Parkland, FL High School Shooting

[zoogs]

17 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Unfortunately, that won't be studied because of this President.

It’s not Trump. It’s not a new thing, though he does align with it. Even having a president who does not is not enough, as we have seen.

 

Republicans must lose control of Congress. 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

We are 8 pages into this and we still haven't solved the gun control debate.

 

 

[Bigred_inSD]

39 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

We are 8 pages into this and we still haven't solved the gun control debate.

 

 

Comment section isn't filled with enough thoughts and prayers.

[Redux]

46 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

We are 8 pages into this and we still haven't solved the gun control debate.

 

Major issues never get solved by partisan politics.

[zoogs]

Those who make a virtue out of tuning out or not taking a stand should be under no illusion that they're anything other than part of the reason why no action gets taken.

 

Our politics, and our democracy, is participatory.

[Redux]

Those who think division leads to harmony are delusional.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Redux

[zoogs]

@Redux -- You cannot "unite" in the "harmony" of taking no side on an issue where sides and stances matter. 

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/clarence-thomas-angry-that-scotus-doesnt-love-guns.html 

 

Quote

Justice Thomas: "If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court."

 

This is a not crazy thing for Justice Thomas to say. And yes, there are the obvious rejoinders -- look at all the times in our imperfect history where other constitutionally protected rights, be they due process or speech or whatever, were treated carelessly by courts low and high. But that's the point: those weren't high points. 

 

If the Constitution said that we defend the right for everyone to own and operate motor vehicles, then every restriction is a constitutional matter. You would expect heavy resistance to laws saying certain classes of vehicles should be banned from sale or from the roads. All of this would fall under the banner of protecting our liberties.

 

And that's the way it is with guns. You can't say "well, obviously, ban these types of guns" without also raising the question of what kinds of other rights (e.g. speech) can be deemed unprotected. You can't say "obviously don't sell guns to these types of people" without creating a legal framework where we identify certain numbers of citizens to be unworthy of access to their basic rights, and then how far does that go? Can we say some other group of people are unfit to have their right to due process protected? (We do already, don't we?) 

 

The crux of the insanity is that we've put owning guns right up there with every other basic right. At least, successive Republican presidencies and decades of groundwork laid by the NRA have achieved a world where ten years ago the highest court in the land decided to lay down this particular interpretation of the 2A. And so any efforts at gun control will meet with resistance...from gun lovers and the gun lobby, yes, but they are also armed with some good arguments. And as long as we enshrine gun ownership as this kind of fundamental liberty, it will continue to enjoy the sort of legal shielding and inertia as anything designated as such by our Constitution is precisely meant to.

Edited February 21, 2018 by zoogs

[Redux]

Riiiiiight.....

 

Anyways, partisan politics are the reason major issues get debated to death and never actually solved.  Its pits people against eachother instead of with eachother.

[zoogs]

^That article is great reading, btw. 

Quote

 

Thomas is especially angry because the Second Amendment involves rights enumerated in the Constitution, as opposed to what he considers contrived pseudo-rights like the right to an abortion and the right of same-sex marriage, both of which he mocked the Court for caring about more than guns in his dissent.

 

In a way, Thomas has a point: This relatively conservative Court has been far behind the rest of the right in exalting the Second Amendment as establishing a fundamental liberty interest in unregulated ownership of weapons

 

 

This is where my conviction about doing away with the 2A comes from. Those amendments in the BoR should be fiercely defended and equal protection via the 14th amendment should apply. Where state or local laws make incursions on these protections, the Supreme Court should step in. The problem is the inclusion -- at least by our relatively  modern interpretation -- of "owning guns" among those things that should be exalted.

 

--

@Redux, it's plain that you have a broad spectrum aversion to political debate. I wonder where you've confused this stance as being the one that cares "more" about the major issues. If you care, participate. If you not only don't care but consider the debate pointless, then at least pair that up with  an honest "I don't care about any political issue" posture.

Edited February 21, 2018 by zoogs

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, Redux said:

 

Major issues never get solved by partisan politics.

 

 

Pssst! The point I was trying to make is that this one isn't gonna be easy.

 

Let's take a break and solve legalized abortion first.

[Landlord]

2 hours ago, Redux said:

 

Major issues never get solved by partisan politics.

 

 

 

What's one to do when 'partisan' is the same thing as right vs wrong? 

[B.B. Hemingway]

3 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

 

What's one to do when 'partisan' is the same thing as right vs wrong? 

 

Sure, but in this instance right and wrong are debatable as it pertains to gun control.

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

Sure, but in this instance right and wrong are debatable as it pertains to gun control.

 

Meanwhile, while people endlessly debate, children die.

 

Maybe we should compromise so we can correct that.

[Landlord]

2 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Sure, but in this instance right and wrong are debatable as it pertains to gun control.

 

 

No. If we were all legitimately trying to do something about the problem, then it would be debatable. But almost half of our government, backed by the domestic terrorist organization known as the NRA, don't actually want to do anything about it at all. They want to leverage these deaths and the fear of gun control for their votes and money lining their pockets.

 

Wanting to and being willing to do something, or several things, to help fix this issue is right.

 

Lobbying to deny the CDC the ability to research gun violence, as well as obfuscating/distracting when kids are getting shot up in schools, is wrong.

 

These things also happen to fall along partisan lines.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Landlord

[B.B. Hemingway]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Meanwhile, while people endlessly debate, children die.

 

Maybe we should compromise so we can correct that.

 

I, more than once, have stated on here that I would personally be willing to do so with what I own. Am I going to go outside and film myself cutting my guns in halves like a jackass? No, they'll have to have something in place before I'll get rid of them, but I would be willing, and likely support such a decision.