Parkland, FL High School Shooting

[zoogs]

6 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

My response to that would be that the founders put in methods by which you can interpret and, if necessary, alter the Constitution. The First Amendment has been redefined and interpreted by the courts a number of times throughout history, why can't the Second? 

 

In fact, it has, but not in the right way: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

Quote

 

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

 

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. (...)

 

 

That's the thing about amendments: they are a big deal. A significant reinterpretation of the Constitution is a big deal. It has to happen slowly, in the face of a lot of resistance. Carving out parts of the Bill of Rights to say these rights are now excluded is an extraordinary measure. 

 

There's no reason that guns should be this way. We should be able to just decide, you know what? This AR-15 business, it's crazy. Maybe let's just not allow this particular type of product, and nobody's civil liberties are being restricted. Some people will disagree and think it's stupid, but then, some people think the ban on Kinder eggs (a candy product from Europe which contains a toy inside) is stupid.

Edited February 23, 2018 by zoogs

[Landlord]

11 minutes ago, zoogs said:

As for Twitter and Facebook, they're not equipped to handle this problem and shouldn't really be trusted to. 

 

 

They're the only people equipped to handle this problem.

[zoogs]

Just now, Landlord said:

They're the only people equipped to handle this problem.

Uh, no. They're tech companies. They're good at tinkering with things. They're really good at selling ads (Facebook, anyway). 

 

They were able to connect millions of people together on a platform because they can build the software systems necessary. They have no preparation or even consciousness about the social fallout that has ensued. Lots of good things happen as a result of social media, but there are also ill effects. It can't be plainer, for example, that Facebook is still mostly interested in arguing that it didn't have that much responsibility in the first place.

 

They control their platforms. This isn't the same thing as being equipped to deal with a non-technical problem they inadvertently facilitated.

 

 

[Landlord]

They're also already better at spotting aberrant depression-fueled behavior faster and more accurately than human beings. 

 

And Zuckerberg has been doing a lot of public soul searching and acknowledgment of the role Facebook has played in some things. Call it good optics if you want, but there's good info about the direction he's taking the company and platform. For Facebook specifically, the biggest element of their combatting this stuff is through user flagging. So, that's barely even them, but is all of us together deciding what info is allowed or not.

[zoogs]

ML is not going to save us. 

 

It is good optics. It's also belated, insufficient, and...look, I'm glad Facebook is at some point going to respond to public pressure and actually try. I'm just saying, this is not what they're best at. People were always susceptible to misinformation, for example. It's accelerated now. I don't know if anyone can actually "solve" it, but this is all an argument for stronger public institutions, especially education. 

[knapplc]

I like that this latest version of board software has come with a Muck-to-English translator.

 

It's quite handy.

[BigRedBuster]

54 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

Interesting argument from a decidedly conservative partisan news site (The Federalist): that Assault Rifles must remain legal and readily accessible, because the Second Amendment protects our right to an armed overthrow of the government. Oh, and the school shootings and Vegas shootings suck, but that's the cost of protecting the Second Amendment. 

 

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/19/second-amendment-worth-dying/

 

 

I think we're starting to have the real conversation here--why is there a fringe minority so hell bent on protecting their bastardized interpretation of the Second Amendment at the expense of public safety. Because in their mind, armed insurrection against the Federal Government is a right granted to them, and one that will be taken from their cold, dead hands. 

That is totally unacceptable as an excuse.

 

And....then.....these same people turn around and are outraged when someone simply takes a knee during the anthem because they aren't respecting our government enough.

[BigRedBuster]

46 minutes ago, zoogs said:

Uh, no. They're tech companies. They're good at tinkering with things. They're really good at selling ads (Facebook, anyway). 

 

They were able to connect millions of people together on a platform because they can build the software systems necessary. They have no preparation or even consciousness about the social fallout that has ensued. Lots of good things happen as a result of social media, but there are also ill effects. It can't be plainer, for example, that Facebook is still mostly interested in arguing that it didn't have that much responsibility in the first place.

 

They control their platforms. This isn't the same thing as being equipped to deal with a non-technical problem they inadvertently facilitated.

 

 

I would MUCH rather have them doing it as private companies on their platforms that they own and their power is just limited to that platform than have the government restrict the entire internet.

 

With Twitter and Facebook doing it, I can then decide if I agree with how they are doing it and either support it or cancel my account.

 

The idiots of the world are free to go to some other platform and spew their crap.

[zoogs]

Right, so I think my perspective is just that I'm skeptical of all of these control measures. We can counter by education, but I don't know how effectively we can ever clamp down. Some of it seems necessary but the answer shouldn't be to clamp down more and more. We've always had to deal with misinformation, though maybe not at this scale. Learning how to navigate the social media world in the face of this reality is another thing we'll have to do.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, zoogs said:

Right, so I think my perspective is just that I'm skeptical of all of these control measures. We can counter by education, but I don't know how effectively we can ever clamp down. Some of it seems necessary but the answer shouldn't be to clamp down more and more. We've always had to deal with misinformation, though maybe not at this scale. Learning how to navigate the social media world in the face of this reality is another thing we'll have to do.

These companies can easily clamp down on fake accounts or accounts that clearly are working for a foreign force like Russia did in the last election.

 

What becomes harder is for them to regulate legitimate accounts of individuals but making a decision on deleting the account based on the content of what is posted.

[RedDenver]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to Twitter or Facebook. Only to the government.

[Enhance]

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Soo.....I'm assuming we are supposed to have armed military on college campuses too?

 

 

Yes and if we have to fire every administrator to do it, so be it!

[Stumpy1]

6 hours ago, NM11046 said:

 

 

But earlier you said this Stumpy:

 

This is an AR.  Its a semi -auto.

 

This is also a semi-auto rifle.  

 

See the difference?  This is why i have an issue with people wanting to ban all semi-auto guns.  I own 6 semi auto rifles like the one on the bottom.  I do not own an AR because i really have no use for one.  

[commando]

4 minutes ago, Stumpy1 said:

This is an AR.  Its a semi -auto.

 

This is also a semi-auto rifle.  

 

See the difference?  This is why i have an issue with people wanting to ban all semi-auto guns.  I own 6 semi auto rifles like the one on the bottom.  I do not own an AR because i really have no use for one.  

the huge difference is that large capacity clip on the AR.  thats why i say get rid of the large magazines.....without that the AR-15 is just another hunting rifle.

[Stumpy1]

Just now, commando said:

the huge difference is that large capacity clip on the AR.  thats why i say get rid of the large magazines.....without that the AR-15 is just another hunting rifle.

Yep...