guys totally give up on your principles in exchange for influence over the levers of the state.
If one wants to overthrow the government does it matter whether or not guns are legal?
And I really am not interested in influence over the levers of the state, but I demand that everyone have basic dignity, and this means a comprehensive economic safety net.
Read Piven and Cloward, welfare was invented not to provide for the needs of the poor, but in order to regulate the poor. As such it is better to be outside of the system, not having control over its levers, and to engage in disruptive protest, sometimes bringing on total mayhem.
They actually write about sometimes when some welfare activists were given official inclusion into the state apparatus. They did some good, but overall it was just a case of activists being neutralized with a paycheck.
Richard Nixon put forth his 1969 FAP ( Family Assistance Package ). It would have made the federal gov't pay $1600 per year for a needy family.
At that time, no one was talking like they do now, "Welfare is bad for poor people". No, many states had better programs, and so they very much wanted that $1600 from the feds.
Now this program would have neutralized all the hard won procedural reforms which Piven and others had obtained through street demonstrations and disrupting welfare offices.
But $1600 in places that had nothing was still good.
In the South East they had a horrible low wage system. Also, because of the 1965 voting rights act, in areas of states like Mississippi, they knew that they could not count anymore on rigged elections. So they were trying to drive blacks out of the state.
So they did not want the $1600, even if paid for by the feds. They were even refusing to distribute the federal food stamps benefit.
So after RFK's famous trip, where Marion Wright and Peter Edelman met, RFK got legislation so that food stamps could be distributed by secular NGO's for cases like Mississippi.
So there was a more liberal senator from Connecticut who wanted to change the Nixon FAP. And then there was the Democrat Russel Long of Louisiana who into an open mike called AFDC mothers 'brood mayors".
Nixon's own staff said that of three choices
1. Go to the left with the Connecticut senator
2. Go to the right with Russel Long, who did not want any of it
3. Stay the course
The only chance of passage was option 1.
But Nixon decided on 3, intentionally killing his own plan, because he had not realized how explosive an issue welfare was, and now he wanted it to still be an issue for the 1972 election.
The idea that 'welfare is bad for poor people' would brew, coming strongly from the South East, and then expanding in the Reagan Admin, and continuing to expand 'till the insanity which we have today.
SJG
MX-5 has 155hp, 2.0 liters, 16 values, DOHC, electronically controlled valve timing, and 6 speeds for stick shift
"If one wants to overthrow the government does it matter whether or not guns are legal?"
I would think so, yes.
You also said:
"... welfare was invented not to provide for the needs of the poor, but in order to regulate the poor... sometimes when some welfare activists were given official inclusion into the state apparatus... overall it was just a case of activists being neutralized with a paycheck."
That's absolutely correct. A century ago, many prominent progressives were also eugenicists, and they often supported minimum wages and welfare programs explicitly as a means to *prevent* poor people from entering the workforce and ultimately, they hoped, discouraging them from forming families and reproducing as well.
The latter part of your comment is also a useful way to look at political science. If an activist can swing enough votes and influence enough public policy debates, the Party establishment will eventually try to co-opt him. It's how the sausage gets made.
"
"If one wants to overthrow the government does it matter whether or not guns are legal?"
I would think so, yes.
"
Are you serious? Is your entire world view defined by Reason Magazine?
"A century ago, many prominent progressives were also eugenicists, and they often supported minimum wages and welfare programs explicitly as a means to *prevent* poor people from entering the workforce and ultimately, they hoped, discouraging them from forming families and reproducing as well."
The first part of your statement is true. Much bad in many prominent social reformers. But preventing people from entering the work force, not hardly. And not hardly today either. Everyone wants to do well, to make a meaningful contribution.
Welfare is intended to prevent or to discourage the poor from engaging in disruptive behaviors. It is not about workforce discouragement.
"The latter part of your comment is also a useful way to look at political science. If an activist can swing enough votes and influence enough public policy debates, the Party establishment will eventually try to co-opt him. It's how the sausage gets made."
Yes, this is true, it is inevitably how democracy works, like it or not.
SJG
BHF, you are being influenced by Right Wing propaganda.
Well, listen, I don't want to overthrow any governments, so maybe I'm wrong about this. But I would think that if guns are illegal, they'll be harder for would-be revolutionaries to get. And then your opponents will have an even bigger advantage.
As for the motivations of early progressive reformers, to be fair, it was generally more racist and sexist than classist. And certainly modern progressives don't feel that way at all anymore. I would imagine that the average Bernie Sanders supporter would recoil in disgust at some of the writings of early progressive heroes.
I have been too busy to post much this weekend, but everything that doctorevil has said in this thread. The use of the NRA as a boogeyman is nothing more than a ploy to give the simple minded someone to blame. The 2nd amendment has obviously been around long before the NRA and for good reason. The Founding Fathers understood that, throughout history, tyrants became such by first disarming the populace. Even before guns, oppressive rulers banned commoners from owning swords and other weapons of war. The Founding Fathers wished to ensure that, in this country, that could never happen.
I've heard countless arguments since about how the changing nature of weaponry makes the power imbalance between the military and citizens so dramatic that what we are allowed to hold no longer matters. Even if this were true, then why would we dream of doing yet more to make that imbalance worse? But that is also simplistic as any attempt to impose a dictatorship on the U.S. would face a populace armed with, by varying estimates, anywhere from 300 to 600+ million guns.
I've also heard the argument that today is a different day and that it simply could never happen to us. Really? Why not? What makes us so unique that our system could not be perverted to support a dictator? It has happened in too many countries to count. I guess some of you missed Trump's very own joke not long ago in which he mused that it would be nice for the U.S. to have a President for life.
For a more recent example, I bet the folks in Cuba wish they had their guns back. Castro, like most dictators, promptly disarmed the very people who helped him into power, citing safety concerns as his reason. Going back a little further, Hitler did the same thing in Germany. Oh, and for those of you who support gun registration, part of what helped both Castro and Hitler disarm the populace were the existence of these same types of registries.
The far left wackos always always go straight to more stringent gun control as the solution.
How about another tack?
Why don't we legislate that the shooter's parents, siblings, teachers, and neighbors are all equally as liable as the shooter and thus could be charged with murder and liable for civil suits?
Because they didn't do anything wrong.
Well I didn't do anything wrong either, so don't fuck with my constitutional right to own a gun.
But my question is why is gun control only debated from people who reside in and around metropolitan areas? It seems to me that only those living in cities and suburbia America are the ones debating this issue, yet the majority of people in flyover country or in rural parts don’t seem to have this problem?
To solve the gun issue is beyond me, but you definitely have concentrated problems where people live. It’s the following the herd mentality and leading the masses through media, and non critical thinking skills that so plague our society today. Even though we have witnessed shootings in all parts of our society, there is a strong correlation to population and the way of life centered around populous regions. We have more of a media problem than we do a gun problem.
People who are honest and law abiding citizens just want everyone to stfu and leave them alone, and tend to live outside of large populated areas. People are dumb and are like pigs in a pen; too many crowded together cause them to kill each other.
I think it's a lack of parenting oversight of kids but governments can't mandate better parenting to my knowledge. Some school kids get isolated and feel like outsiders. The problem starts small and grows bigger. In bigger cities, I think doctors like to prescribe drugs on a whim for everything. Soon some kids are having violent activity and feel at home thinking of themselves as a renegade and posting comments about could be a shooting etc. police stop these kids and parents take action in many cases. With so many kids getting drugs for everything, the problems explode and some kids slip through all the cracks in our cracked system and then people die. The prescription drugs make the problems worse making some suicidal and violent. Then the far left sees the problem as a gun issue instead of a people issue. We have a people issue first no then a violent mentally ill drugged people issue with easy access to weapons next. Just my opinion.
If school kids really wanted to take action, they could create groups in every school trying to prevent school bullying, trying to stop outcasts from feeling outcast. Make friends with kids who feel like they don't fit in. It may be hard to do but if school kids really want to make a difference, they could start at home. Also stop texting and driving because more people die and get injured from that then from many shootings I heard.
How many school kids will get this message? None unless they are law breakers accessing this site underage. An adult could secretly convey the message though. Teachers can take extra time to help an isolated student feel more at home at school. That could stop a future shooter.
One of the more important points that no one is putting in a lot of thought to is if reasonable people can’t come to an agreement, eventually everyone becomes an extremist either pro or con. I agree that there are fair points made on both sides.
But we owe it to our children and future generations to come to find ways to end this senseless violence that becomes more extreme with each new outbreak.
Alternatives to the baize include spending billions of tax payer dollars turning schools into Fort Knox with controlled access points, fortified walls and fences, armed secure guards at each entrance and exit. This would cost billions. It would cost every tax payer. It's not fool proof either. If anyone saw the movie The Matrix, a heavily armed person could kill the armed guards and still go on a shooting rampage. A clever person who wants to kill and maim people could rig drones with explosives. If they got inside a facility with explosives, they could secretly set them up at key points and either time them for maximum effect or block exits. Water could be poisoned. However then we have moved past little school shootings and moved on to terrorist activities targeting hundreds or thousands of people. If you really wanted to go nuclear, I know how to kill all human life on the surface of the planet with just a little bit of material. I hope no one tries it. It would be so easy to do if they get access to the material. Then there are deadly viruses that could be released in key points. A massive outbreak could kill billions.
The guns haven't changed in the past few decades, but you point out that mass shootings have gone up. I don't know if that is true, but the guns aren't causing them.
Smart republicans will realize if they do nothing, then many voters will vote for a democrat who promises to do something in a future election. Sensible controls on kids, better background checks, maybe a requirement to take certain drugs, you have to clear your house of weapons and a temporary buying restriction on guns if you have been prescribed certain drugs within days. If you feel fine and aren't on the drugs, no problem. Everyone else can go about their business. The crazed batman movie shooter was taking drugs for a mental condition. No law works 100% so I see this as imposing speed limits allowing authorities to put checks on people who want to do whatever they feel like even if someone thinks they should be able to drive their car 100mph down a city street with lots of pedestrian or school crossings.
I did hear a funny story about a woman calling a radio station complaining about deer crossings on busy highways. She thought the crossings should be moved so that they weren't on busy highways because that's dangerous. She thought the crossing signs should be moved to slow streets maybe even near school crossings. No joke. She didn't understand why the highway department could be so careless putting up crossing signs on such busy highways.:)
^ Of course when the stupid girl called up the radio station to complain, the radio station instead of explaining things kept quiet containing their laugher and decided to put her on the radio so everyone could hear her complain about the highway department putting up crossing signs on very busy highways.
I imagine some in rural areas feel a bit like the people in the radio station. However deer are not armed and have not been taking millions of dangerous drugs that preceded any deer mass shootings.
Again, passing a law for the sake of feeling good about it has a 82% chance that the unintended consequences will become worse than the original problem.
Orion posted: "Smart republicans will realize if they do nothing, then many voters will vote for a democrat who promises to do something in a future election."
Now you are speaking for smart Republicans? When did that start happening? ;)
But I disagree. Smart Republicans know that their core supporters will likely boot them out in the primaries if they do anything to seriously infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights. IMHO smart Republicans also know that the hysteria will eventually fade away, as it did with Sandy Hook and every other mass shooting event that has happened in the modern era.
People who want to resist tyranny have no problem getting guns. Its just like in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
Welfare has always developed in conjunction with anti-panhandling laws. And the profession of psychiatry developed as a way of justifying the incarceration of homeless men who were breaking no law.
I’m one of those 2A supporters that the 2A is the Constitution’s escape clause. So if we need to wage guerrila warfare against a tyrannical government, we need military style weapons like the AR-15 and high capacity magazines (30+). But enough said there, @doctorevil covered most of it.
I’m from a background of gun culture and so is the Mrs, in fact, her rural background is moreso a culture of guns. And I that culture guns are not the problem. So we need to take that into account with our solutions.
I’m fine with background checks.
I’m fine with raising the age to 21.
I’m fine with guys who want guns at 18, they can’t go join the military. Win-win for all of us.
I know the kids in these schools are being shot at and are tired of being shot at. But the real issue is in most of these cases that the kids and schools are overlooking with gun control is, most everyone said, the kid was a weird-o, everyone knew he was a weird-o, and he was acting strange prior to the incident.
The adults. There needs to be a way for adults to check up on the kids, teacher, uncle, dad, principal — probably a male figure — and say, hey pal. Looks like something’s bothering you. Want to throw a ball and talk about it some? Or want to watch the cheerleaders practice and talk about it some? Open the dialog.
The anger: has someone sat down with these young boys and asked them why are you so angry? What about this world that we adults have left you, what about this world angers you so much? The Virginia Tech shooter was *upset* no kidding, that he didn’t have a supermodel girlfriend. I mean, really??!? What is media, fame, celebrity, lack of role models, advertising, depiction of upper middle class lifestyles as the norm — doing to these boys? Hint: it’s not the video games.
@twentyfive: the US Secret Service already did a slot of the heavy lifting on this. A paper’s published on it.
It’s available online: https://www.secretservice.gov/data/prote…
^^^ Section V, Page 39 ... outlines the solution ... but the whole paper is worth a read.
From Preface, page iii: “the initiative drew from the secret service’s experience in studying and preventing assassination and other types of targeted violence .... This document, the Safe School Initiative’s final report, details how our two agencies studied school-based attacks and what we found. Some of the findings may surprise you. It is clear that there is no simple explanation as to why these attacks have occurred. Nor is there a simple solution to stop this problem. But the findings of the Safe School Initiative do suggest that some future attacks may be preventable, if those responsible for safety in schools know what questions to ask and where to uncover information that may help with efforts to intervene before a school attack can occur.“.
I think we have hard work ahead of us. Did we somehow ruin an entire generation of boys???
I don't agree with you. Only those who are "in the know" would have access to guns during an insurrection. Either way, it's a moot point. Decades ago, both the Left and the Right decided that, since the State is going to impose its will on the citizenry no matter what, the two sides might as well attempt to take control of the State rather than attempt to curtail it. That way, they reasoned, the vision that will be imposed will be "our vision." This has long been the norm throughout the world, and at some point, it became the norm in America, as well. As social welfare programs were established, the Left in particular began to think of the State as a natural ally. It's kind of sad and ironic, considering the Left's heritage as an anti-government movement. So basically, you might think you're some kind of a radical freedom fighter, but you're really just another part of the problem.
No offense, but if you think of the 2nd Amendment as the Constitution's escape clause then you should also oppose background checks. If the government has the right to impose a test to determine who can own a weapon and who can't, inevitably the "enemies of the State" will be at the top of the shit-list.
Think about it: Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, George Mason, Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, and Thomas Paine were all thought of as trouble-makers. If psychology had already been invented, they probably would have been branded as nutcases, too. And they wouldn't have been able to get any guns.
That's why I don't think in purely utilitarian terms. People should have the right to own guns because they have the natural right to own any form of inanimate object, and to defend themselves as they see fit. These are natural human rights that far predated the Constitution.
@BurlingtonHoFactory. I get what you are saying, but it’s a reasonable compromise. For example, I can get a lot of precursors for explosives or explosive materials. Sad because I’m more of a chemist than a rifleman. But things like bombs or spring-guns or spring-traps maim with regard and without smarts. So I understand why I can’t have all the arms I’d like to. I also can’t have a tank or can’t have a surface-air-anything. I can’t buy yellow cake either. :(
As a REASONABLE compromise I’m ok with background checks. That just means the govt knows I probably have at least one gun. I’m ok with them knowing that ( since the database was pinged) What I am AGAINST Is a database that tracks what guns I have, how many, what kinds, and where they are geo located or stored. So I am against ANY SORT of database that keeps inventory on that. The reasons are obvious when SHTF and they come to confiscate them.
That’s also why we don’t let people take pictures of our guns and post them online. That shit is geo tagged with GPS coordinates and time stamped. Fk that.
@BHF, if you go to enough gun shows you overhear some disturbing convos. There’s always at least one 2A zealot gun dealer talking to a customer. The customer mentions he’s a felon and can’t buy because he’ll fail the background check. Then the dealer says, “they’re trampling on your rights, which shall not be infringed.” Dude of course ends of selling the gun and omits the check.
JOKE: Dudes like that are so ideological.
AUDIENCE: How ideological are they??
JOKE: Dude would sell a gun to an insane criminal just so the criminal to turn around, rob the gun dealer with gun he just bought, smiling the whole time that the customers 2A constitutional rights were upheld.
^^^Dont forget to mention these 2nd amendment absolutists, support the sovereign citizen groups that claim the government doesn’t have the right or ability to levy taxes and both the IRS and income taxes are unconstitutional.
Well, I would be fine with my neighbor owning machine guns and tanks. But nukes and other WMDs might be a bridge too far, even for me. The reason is, if he ever decided to use them, no one would be able to defend themselves and we wouldn't be able to take him into custody afterwards - he would be dead, along with half the town. It's impossible to defend against a WMD and you can't run away from it. So I guess that's the lone exception.
So you along with rest of the absolutists have a problem with the nuclear weapons I have in my basement. I’ll offer a compromise if you like.
You become part of the solution with regards to school shootings and I’ll give up my nuclear weapons, untill I get what I want, you’ll just have to live with my nuclear weapons.
LOL. I never said I wouldn't compromise. Believe it or not, I'm fine with raising the age to 21 for gun purchases. Just so long as we raise it across the board, so that you also can't vote, join the military, give lap dances, etc. In other words, the new age of adulthood would become 21.
We should also acknowledge that it wouldn't make a dent in the number of mass shootings, but that's beside the point. I'm comfortable with doing this because I believe that societies should have the right to determine the age of adulthood.
Just a quick sidenote: Senator Jeff Flake recently came out and said that he, too, was open to raising the minimum age for gun purchases, and the Trump supporters became quite upset about it. "Do you see?," they said, "he can't be trusted! He's not a true conservative!" I wonder how they feel now that Trump has publicly endorsed taking away due process rights from gun owners and outright gun confiscation! Are they even aware of this?
BHF, is the one who lives in a locked tower here. Only social contact he has is when the mailman comes with the latest issue of Reason Magazine. BHF's views are not based in life experience. If BHF were every on the Oprah show it would not go well. Maybe she'd get so frustrated that she would end up feeding him into a paper shredder.
I have to confess: John Locke, the classical liberals of the enlightenment, and even some of the Founders *might* have endorsed some gun control by now.
But I don't endorse any real gun control.
That's one of the very subtle differences between a Classical Liberal and a Libertarian: classical liberals are mostly concerned with outcomes, but a true libertarian is more concerned with morality. (And of course, to a libertarian, morality can best be expressed as "allowing people to be free," but I digress.)
So ultimately, if a classical liberal can be convinced that modern guns are "simply too dangerous," then he might come to endorse restricting them. We'll never know for sure.
Libertarianism is an ideology of denial. No nation on earth has not had to impose rules and have government and universal rules, even if just to obtain its independence and defend its borders. And then to get people to comply, to work within the system, there have to be rules, and sometimes these need to be changed.
So liberalism within a country is good, but there are limits, it cannot be an absolute objective in and of itself.
Libertarianism is insanity and non-sense. There is nothing moral about it, is just a license for gross immorality.
But I applaud Dominic for clarifying the distinction.
.
SJG
Florida a state that was solidly in the NRA camp has taken the lead and passed a gun control bill, it awaits governor Rick Scotts signature.
I guess the Florida Legislature is feeling the heat, the tide is turning, even if Gov. Scott doesn’t sign this bill, history is moving forward.
I am glad the FL Bill includes mental health programs but I think the mentoring can be even simpler/cheaper than that. I think the age restrictions are fine, because with age, everyone has a chance to qualify. I don’t agree with the restrictions on limits to bump stocks or limits on “accessories that can accelerate the rate of fire of a semi automatic rifle without converting the semi automatic rifle into a machine gun” coincides with my interpretation of the 2A, but Florida legislature didn’t ask me for my opinion.
—>” 790.065 Sale and delivery of firearms.— A person younger than 21 years of age may not purchase a firearm. The sale or transfer of a firearm to a person younger than 21 years of age may not be made or facilitated by a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer. A person who violates this subsection commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The prohibitions of this subsection do not apply to the purchase of a rifle or shotgun by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer, as those terms are defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9), or a service member as defined in s. 250.01.
Effective October 1, 2018, section 790.222, 735 Florida Statutes, is created to read:
790.222 Bump-fire stocks prohibited.—A person may not import into this state or transfer, distribute, sell, keep for sale, offer for sale, possess, or give to another person a bump fire stock. A person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, the term “bump fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire or which is used to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device.
Bump stocks
Crank fire devices
Binary triggers
3 gun triggers (Geissele and LaRue, among others, makes a wide variety)
Lightweight bolt carrier groups
Buffer springs and different buffer weights
Gas system length
Adjustable Gas blocks
TRANSFERABLE / REGISTERED Lightening Link (the host remains semi, the LL is the MG)
TRANSFERABLE / REGISTERED DIAS (the host remains semi, the RDIAS is the MG)
TRANSFERABLE / REGISTERED HK sears and trigger packs (the host remains semi, the sear or pack is the MG)
TRANSFERABLE / REGISTERED FNC sears (the host remains semi, the sear is the MG)
“
—> end quote
@BurlingtonHoFactory wrote: “Believe it or not, I'm fine with raising the age to 21 for gun purchases. Just so long as we raise it across the board, so that you also can't vote, join the military, give lap dances, etc. In other words, the new age of adulthood would become 21.”
^If I understand what I think the Founding Fathers meant was that there wouldn’t be a standing army, and instead we’d used Conscription (i.e., Draft) for any foreign wars. The thinking, if I stretch, is that most voters would have skin-in-the-game either buy being of conscription age themselves or by having sons or grandsons who are of age.
Meaning you aren’t going to risk the blood of your sons on a foreign war that isn’t worth it. Some of this calculus has changed with the volunteer army (aka standing army). So the skin in the game isn’t present in the same way.
I do sympathize with the young men in the Vietnam Era age who were 18-21 but 1) not old enough to vote and 2) maybe their fathers disagreed with sons about the involvement. (to proxy war with USSR to contain communism during Cold War).
I’m not sure what the compromise should be. I don’t think the Founding Fathers were wrong per se. Maybe the voting age SHOLD go back to 21 and voter IDs or property requirements. I think @JohnSmith69 has caused be to rethink some of those assumptions. ;)
@BurlingtonHoFactory wrote: “We should also acknowledge that it wouldn't make a dent in the number of mass shootings, but that's beside the point. I'm comfortable with doing this because I believe that societies should have the right to determine the age of adulthood. “
^True, I don’t think it will make a dent. I think we need to revisit what’s making the young men and boys angry. And maybe re-evaluate what sort of world we have left for them and what their grievances are “e.g, hypocrisy, male figures to say one thing but do another” I think the young men are right to call out the bullshit of what they are being fed. I think some are lashing out against that.
Not sure I want to postpone adulthood though. For example, I don’t agree with the whole keep-your-kids-on-your-medical-insurance-until-26 rules we have. Yet, it is popular.
I think some of that should be left up to families. If I as a parent want to permit my children to be given a gun by me at a younger age, say 14. Where I buy I and I oversee them and make sure the child is responsible, then I should be able to do that at some young age like 14 or so. To wait for that until 21 is absurd. Even for an AR-15.
I understand my views may not be popular with all.
Most of the founding fathers would have hated the idea of conscription, but other than that, yes, I think you've got the right idea. The founders would have assumed that all future wars were going to be wars of absolute necessity, rather than foreign adventurism, and that all able-bodied men would eagerly volunteer to take up arms to defend their homes and repel an invading army.
Well where I am, pretty much the only people with any interest in levers of the state are real estate developers. The people who want government power and run for office do so to make money. These are the people I am fighting with on a daily basis. This is after all how Capitalism has always worked. Starts local, but then it goes to State and Federal. They want state power, and also sometimes the benefits of state money.
I hate it when people (especially SCOTUS) attempt to interpret what the founding fathers intended. They wrote what they wrote, very deliberately. Not a lot of interpretation needed. There is an amendment process for a reason.
131 comments
Loaded gun taken from student at East Coweta High School
Newnan Times-Herald · 7 hours ago
The copy cats are out now.
How would you identify those who should not be allowed to have guns?
How could you ensure that this would not be the first step on the slippery slope to more and more stringent restrictions?
So what do you recommend we do about this?
It is also a fact that when the assault rifle ban was in effect there was a drop in these mass shooting events, and immediately after the ban expired the mass casualty events started to climb up. That is not fake news it is real and verifiable.
Don’t you think it might be smarter to get a handle on this before that happens, jes sayin.
Shit dumbass Dugan you just parrot the shit that the NRA spoonfeeds you, you never did shit to protect anybody’s freedom, all you ever do is wrap yourself in the flag, and prove over again that you are a fool, totally tone deaf, and a fake tough guy.
When did we purchase the freedoms you're referring to? Because the ArmaLite wasn't sold until the 1960s and is a military grade assault rifle... I'm all for the 2nd amendment, but when the 2nd amendment was created, the frickin ar-15 wasn't even a thought, let alone invented yet.
"Not real sure but raising the age to by a gun doesn’t seem like a terrible or restrictive idea to start."
This doesn't specifically bother me, as long as A) we acknowledge that it won't have any statistical effect at all because most mass shooters are well over 21 years old, and B) we redefine the term "adult," across the board. That means you also can't smoke, or have sex, or do lap dances, or especially join the military until you turn 21. After all, why should you be allowed to shoot terrorists if you can't even go duck hunting, right?
You also said:
"It is also a fact that when the assault rifle ban was in effect there was a drop in these mass shooting events, and immediately after the ban expired the mass casualty events started to climb up."
This is not true. Please stop saying this. Even left-of-center outlets acknowledge that this isn't true. It may be the case that more people are being shot *per incident,* but it is NOT the case that more incidents are occuring. The trendline for mass shootings has been flat since before I was born.
SJG
The effects of state and Federal gun control laws on school shootings
This article is from the hateful right-wing outlet called Politico Magazine, and was written by the research director for the Minnesota Department of Corrections (obviously an NRA front):
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/…
I was never a fan of Central. Like half the kids there have herpes.
I can't find your article, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that all of my sources are wrong and all of your sources are completely 100% right, and that mass shootings are somehow becoming more frequent. Well, the thing is, they're still very rare. And meanwhile the overall murder rate has declined steeply. You have to acknowledge this.
So how would you feel if we make gun control more strict and the mass shooting rate does decline as a result, but the overall murder rate also increases at the same time? That wouldn't be a good outcome, right?
I’m speaking as a gun owner with two handguns a CCP and a shotgun at home. I’m also speaking as a father and a parent, who has empathy for what these families that buried children are going through. I don’t know how I would bear the thought of one of my children predeceasing me. Especially in the circumstances that are being discussed.
I won't say that they were misunderstood. I would just stay that they were marginalized, though in different ways. The first as a pimp and cult leader, and the other as the stereotyped psychopath. But none of this in any way suggests anything like ~~mental illness~~ or anything like ~~mental defectiveness~~. But we have a monumental epidemic of diagnoses of ~~mental illness~~.
If anything, the mental health industry contributes to the marginalization and to the number of dangerous people walking the streets.
SJG
And then saying that some percentage of the population is ~~mentally ill~~ also accomplished absolutely nothing.
SJG
The first was the Rodney King riot in LA. I watched some of the news coverage of the riot as part of a homework assignment. And what I noticed was that some businesses were looted and destroyed and some weren't. And it seemed that the ones that survived were the ones that were being protected by armed guards on rooftops, holding very big guns. You could see them patrolling on the rooftops from the aerial camera shots. The lesson was simple: a handgun isn't enough when you're out there on your own, outnumbered, and facing mob-justice with no cops around to protect you. The store owners who had big guns kept their properties safe; the ones who followed the rules and failed to protect themselves lost everything. So even though some wackos will use "assault" weapons to kill people, I still wouldn't want to take away someone else's right to use these guns to protect themselves.
And the second event was a police officer who visited my school and spoke about crime and safety. This was in NYC, at a time when the only public debate about guns was whether to completely ban them or to register them and make would-be gun owners jump through endless hoops. Outspoken citizen activists like then-future-mayor Michael Bloomberg were pressuring City Hall and the Council to do more to stop gun violence. And then this cop comes in and explains to us that cops actually prefer to investigate a gun homicide rather than a knife homicide, because he said it was easier to trace a gun. He explained that even without a registry, a cop can usually figure out which gun fired a bullet and where the bullet was purchased. I really don't think he was trying to make a case against gun control, but the lesson stuck in my mind nonetheless.
If some one really wants to fight with a gun, whether or not that is legal will make no difference.
SJG
Here, Italian women taking off their clothes. With video!
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/25-itali…
I take your point, but I don't think these were all licensed guns in LA. Some of the guns were illegal. And some of the gun owners were probably illegal immigrants from Asia and Mexico, so I doubt they had gun licenses. Also, being trained to use a gun doesn't make you any less likely to want to kill people. Consider Fort Hood, for example.
True but I am not going to think that one coward cop will be the case with all cops across the nation. Can't let his one choice be the deciding factor for all officers. I hope it never happens again!
I’m not trying to take your guns away I’m saying that something needs to be done about what is going on with people shooting up schools, be part of the solution not part of the problem.
@galiziabob I agree that all cops wouldn’t flake like this guy did I’m for your idea, problem is our representatives say they don’t have the extra money it would take, I’ll give them back the $3.47 a week tha Trumps tax cut added to my paycheck, just let them stop flying around in first class or buying $31,000 dining tables tor Doc Carson’s office and the rest of the crap the spend our money on and use the money the way it was intended, not so those greedy fat bastards can have a fucking barber and makeup artist come to their office before they come on TV to tell us how terrible it is that 17 people died in a high school.
@bubba I agree with you it is a conundrum, but we need to solve it.
If you read the federalist papers it indicates amendments may be modified the only actual rights are those endowed by our creator suggesting a living document with forethought that times and conditions change and the constitution is supposed to be difficult to change but not inflexible. Not really interested in the debate back and forth as I’m not going to change your view, just like you won’t change mine, at the end of the day it will eventually go up for a vote then we’ll see what happens.
_______
LOL!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lDb0Dn8…
I totally agree. Saying that the Second Amendment is only about hunting is the equivalent of saying that the First Amendment is only about pornography.
It's kind of ironic, but I've never owned a gun, I don't want one, I've only fired a gun once at a firing range, I've never felt like I needed a gun for protection (and I've never even been hunting), but I think I'm the most hardcore pro-Second Amendment supporter here. As I've said in the past, I'm fine with people owning machine guns, tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. I don't believe in background checks or licensing, and I'm ok with mentally ill people owning a gun, too.
Really the only restriction I can think of should be prison: if you're behind bars, you can't pack heat. And if you've made threatening statements about shooting up a school, then you probably belong behind bars. Also adulthood: guns aren't for children, and it's up to society and lawmakers to decide what constitutes an adult. But any adult who's not in prison should have the right to own whatever he wants.
No offense, but it sounds like you don't think much of the Constitution - you just really like guns. Otherwise you wouldn't want to impose cruel and unusual punishments, which would have horrified the Founding Fathers.
Also, you're worried about sensationalizing these psychos and making them famous... which is exactly what putting them on a PPV special would do! Most of them seem to want to die anyway. So you would be giving the murderers everything they want, while contributing to the coarsening of our culture at the same time.
I don't know about the rest of you, but holding up Vietnam and Saudi Arabia as models of success and saying that our criminal justice system should be more like theirs... that seems a little short-sighted to me. I'm not willing to throw away the American Experiment just because of a few school shootings. And I don't think you'll like it in Brazil and Australia: they don't have a Second Amendment.
We have that issue I believe with a group letting shootings happen with an agenda to ban guns or remove rights of law abiding people. Either there is an agenda or dereliction of duty I believe, The NRA and gun rights people oppose these groups at every turn I believe because they may know there is a group with an agenda.
To protect schools we could make them like a court. Limited access points with metal detectors and armed security guards on duty. No access except past security. Thus would be expensive I believe. Training police to go arrest kids who make online threats and who are heavily armed might be a good first step. Training police not to set up a perimeter but go in to stop a shooter might be another good step. Training FBI to share tips with local police who could go visit a kid making online threats might be another step. Improving background checks another good step. Making people give up their guns and access before a doctor is allowed to give them psychiatric drugs another good check. As a requirement to take the drugs, the police or an trained agent could inspect the residence to verify no visible guns on premises with access to safes and storage or wherever. This would be a requirement to take the drugs. Want to keep your guns, don't take the drugs nor make online threats that you want to do a mass shooting.
In Israel I heard the age is like 27 and if you have certain medical issues for which you are prescribed medication, you can't have guns. Law abiding people have gun rights it sounds like without mass shootings. The far right alternative is like the Wild West where everyone carries a gun. I'm personally ok with someone trained with firearms with carrying a weapon at school. Police officers do this already don't they? Even a stupid school kid would have to be really stupid to show up at a school if several teachers were waiting outside or behind barricades with several guns. They do have better things to do like teach. Police and FBI should be sharing tips and arresting people making online shooting threats.
I read about very old guns just as legal as the AR-15 made before the 1960's. I also read long ago, school kids used to carry guns to school in some areas and there were no mass shootings. In one article, I read a school kid threatened to bring a gun and shoot. It was from a long time ago. Several people at the school were waiting and well armed. The kid never showed up. He must not have been on drugs. I read those drugs can make you feel suicidal and violent.
Conspiracy people believe those with an agenda do mass shootings and cover up anything that points to any kind of devious alternatives. I've read about possible agendas associated with 911. I've also read reports in the Las Vegas shooting, that some reported gun fire from multiple directions as if there were multiple shooters. It could be hearsay by confused people but it's what I read. When I read and hear odd things, then no hesitation in the left calling for gun bans on everyone, it leads me to think someone with an agenda might be in on it. If they aren't , several people are not doing what they could to save lives.
Nowadays, it's completely different... But don't let anyone tell you that America has more freedoms than half the other Western countries of the world, or that not owning a gun would somehow make you less free than you are now.
I know you didn’t explicitly call for an assault weapons ban, but that was certainly the implication of what you wrote: (1) school shootings decreased during the 10 year “assault weapons” ban and increased after the ban expired, (2) the Founders never envisioned AR-15s when the 2d Amendment was ratified, and (3) _____. I can fill in the blank. My reading comprehension is documented to be above the third grade level. If you are against an assault weapons ban, why don’t you say so?
By the way, I don’t believe it has been documented that the expired assault weapons ban had any effect on gun violence. From the Politico article someone else cited in this thread:
“It may be tempting to conclude this increase is because of the expiration of the assault weapons ban in 2004—after all, the increase began shortly after the ban ended. But the limited research that’s been done suggests it had little short-term impact on gun violence.”
What’s your source for saying otherwise? And please don’t cite the Brady Center or some other agenda driven organization. It think Politico is pretty well recognized as a generally neutral, slightly left of center organization. But quite frankly, even if you are correct, I’m not sure it matters. I don’t think we are ever going to stop crazy, evil people from doing crazy, evil things. Should we try? Sure, but not if it involves passing unconstitutional laws.
We already have background checks, contrary to your suggestion (“if you want to allow background checks”), and I’m not sure what you mean by “have the database brought up to date.” As far as I know, it’s up to date, although no system is fool proof. Due to human error, the Texas church shooter was not entered into the system after a domestic violence conviction in the Air Force and, consequently, he was allowed to purchase an AR type weapon when he shouldn’t have. I’m sure the Department of Defense will fix that problem (or at least try to) given that fiasco. If you are referring to updating the system to include more mental health records, this is not something I am blindly going to support.
I agree that crazy people should not be allowed to purchase weapons. The question is how do you define a crazy person? Clearly, someone that has been adjudicated by a court as a danger to him/her self or others and involuntarily committed should not be able to purchase a weapon. I’m pretty sure those records are already in the National Instant Background Check System, and if not, I’m all for including them. But what about someone who saw a psychiatrist once because of a mild generalized anxiety disorder? Should that person be barred from owning a gun merely because of an entry in a medical record? Should anyone barred from owning a gun on anything less than a ruling from a court? We have this little thing in our country called “due process” that prevents the government from invading our rights without, well, due process.
I am not going to write to Paul Ryan and advocate for something when it has not been fully thought out, when there is no reasonable expectation it will have any impact on the problem, and that may be unconstitutional. Doing something is not always better than doing nothing, particularly when the something is ineffective (or not demonstrated to be effective) and merely burdens or invades the rights of the law abiding. You are demonstrating the classic liberal penchant for a knee jerk, feel good solution that involves passing a new law, even if there is no evidence the “solution” will really solve anything.
The background check system is full of loopholes and any thinking individual knows this. Just to keep it short I’ll give you a simple example. In Florida you can buy or sell a gun privately and at a gun show without a requirement that there be a background check, while that doesn’t seem to be the case in Parkland, there is documented evidence that even after multiple contacts with the BSO no one had the ability to remove these weapons don’t you think that is a failure, forgetting about the FBI and FDLE just for the purpose of simplifying this discussion.
I’m not reading the code wrong no less of a conservative than the late Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion that I am using as my basis, additionally he was part of an earlier decision that found banning certain classes of guns was not only constitutional but wise. I’m not there just yet on outright bans but the lack of willingness on the part of gun rights advocates to seek a workable compromise is taking us in that direction.
If someone wants to fight a revolution, then it won't matter if guns are illegal or illegal, and the same if someone wants to engage in revolution by what will be called te**o*ism.
Learn what brave people do when they want to risk their lives in opposing tyranny. Totally the opposite of the American right wingers claiming to support the 2nd Amendment, those guys are chickenshits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rih3EYj-…
John Brown Society
https://www.facebook.com/johnbrownsociet…
SJG
Cream - White Room (Royal Albert Hall 2005)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCc00pX_…
There are two ways to acquire a gun, legal and illegal.
Law abiding citizens go through the legal red tape required to purchase a gun.
Criminals either steal them or purchase through the black market.
Gun control legislation only impacts law abiding citizens, not criminals. There is something wrong with that.
I really hope that's not the first time you heard that argument. It's pretty standard.
SJG
The darkest of days inside the white house
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/%…
Mazda MX-5 Miata
https://www.mazdausa.com/vehicles/mx-5-m…
Old-school leftists used to support gun rights, because they wanted to overthrow the government. It's really sad watching you guys totally give up on your principles in exchange for influence over the levers of the state.
And I really am not interested in influence over the levers of the state, but I demand that everyone have basic dignity, and this means a comprehensive economic safety net.
SJG
They actually write about sometimes when some welfare activists were given official inclusion into the state apparatus. They did some good, but overall it was just a case of activists being neutralized with a paycheck.
Richard Nixon put forth his 1969 FAP ( Family Assistance Package ). It would have made the federal gov't pay $1600 per year for a needy family.
At that time, no one was talking like they do now, "Welfare is bad for poor people". No, many states had better programs, and so they very much wanted that $1600 from the feds.
Now this program would have neutralized all the hard won procedural reforms which Piven and others had obtained through street demonstrations and disrupting welfare offices.
But $1600 in places that had nothing was still good.
In the South East they had a horrible low wage system. Also, because of the 1965 voting rights act, in areas of states like Mississippi, they knew that they could not count anymore on rigged elections. So they were trying to drive blacks out of the state.
So they did not want the $1600, even if paid for by the feds. They were even refusing to distribute the federal food stamps benefit.
So after RFK's famous trip, where Marion Wright and Peter Edelman met, RFK got legislation so that food stamps could be distributed by secular NGO's for cases like Mississippi.
So there was a more liberal senator from Connecticut who wanted to change the Nixon FAP. And then there was the Democrat Russel Long of Louisiana who into an open mike called AFDC mothers 'brood mayors".
Nixon's own staff said that of three choices
1. Go to the left with the Connecticut senator
2. Go to the right with Russel Long, who did not want any of it
3. Stay the course
The only chance of passage was option 1.
But Nixon decided on 3, intentionally killing his own plan, because he had not realized how explosive an issue welfare was, and now he wanted it to still be an issue for the 1972 election.
The idea that 'welfare is bad for poor people' would brew, coming strongly from the South East, and then expanding in the Reagan Admin, and continuing to expand 'till the insanity which we have today.
SJG
MX-5 has 155hp, 2.0 liters, 16 values, DOHC, electronically controlled valve timing, and 6 speeds for stick shift
Led Zeppelin, 1969 Danish TV
"If one wants to overthrow the government does it matter whether or not guns are legal?"
I would think so, yes.
You also said:
"... welfare was invented not to provide for the needs of the poor, but in order to regulate the poor... sometimes when some welfare activists were given official inclusion into the state apparatus... overall it was just a case of activists being neutralized with a paycheck."
That's absolutely correct. A century ago, many prominent progressives were also eugenicists, and they often supported minimum wages and welfare programs explicitly as a means to *prevent* poor people from entering the workforce and ultimately, they hoped, discouraging them from forming families and reproducing as well.
The latter part of your comment is also a useful way to look at political science. If an activist can swing enough votes and influence enough public policy debates, the Party establishment will eventually try to co-opt him. It's how the sausage gets made.
"If one wants to overthrow the government does it matter whether or not guns are legal?"
I would think so, yes.
"
Are you serious? Is your entire world view defined by Reason Magazine?
"A century ago, many prominent progressives were also eugenicists, and they often supported minimum wages and welfare programs explicitly as a means to *prevent* poor people from entering the workforce and ultimately, they hoped, discouraging them from forming families and reproducing as well."
The first part of your statement is true. Much bad in many prominent social reformers. But preventing people from entering the work force, not hardly. And not hardly today either. Everyone wants to do well, to make a meaningful contribution.
Welfare is intended to prevent or to discourage the poor from engaging in disruptive behaviors. It is not about workforce discouragement.
"The latter part of your comment is also a useful way to look at political science. If an activist can swing enough votes and influence enough public policy debates, the Party establishment will eventually try to co-opt him. It's how the sausage gets made."
Yes, this is true, it is inevitably how democracy works, like it or not.
SJG
BHF, you are being influenced by Right Wing propaganda.
SJG
Well, listen, I don't want to overthrow any governments, so maybe I'm wrong about this. But I would think that if guns are illegal, they'll be harder for would-be revolutionaries to get. And then your opponents will have an even bigger advantage.
As for the motivations of early progressive reformers, to be fair, it was generally more racist and sexist than classist. And certainly modern progressives don't feel that way at all anymore. I would imagine that the average Bernie Sanders supporter would recoil in disgust at some of the writings of early progressive heroes.
"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." That's how it's usually expressed on a bumper sticker. And it has the added virtue of being true.
The legislation only impacts law abiding citizens.
I've heard countless arguments since about how the changing nature of weaponry makes the power imbalance between the military and citizens so dramatic that what we are allowed to hold no longer matters. Even if this were true, then why would we dream of doing yet more to make that imbalance worse? But that is also simplistic as any attempt to impose a dictatorship on the U.S. would face a populace armed with, by varying estimates, anywhere from 300 to 600+ million guns.
I've also heard the argument that today is a different day and that it simply could never happen to us. Really? Why not? What makes us so unique that our system could not be perverted to support a dictator? It has happened in too many countries to count. I guess some of you missed Trump's very own joke not long ago in which he mused that it would be nice for the U.S. to have a President for life.
For a more recent example, I bet the folks in Cuba wish they had their guns back. Castro, like most dictators, promptly disarmed the very people who helped him into power, citing safety concerns as his reason. Going back a little further, Hitler did the same thing in Germany. Oh, and for those of you who support gun registration, part of what helped both Castro and Hitler disarm the populace were the existence of these same types of registries.
How about another tack?
Why don't we legislate that the shooter's parents, siblings, teachers, and neighbors are all equally as liable as the shooter and thus could be charged with murder and liable for civil suits?
Because they didn't do anything wrong.
Well I didn't do anything wrong either, so don't fuck with my constitutional right to own a gun.
But my question is why is gun control only debated from people who reside in and around metropolitan areas? It seems to me that only those living in cities and suburbia America are the ones debating this issue, yet the majority of people in flyover country or in rural parts don’t seem to have this problem?
To solve the gun issue is beyond me, but you definitely have concentrated problems where people live. It’s the following the herd mentality and leading the masses through media, and non critical thinking skills that so plague our society today. Even though we have witnessed shootings in all parts of our society, there is a strong correlation to population and the way of life centered around populous regions. We have more of a media problem than we do a gun problem.
People who are honest and law abiding citizens just want everyone to stfu and leave them alone, and tend to live outside of large populated areas. People are dumb and are like pigs in a pen; too many crowded together cause them to kill each other.
If school kids really wanted to take action, they could create groups in every school trying to prevent school bullying, trying to stop outcasts from feeling outcast. Make friends with kids who feel like they don't fit in. It may be hard to do but if school kids really want to make a difference, they could start at home. Also stop texting and driving because more people die and get injured from that then from many shootings I heard.
How many school kids will get this message? None unless they are law breakers accessing this site underage. An adult could secretly convey the message though. Teachers can take extra time to help an isolated student feel more at home at school. That could stop a future shooter.
But we owe it to our children and future generations to come to find ways to end this senseless violence that becomes more extreme with each new outbreak.
I did hear a funny story about a woman calling a radio station complaining about deer crossings on busy highways. She thought the crossings should be moved so that they weren't on busy highways because that's dangerous. She thought the crossing signs should be moved to slow streets maybe even near school crossings. No joke. She didn't understand why the highway department could be so careless putting up crossing signs on such busy highways.:)
I imagine some in rural areas feel a bit like the people in the radio station. However deer are not armed and have not been taking millions of dangerous drugs that preceded any deer mass shootings.
Now you are speaking for smart Republicans? When did that start happening? ;)
But I disagree. Smart Republicans know that their core supporters will likely boot them out in the primaries if they do anything to seriously infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights. IMHO smart Republicans also know that the hysteria will eventually fade away, as it did with Sandy Hook and every other mass shooting event that has happened in the modern era.
Welfare has always developed in conjunction with anti-panhandling laws. And the profession of psychiatry developed as a way of justifying the incarceration of homeless men who were breaking no law.
SJG
I’m from a background of gun culture and so is the Mrs, in fact, her rural background is moreso a culture of guns. And I that culture guns are not the problem. So we need to take that into account with our solutions.
I’m fine with background checks.
I’m fine with raising the age to 21.
I’m fine with guys who want guns at 18, they can’t go join the military. Win-win for all of us.
I know the kids in these schools are being shot at and are tired of being shot at. But the real issue is in most of these cases that the kids and schools are overlooking with gun control is, most everyone said, the kid was a weird-o, everyone knew he was a weird-o, and he was acting strange prior to the incident.
The adults. There needs to be a way for adults to check up on the kids, teacher, uncle, dad, principal — probably a male figure — and say, hey pal. Looks like something’s bothering you. Want to throw a ball and talk about it some? Or want to watch the cheerleaders practice and talk about it some? Open the dialog.
The anger: has someone sat down with these young boys and asked them why are you so angry? What about this world that we adults have left you, what about this world angers you so much? The Virginia Tech shooter was *upset* no kidding, that he didn’t have a supermodel girlfriend. I mean, really??!? What is media, fame, celebrity, lack of role models, advertising, depiction of upper middle class lifestyles as the norm — doing to these boys? Hint: it’s not the video games.
@twentyfive: the US Secret Service already did a slot of the heavy lifting on this. A paper’s published on it.
It’s available online: https://www.secretservice.gov/data/prote…
^^^ Section V, Page 39 ... outlines the solution ... but the whole paper is worth a read.
From Preface, page iii: “the initiative drew from the secret service’s experience in studying and preventing assassination and other types of targeted violence .... This document, the Safe School Initiative’s final report, details how our two agencies studied school-based attacks and what we found. Some of the findings may surprise you. It is clear that there is no simple explanation as to why these attacks have occurred. Nor is there a simple solution to stop this problem. But the findings of the Safe School Initiative do suggest that some future attacks may be preventable, if those responsible for safety in schools know what questions to ask and where to uncover information that may help with efforts to intervene before a school attack can occur.“.
I think we have hard work ahead of us. Did we somehow ruin an entire generation of boys???
Good thread, trying to keep it civil.
Their answer: Section V, page 39.
I don't agree with you. Only those who are "in the know" would have access to guns during an insurrection. Either way, it's a moot point. Decades ago, both the Left and the Right decided that, since the State is going to impose its will on the citizenry no matter what, the two sides might as well attempt to take control of the State rather than attempt to curtail it. That way, they reasoned, the vision that will be imposed will be "our vision." This has long been the norm throughout the world, and at some point, it became the norm in America, as well. As social welfare programs were established, the Left in particular began to think of the State as a natural ally. It's kind of sad and ironic, considering the Left's heritage as an anti-government movement. So basically, you might think you're some kind of a radical freedom fighter, but you're really just another part of the problem.
No offense, but if you think of the 2nd Amendment as the Constitution's escape clause then you should also oppose background checks. If the government has the right to impose a test to determine who can own a weapon and who can't, inevitably the "enemies of the State" will be at the top of the shit-list.
Think about it: Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, George Mason, Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, and Thomas Paine were all thought of as trouble-makers. If psychology had already been invented, they probably would have been branded as nutcases, too. And they wouldn't have been able to get any guns.
That's why I don't think in purely utilitarian terms. People should have the right to own guns because they have the natural right to own any form of inanimate object, and to defend themselves as they see fit. These are natural human rights that far predated the Constitution.
As a REASONABLE compromise I’m ok with background checks. That just means the govt knows I probably have at least one gun. I’m ok with them knowing that ( since the database was pinged) What I am AGAINST Is a database that tracks what guns I have, how many, what kinds, and where they are geo located or stored. So I am against ANY SORT of database that keeps inventory on that. The reasons are obvious when SHTF and they come to confiscate them.
That’s also why we don’t let people take pictures of our guns and post them online. That shit is geo tagged with GPS coordinates and time stamped. Fk that.
JOKE: Dudes like that are so ideological.
AUDIENCE: How ideological are they??
JOKE: Dude would sell a gun to an insane criminal just so the criminal to turn around, rob the gun dealer with gun he just bought, smiling the whole time that the customers 2A constitutional rights were upheld.
You might have to compromise somewhere.
Well, I would be fine with my neighbor owning machine guns and tanks. But nukes and other WMDs might be a bridge too far, even for me. The reason is, if he ever decided to use them, no one would be able to defend themselves and we wouldn't be able to take him into custody afterwards - he would be dead, along with half the town. It's impossible to defend against a WMD and you can't run away from it. So I guess that's the lone exception.
You become part of the solution with regards to school shootings and I’ll give up my nuclear weapons, untill I get what I want, you’ll just have to live with my nuclear weapons.
We should also acknowledge that it wouldn't make a dent in the number of mass shootings, but that's beside the point. I'm comfortable with doing this because I believe that societies should have the right to determine the age of adulthood.
Just a quick sidenote: Senator Jeff Flake recently came out and said that he, too, was open to raising the minimum age for gun purchases, and the Trump supporters became quite upset about it. "Do you see?," they said, "he can't be trusted! He's not a true conservative!" I wonder how they feel now that Trump has publicly endorsed taking away due process rights from gun owners and outright gun confiscation! Are they even aware of this?
SJG
I have to confess: John Locke, the classical liberals of the enlightenment, and even some of the Founders *might* have endorsed some gun control by now.
But I don't endorse any real gun control.
That's one of the very subtle differences between a Classical Liberal and a Libertarian: classical liberals are mostly concerned with outcomes, but a true libertarian is more concerned with morality. (And of course, to a libertarian, morality can best be expressed as "allowing people to be free," but I digress.)
So ultimately, if a classical liberal can be convinced that modern guns are "simply too dangerous," then he might come to endorse restricting them. We'll never know for sure.
So liberalism within a country is good, but there are limits, it cannot be an absolute objective in and of itself.
Libertarianism is insanity and non-sense. There is nothing moral about it, is just a license for gross immorality.
But I applaud Dominic for clarifying the distinction.
.
SJG
Exotic Scales, Egyptian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuwE0klU…
1 hr, using the same scales? To me it is just belly dance music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI6dOS5n…
I guess the Florida Legislature is feeling the heat, the tide is turning, even if Gov. Scott doesn’t sign this bill, history is moving forward.
—>” 790.065 Sale and delivery of firearms.— A person younger than 21 years of age may not purchase a firearm. The sale or transfer of a firearm to a person younger than 21 years of age may not be made or facilitated by a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer. A person who violates this subsection commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The prohibitions of this subsection do not apply to the purchase of a rifle or shotgun by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer, as those terms are defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9), or a service member as defined in s. 250.01.
Effective October 1, 2018, section 790.222, 735 Florida Statutes, is created to read:
790.222 Bump-fire stocks prohibited.—A person may not import into this state or transfer, distribute, sell, keep for sale, offer for sale, possess, or give to another person a bump fire stock. A person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, the term “bump fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire or which is used to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device.
Bump stocks
Crank fire devices
Binary triggers
3 gun triggers (Geissele and LaRue, among others, makes a wide variety)
Lightweight bolt carrier groups
Buffer springs and different buffer weights
Gas system length
Adjustable Gas blocks
TRANSFERABLE / REGISTERED Lightening Link (the host remains semi, the LL is the MG)
TRANSFERABLE / REGISTERED DIAS (the host remains semi, the RDIAS is the MG)
TRANSFERABLE / REGISTERED HK sears and trigger packs (the host remains semi, the sear or pack is the MG)
TRANSFERABLE / REGISTERED FNC sears (the host remains semi, the sear is the MG)
“
—> end quote
source: https://goo.gl/uP7dL4
^If I understand what I think the Founding Fathers meant was that there wouldn’t be a standing army, and instead we’d used Conscription (i.e., Draft) for any foreign wars. The thinking, if I stretch, is that most voters would have skin-in-the-game either buy being of conscription age themselves or by having sons or grandsons who are of age.
Meaning you aren’t going to risk the blood of your sons on a foreign war that isn’t worth it. Some of this calculus has changed with the volunteer army (aka standing army). So the skin in the game isn’t present in the same way.
I do sympathize with the young men in the Vietnam Era age who were 18-21 but 1) not old enough to vote and 2) maybe their fathers disagreed with sons about the involvement. (to proxy war with USSR to contain communism during Cold War).
I’m not sure what the compromise should be. I don’t think the Founding Fathers were wrong per se. Maybe the voting age SHOLD go back to 21 and voter IDs or property requirements. I think @JohnSmith69 has caused be to rethink some of those assumptions. ;)
@BurlingtonHoFactory wrote: “We should also acknowledge that it wouldn't make a dent in the number of mass shootings, but that's beside the point. I'm comfortable with doing this because I believe that societies should have the right to determine the age of adulthood. “
^True, I don’t think it will make a dent. I think we need to revisit what’s making the young men and boys angry. And maybe re-evaluate what sort of world we have left for them and what their grievances are “e.g, hypocrisy, male figures to say one thing but do another” I think the young men are right to call out the bullshit of what they are being fed. I think some are lashing out against that.
Not sure I want to postpone adulthood though. For example, I don’t agree with the whole keep-your-kids-on-your-medical-insurance-until-26 rules we have. Yet, it is popular.
Raise ALL GUN sales to 21 and over, okay.
I think some of that should be left up to families. If I as a parent want to permit my children to be given a gun by me at a younger age, say 14. Where I buy I and I oversee them and make sure the child is responsible, then I should be able to do that at some young age like 14 or so. To wait for that until 21 is absurd. Even for an AR-15.
I understand my views may not be popular with all.
No, not okay.
Ie must be 100% solid pink of one hue, with a spectrum of authorized shades clearly defined in the legislation.
And, the weapon must be free of any substance that masks the color over more than 10% of the weapon's surface area.
;-)
Most of the founding fathers would have hated the idea of conscription, but other than that, yes, I think you've got the right idea. The founders would have assumed that all future wars were going to be wars of absolute necessity, rather than foreign adventurism, and that all able-bodied men would eagerly volunteer to take up arms to defend their homes and repel an invading army.
Well where I am, pretty much the only people with any interest in levers of the state are real estate developers. The people who want government power and run for office do so to make money. These are the people I am fighting with on a daily basis. This is after all how Capitalism has always worked. Starts local, but then it goes to State and Federal. They want state power, and also sometimes the benefits of state money.
SJG
Vintage Café Vol. 11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNuL6Yui…
So most civil liberties law suits do reference 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and the 14th Amendment. Case in point Roe v Wade.
SJG