Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Mods. I looked and probably missed the last topic we had on this so if it needs merged please do so.

 

In wake of Orlando.

 

Let the conversation begin once again.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think we should all be allowed to own those arms they were talking about it...those awesome muskets!

I want a horse-drawn cannon!

 

And as well you should! It is your right! With your horse-drawn cannon and my late 1700's musket...we would be some bad-ass-mo-fo's!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people need assault rifles to hunt?

I'm assuming you mean a AR-15 rifle, not a real assault rifle since they're effectively banned? In that case, there's zero functional difference between a standard AR-15 and a ranch rifle like the ruger mini 14 that's been used for hunting for over half a century, other than the fact that it's black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was the worst mass shooting event in U.S. History. 50 people killed, at least 50 more injured. While horrific, mass shootings comprise only a small fraction of overall gun violence in the United States.

 

For perspective,

- Guns kill 36 people on average every day in the United States.

- There were 45 school campus shootings in 2015 by October.

- 69 people were shot in Chicago this Memorial Day weekend.

- 130,000 people are shot every year in the United States.

 

Because guns are accessible even if illegal, I can only assume these numbers are completely typical around the world.

 

The good news is that there is literally nothing that we can or should do about this. Because gun violence as well as mass shootings can't ever be eliminated completely, the status quo must stand. Or so we're told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about explosive materials Zoogs? Lets say guns do get regulated or even go away all together, do these extremists/criminals/unstable people all of a sudden become good people? Do they continue to find a way to commit such violence?

 

It might not be the mass murder but they are still lives that get killed through other avenues. One life is also 1 too much.

 

I just have a REALLY hard time accepting that these crimes and horrible incidents only blame the weapon and not the abstract of the shooter. It's not easy! It's not! It's absolutely disgusting! Horrible!

 

How do you turn an intolerant person into a more accepting person?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why do people need assault rifles to hunt?

I'm assuming you mean a AR-15 rifle, not a real assault rifle since they're effectively banned? In that case, there's zero functional difference between a standard AR-15 and a ranch rifle like the ruger mini 14 that's been used for hunting for over half a century, other than the fact that it's black.

Thanks. I actually wanted a real answer. I know next to nothing about guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about explosive materials Zoogs? Lets say guns do get regulated or even go away all together, do these extremists/criminals/unstable people all of a sudden become good people? Do they continue to find a way to commit such violence?

 

It might not be the mass murder but they are still lives that get killed through other avenues. One life is also 1 too much.

 

I just have a REALLY hard time accepting that these crimes and horrible incidents only blame the weapon and not the abstract of the shooter. It's not easy! It's not! It's absolutely disgusting! Horrible!

 

How do you turn an intolerant person into a more accepting person?!

 

You can't do away with criminals.

 

But I completely do not accept that you can't reduce gun violence by reducing access.

 

It's simply a question of whether we want to. And hey. If people feel strongly about their guns, then we, as a society, continue to decide that these are acceptable costs -- as we have been. I hope for a day where that's different, but it's not this day (again). I also don't accept that reducing gun violence doesn't cut violence overall. Guns are far more efficient killing devices and they enable deaths that otherwise don't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why do people need assault rifles to hunt?

I'm assuming you mean a AR-15 rifle, not a real assault rifle since they're effectively banned? In that case, there's zero functional difference between a standard AR-15 and a ranch rifle like the ruger mini 14 that's been used for hunting for over half a century, other than the fact that it's black.

Thanks. I actually wanted a real answer. I know next to nothing about guns.

 

Yes, and cosmetically looks like the guns in movies. Which is the driving force behind the fear of AR-15 of those who don't know anything about guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about explosive materials Zoogs? Lets say guns do get regulated or even go away all together, do these extremists/criminals/unstable people all of a sudden become good people? Do they continue to find a way to commit such violence?

 

It might not be the mass murder but they are still lives that get killed through other avenues. One life is also 1 too much.

 

I just have a REALLY hard time accepting that these crimes and horrible incidents only blame the weapon and not the abstract of the shooter. It's not easy! It's not! It's absolutely disgusting! Horrible!

 

How do you turn an intolerant person into a more accepting person?!

 

The Liberal left refused to accept that radical islamists are out to get us, and that ISIS has grown by 4400% under Obama's watch and will continue to pose a threat to our nation for years to come. They use the gun control debate to deflect from the reality of what is happening, and its really sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why do people need assault rifles to hunt?

I'm assuming you mean a AR-15 rifle, not a real assault rifle since they're effectively banned? In that case, there's zero functional difference between a standard AR-15 and a ranch rifle like the ruger mini 14 that's been used for hunting for over half a century, other than the fact that it's black.

Thanks. I actually wanted a real answer. I know next to nothing about guns.

 

No prob. I've made my thoughts in the issue clear many times, but it's hard to get into legitimate discussions with many people because there's so much misinformation and scaremongering done by the media and politicians both R & D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality? Of course terrorists get a kick out of killing us. We've been fighting a war with them for the last decade and a half, and that will continue. ISIS will be degraded one day to a point that some other awful group with some other acronym can grow enough for partisans in the U.S. to toss around meaningless statistics. And, I expect, we'll carry on drone striking them into oblivion.

 

If there's a distraction, it's the endless war being used as one from the staggering banality of gun violence here. It was worse one day, I'm sure. It will be better another day, I'm equally sure. I would hope we're part of the generation that gets us there, but that won't happen if we're simply uninterested in doing something about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What about explosive materials Zoogs? Lets say guns do get regulated or even go away all together, do these extremists/criminals/unstable people all of a sudden become good people? Do they continue to find a way to commit such violence?

 

It might not be the mass murder but they are still lives that get killed through other avenues. One life is also 1 too much.

 

I just have a REALLY hard time accepting that these crimes and horrible incidents only blame the weapon and not the abstract of the shooter. It's not easy! It's not! It's absolutely disgusting! Horrible!

 

How do you turn an intolerant person into a more accepting person?!

 

The Liberal left refused to accept that radical islamists are out to get us, and that ISIS has grown by 4400% under Obama's watch and will continue to pose a threat to our nation for years to come. They use the gun control debate to deflect from the reality of what is happening, and its really sad.

 

 

What I want to say to you will get me kicked off the board.

 

But that's just the worst extrapolation of non-fact you could cobble together, to support a thesis that doesn't understand the threat to America from either guns or radical Islam.

 

What a terrible time to be peddling this horsesh#t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't do away with criminals.

 

But I completely do not accept that you can't reduce gun violence by reducing access.

CNN is reporting that he had been employed for over 8 years as a security guard by private security firm that was doing contract work for the government, but was also on a suspected ISIS sympathizer watch list. Details are still coming, but going by what's coming out as of now, he was as qualified as could be from a professional standpoint. No idea how the watch list stuff didn't raise red flags though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What about explosive materials Zoogs? Lets say guns do get regulated or even go away all together, do these extremists/criminals/unstable people all of a sudden become good people? Do they continue to find a way to commit such violence?

 

It might not be the mass murder but they are still lives that get killed through other avenues. One life is also 1 too much.

 

I just have a REALLY hard time accepting that these crimes and horrible incidents only blame the weapon and not the abstract of the shooter. It's not easy! It's not! It's absolutely disgusting! Horrible!

 

How do you turn an intolerant person into a more accepting person?!

 

The Liberal left refused to accept that radical islamists are out to get us, and that ISIS has grown by 4400% under Obama's watch and will continue to pose a threat to our nation for years to come. They use the gun control debate to deflect from the reality of what is happening, and its really sad.

 

 

What I want to say to you will get me kicked off the board.

 

But that's just the worst extrapolation of non-fact you could cobble together, to support a thesis that doesn't understand the threat to America from either guns or radical Islam.

 

What a terrible time to be peddling this horsesh#t.

 

 

What is non-factual...Obama's own FBI Director has come out and said that ISIS has grown by 4400% during Obama's tenure. It's not something made up. It's why when I responded to your post earlier this week about the biggest failures of the Obama Presidency, I listed ISIS as #1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how many people died in car accidents or in smoking related illness in the same time span? no call for banning cars or cigs?

 

This has come up often. I think nobody has explained it better than the President himself.

 

Although as the headline mentions, it will no doubt be ignored.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/03/obama_gun_control_is_not_that_different_than_driving_safety_video.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What about explosive materials Zoogs? Lets say guns do get regulated or even go away all together, do these extremists/criminals/unstable people all of a sudden become good people? Do they continue to find a way to commit such violence?

 

It might not be the mass murder but they are still lives that get killed through other avenues. One life is also 1 too much.

 

I just have a REALLY hard time accepting that these crimes and horrible incidents only blame the weapon and not the abstract of the shooter. It's not easy! It's not! It's absolutely disgusting! Horrible!

 

How do you turn an intolerant person into a more accepting person?!

 

The Liberal left refused to accept that radical islamists are out to get us, and that ISIS has grown by 4400% under Obama's watch and will continue to pose a threat to our nation for years to come. They use the gun control debate to deflect from the reality of what is happening, and its really sad.

 

 

What I want to say to you will get me kicked off the board.

 

But that's just the worst extrapolation of non-fact you could cobble together, to support a thesis that doesn't understand the threat to America from either guns or radical Islam.

 

What a terrible time to be peddling this horsesh#t.

 

 

What is non-factual...Obama's own FBI Director has come out and said that ISIS has grown by 4400% during Obama's tenure. It's not something made up. It's why when I responded to your post earlier this week about the biggest failures of the Obama Presidency, I listed ISIS as #1.

 

 

Go ahead and walk me through the rise of ISIS.

 

Use facts.

 

I dare you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

What about explosive materials Zoogs? Lets say guns do get regulated or even go away all together, do these extremists/criminals/unstable people all of a sudden become good people? Do they continue to find a way to commit such violence?

 

It might not be the mass murder but they are still lives that get killed through other avenues. One life is also 1 too much.

 

I just have a REALLY hard time accepting that these crimes and horrible incidents only blame the weapon and not the abstract of the shooter. It's not easy! It's not! It's absolutely disgusting! Horrible!

 

How do you turn an intolerant person into a more accepting person?!

 

The Liberal left refused to accept that radical islamists are out to get us, and that ISIS has grown by 4400% under Obama's watch and will continue to pose a threat to our nation for years to come. They use the gun control debate to deflect from the reality of what is happening, and its really sad.

 

 

What I want to say to you will get me kicked off the board.

 

But that's just the worst extrapolation of non-fact you could cobble together, to support a thesis that doesn't understand the threat to America from either guns or radical Islam.

 

What a terrible time to be peddling this horsesh#t.

 

 

What is non-factual...Obama's own FBI Director has come out and said that ISIS has grown by 4400% during Obama's tenure. It's not something made up. It's why when I responded to your post earlier this week about the biggest failures of the Obama Presidency, I listed ISIS as #1.

 

 

Go ahead and walk me through the rise of ISIS.

 

Use facts.

 

I dare you.

 

 

https://www.aei.org/publication/brennan-admits-isis-was-decimated-under-bush-but-has-grown-under-obama-by-as-much-as-4400-percent/

 

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/cia-director-isis-has-grown-4400-percent-under-obama/

 

ISIS as an organization was formed in 1999 so has spanned the past 3 Presidents. They were pretty much wiped out under Bush's watch according to the CIA director, but have risen to prominence under Obama's tenure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN is reporting that he had been employed for over 8 years as a security guard by private security firm that was doing contract work for the government, but was also on a suspected ISIS sympathizer watch list. Details are still coming, but going by what's coming out as of now, he was as qualified as could be from a professional standpoint. No idea how the watch list stuff didn't raise red flags though.
Yeah, I'm sure this will spur some change in policies. I don't think you'll ever be able to stop ostensibly qualified or clean-sheet people from becoming either radicalized, unstable, or perhaps always having been so.
We're not a society separated into pure do-gooders and inherently evil maniacs. The things that lead people down a criminal path are more complicated than that, which is why I'm not particularly sanguine about a "Blame that one guy *really* hard" as a means of convincing ourselves we've fixed something.
The guy who shot his former professor at UCLA, for example. Yes, he was terrible. That was terrible. But assuming he was a PhD student with zero criminal record, I don't see how any level of background checks would have prevented him from legally acquiring a firearm. Is that an argument for no checks at all? That all these efforts at tighter checks are wasted? I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What about explosive materials Zoogs? Lets say guns do get regulated or even go away all together, do these extremists/criminals/unstable people all of a sudden become good people? Do they continue to find a way to commit such violence?

 

It might not be the mass murder but they are still lives that get killed through other avenues. One life is also 1 too much.

 

I just have a REALLY hard time accepting that these crimes and horrible incidents only blame the weapon and not the abstract of the shooter. It's not easy! It's not! It's absolutely disgusting! Horrible!

 

How do you turn an intolerant person into a more accepting person?!

 

The Liberal left refused to accept that radical islamists are out to get us, and that ISIS has grown by 4400% under Obama's watch and will continue to pose a threat to our nation for years to come. They use the gun control debate to deflect from the reality of what is happening, and its really sad.

 

 

What I want to say to you will get me kicked off the board.

 

But that's just the worst extrapolation of non-fact you could cobble together, to support a thesis that doesn't understand the threat to America from either guns or radical Islam.

 

What a terrible time to be peddling this horsesh#t.

 

 

What is non-factual...Obama's own FBI Director has come out and said that ISIS has grown by 4400% during Obama's tenure. It's not something made up. It's why when I responded to your post earlier this week about the biggest failures of the Obama Presidency, I listed ISIS as #1.

 

Can't argue with that logic, let's not do anything to try reducing gun crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moiraine, show me where in the Second Amendment that has to do with hunting.

 

Speaking of the 2nd amendment:

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Why do people ignore the bolded part? It seems to me a street gang (which is what the British thought the Patriots were) is more qualified to own guns than an individual. Maybe the only people allowed to own guns must be a member of the National Guard?

 

I don't know what the answer could be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns will become the new illegal drugs if taken away. People can and will find them if they want them. Gun control wont stop these things from happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Moiraine, show me where in the Second Amendment that has to do with hunting.

 

Speaking of the 2nd amendment:

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Why do people ignore the bolded part? It seems to me a street gang (which is what the British thought the Patriots were) is more qualified to own guns than an individual. Maybe the only people allowed to own guns must be a member of the National Guard?

 

I don't know what the answer could be.

 

They don't ignore it.

 

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

 

Some people mistakenly think it's a collective right (the "militia" argument), vs an individual right like all the other ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, this is what I've posted in the past regarding my thoughts to help curtail gun violence.

 

Fix the for profit prison system, and scrap the current drug war. Instant massive drop in crime. This is more important than any single gun law. Inner city gang and drug related crime accounts for more violence than all the mass shootings combined.

Next, if we're going to mandatory background checks, then we do it this way. A mandatory background check becomes a national license. You lose the license if you commit any number of crimes. A basic proficiency test (plus written exam) like I had to do for my CCW. If you want to go concealed, then offer more free training. In turn, the license is national, so no more having 50 sets of rules. If you can conceal carry in Minnesota, or Florida, you can in California or New York too. This means that cali and NYC can't blame other states for their crime (and corruption) problems. Banning things like "assault rifles" that kill less people than hammers, pools, and fists or stuff like silencers because they're "scary" won't fix the problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when 20 little kids got shot and the nation was outraged? We still have guns everywhere. It's been four years. There have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with over 1,135 people dead and nearly 4,000 more wounded.

 

This shooting won't change anything. The pro-gun crowd just gets further & further entrenched in their mania. They won't budge until every man, woman and child in this country knows someone who's been shot in gun violence.

 

Even then it's iffy, because they'll just push for more guns, for everyone, everywhere.

 

Why even have this conversation? No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when 20 little kids got shot and the nation was outraged? We still have guns everywhere. It's been four years. There have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with over 1,135 people dead and nearly 4,000 more wounded.

 

This shooting won't change anything. The pro-gun crowd just gets further & further entrenched in their mania. They won't budge until every man, woman and child in this country knows someone who's been shot in gun violence.

 

Even then it's iffy, because they'll just push for more guns, for everyone, everywhere.

 

Why even have this conversation? No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

This type of attitude doesn't help. Going around and demonizing anyone who owns a gun and blaming them for what happened isn't right. It's not NRA members (as much as I despise what they've become) going around committing these atrocities. In fact most of those "mass shooitngs" you cite were gang/drug related crimes. Over 99.99% gun owners haven't done a thing wrong, yet it's their fault? It's no different than blaming anyone who drinks a beer for all the DUI deaths commited every year.

 

This kind of thinking is how we got the Patriot Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington Post: NRA money helped reshape gun law

 

For more than three decades, the NRA has sponsored legal seminars, funded legal research and encouraged law review articles that advocate an individual’s right to possess guns, according to the organization’s reports. The result has been a profound shift in legal thinking on the Second Amendment. And the issue of individual gun-possession rights, once almost entirely ignored, has moved into the center of constitutional debate and study.

 

“I think this was one of the most successful attempts to change the law and to change a legal paradigm in history,” said Carl T. Bogus, a professor at Roger Williams University School of Law in Rhode Island and the editor of “The Second Amendment in Law and History,” a collection of essays that challenges the interpretation of the individual right. “They were thinking strategically. I don’t think the NRA funds scholarship out of academic interest. I think the NRA funds something because it has a political objective.”

NYTimes: What Liberals Can Learn From the NRA

 

Consider what the N.R.A. has accomplished. Just a few decades ago, even loyal conservatives rejected the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to the states’ prerogative to raise militias. In 1990, the retired Supreme Court chief justice Warren Burger, a Nixon nominee, dismissed the idea as a “fraud.” ...

 

The N.R.A. first focused on the states, lobbying to change state constitutions and laws to protect the right to possess and carry guns. The organization realized that most gun laws were enacted by states, not the federal government, and that it could win substantial victories there ...

 

The N.R.A. also enlisted the academy. Beginning in the 1980s, it offered grants and prizes designed to encourage scholarship that buttressed its view of the Second Amendment. With N.R.A. assistance, legal scholars transformed the academic understanding of the Second Amendment...

Right or wrong, for better or for worse, the NRA played the long game and won with decades of effort in shaping legal scholarship.

 

It's the NRA's world. We're all just living in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider what the N.R.A. has accomplished. Just a few decades ago, even loyal conservatives rejected the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to the states’ prerogative to raise militias.

Not really. From the outset, it was understood to be an individual right, like all the others. Example from one of the earlier drafts

 

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State.

 

New York Convention, June 26, 1788

 

https://www.archives.gov/legislative/resources/bill-of-rights/CCBR_IIB.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think the consensus that existed before recently can be erased. You can argue that it was a mistaken consensus, and in a world where the NRA has expended such enormous effort to shape mainstream legal opinion, that would probably be music to their ears. You can argue that the NRA acted not out of self interest, but out of genuine academic advocacy -- righting a great wrong. (Certainly, many sea changes in American history have righted past wrongs...)

 

But I don't think you can argue about the consensus state of the question prior to the NRA's heavy, sustained involvement of recent decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think the consensus that existed before recently can be erased. You can argue that it was a mistaken consensus, and in a world where the NRA has expended such enormous effort to shape mainstream legal opinion, that would probably be music to their ears. You can argue that the NRA acted not out of self interest, but out of genuine academic advocacy -- righting a great wrong.

 

But I don't think you can argue about the consensus state of the question prior to the NRA's heavy, sustained involvement of recent decades.

Eh, IDK about the consensus. For instance, the real push towards gun control began in the 1800's after the civil way in an attempt to curtail the freedoms of freed slaves.

 

While settled parts of the South were in great fear of armed blacks, concerns about Indian attack often forced relaxation of these rules on the frontier. The 1798 Kentucky Comprehensive Act allowed slaves and free blacks on frontier plantations "to keep and use guns, powder, shot, and weapons, offensive and defensive."(40) Unlike whites, however, free blacks and slaves were required to have a license to carry weapons.(41)

Blacks needed to carry arms for self-defense not only against criminal attacks that any person, white or black, might worry about, but they also needed arms for protection against the additional hazard of being kidnapped and sold into slavery.(42) A number of states, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, passed laws specifically to prohibit kidnapping of free blacks. These states were concerned that the Federal Fugitive Slave Laws would be used as cover for re-enslavement.(43)

The end of slavery in 1865 did not eliminate the problems of racist gun control laws. The various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or bowie knives. These Codes are sufficiently well-known that any reasonably complete history of the Reconstruction period mentions them. These restrictive gun laws played a part in provoking Republican efforts to get the Fourteenth Amendment passed.(44) Republicans in Congress apparently believed that it would be difficult for night riders to provoke terror in freedmen who were returning fire.

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

 

 

 

I'm not really arguing for the NRA here. I'm not a fan of what they've become. There certainly are crazies there, just as there are in the anti-gun crowd. But like I said above, I absolutely think there are measures we can take in regards to violence, poverty, and gun crime. But demonzing millions upon millions of law abiding gun owners who have never done anything wrong, and saying that it's their fault won't solve a thing, and only further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. I think more so than guns themselves being the problem, it's the state of things politically. Or, the problem is the problem :P

 

The point was just about the history of the 2nd amendment -- its primacy in the national conversation, the battle lines drawn around it, and the present consolidation of interpretations -- those things were created, and the change was born out of organized effort. Sometimes these efforts are noble...

 

What do you mean when you say you're not a fan of what they've become, by the way? I'm not so familiar with how they've changed over the years, myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was the second worst shooting, don't forget wounded knee.

 

2. I want a nuke, I need it to protect myself from the government and the 2nd amendment allows it.

 

3 Bush funded and started ISIS.

 

4. So many hot takes coming soon.

 

5. Trump using this event to pat himself on the back is pathetic.

 

6. I haven't noticed as many people as I expected to be upset by this, are we just used to it? Or because gays were killed?

 

7. Thankfully he was brown or this would just be another "mentally ill " white kid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Remember when 20 little kids got shot and the nation was outraged? We still have guns everywhere. It's been four years. There have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with over 1,135 people dead and nearly 4,000 more wounded.

 

This shooting won't change anything. The pro-gun crowd just gets further & further entrenched in their mania. They won't budge until every man, woman and child in this country knows someone who's been shot in gun violence.

 

Even then it's iffy, because they'll just push for more guns, for everyone, everywhere.

 

Why even have this conversation? No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

This type of attitude doesn't help. Going around and demonizing anyone who owns a gun and blaming them for what happened isn't right. It's not NRA members (as much as I despise what they've become) going around committing these atrocities. In fact most of those "mass shooitngs" you cite were gang/drug related crimes. Over 99.99% gun owners haven't done a thing wrong, yet it's their fault? It's no different than blaming anyone who drinks a beer for all the DUI deaths commited every year.

 

This kind of thinking is how we got the Patriot Act.

 

 

You are right Saunders. The immediate reaction is to blame guns and the 2nd amendment as we saw with Obama's reaction after the Oregon shooting in which he came out within 3 hours prior to many families knowing if their loved one was killed, and openly admitted he was politicizing the tragedy. If we want to live in a closed society then perhaps we may see less of this. The rise of these types of shootings is a result of many factors, including broken homes and more kids living without good parents, the rise of violent movies, television, video games, etc..., the rise of the internet age and social media where people can get attention for acts like these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. I think more so than guns themselves being the problem, it's the state of things politically. Or, the problem is the problem :P

 

The point was just about the history of the 2nd amendment -- its primacy in the national conversation, the battle lines drawn around it, and the present consolidation of interpretations -- those things were created, and the change was born out of organized effort. Sometimes these efforts are noble...

 

What do you mean when you say you're not a fan of what they've become, by the way? I'm not so familiar with how they've changed over the years, myself.

The tl;dr version is that the NRA was founded to teach marksmanship and gun safety. However the political side (the NRA-ILA) has grown since the 70's and turned it into trash. The gun range related stuff (like their instruction courses) are still top notch, but the overall group has been tainted.

 

Here's a decent look at it: http://www.alternet.org/suprising-unknown-history-nra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Consider what the N.R.A. has accomplished. Just a few decades ago, even loyal conservatives rejected the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to the states’ prerogative to raise militias.

Not really. From the outset, it was understood to be an individual right, like all the others. Example from one of the earlier drafts

 

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State.

 

New York Convention, June 26, 1788

 

https://www.archives.gov/legislative/resources/bill-of-rights/CCBR_IIB.pdf

 

 

CAPABLE.

 

I think that anyone should be able to own a gun, but, need to go through a psych eval. One that digs into the childhood of people, one that could expose triggers to snap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Remember when 20 little kids got shot and the nation was outraged? We still have guns everywhere. It's been four years. There have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with over 1,135 people dead and nearly 4,000 more wounded.

 

This shooting won't change anything. The pro-gun crowd just gets further & further entrenched in their mania. They won't budge until every man, woman and child in this country knows someone who's been shot in gun violence.

 

Even then it's iffy, because they'll just push for more guns, for everyone, everywhere.

 

Why even have this conversation? No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

This type of attitude doesn't help. Going around and demonizing anyone who owns a gun and blaming them for what happened isn't right. It's not NRA members (as much as I despise what they've become) going around committing these atrocities. In fact most of those "mass shooitngs" you cite were gang/drug related crimes. Over 99.99% gun owners haven't done a thing wrong, yet it's their fault? It's no different than blaming anyone who drinks a beer for all the DUI deaths commited every year.

 

This kind of thinking is how we got the Patriot Act.

 

 

You are right Saunders. The immediate reaction is to blame guns and the 2nd amendment as we saw with Obama's reaction after the Oregon shooting in which he came out within 3 hours prior to many families knowing if their loved one was killed, and openly admitted he was politicizing the tragedy. If we want to live in a closed society then perhaps we may see less of this. The rise of these types of shootings is a result of many factors, including broken homes and more kids living without good parents, the rise of violent movies, television, video games, etc..., the rise of the internet age and social media where people can get attention for acts like these.

 

The content of any of his comments after these shootings (isn't that heartbreaking that we have to differentiate WHICH one of the mass shootings he commented after) is always heavy on recognizing families and loved ones and the country as we work through tragedy. I highly doubt any one of the impacted family members today had a problem with President Obama coming out strongly against guns after their loved ones were murdered by one (or more). You may have taken political issue with it, but I'm confident that parents and families do not.

 

I happen to have ties to Sandy Hook and I speak confidently when I say that the people directly impacted in that tragedy had no doubt where the Presidents comments came from and they were grateful that he acknowledged our country's obvious gun control issues openly. To not acknowledge that there is a pattern and that we can not continue to be ok with these news stories continuing to occur routinely is asinine.

 

I can't/won't even begin to reply to your placing blame on broken homes, lack of good parenting and etc being the cause of the obscene rise in gun deaths ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Remember when 20 little kids got shot and the nation was outraged? We still have guns everywhere. It's been four years. There have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with over 1,135 people dead and nearly 4,000 more wounded.

 

This shooting won't change anything. The pro-gun crowd just gets further & further entrenched in their mania. They won't budge until every man, woman and child in this country knows someone who's been shot in gun violence.

 

Even then it's iffy, because they'll just push for more guns, for everyone, everywhere.

 

Why even have this conversation? No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

This type of attitude doesn't help. Going around and demonizing anyone who owns a gun and blaming them for what happened isn't right. It's not NRA members (as much as I despise what they've become) going around committing these atrocities. In fact most of those "mass shooitngs" you cite were gang/drug related crimes. Over 99.99% gun owners haven't done a thing wrong, yet it's their fault? It's no different than blaming anyone who drinks a beer for all the DUI deaths commited every year.

 

This kind of thinking is how we got the Patriot Act.

 

 

You are right Saunders. The immediate reaction is to blame guns and the 2nd amendment as we saw with Obama's reaction after the Oregon shooting in which he came out within 3 hours prior to many families knowing if their loved one was killed, and openly admitted he was politicizing the tragedy. If we want to live in a closed society then perhaps we may see less of this. The rise of these types of shootings is a result of many factors, including broken homes and more kids living without good parents, the rise of violent movies, television, video games, etc..., the rise of the internet age and social media where people can get attention for acts like these.

 

The content of any of his comments after these shootings (isn't that heartbreaking that we have to differentiate WHICH one of the mass shootings he commented after) is always heavy on recognizing families and loved ones and the country as we work through tragedy. I highly doubt any one of the impacted family members today had a problem with President Obama coming out strongly against guns after their loved ones were murdered by one (or more). You may have taken political issue with it, but I'm confident that parents and families do not.

 

I happen to have ties to Sandy Hook and I speak confidently when I say that the people directly impacted in that tragedy had no doubt where the Presidents comments came from and they were grateful that he acknowledged our countries obvious gun control issues openly. To not acknowledge that there is a pattern and that we can not continue to be ok with these news stories continuing to occur routinely is asinine.

 

I can not even begin to reply to your placing blame on broken homes, lack of good parenting and etc being the cause of the obscene rise in gun deaths ....

 

Agree with what you wrote, except for the last line, because it's not true.

 

We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.

Premeditated mass shootings in public places are happening more often, some researchers say, plunging towns and cities into grief and riveting the attention of a horrified nation. In general, though, fewer Americans are dying as a result of gun violence — a shift that began about two decades ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

how many people died in car accidents or in smoking related illness in the same time span? no call for banning cars or cigs?

 

This has come up often. I think nobody has explained it better than the President himself.

 

Although as the headline mentions, it will no doubt be ignored.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/03/obama_gun_control_is_not_that_different_than_driving_safety_video.html

 

 

Cars were designed for transportation. Cigs are marketed to... look cool, I guess? I don't endorse the use of harmful substances, but they're available over the counter and people are free to get them whenever they want.

 

Guns are different. Guns were designed specifically to kill.

 

Good video, by the way. If it comes out later that this guy was online looking at ISIS stuff, it's not Obama's fault he had access to guns. It's the NRA's insistence everything is an assault on the 2nd amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

how many people died in car accidents or in smoking related illness in the same time span? no call for banning cars or cigs?

 

 

Hey guess what? Nobody is calling to ban guns! Literally no one. Don't know if your fear-fed cable news headline based ideology can understand that.

 

 

 

People are calling for more accountability in the process of obtaining guns, though. And if you think really hard, you'll notice that that's the sort of thing that we've done with things like drunk driving and surgeon general's warnings on cigarettes, and, GASP, actually improved upon the numbers of awful tragedies caused by those sorts of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Consider what the N.R.A. has accomplished. Just a few decades ago, even loyal conservatives rejected the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to the states’ prerogative to raise militias.

Not really. From the outset, it was understood to be an individual right, like all the others. Example from one of the earlier drafts

 

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State.

 

New York Convention, June 26, 1788

 

https://www.archives.gov/legislative/resources/bill-of-rights/CCBR_IIB.pdf

 

 

CAPABLE.

 

I think that anyone should be able to own a gun, but, need to go through a psych eval. One that digs into the childhood of people, one that could expose triggers to snap.

 

In reference to this, I don't know how possible/plausible that would be considering the scale/scope of such a check and the sheer number of people buying weapons. Certainly not against the idea, but working the logistics out there would be a nightmare to ensure you were doing everything possible to "check those boxes"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Consider what the N.R.A. has accomplished. Just a few decades ago, even loyal conservatives rejected the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to the states’ prerogative to raise militias.

Not really. From the outset, it was understood to be an individual right, like all the others. Example from one of the earlier drafts

 

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State.

 

New York Convention, June 26, 1788

 

https://www.archives.gov/legislative/resources/bill-of-rights/CCBR_IIB.pdf

 

 

CAPABLE.

 

I think that anyone should be able to own a gun, but, need to go through a psych eval. One that digs into the childhood of people, one that could expose triggers to snap.

 

In reference to this, I don't know how possible/plausible that would be considering the scale/scope of such a check and the sheer number of people buying weapons. Certainly not against the idea, but working the logistics out there would be a nightmare to ensure you were doing everything possible to "check those boxes"

 

Couldn't it be done through 3rd party psych firms in coordination with the effort? What Psych firms wouldn't want to help out this sort of thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Consider what the N.R.A. has accomplished. Just a few decades ago, even loyal conservatives rejected the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to the states’ prerogative to raise militias.

Not really. From the outset, it was understood to be an individual right, like all the others. Example from one of the earlier drafts

 

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State.

 

New York Convention, June 26, 1788

 

https://www.archives.gov/legislative/resources/bill-of-rights/CCBR_IIB.pdf

 

 

CAPABLE.

 

I think that anyone should be able to own a gun, but, need to go through a psych eval. One that digs into the childhood of people, one that could expose triggers to snap.

 

In reference to this, I don't know how possible/plausible that would be considering the scale/scope of such a check and the sheer number of people buying weapons. Certainly not against the idea, but working the logistics out there would be a nightmare to ensure you were doing everything possible to "check those boxes"

 

Couldn't it be done through 3rd party psych firms in coordination with the effort? What Psych firms wouldn't want to help out this sort of thing?

 

I suppose it could, but let's take this latest event into consideration. Throw his background out all together. The only thing you have that shows why he went to this particular club and started shooting was he seen two men kissing a few months ago. His father says that might have been something that set him off as he had anti-gay views. I know that it's coming out that he was an ISIS sympathizer as well, but if the anti-gay thoughts are what set him off the ISIS thing seems to be a byproduct of this whole situation, not that it's a small byproduct by any means. If this is a caucasian male that just decides he doesn't like gays and decides to go and do an event like this how do you realistically check for something like that? Defining what's a red flag and what's not seems to be difficult to me and what those parameters are.

 

To add to this, you would also probably have to do updates to background checks like every 3 or 4 years similar to renewing a driver's license to stay on top of changing mental statuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×