View Full Version : Not this crap again...
datachicane
10-01-15, 02:55 PM
10 dead and counting in Roseburg, Oregon.
:(
10 dead and counting in Roseburg, Oregon.
:(
13 and I assume counting. So tired of this ****. It makes me ****ing sick. :mad: :saywhat:
datachicane
10-01-15, 04:17 PM
It's just the price we pay for a particularly acrobatic interpretation of 'well-regulated militia'.
Over and over again, apparently.
nissan gtp
10-01-15, 04:20 PM
It's just the price we pay for a particularly acrobatic interpretation of 'well-regulated militia'.
Over and over again, apparently.
agreed.
TravelGal
10-01-15, 04:21 PM
agreed.
^^^ :mad:
Chilling.
http://everytown.org/article/schoolshootings/?utm_content=buffer1cb87&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Aaron Portzline Retweeted
Everytown @Everytown 1h1 hour ago
#UCCShooting is the 142nd school shooting since Newtown. http://every.tw/1P7VqKc
It's just the price we pay for a particularly acrobatic interpretation of 'well-regulated militia'.
Over and over again, apparently.
I graduated high school in 1969. I grew up in the suburbs of New York City. There was a gun club in my high school. Guns are not more available now. There’s a sickness in our society that drives people to commit these horrible act.
cameraman
10-01-15, 09:38 PM
One of these is not like the others.
This is the assault rate, deaths per 100,000 population.
All forms of assault, not just guns.
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii35/Cynops/assault-deaths.png
It is amazing what one idiot can do to a national average...
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii35/Cynops/assault-deaths-norway-us.png
But look at us, the 9/11 attacks were not much more than a blip in the line. Think about that one for a minute.
datachicane
10-01-15, 09:51 PM
As a numbers-type guy, I know fully well that this country is so completely awash in firearms and ammo that even a total ban on sales (something that, despite the usual paranoia, has never been proposed by non-crazy people, ever) would do next to nothing. Easy availability is certainly part of the issue (since it's hard to pull this sort of thing off with ball-pein hammers or lawn furniture), but despite the attention it gets, rightly or wrongly, it's not something that's realistically likely to change in multiple lifetimes.
There IS something else here as well, though. We don't really know anything about this kid yet, not that it would necessarily help. The thread which does seem to be common is a feeling of alienation from the larger society. It's easy for us to chalk that up to mental illness, an entitled upbringing, ordinary teen angst, etc., but I don't think it's that simple. Full warning, I'm pretty upset, and I'm gonna go off on a half-baked rant.
I was walking my daughter up the steps of her urban high school the other day. The oldest standing high school in town, it was build during the depression, a WPA project, so resources were definitely tight. It's a scaled-down, stripped-down copy of another school built during more prosperous times in nearby Portland. Money may have been tight, but the school was clearly designed to make the kids walking up those steps feel important, as if the work they were going to do in that building was important, as if they mattered. Society was clearly investing in them, and not in a way that suggested that it was about meeting any kind of minimal legally-required standard.
Across the river, in the most prosperous part of town is the newest high school, built just a few years ago. This is by far the most prestigious school in town. It's clear walking through that building, as is the case with most public building built in the last 30 years or so, that the goal was to spend precisely as little as possible while providing whatever legally-required function there was. No signs for the classrooms, since it's cheaper just to paint a number on the wall. The bathrooms are bomb-proof stainless, like a highway rest stop. Steel security gates divide the halls, which have clear sitelines like a prison block. What does a building like that tell a child about their place in society? We may be investing in them, but what message goes along with that? Are we telling them that we do it because they matter to us, because we want to, or because they're a legally-dictated burden?
It's not just the schools. We've lost pride in ourselves as a society, as a culture. We freak out on the radio over tax increases that are dwarfed by the tips we leave at the coffee shop. As adults we don't see our public institutions, our public structures, as belonging to or reflecting on ourselves at all. The stuff that reflects on us is our cars, our media centers. Our grandparents built impressive city halls for a reason- they reflected on them and the society they had built, and felt pride in that society and their accomplishments. Having been raised with all of the benefits of that stable society, never knowing any different, we're delicate hothouse flowers who view that society as a constraint rather than the rich gift that it is. We whine about what it costs, as if pride in self and neighborhood is equivalent to a Starbucks tip in creating a meaningful life. Why should we be surprised when others feel no love or connection to their neighbors when we, ourselves, are well down that same path?
Datachicane, I don’t think your rant was half-baked at all. I think your assessment is largely correct.
Insomniac
10-02-15, 08:54 AM
If gun regulations weren't toughened after Newtown, they pretty much never will be without some astronomical shift in society. And honestly, what can anyone think up that would cause that? Do younger people have a different view on the 2nd amendment than lawmakers today? That's the only way I see a difference that less people ($$$) will be against gun regulation.
So from a practical standpoint, the only option that is left is more guns. "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." It's going to come with more deaths, but massacres will be stopped faster. cameraman's chart can start to go up again.
It's just the price we pay for a particularly acrobatic interpretation of 'well-regulated militia'.
Over and over again, apparently.
There's no question that the founders intended that we would have an armed citizenry in part as a safeguard against a tyrannical national government. Say, for example, if they tried to disarm the citizenry. They simply never considered that it would necessary to specify that right as including the right of self-defense, which they considered a natural right.
In fact, the meaning that some try to apply - that only the military should be armed - is the exact opposite of the intent of the founders.
datachicane
10-02-15, 11:37 AM
There's no question that the founders intended that we would have an armed citizenry in part as a safeguard against a tyrannical national government. Say, for example, if they tried to disarm the citizenry. They simply never considered that it would necessary to specify that right as including the right of self-defense, which they considered a natural right.
In fact, the meaning that some try to apply - that only the military should be armed - is the exact opposite of the intent of the founders.
With all due respect, while that is certainly the currently fashionable view, there's a very strong argument to be made that it's the polar opposite of the founders' intent.
Consider the context of the time when the 2nd Amendment was drafted- the failure of the framework described in the Articles of Confederation to defend the nascent government against the likes of Shay's Rebellion was front and center in the minds of the framers. The 2nd Amendment was intended to facilitate the formation of citizen militias to put down rebellions which threatened the State, not to threaten the State themselves (thus those pesky first 13 words that seem oddly out of place in the currently popular interpretation).
nissan gtp
10-02-15, 01:15 PM
So from a practical standpoint, the only option that is left is more guns. "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." It's going to come with more deaths, but massacres will be stopped faster. cameraman's chart can start to go up again.
there is no evidence that I am aware of to support that contention.
I'd like to have some idea of how competent gun owners are with their weapons. My guess is many of them suck, and that the average competency is very low. I know we can all agree that half are below average.
All I know is that the path we have been on doesn't work well enough.
Insomniac
10-02-15, 01:22 PM
With all due respect, while that is certainly the currently fashionable view, there's a very strong argument to be made that it's the polar opposite of the founders' intent.
Consider the context of the time when the 2nd Amendment was drafted- the failure of the framework described in the Articles of Confederation to defend the nascent government against the likes of Shay's Rebellion was front and center in the minds of the framers. The 2nd Amendment was intended to facilitate the formation of citizen militias to put down rebellions which threatened the State, not to threaten the State themselves (thus those pesky first 13 words that seem oddly out of place in the currently popular interpretation).
I don't understand why we even care what their intent was? I certainly don't believe they had everything right or were sages. You'd think none of us could think for ourselves as we defer to the Constitution as the be all and end all of how we should govern and define a government/democracy. I can't think of any gun regulation that was deemed unconstitutional, so it doesn't seem like we need to do anything to pass gun regulation if that's what people wanted. As with many things, it's handy when it supports your position and wrong when it doesn't. The miracle is, we can do whatever we want. Change it, follow it. Make new laws, not make new laws. It's not in our way. We all know what is, whether you agree or not.
Insomniac
10-02-15, 01:27 PM
there is no evidence that I am aware of to support that contention.
I'd like to have some idea of how competent gun owners are with their weapons. My guess is many of them suck, and that the average competency is very low. I know we can all agree that half are below average.
All I know is that the path we have been on doesn't work well enough.
I'm not sure what assertion. But I at least think if you had one nut trying to mass murder and everyone else had guns, the nut is going down. There may be friendly fire, but the nut is going down faster. Some may argue if the nut knew everyone had guns they may not even try it. I just don't know how wise it is for everyone to be carrying. As someone who currently isn't fearful of going out in public and interacting with people freely, I'd be more fearful if everyone was carrying a gun. Part of that may be I couldn't carry one if I wanted to make it "even", but the thought in general scares me.
cameraman
10-02-15, 02:17 PM
There were "good guys" carrying during that shooting yesterday. The claims that the campus was "gun-free" are false. The "good guys" did not draw their weapons because the shooter wasn't coming directly for them and they did not want to get confused for the shooter & then shot by the police flooding the campus.
Also those well-regulated militias in the Constitution, those were the written in to allow the states to put down slave revolts. The way the Constitution is written, a state can't call up a militia unless attacked from the outside. Not much help if your slaves are revolting within the state.
Patrick Henry made it clear in 1788 as they were debating the 2nd Amendment.
Mr. Henry still retained his opinion, that the states had no right to call forth the militia to suppress insurrections, &c. But the right interpretation (and such as the nations of the earth had put upon the concession of power) was that, when power was given, it was given exclusively. He appealed to the committee, if power was not confined in the hands of a few in almost all countries of the world. He referred to their candor, if the construction of conceded power was not an exclusive concession, in nineteen twentieth parts of the world. The nations which retained their liberty were comparatively few. America would add to the number of the oppressed nations, if she depended on constructive rights and argumentative implication. That the powers given to Congress were exclusively given, was very obvious to him. The rights which the states had must be founded on the restrictions on Congress. He asked, if the doctrine which had been so often circulated, that rights not given were retained, was true, why there were negative clauses to restrain Congress. He told gentlemen that these clauses were sufficient to shake all their implication; for, says he, if Congress had no power but that given to them, why restrict them by negative words? Is not the clear implication this--that, if these restrictions were not inserted, they could have performed what they prohibit?
The worthy member had said that Congress ought to have power to protect all, and had given this system the highest encomium. But he insisted that the power over the militia was concurrent. To obviate the futility of this doctrine, Mr. Henry alleged that it was not reducible to practice. Examine it, says he; reduce it to practice. Suppose an insurrection in Virginia, and suppose there be danger apprehended of an insurrection in another state, from the exercise of the government; or suppose a national war; and there be discontents among the people of this state, that produce, or threaten, an insurrection; suppose Congress, in either case, demands a number of militia,--will they not be obliged to go? Where are your reserved rights, when your militia go to a neighboring state? Which call is to be obeyed, the congressional call, or the call of the state legislature? The call of Congress must be obeyed. I need not remind this committee that the sweeping clause will cause their demands to be submitted to. This clause enables them "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution all the powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Mr. Chairman, I will turn to another clause, which relates to the same subject, and tends to show the fallacy of their argument.
The 10th section of the 1st article, to which reference was made by the worthy member, militates against himself. It says, that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded." If you give this clause a fair construction, what is the true meaning of it? What does this relate to? Not domestic insurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress. The 4th section of the 4th article expressly directs that, in case of domestic violence, Congress shall protect the states on application of the legislature or executive; and the 8th section of the 1st article gives Congress power to call forth the militia to quell insurrections: there cannot, therefore, be a concurrent power. The state legislatures ought to have power to call forth the efforts of the militia, when necessary. Occasions for calling them out may be urgent, pressing, and instantaneous. The states cannot now call them, let an insurrection be ever so perilous, without an application to Congress. So long a delay may be fatal.
There are three clauses which prove, beyond the possibility of doubt, that Congress, and Congress only, can call forth the militia. The clause giving Congress power to call them out to suppress insurrections, &c.; that which restrains a state from engaging in war except when actually invaded; and that which requires Congress to protect the states against domestic violence,--render it impossible that a state can have power to intermeddle with them. Will not Congress find refuge for their actions in these clauses? With respect to the concurrent jurisdiction, it is a political monster of absurdity. We have passed that clause which gives Congress an unlimited authority over the national wealth; and here is an unbounded control over the national strength. Notwithstanding this clear, unequivocal relinquishment of the power of controlling the militia, you say the states retain it, for the very purposes given to Congress. Is it fair to say that you give the power of arming the militia, and at the same time to say you reserve it? This great national government ought not to be left in this condition. If it be, it will terminate in the destruction of our liberties.
This was the driving influence behind the 2nd amendment. No one was worried about the government coming for their guns at a time when the majority of the population was worried about hunting for dinner or fending off wolves, coyotes & foxes.
The issue was slave revolts and the State regulation of the slave patrols.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
This ‘service’ was widespread and an integral part of maintaining slavery–slave uprisings were quite common in the 1700s:
…most southern men between ages 18 and 45 – including physicians and ministers – had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.
And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.
By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. …slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.
If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband – or even move out of the state – those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse.
The sole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect those militias.
A point driven home when the following text proposed by the Massachusetts & Pennsylvania delegations was rejected.
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals;
It's got to become "unfashionable" to take out the school as part of your own exit plan.
These kids are *******s. The world needs to know this.
:mad::flaming:
The sole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect those militias.
I gotta call you out on that.
Does not pass any smell test.
Some decent reading here:
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
datachicane
10-02-15, 03:17 PM
I gotta call you out on that.
Does not pass any smell test.
How do you account for the first 13 words of the 2nd Amendment? What lessons do you think were learned between the drafting of the Articles of Confederation and the 2nd Amendment that made the amendment necessary in the first place?
cameraman
10-02-15, 04:11 PM
I gotta call you out on that.
Does not pass any smell test.
Read the discussions of the writers of the 2nd amendment as they were doing it, they restricted discussions of the amendment to those militias and removed any mention of personal rights.
At one point the New Hampshire delegation proposed this line.
Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.It was quickly disposed of as being off point.
If you read the discussions of the amendment in the House of Representatives you will find it limited to the operations of state militias and ironically enough, the fear that the government would require that Quakers or Moravians bear arms against their religous tenets. There were significant fears of being forced to bear arms not banned from bearing arms.
This is the first draft of the second amendment.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
They were talking militias and after Patrick Henry and others brought up the insurrection argument Madison changed country to state and dropped the religious objection clause.
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.
cameraman
10-02-15, 04:29 PM
You need to keep in mind the current events of the times, the Maroon Wars had been fought in Jamaica 40 years earlier and slave revolts had become more common in the years leading up to 1789. They were correct in feeling the pressure as proven two years later by the Haitian Revolution which ended in the Haiti massacre in 1804. The militias were a huge deal. That is where their focus was.
cameraman
10-02-15, 05:18 PM
The real problem here is that shooter bought all his guns legally with background checks and all strings attached. Everything he did was perfectly legal until he pulled the trigger. His guns were standard issue, nothing fancy. There are no "assault weapons" involved. I don't think there is any way the legal system can prevent this.
The only way you could have prevented this shooter from getting those guns would be an outright prohibition on gun ownership. Currently it is pretty close to more guns than people in this country with almost half of the adult nation owning some kind of gun. There is no getting that genie back into the bottle.
To me the problem is much closer to what DataChicane wrote about. How is it that this country is generating all of these hopeless mopes who want to go out in a blaze of mindless violence?
Numerically the spouse killing the spouse & kids kills many more than the mass killing idiots but the root is the same.
Life is hopeless, I'm killing myself and taking either a bunch of strangers or my family with me.
Why is that currently so prevalent in this society?
The courts have already weighed in on our second amendment rights so some of the discussion here is moot.
Maybe we just aren't doing mental health very good these days...
This was the driving influence behind the 2nd amendment. No one was worried about the government coming for their guns at a time when the majority of the population was worried about hunting for dinner or fending off wolves, coyotes & foxes.
The issue was slave revolts and the State regulation of the slave patrols.
The sole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect those militias.
What a bunch of nonsense. Are you seriously suggesting the 2nd Amendment is racist? :shakehead:
The guys that wrote it are the same guys that watched the British march to Lexington and Concord to forcibly confiscate arms from British subjects. To say they weren't concerned about a personal right to a weapon and did not take care to spell it out in writing is absurd.
The British took their guns. The colonists hated it, and made sure their new government would never do it again.
The same thought process is responsible for all ten of the original Amendments.
Who was concerned about quartering soldiers in 1788? And yet, there the third amendment is big as life.
No Constitutional questions about that one.
The Second Amendment is not an anachronistic artifact from our ancient history.
It is a formal recognition that every citizen has a right to self-defense.
How do you account for the first 13 words of the 2nd Amendment? What lessons do you think were learned between the drafting of the Articles of Confederation and the 2nd Amendment that made the amendment necessary in the first place?
This is probably a decent start but I've only skimmed the link. The author hits a lot of points I've researched before and the article is referenced extensively.
http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com/Journal/
Also, it's kind of over and done with.
In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment.
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
Nearly all scholarly researched investigations of the matter come to the same conclusion as the Court did - it's obvious what the authors of the Amendment meant. Legit groups promoting more control have given up this argument, I believe.
The slave rebellion one though - that's a new one! Hasn't appeared to gain any traction yet. It seems to have gained some interest in 2013, but has since withered away... :)
Back on topic, somehow we've got to come up with an effective way to make these *******s stop thinking that it's a glorious thing to do.
The guys that wrote it are the same guys that watched the British march to Lexington and Concord to forcibly confiscate arms from British subjects. To say they weren't concerned about a personal right to a weapon and did not take care to spell it out in writing is absurd.
The British took their guns. The colonists hated it, and made sure their new government would never do it again.
The same thought process is responsible for all ten of the original Amendments.
Exactly. The Bill of Rights is intended to protect the rights of the individual against government infringement. The notion that they included an amendment that subjugates the natural right of self-defense to state authority doesn't make sense in that context.
The founders viewed these amendments as enumerating the natural rights in a free society - not granting them. So when they reference "the right to keep and bear arms," that right exists irrespective of the prefatory clause. James Madison's first draft of the amendment makes this more clear by placing the statement of the right first, and using semicolons rather than comas.
datachicane
10-05-15, 11:57 AM
Three thoughts come to mind.
First off, as I mentioned earlier, this country is so completely awash in firearms that nothing short of confiscation (something that's never been seriously proposed) is likely to have an impact on availability. That's obviously a complete political non-starter. Even if we assume that availability is a key part of the problem, and that's far from a non-controversial assumption, the upshot is there is no achievable method of effectively addressing availability anyway. We're left shouting at each other over hypotheticals.
Secondly, about those hypotheticals. Parsing the intent of the founders is a useful exercise when the opposing argument invokes that intent, but it's largely missing the point. Mason, Madison, and the rest of the founders were bright guys, and they certainly weren't about to be confined to the ways of the past in their attempt to find workable, pragmatic solutions to the problems at hand. These were not rigid thinkers- they were flexible and adaptable, and that's why they succeeded. It's insanity to think that they would look at a clearly unacceptable scenario and conclude that, well, 200+ years ago in a completely different culture with different challenges so-and-so decided this, so we're stuck with results. They would have found that sort of hidebound rigidity ridiculous.
Thirdly, current fashion, squabbling, and the 2008 Supreme Court perspectives aside, the historical view of the 2nd Amendment was, in fact, that it was intended to authorize militias to protect the State, not attack it. That's supported by pre-2008 Supreme Court thinking, and was relatively non-controversial until the last thirty years or so. That's a fact, Jack. Scalia's court even recognized that as they morphed it into compliance with the current interpretation, but to pretend that it was never a legitimate or recognized interpretation is nuts. Not that it matters in the current context, see #1 and #2 above.
My daughter's marching band played at their first competition of the season Saturday. Roseburg has been her school's historical rival, and they usually place within a couple of points of each other. It's a pretty tight community, and the kids know each other. The Roseburg school district understandably cancelled all school activities, but about half of Roseburg's band made the 2-3 hr drive to Salem just to see and hang out with the other bands. Pretty tear-jerking stuff seeing the support from all of the other band kids. Roseburg marched in the full retreat during the finals awards, hardly a dry eye in the place. It was a tough weekend.
An interesting perspective
Many school shooters, one common factor: a warped view of masculinity (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/1002/Many-school-shooters-one-common-factor-a-warped-view-of-masculinity)
But there’s one topic that’s not getting enough discussion, he and some others say: masculinity. “The elephant in the room with ... mass shootings is that almost all of them are being done by men,” Professor Kilmartin says. Male shooters often “project their difficulties onto other people.... In this case, it sounds like he was blaming Christians for his problems, but the masculinity piece is what is really missing in the discussions about the equation.”
No doubt, guns are too readily available, legally or otherwise. But guns are available to both genders and as this article points out, these shooters are male. I can't recall a female mass murderer, I'm sure there has been some, but I can't recall any.
Napoleon
10-05-15, 05:45 PM
Thirdly, current fashion, squabbling, and the 2008 Supreme Court perspectives aside, the historical view of the 2nd Amendment was, in fact, that it was intended to authorize militias to protect the State, not attack it.
Bingo - it had nothing to do with individuals self defense against the government. The whole "well regulated militia" phrase completely kills that notion. By the way, it kills me that when discussing things like this people bend over backwards to not mention the fact that during the drafting process the south was hell bent to preserve slavery, and the Second Amendment was part of that in that it assured the state had the means to put down slave revolts (as were provisions like the Electoral College that allowed the southern planters to leverage their slaves into votes for the President, something a direct vote would not do and was not an issue with the apportionment of senators or Representatives).
No doubt, guns are too readily available, legally or otherwise. But guns are available to both genders and as this article points out, these shooters are male. I can't recall a female mass murderer, I'm sure there has been some, but I can't recall any.
A related concept, but not quite the same thing, is the distribution of murder and gun violence in the US. It is not spread evenly and appears to be concentrated in areas of the US, in particular, but hardly exclusively, like the South that are associated with culture imported from the British borderlands. In general the whole culture of various areas of the US, which do not follow state lines, is very interesting. The first link below I highly recommend on the general subject and my understanding is the book at the second link is similarly very good.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0143122029
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195069056/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944687602&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0143122029&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=02RA2Q26T7WFDWQERSKB
,
Napoleon
10-05-15, 06:50 PM
PS - I managed to not tie my post to Steve's which was the entire reason I posted in the first place. The culture in those parts of the county with the high murder rates is a hyper masculine culture of honor. Those areas drive up the US murder rate.
The guys that wrote it are the same guys that watched the British march to Lexington and Concord to forcibly confiscate arms from British subjects.
. . . but the ones that didn't actually watch that, the Southerners, were some of the biggest slaveholders in the country. And amazingly they were the people at the convention very active on the issue. Read what was actually proposed at the convention, ect. Cameraman doe a good job of.
Bingo - it had nothing to do with individuals self defense against the government. The whole "well regulated militia" phrase completely kills that notion.
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).
http://scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
The individual right view dominated until the mid 20th century and it has ultimately been upheld in almost every federal proceeding. The earliest findings on the matter made it clear that the individual right to bear arms was not granted by the Bill of Rights but was rather a pre-existing right that was simply affirmed and protected by it. Even the one case often cited as supporting the collective right view - US v. Miller - makes it clear that the Militia are the People.
Two state constitutions pre-dating the Bill of Rights specifically cite the individual right to bear arms for of self-defense (PA & VT). Twenty-five states, including Ohio, have specific constitutional protection for the right to bear arms for self defense. Forty-four states have more ambiguous constitutional protection for the right to bare arms, many of which have been adjudicated to protect an individual right.
By the way, it kills me that when discussing things like this people bend over backwards to not mention the fact that during the drafting process the south was hell bent to preserve slavery, and the Second Amendment was part of that in that it assured the state had the means to put down slave revolts (as were provisions like the Electoral College that allowed the southern planters to leverage their slaves into votes for the President, something a direct vote would not do and was not an issue with the apportionment of senators or Representatives).
It's not news that these were men of their time and their views reflected that. Many of the founders were relatively enlightened, and some were outright abolitionists, but few were willing to risk the future of the new Republic trying to immediately end what they viewed as a doomed institution.
While there was certainly some mention of slave insurrections in certain state ratification debates on the issue, there's really nothing to support the notion that it was a primary consideration in the creation of the amendment. As noted above, free states already had such a provision in their own constitution. Madison provided the first draft of the Bill of Rights including the 2nd Amendment and while he held slaves he believed that slavery should and would be abolished.
Andrew Longman
10-06-15, 01:16 PM
Double post
Andrew Longman
10-06-15, 01:19 PM
Few now or then would argue that self defense is not a natural right.
The right to self defense by a relatively new technology such as a firearm is more debatable -- then and now.
Self defense by hand grenade, machine gun and neutron bomb is not deemed a natural right so it can't be absolute. By the same token, a militia without arms is somewhat pointless, so the link between arms and defense of the state can't be ignored.
The British attempts to confiscate stores of gunpowder prior to Lexington and Concord is also routinely misunderstood and misused as justification for the 2nd amendment. It makes for popular fiction but just isn't supported by the facts. The US was much like Switzerland is today where citizens are expected to keep arms to defend the nation because there is virtually no standing army. A standing army was considered expensive and a dangerous force that could be misused against the people.
Then again since 9/11 we have militarized our police force and it seems most Americans don't mind. But that is for another thread I suppose.
datachicane
10-06-15, 01:57 PM
I want to say something about how much respect I have for this community.
For a discussion of such a potentially inflammatory subject to remain this constructive and respectful is unbelievably rare.
I want to say something about how much respect I have for this community.
For a discussion of such a potentially inflammatory subject to remain this constructive and respectful is unbelievably rare.
:thumbup::laugh:
I was scrolling thru this last night thinking "no warnings from the boss" :eek:
I think it is something we can so readily agree is a divisive issue - the typical "Jane you ignorant slut" reply doesn't work here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viYuzuJom1k
Then again since 9/11 we have militarized our police force and it seems most Americans don't mind. But that is for another thread I suppose.
I think they are clearly related. Local PD didn't always carry rifles in their cars. Those were for SWAT or were kept in the armory at the station IF they had them at all. Now many cars are carrying AR's. But there were plenty of documented cases where the police were outgunned. So to that end, I get it.
Now if you mean this kind of stuff (Emmo at a car show last year) - well I might have a differing opinion.
http://i61.tinypic.com/2a0ew3p.jpg
Andrew Longman
10-06-15, 06:53 PM
Elmo, in tiny little Frenchtown, since 9/11 the police force has gone from two ancient squad cars to six cars (already replaced twice), a mobile command center, two boats, two gators and who knows what else including 30# of gear patrolmen have to wear. And the force has gone from one full time chief and a part timer to a chief, two full timers and two part timers. More vehicles than policemen I should point out. All courtesy of homeland security pork.
The most outrageous IMO was when I was at Isle Royale National Park last year when a Ranger in bulletproof vest, endless gear and a 9mm snuck up on me in my campsite. Keep in mind this is an island 60 miles from shore with only narrow foot trails, no roads and no hunting and visited by only a few thousand people a year. I was smoking a Camel and apparently thought I was smoking a joint. Years ago when I was there the Rangers were there to explain wolf and moose behavior to those who asked them.
chop456
10-07-15, 01:16 AM
Elmo, in tiny little Frenchtown, since 9/11 the police force has gone from two ancient squad cars to six cars (already replaced twice), a mobile command center, two boats, two gators and who knows what else including 30# of gear patrolmen have to wear. And the force has gone from one full time chief and a part timer to a chief, two full timers and two part timers. More vehicles than policemen I should point out. All courtesy of homeland security pork.
The most outrageous IMO was when I was at Isle Royale National Park last year when a Ranger in bulletproof vest, endless gear and a 9mm snuck up on me in my campsite. Keep in mind this is an island 60 miles from shore with only narrow foot trails, no roads and no hunting and visited by only a few thousand people a year. I was smoking a Camel and apparently thought I was smoking a joint. Years ago when I was there the Rangers were there to explain wolf and moose behavior to those who asked them.
I never saw a ranger there other than the station. Amazing. Maybe now that there are no wolves left...
Please no. :saywhat: :irked: :(
datachicane
10-09-15, 04:53 PM
Interesting, as determined by the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia, 1824.
The board consisted of no less than Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Breckenridge, John Cocke, George Loyall and Joseph Cabell.
No Student shall, within the precincts of the University, introduce, keep or use any spirituous or vinous liquors, keep or use weapons or arms of any kind, or gunpowder, keep a servant, horse or dog, appear in school with a stick, or any weapon, nor, while in school, be covered without permission of the Professor, nor use tobacco by smoking or chewing, on pain of any of the minor punishments at the discretion of the Faculty, or of the board of Censors, approved by the Faculty.
One can only presume they didn't see a conflict between a gun-free university and the 2nd Amendment.
Source:
http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-print-04-02-02-4598
Interesting, as determined by the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia, 1824.
The board consisted of no less than Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Breckenridge, John Cocke, George Loyall and Joseph Cabell.
No Student shall...
One can only presume they didn't see a conflict between a gun-free university and the 2nd Amendment.
"No Student" so faculty and staff may have been free to pack ye olde heat.
There's a clear difference between creating laws and setting down policy for what you permit among your students. I don't have a problem with an organization setting their own rules for what's acceptable on their property. If they want to declare themselves a safe space for mass killers that's their prerogative.
As the Supreme Court has said, no right is absolute. The right of a private institution to ban guns on their property and the government's right to ban guns from certain areas have been upheld. It was against Federal law to have a gun in a school zone ten years before Columbine.
An interesting perspective
Many school shooters, one common factor: a warped view of masculinity (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/1002/Many-school-shooters-one-common-factor-a-warped-view-of-masculinity)
No doubt, guns are too readily available, legally or otherwise. But guns are available to both genders and as this article points out, these shooters are male. I can't recall a female mass murderer, I'm sure there has been some, but I can't recall any.
Good points in this story.
There really is no socially acceptable healthy view of masculinity in our society now. Masculinity is a fault that we're working on conditioning out of men. We're making good progress but it's sort of like lion taming. Every once in a while the frustration of having to leap through that flaming hoop is going to get to one of them.
In the past a successful man was someone who was married, had a house, and was able to provide for their family. Today success is based around being rich and famous, or at least very popular. Those are things that most men have little hope of achieving. Even if a man embraces a traditional view of success, the odds that they'll accomplish a successful marriage are becoming vanishingly small.
So men are becoming increasingly disillusioned, frustrated, angry, and depressed. Of course, seeking help is a sign of weakness so it often simmers until something snaps. Suicide rates for men are increasing and so it follows that the instances of them acting out their anger in that process will increase as well.
Somewhat related are cases where men kill their children, their partner, and then themselves. There was a case in MN about a month ago where a (seemingly successful white) man killed his 3 children, his wife, and then himself. All with shotgun blasts to the head. Like school shootings, people went with the "it's a tragedy, but what can you do?" stories. But that's not quite true. There's been a lot of research done on men (and it is almost always men) who kill their families.
Here's a good overview: http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/pages/murder-suicide.aspx
devilmaster
12-03-15, 01:27 PM
Guess the POTUS is right. This has become routine. No one bothered to post or start a new thread.
Sadly, why don't we just sticky this one.... cause it'll happen again.
When is enough, enough?
I'm pro-responsible gun ownership. I was trained in the Canadian M-16. I was a good shot. I scored perfect or near perfect on the CF rifle test. I was on my unit's rifle team.
I have also seen what a .303 rifle round does, point blank, to a human head when my friend committed suicide. I have never fired a weapon since.
Don't take all the guns. But find a middle ground, and find it fast. Before everyone personally knows someone who was killed in some mass shooting.
The argument about illegal guns vs legal guns is BS because both are being used.
The argument about conceal carry stopping attackers is BS because police died at the abortion clinic and an officer was injured yesterday.
The argument about foreign vs domestic terrorists is BS because both are happening. Yesterday might have been an ISIS wannabe, but he was born American. But Sandy Hook wasn't ISIS.
I am not talking about taking -all- the guns.
Make it extremely hard to buy automatic weapons. Limit mag loads on civilian purchases. Make a background check longer and more involved. If you sadly have to, make a mental health database to assist in checks.
On another forum I was on, there was a regular poster there who was killed in the Virginia tech shootings.
I'd hate to read how one of you were killed the same way.
Just more workplace violence yesterday. :shakehead:
TravelGal
12-03-15, 02:52 PM
Guess the POTUS is right. This has become routine. No one bothered to post or start a new thread.
Sadly, why don't we just sticky this one.... cause it'll happen again.
When is enough, enough?
I'm pro-responsible gun ownership. I was trained in the Canadian M-16. I was a good shot. I scored perfect or near perfect on the CF rifle test. I was on my unit's rifle team.
I have also seen what a .303 rifle round does, point blank, to a human head when my friend committed suicide. I have never fired a weapon since.
Don't take all the guns. But find a middle ground, and find it fast. Before everyone personally knows someone who was killed in some mass shooting.
The argument about illegal guns vs legal guns is BS because both are being used.
The argument about conceal carry stopping attackers is BS because police died at the abortion clinic and an officer was injured yesterday.
The argument about foreign vs domestic terrorists is BS because both are happening. Yesterday might have been an ISIS wannabe, but he was born American. But Sandy Hook wasn't ISIS.
I am not talking about taking -all- the guns.
Make it extremely hard to buy automatic weapons. Limit mag loads on civilian purchases. Make a background check longer and more involved. If you sadly have to, make a mental health database to assist in checks.
On another forum I was on, there was a regular poster there who was killed in the Virginia tech shootings.
I'd hate to read how one of you were killed the same way.
Word. Many of them. Good ones. Good options, IMHO. If only more people could express themselves so eloquently and sensibly.
Word. Many of them. Good ones. Good options, IMHO. If only more people could express themselves so eloquently and sensibly.
Who wants logic at such a time? Now is the time for bloviation. :thumbup:
Based on the news and my FB feed - both the left and the right are using this to promote their world view. The reality is we don't have the brass ones to solve this problem. Neither side seems willing to address the problem.
I would have posted, but still distraught over the loss of a pet and then this. WTF people?!? I'm slightly pro #2, but this shizz is getting WAY outta hand. I fired a rifle once skeet shooting at a company outing. I did OK all things considered. ;) Never owned a gun, and never will. I just don't get the hate. :( :saywhat: :shakehead:
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.
Peace, love, and understanding. :)
And thanks to our first responders for their service. :thumbup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OuYLGHkrBk
The reality is we don't have the brass ones to solve this problem.
Agreed. Can't solve the problem until you identify it.
devilmaster
12-03-15, 07:38 PM
Neither side seems willing to address the problem.
Might I submit that those 2 sides aren't the ones that need to address it. I fully believe in the silent majority. A majority of Americans who try to get through their day, live their lives, and do it gracefully, without spewing one extreme viewpoint or another.
My idealist side says they'll speak up and drown out both sides.
My stronger cynic side says they won't, and so I sarcastically offer this solution. When you turn 16 and get your driver's license, you get a gun. You can choose type and whatever color you want! You'll get bullets too!
Sooner or later, it'll all be solved.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/130507_nra_women1.380;380;7;70;0.jpg
Agreed. Can't solve the problem until you identify it.
There are two distinct problems here. There’s the disaffected lunatic or lunatics like Columbine and Sandy Hook and there’s the Islamic terrorists like the most recent events.
datachicane
12-03-15, 10:14 PM
There are two distinct problems here. There’s the disaffected lunatic or lunatics like Columbine and Sandy Hook and there’s the Islamic terrorists like the most recent events.
They're only as different as you want them to be. Whether it's voices in the head, the interpreted will of your deity of choice, or plain old poverty of soul really doesn't matter much in the end.
devilmaster
12-04-15, 01:32 AM
They're only as different as you want them to be. Whether it's voices in the head, the interpreted will of your deity of choice, or plain old poverty of soul really doesn't matter much in the end.
And if the persons who commit the acts don't matter much in the end, then you're left with the one simple, inconvienient truth. There are too many guns and they are too easy to acquire.
Guns are designed to do one simple thing.... and they do it well. They send a small slug of metal at extremely high velocity to a target.
This is why the car vs gun argument is also BS. Cars were not, by any stretch of the imagination, designed to kill people. Guns were.
Guns have only one use, one design, it has no secondary tasks.
If your loved one was killed in a senseless random shooting from a high powered weapon, so you couldn't even have an open casket to see their face one more time, would you truly say to yourself 'well, at least the shooter's 2nd amendment rights weren't infringed.'?
Guess the POTUS is right. This has become routine. No one bothered to post or start a new thread.
Sadly, why don't we just sticky this one.... cause it'll happen again.
When is enough, enough?
I'm pro-responsible gun ownership. I was trained in the Canadian M-16. I was a good shot. I scored perfect or near perfect on the CF rifle test. I was on my unit's rifle team.
I have also seen what a .303 rifle round does, point blank, to a human head when my friend committed suicide. I have never fired a weapon since.
Don't take all the guns. But find a middle ground, and find it fast. Before everyone personally knows someone who was killed in some mass shooting.
The argument about illegal guns vs legal guns is BS because both are being used.
The argument about conceal carry stopping attackers is BS because police died at the abortion clinic and an officer was injured yesterday.
The argument about foreign vs domestic terrorists is BS because both are happening. Yesterday might have been an ISIS wannabe, but he was born American. But Sandy Hook wasn't ISIS.
What's the point in posting or starting a thread when there's no room for discussion? You declare disagreement to be "BS" from the outset and I refuse to accept any argument that I don't have the absolute right to bear arms for my own defense. So there we. What's to discuss?
I am not talking about taking -all- the guns.
Make it extremely hard to buy automatic weapons. Limit mag loads on civilian purchases. Make a background check longer and more involved. If you sadly have to, make a mental health database to assist in checks.
The Brady Campaign rates California as having the strictest gun laws in the country. They have an assault weapons ban, a ban on high capacity magazines, a strong background check requirement, no private transfers, and more. The Brady Campaign's model State for gun control was no deterrent to this event at all.
I'm not saying that there are no worthwhile gun laws, but there's really very little more that can be done focusing on the weapons themselves rather than the people who are wielding them to do evil. I don't have a problem with background checks or limitations on transfers but it's my belief that law enforcement isn't effectively using the tools that they have already. So there's little reason to think that more laws will have a substantial impact, especially if they're not addressing the real problems.
This is the trend we see with government. Pile on more and more laws and regulations for the mega-state to wield against the citizenry as the please while having little impact on the problem they purport to be addressing (c.f. domestic spying).
On another forum I was on, there was a regular poster there who was killed in the Virginia tech shootings.
I'd hate to read how one of you were killed the same way.
I certainly hope that never happens. But if I should be unfortunate enough to meet my end in that way, then chalk me up as someone who gladly accepted that risk in order to live in a country where I have the right to defend myself.
In spite of the picture the press likes to paint of blood running in the streets all across America, gun violence has been at its lowest point in decades in spite of a steady increase in gun ownership. So the notion that gun violence is rampant and out of control is just fiction. Trying to set broad policy based on outlying events is futile and misguided.
Living in a free country means that we have to accept a certain amount of risk. We can't be free and live in this perfectly safe cocoon that some imagine that the nanny state should create for them. The cost of having a drink after work or a beer at the game is that drunks will kill pretty much the same number of people each year as criminals with guns. That's a risk we take not to preserve our fundamental right to self defense, but just so that folks can unwind and get sauced if they want.
But when a drunk in Oklahoma drives into a crowd killing three and injuring 27 is there a national outcry for breathalyser ignition locks on every car in America? Is there a call to ban booze or limit alcohol levels? No. In fact, even though we see thousands of deaths each year as a result of our freedom to enjoy one legal intoxicant, we have a movement under way to legalize another - purely for our own amusement and without regard to any other deaths that might add to the toll.
Is it too fine a point that gun rights keep us free and independent while intoxicants make use compliant and dependent?
WickerBill
12-04-15, 06:51 AM
From that bastion of right-wing politics, the Washington Post: we've had a "massive decline" in gun violence. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/
And if the persons who commit the acts don't matter much in the end, then you're left with the one simple, inconvienient truth. There are too many guns and they are too easy to acquire.
I graduated high school in 1969. I grew up in the suburbs of New York City. There was a gun club in my high school. Lots of my friends fathers had guns in the house. It was much easier to acquire a weapon then but mass shootings were unheard of.
They're only as different as you want them to be. Whether it's voices in the head, the interpreted will of your deity of choice, or plain old poverty of soul really doesn't matter much in the end.
One group develops their psychosis on their own; the other has a large infrastructure pushing them along and even funding them.
Might I submit that those 2 sides aren't the ones that need to address it. I fully believe in the silent majority. A majority of Americans who try to get through their day, live their lives, and do it gracefully, without spewing one extreme viewpoint or another.
I wholeheartedly agreed with this thought. I know plenty of folks who own firearms - and for any number of reasons. I include myself among those.
My father, who was a police chief for over 20 years, encouraged me to get a permit to carry (PA is an open carry state but you need a permit to carry concealed). NOT because of any perceived threat. My Dad never carried off-duty OR was very discrete about it so that I never knew. He said to get a permit because "one day you might not be able to get one but they will never be able to take it away from the people who have them". And he was no right-wing gun nut.
I don't have the answer - but I think two of the answers that don't work include #1 banning all weapons and #2 lessening the standards to own or carry a weapon. My point about not having the attachments to address this problem - I meant that the easier path is to cry & whine and push our personal agendas. I don't recall either side saying let's take serious look at this and figure out the real problem. And the real problem in this California incident is a terrorist bent on killing. If it wasn't a rifle, it would have been a bomb.
And from a responder standpoint, we had to deal with this idiot yesterday. I get "my rights" and "the constitution", but people like this are looking for a confrontation with law enforcement so they can get the next viral YouTube video and spout off about their rights.
Cops detain armed man walking body-armored dog near justice center in Doylestown (http://www.theintell.com/news/local/cops-detain-armed-man-walking-body-armored-dog-near-justice/article_cff079da-9a0f-11e5-b6d3-3bca6c43d92e.html)
A Hilltown man who's a suspect in an ethnic intimidation case in Montgomery County was detained and later released by Bucks County authorities Thursday after he walked near the county Justice Center in Doylestown accompanied by a German shepherd clad in a ballistic vest.
“Some people asked what he was doing and he told them he was training his dog to sniff for bombs,” Bucks County District Attorney David Heckler said about 52-year-old Thomas William Driver.
“As you can imagine, that got everyone’s attention,” Heckler said.
Central Bucks Regional police took Driver into custody and found him carrying two handguns, Heckler said, adding that Driver told investigators he was armed due to the threat of terrorism.
Heckler said authorities learned Driver had a permit to carry concealed firearms, which expired in June, but a policy of the Bucks County Sheriff’s Office allows for a six-month grace period for someone to renew the license.
“So he was not committing a crime by carrying those weapons,” Heckler said.
While detaining Driver, investigators learned he had pending charges against him out of Limerick, Montgomery County, stemming from an incident in which he allegedly brandished a firearm toward two women who were wearing burqas or “some type of Muslim garb,” Heckler said.
Online court records show that Driver was charged Oct. 18 with two felony counts of ethnic intimidation, making terroristic threats, harassment and possession of a weapon. He was released after posting 10 percent of $20,000 bail the next day, records show.
He has a preliminary hearing scheduled for Tuesday in Limerick.
“There were no bail conditions imposed so he was not violating any bail conditions (on Thursday),” Heckler said.
Before he was released Thursday, Driver was directed not to approach the Bucks courthouse with or without his dog unless he has official business inside, Heckler said, noting that authorities have retained his firearms.
“Given the pending charges (in Montgomery County) I can’t imagine that he will be reissued a license to carry a concealed weapon,” Heckler said, adding that federal authorities were notified of Thursday’s incident.
The newspaper was unsuccessful in reaching Driver for comment Thursday evening.
And if the persons who commit the acts don't matter much in the end, then you're left with the one simple, inconvienient truth. There are too many guns and they are too easy to acquire.
Guns are designed to do one simple thing.... and they do it well. They send a small slug of metal at extremely high velocity to a target.
This is why the car vs gun argument is also BS. Cars were not, by any stretch of the imagination, designed to kill people. Guns were.
Guns have only one use, one design, it has no secondary tasks.
You're confusing function with use. A car's designed purpose is to move a giant hunk of metal, plastic, and glass stuffed with meat from one point to another. That designed use is harmless. Likewise, a gun's designed purpose is harmless unless it is misused or the specific intent is to harm.
It's simply not accurate to claim that a guns have "no secondary task." Most gun owners use them for sport, entertainment, and self defense without killing anyone.
If your loved one was killed in a senseless random shooting from a high powered weapon, so you couldn't even have an open casket to see their face one more time, would you truly say to yourself 'well, at least the shooter's 2nd amendment rights weren't infringed.'?
Another "appeal to emotion." If your loved one gets run down by some drunk are you going to say to yourself, "well at least their ability to drive or get drunk weren't impaired"?
TKGAngel
12-04-15, 01:28 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/black-friday-gun-sales-soared-fbi-data-shows.html?_r=0
Our local county hall reported that requests for gun permits were up 3x over last Black Friday.
TravelGal
12-04-15, 01:34 PM
Another "appeal to emotion." If your loved one gets run down by some drunk are you going to say to yourself, "well at least their ability to drive or get drunk weren't impaired"?
But didn't you just prove his point?
TravelGal
12-04-15, 01:35 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/black-friday-gun-sales-soared-fbi-data-shows.html?_r=0
Our local county hall reported that requests for gun permits were up 3x over last Black Friday.
I'm sure they were. I can only think that ISIS laughs to think how much terror they have already wreaked.
datachicane
12-04-15, 02:16 PM
So much fog, which given the emotional nature of the subject is probably to be expected.
Here's the facts:
1. There has never been an effort in the U.S. to take all of your guns away. Ever. It's never been proposed or discussed in a serious way at any level of any influence, and you'd even be hard-pressed to find an influential gun-control advocate who would think it was a good or practical idea. It may be effective fundraising scare language, but equating any consideration of the possibility that firearms may have a role in firearm deaths with "They're coming for your guns!" is non-constructive fearmongering.
2. If we were to assume that the availability of firearms is part of the problem, given that this country is absolutely awash in guns, limiting that availability is unlikely to have a significant impact on the problem. We're closing the barn door after the horse has walked. There are far more civilian firearms than people in the U.S., twice as many per capita as 2nd place Serbia or 3rd place Yemen, nearly three times as many per capita as #4 Switzerland, a number which includes the Swiss military. Even with an absolute halt to all gun sales, something that has never (as in ever) been proposed, and something that is unquestionably a political impossibility in any case, it would be many decades before we could expect much impact on availability.
3. Accurate statistical data with regards to firearms deaths in the US is difficult to come by and invariably controversial, and that's by design. I frankly don't have the energy to rehash the conflict between the NRA and the CDC, but I would suggest that trying to find solutions when you're legally flying blind with regards to data is the very definition of insanity. I would also state that it's difficult for me personally to remain objective towards an organization that is ostensibly interested in working towards solutions while actively working against the collection of data.
I'm certainly not the first to make the observation, but we as a culture have a pitifully short memory. As a result we're ridiculously easy to manipulate, since we're left with no context to evaluate whatever arguments we're presented with or problems we may face. Organizations, parties, and even individuals switch side constantly while proclaiming their conviction, and meantime We've Always Been At War With Eastasia. The NRA, even Wayne LaPierre himself, were vocal proponents of gun registration programs until they weren't. We're not supposed to remember the reactions of those gun-rights activists who were around at the time towards the Black Panthers, or that the Black Panthers were arguably not much more than open-carry advocates.
This is not a problem that's going to be solved easily or soon. As a culture we see violence as a legitimate, if not preferred, and often most honorable method of resolving conflict, celebrate the rugged individualist, dehumanize anyone we decide are our adversaries, build pigeonholes for people and marginalize those we choose to place in those boxes, and view compassion and empathy as signs of weakness when applied to those outside of our own box. We've put all of the ingredients in the pot and decided we don't like the soup, and are left quibbling as to whether to place the blame on the type of pot or the stirring technique, anything to prevent us from looking in the mirror and taking responsibility for our own role in all of this.
Insomniac
12-04-15, 03:10 PM
From my perspective, there's three positions. #2 is absolute, no guns, or middle ground (which is wide). No guns is pretty damn close to impossible from a cultural and practical standpoint. There doesn't seem to be any event that will change the culture so really anyone who is banging the ban guns drum is just wasting their time. The position of the NRA and their supporters is any regulation is a slippery slope to jack booted government thugs taking all guns. There is nowhere to start a conversation for something that ends in the middle when there's no room for movement. And sadly, this is common for so many issues.
Might I submit that those 2 sides aren't the ones that need to address it. I fully believe in the silent majority. A majority of Americans who try to get through their day, live their lives, and do it gracefully, without spewing one extreme viewpoint or another.
My idealist side says they'll speak up and drown out both sides.
My stronger cynic side says they won't
Politics are so complex. Sometimes the people win over the lobby and sometimes they can't. I say this in the strictest sense when polls support one position but the actions of Congress do not follow.
The Brady Campaign rates California as having the strictest gun laws in the country. They have an assault weapons ban, a ban on high capacity magazines, a strong background check requirement, no private transfers, and more. The Brady Campaign's model State for gun control was no deterrent to this event at all.
Why would it be when you can just do everything in another state?
Trying to set broad policy based on outlying events is futile and misguided.
Generally speaking, this only applies selectively. We have tons of laws and policy based off outlying events.
... so I sarcastically offer this solution. When you turn 16 and get your driver's license, you get a gun. You can choose type and whatever color you want! You'll get bullets too!
Sooner or later, it'll all be solved.
Add a few rules, and you've just described Switzerland!
cameraman
12-04-15, 03:40 PM
Add a few rules, and you've just described Switzerland!
Nope in Switzerland you don't get the bullets. You are assigned to keep track of a large metallic dust collector in your home for 30 years. The Swiss military has no bearing on any gun control argument in the US beyond being ready straw man material.
Gun owners in the US would never in a million years submit to the restrictions on gun possession that are in effect in Switzerland today.
Gun control people would be thrilled beyond words if the US had that level of control.
So much fog, which given the emotional nature of the subject is probably to be expected.
Here's the facts:
1. There has never been an effort in the U.S. to take all of your guns away. Ever. It's never been proposed or discussed in a serious way at any level of any influence, and you'd even be hard-pressed to find an influential gun-control advocate who would think it was a good or practical idea. It may be effective fundraising scare language, but equating any consideration of the possibility that firearms may have a role in firearm deaths with "They're coming for your guns!" is non-constructive fearmongering.
Not exactly a fact. Either by stated policy, or interviewed leadership, there have been a couple of "influential gun-control advocates" that have worked toward outright bans. I believe that one of the Brady Campaign incarnations explicitly stated this (maybe Handgun Control Inc.?). I'd have to check.
3. Accurate statistical data with regards to firearms deaths in the US is difficult to come by and invariably controversial, and that's by design. I frankly don't have the energy to rehash the conflict between the NRA and the CDC, but I would suggest that trying to find solutions when you're legally flying blind with regards to data is the very definition of insanity. I would also state that it's difficult for me personally to remain objective towards an organization that is ostensibly interested in working towards solutions while actively working against the collection of data.
There is no need to rehash the NRA vs. the CDC, because there is no difficulty in finding accurate statistical data with regards to firearm deaths in the US. There is no blind flying either.
Seriously, look at this closer. This red herring pops up every few years as something to "fix" in order to solve gun crime.
The Uniform Crime report is pretty comprehensive.
The CDC was slapped down by Conservative Congresspeople what they made blatantly political reports on the "disease" of firearms in the US. They "scientifically" lied and misquoted sources, in an effort to say that certain gun laws will stop gun crimes. Many of the BS conclusions that they made are still being quoted as fact, even when they are not (...43 times more likely to be hurt...). The Fed government still gives money to other groups for similar research, just not the CDC. [note: In my opinion, the CDC probably "learned their lesson" by now, and won't publish erroneous reports if they have legitimate gun-related studies to conduct, but I'm not sure where firearm deaths fit into the CDC. Maybe the Psych guys?]
Nope in Switzerland you don't get the bullets. You are assigned to keep track of a large metallic dust collector in your home for 30 years. The Swiss military has no bearing on any gun control argument in the US beyond being ready straw man material.
Gun owners in the US would never in a million years submit to the restrictions on gun possession that are in effect in Switzerland today.
Gun control people would be thrilled beyond words if the US had that level of control.
Up until 2007 they got ammo (sealed containers). As of today, they can still buy ammo.
But yes, there are many restrictions on the Swiss people, but there is a HUGE difference in per capita gun crime compared to the US. There is still a LOT that might be learned from the Swiss.
Mostly though, I was adding my sarcastic comment to DM's sarcastic comment. :)
cameraman
12-04-15, 04:31 PM
The CDC was slapped down by Conservative Congresspeople what they made blatantly political reports on the "disease" of firearms in the US. They "scientifically" lied and misquoted sources, in an effort to say that certain gun laws will stop gun crimes. Many of the BS conclusions that they made are still being quoted as fact, even when they are not (...43 times more likely to be hurt...). The Fed government still gives money to other groups for similar research, just not the CDC. [note: In my opinion, the CDC probably "learned their lesson" by now, and won't publish erroneous reports if they have legitimate gun-related studies to conduct, but I'm not sure where firearm deaths fit into the CDC. Maybe the Psych guys?]
That is flat out wrong. The paper said nothing of the sort and the open access paper is the first link below to prove it.
In 1993, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published an article by Arthur Kellerman and colleagues, “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home (http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506),” which presented the results of research funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The study found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide. The article concluded that rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. Kellerman was affiliated at the time with the department of internal medicine at the University of Tennessee. He went on to positions at Emory University, and he currently holds the Paul O’Neill Alcoa Chair in Policy Analysis at the RAND Corporation.
The 1993 NEJM article received considerable media attention, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) responded by campaigning for the elimination of the center that had funded the study, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. The center itself survived, but Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf) for Fiscal Year 1997 that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Referred to as the Dickey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury. Dr. Kellerman stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”
At the time the American Psychological Association (APA) advocated in support of firearm-related injury research, and APA released the following statement when the Dickey amendment was adopted:
Research on the prevention of firearm-related injury, supported by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and coordinated within CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), has come under attack from Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) and the National Rifle Association (NRA). The House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee initially rejected Rep. Dickey's attempt to eliminate the $2.6 million dedicated to CDC firearm-injury research. However, Mr. Dickey prevailed in the full Appropriations Committee. The Dickey amendment would transfer the $2.6 million to regional health education centers. This research has attracted a powerful and wealthy opponent — the NRA. The NRA has taken the position that firearm-related injury research at the CDC amounts to 'antigun' political advocacy and has also attacked the quality of this research. However, research proposals submitted to CDC are subject to a peer review process that follows standard practices. APA's Public Policy Office (PPO) has distributed accurate information to Congress on the nature of CDC-supported firearm-injury research and is advocating against the Dickey amendment.
A report released in January 2013 by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns (PDF, 2MB) (http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/9/c1/6/1017/3/access_denied.pdf), founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, found that since 1996 the CDC’s funding for firearm injury prevention has fallen 96 percent and is now just $100,000 of the agency’s $5.6 billion budget. The CDC’s online guide (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-CE-07-001.html) for grants funded by the agency’s Injury Control Research Centers currently includes a section titled Prohibition of Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities, which states that “In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.”
Following the January 2011 shootings in Tucson, Ariz., (in which Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was injured), the New York Times published an article reporting that the CDC went so far as to “ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the NRA as a courtesy.” In response to this report, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence sent a letter in March 2011 to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius expressing concern that the agency was giving the NRA a “preferred position,” and urging that the NRA not be given the opportunity to exercise special influence over CDC’s firearms-related research.
In December 2011, Congress added language equivalent to the Dickey amendment to fiscal year 2012 appropriations legislation that funded the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (PDF, 1.3MB) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ74/pdf/PLAW-112publ74.pdf), stating that “none of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” The NRA’s advocacy efforts that lead to this amendment are thought to be a response to a 2009 American Journal of Public Health article by Branas et al., titled “Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault,” presenting the results of research that was funded by the NIH’s National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
Mark Rosenberg (http://www.ajc.com/news/news/cdc-politics-affected-gun-violence-research/nTZnf/), former director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, has been vocal about what essentially has amounted to a ban on federal funding for gun violence research, claiming that “The scientific community has been terrorized by the NRA.” In July 2012, former Representative Dickey co-authored a Washington Post op-ed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-wont-know-the-cause-of-gun-violence-until-we-look-for-it/2012/07/27/gJQAPfenEX_story.html) with Rosenberg, announcing that his views had reversed since he introduced the Dickey amendment in 1996. Wrote Dickey and Rosenberg, “We were on opposite sides of the heated battle 16 years ago, but we are in strong agreement now that scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries and that ways to prevent firearm deaths can be found without encroaching on the rights of legitimate gun owners. The same evidence-based approach that is saving millions of lives from motor-vehicle crashes, as well as from smoking, cancer and HIV/AIDS, can help reduce the toll of deaths and injuries from gun violence.”
On Jan. 9 of 2013, in the wake of the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., APA CEO Norman Anderson (http://www.apa.org/pubs/newsletters/access/2013/01-15/violence-prevention.aspx) participated in one of several White House meetings convened by a presidential task force on gun violence led by Vice President Joseph Biden. At that time APA also provided administration officials with a set of recommendations to prevent gun-related violence and support mental health. The fifth recommendation, “Enhance Knowledge Base for Sound Public Policy on Violence Prevention” included three specific recommended actions:
Facilitate research into the mental health and behavioral indicators of individuals who engaged in school violence incidents. These efforts will inform current best practices and serve as the foundation for guidance to mental health care providers when treating clients who exhibit such indicators.
Establish a science advisory blue ribbon panel — perhaps under the auspices of the OSTP’s Principal Advisor for SBE Sciences — to advise the administration and help ensure existing scientific evidence is used to inform policy. [OSTP: Office of Science and Technology Policy; SBE Sciences: Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences]
As a longer term response, fund a National Academies of Science (NAS) study to develop a 21st century research agenda, relevant to various federal agencies (e.g., NIH, FBI, CDC, NSF and DoJ) to inform gun violence prevention and intervention efforts. An updating of the NAS 2004 report, “Firearms and Violence,” to fill gaps in knowledge would be very helpful in this regard.
The same week, on Jan. 10, the University of Chicago Crime Lab sent a letter (PDF, 1.34KB) (https://crimelab.uchicago.edu/sites/crimelab.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Biden%20Commission%20letter_20130110_final.pdf) to Vice President Biden, signed by over 100 scientists, calling for the removal of the current barriers to firearm-related research, policy formation, evaluation and enforcement efforts and calling on the federal government to make direct investments in unbiased scientific research and data infrastructure. (Signatories that are psychologists include Mary Ann Dutton of Georgetown University, Benjamin Lahey of the University of Chicago, Susan Sorenson of the University of Pennsylvania, Laurence Steinberg of Temple University, Linda Teplin of Northwestern University and Katherine Wild of the Oregon Health Sciences University.)
On Jan. 16, President Barack Obama released his national plan for addressing gun violence. Highlighted on the first page the executive summary (PDF, 332KB) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/gun-proposals/GunViolenceExecutiveSummary.pdf) is the initiative to “end the freeze on gun violence research.” In a fact sheet (PDF, 350KB) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/gun-proposals/GunViolenceFactSheet.pdf) supplementing the plan, the White House provided the following background and strategy details:
There are approximately 30,000 firearm-related homicides and suicides a year, a number large enough to make clear this is a public health crisis. But for years, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and other scientific agencies have been barred by Congress from using funds to “advocate or promote gun control,” and some members of Congress have claimed this prohibition also bans the CDC from conducting any research on the causes of gun violence. However, research on gun violence is not advocacy; it is critical public health research that gives all Americans information they need.
Conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence, including links between video games, media images and violence: The president is issuing a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and scientific agencies to conduct research into the causes and prevention of gun violence. It is based on legal analysis that concludes such research is not prohibited by any appropriations language. The CDC will start immediately by assessing existing strategies for preventing gun violence and identifying the most pressing research questions, with the greatest potential public health impact. And the Administration is calling on Congress to provide $10 million for the CDC to conduct further research, including investigating the relationship between video games, media images and violence.
Better understand how and when firearms are used in violent death: To research gun violence prevention, we also need better data. When firearms are used in homicides or suicides, the National Violent Death Reporting System collects anonymous data, including the type of firearm used, whether the firearm was stored loaded or locked, and details on youth gun access. Congress should invest an additional $20 million to expand this system from the 18 states currently participating to all 50 states, helping Americans better understand how and when firearms are used in a violent death and informing future research and prevention strategies.
APA released a statement (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/01/gun-violence.aspx) the next day expressing strong support for key components of the president’s plan, including the following stance on federal gun violence research:
APA endorses the provision to end the freeze on federal gun violence research. This ban has significantly hampered psychological scientists’ ability to systematically assess the risk of assault and other weapons to the public, and to determine the effectiveness of various preventive measures. APA supports increased federal funding for research on the causes and prevention of gun violence, including attention to violence in media, to jump start this field after so many years of neglect.
On Jan. 24, Vice President Biden hosted a publicly webcasted online fireside chat, engaging in a discussion with Google Plus users about the president’s plan. Regarding the NRA’s lobbying efforts and the freeze on federal gun violence research, Biden said, “It bothers me that part of the interest group population out there is afraid of facts. Let the facts lead where they will, and let the research be done. That’s something that the president and I feel very strongly.”
APA’s Science Directorate will continue to monitor this issue closely going into the 2013 federal appropriations legislation season and to advocate in support of the president’s initiative to invest federal funds in this critical field of research.
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx
nissan gtp
12-04-15, 06:23 PM
Congress don't need no facts.
devilmaster
12-04-15, 07:52 PM
What's the point in posting or starting a thread when there's no room for discussion? You declare disagreement to be "BS" from the outset and I refuse to accept any argument that I don't have the absolute right to bear arms for my own defense. So there we. What's to discuss?
No, Richard, I am merely stating my opinion. Just as you have stated yours. I don't declare myself to be 'undebatable' and those 'BS' disagreements as you put it are my opinion on the usual minutia that people seem to get bogged down in. For example: The arguments about which fast food joint is healthier, Taco Bell or Burger King is BS because they're both bad for you.
Again, I am actually pro-gun ownership. I will never have a problem with someone owning a weapon for self defense. But that being said, you will have a hard time convincing me that an AK47 with 30 round mags is self defense. And therein lies my opinion, my comments, my thoughts. You want to own a 9mil with a 15 round clip? Go for it. Want to own a his and hers? Sure. Want to own 100? At some point the police and FBI should talk to you, but if they think its ok, then good.
The Brady Campaign rates California as having the strictest gun laws in the country. They have an assault weapons ban, a ban on high capacity magazines, a strong background check requirement, no private transfers, and more. The Brady Campaign's model State for gun control was no deterrent to this event at all.
And Canada has a handgun ban... But handguns still make it into crime here, although sometimes the Canadian Border services gets lucky and stops some at the border. People do have handguns here. They just don't buy it here. There are states that aren't California in terms of gun control, so maybe they got it somewhere else legally, or illegally. I do hope that authorities find out and be forthcoming with their investigation.
I'm not saying that there are no worthwhile gun laws, but there's really very little more that can be done focusing on the weapons themselves rather than the people who are wielding them to do evil. I don't have a problem with background checks or limitations on transfers but it's my belief that law enforcement isn't effectively using the tools that they have already. So there's little reason to think that more laws will have a substantial impact, especially if they're not addressing the real problems.
I guess we'll disagree. There is always more to be done in any situation. Sometimes, you look for best practices. Who is doing what to improve gun control in this world, and are its results calcuable and meaningful? Its always going to be hard to find the ways but one should never stop looking.
This is the trend we see with government. Pile on more and more laws and regulations for the mega-state to wield against the citizenry as the please while having little impact on the problem they purport to be addressing (c.f. domestic spying).
Here we agree.... Windsor train lines here were transformed with a scanning system along the lines after 9/11, never mind the fact that no terrorist threat came from trains. But its a great bunch of money spent.
I certainly hope that never happens. But if I should be unfortunate enough to meet my end in that way, then chalk me up as someone who gladly accepted that risk in order to live in a country where I have the right to defend myself.
In spite of the picture the press likes to paint of blood running in the streets all across America, gun violence has been at its lowest point in decades in spite of a steady increase in gun ownership. So the notion that gun violence is rampant and out of control is just fiction. Trying to set broad policy based on outlying events is futile and misguided.
Living in a free country means that we have to accept a certain amount of risk. We can't be free and live in this perfectly safe cocoon that some imagine that the nanny state should create for them. The cost of having a drink after work or a beer at the game is that drunks will kill pretty much the same number of people each year as criminals with guns. That's a risk we take not to preserve our fundamental right to self defense, but just so that folks can unwind and get sauced if they want.
But when a drunk in Oklahoma drives into a crowd killing three and injuring 27 is there a national outcry for breathalyser ignition locks on every car in America? Is there a call to ban booze or limit alcohol levels? No. In fact, even though we see thousands of deaths each year as a result of our freedom to enjoy one legal intoxicant, we have a movement under way to legalize another - purely for our own amusement and without regard to any other deaths that might add to the toll.
Is it too fine a point that gun rights keep us free and independent while intoxicants make use compliant and dependent?
Actually, yes, there were calls to limit alcohol levels for drivers. And governments did it. Remember the good old days when a cop pulled someone over drunk and told him to take it easy going home? People got tired of drunks killing people and they did something about it. Legal limits. You can have gun control, and you will still have incidents. But the goal is to lower the sheer overwhelming amount of gun deaths in America. Canada is free, England is free, France is free, they still have guns, they have laws, they have gun related deaths, they have terrorist incidents, but they have so much less of it. Why?
But once again, A car was never designed to kill people. Its a tranportation vehicle. Guns have no other task. Guns have one use and one use only. So governments have done alot to curb drunk driving. Why don't people defend drunk driving so vociferously as they do their right to bear arms?
So lets take that example a bit further. If I said, hey, you can drink and drive but only 2 drinks an hour... and hey, you can have guns but no military automatic weapons but rifles and handguns are ok, does that work for everyone? Of course not, but in reality I would submit that booze limits protect people and less military weapons out in the wild protect people as well.
I am always welcome to debate, because I believe that people talking and discussing things is a good thing, regardless of the topic. My post and your rebuttal got the talk going and thats a good thing.
Insomniac
12-04-15, 11:47 PM
But once again, A car was never designed to kill people. Its a tranportation vehicle. Guns have no other task. Guns have one use and one use only.
I get what you're saying, but nrc already pointed out other uses. They were created to kill, but people do use them for some other things, or perhaps in the case of some, hope to never have to use them.
Actually, yes, there were calls to limit alcohol levels for drivers. And governments did it. Remember the good old days when a cop pulled someone over drunk and told him to take it easy going home? People got tired of drunks killing people and they did something about it. Legal limits. You can have gun control, and you will still have incidents. But the goal is to lower the sheer overwhelming amount of gun deaths in America. Canada is free, England is free, France is free, they still have guns, they have laws, they have gun related deaths, they have terrorist incidents, but they have so much less of it. Why?
The changes in laws intended to reduce drunk driving deaths focused on actual harmful behavior and was done at the state level. Tolerance for impaired driving was reduced and penalties were increased. There was no move to ban 150 proof liquor or limit beers to 10 ounces nationwide. The equivalent approach to that used for drunk driving would be zero tolerance for illegal use of guns and even harsher penalties for gun related crimes at the state level. I would be fine with that.
But once again, A car was never designed to kill people. Its a tranportation vehicle. Guns have no other task. Guns have one use and one use only. So governments have done alot to curb drunk driving. Why don't people defend drunk driving so vociferously as they do their right to bear arms?
Your analogy is broken. Nobody is defending the illegal use of guns which would be the equivalent to defending drunk driving.
1. There has never been an effort in the U.S. to take all of your guns away. Ever. It's never been proposed or discussed in a serious way at any level of any influence, and you'd even be hard-pressed to find an influential gun-control advocate who would think it was a good or practical idea. It may be effective fundraising scare language, but equating any consideration of the possibility that firearms may have a role in firearm deaths with "They're coming for your guns!" is non-constructive fearmongering.
How about a front page editorial in the New York Times? Today. :shakehead:
nissan gtp
12-05-15, 11:06 AM
How about a front page editorial in the New York Times? Today. :shakehead:
It seems quite a moderate opinion, IMO.
Read it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-top-region®ion=opinion-c-col-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region
stroker
12-05-15, 11:18 AM
Frankly, I'm sick of the discussion. Regardless of the point of view we've got an infinite number of people spewing ill-informed or uninformed opinions and it's all heat, no light. Let's try a different take on it.
Col. Jeff Cooper once opined that a mask is a Kill Sign. That does NOT mean you shoot them on sight, but it means the burden of reasonable fear is much, much smaller. If you're up to nothing nefarious then you show your face. If you're masked then you're likely up to no good. So how do you reconcile that with Burkas?
It seems quite a moderate opinion, IMO.
Read it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-top-region®ion=opinion-c-col-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region
Just reading the title of the article I have two comments.
First, if there is an epidemic its epidemic of violence not guns.
Second, the recent events in France took place in France.
It seems quite a moderate opinion, IMO.
Read it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-top-region®ion=opinion-c-col-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region
I did read it before posting about it. There is no epidemic, despite wildly increasing gun sales the past half dozen years, gun violence is sharply down. They are advocating banning civilian ownership of certain 'scary looking' firearms. Not a moderate view IMO.
On the other hand, I don't think most Americans care what the NYT thinks.
I don't think most Americans care what the NYT thinks.
At least we hope
Insomniac
12-05-15, 03:17 PM
Setting aside the belief that gun regulations would be ineffective, what is the maximum level of regulation that 1. does not prevent you from defending yourself/property and 2. does not infringe on the 2nd amendment?
Setting aside the belief that gun regulations would be ineffective, what is the maximum level of regulation that 1. does not prevent you from defending yourself/property and 2. does not infringe on the 2nd amendment?
I believe many of the big cities like New York, Chicago and Washington DC have passed that point, most people there are unable to defend themselves. Here in the suburbs of New York City I can buy a rifle or shot gun with just a background check and waiting period, however in order to get a permit to carry a hand gun I would have to prove a specific need and go through a lengthy process.
I don’t have a problem with controls regarding fire arms purchases however they should be controls not brick walls.
Take note of the fact all of these shootings take place where the shooters have a very good chance they will be the only ones armed.
Also remember that guns exist. Millions upon millions have been produced. There’s nothing anyone, or any law can do about it.
If it were not for the stringent gun laws where I live I would own a pistol. I don’t own any firearms.
LIBERTY PRESIDENT CALLS FOR AN ARMED CHRISTIAN CAMPUS (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LIBERTY_UNIVERSITY_GUNS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-05-12-15-39)
Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war...
LIBERTY PRESIDENT CALLS FOR AN ARMED CHRISTIAN CAMPUS (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LIBERTY_UNIVERSITY_GUNS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-05-12-15-39)
Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war...
Seems foolish. If you want to permit weapons on campus that's one thing, but to actively encourage it might make you liable for anything that may happen.
It is foolish Richard. To quote another song, like "putting out fire with gasoline..."
LIBERTY PRESIDENT CALLS FOR AN ARMED CHRISTIAN CAMPUS (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LIBERTY_UNIVERSITY_GUNS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-05-12-15-39)
Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war...
If the islamic terrorists continue the attacks here it will get much much worse.
How about a front page editorial in the New York Times? Today. :shakehead:
http://www.nationalreview.com/NYT-Epic-Gun-Fail
I found this interesting.
http://www.nationalreview.com/NYT-Epic-Gun-Fail
I found this interesting.
Read that yesterday. I like Jonah's take on most issues.
TKGAngel
12-06-15, 12:10 PM
The nice gentleman in this photo is a sheriff's deputy working today's NFL game.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AdamBenigni/status/673524364428648450/photo/1
Does this seem like overkill to anyone else?
The nice gentleman in this photo is a sheriff's deputy working today's NFL game.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AdamBenigni/status/673524364428648450/photo/1
Does this seem like overkill to anyone else?
I don't think that's overkill. Soldiers in full battle gear regularly patrol Penn Station in New York. People who want to reek havoc look for "soft" targets.
Setting aside the belief that gun regulations would be ineffective, what is the maximum level of regulation that 1. does not prevent you from defending yourself/property and 2. does not infringe on the 2nd amendment?
I'm fine with requiring background checks for every transfer. I'm fine with a court being able to suspend the gun rights and even order confiscation of weapons from someone that can be shown to be a danger to themselves or others. The key is that there must be due process and rights to appeal.
I object to the idea of adding people on the no-fly list to those who are barred from buying weapons. There is no due process or transparency in that. There is no fundamental right to fly - there is a fundamental right to bear arms.
Assault rifle bans are generally misguided. First, long guns are not a large part of the problem. Second, the difference between an "assault rifle" and the rifles that are legal in all 50 states is trivial enough as to not matter. Just bolt on the scary looking bits. We're rapidly approaching the point where they'll be able to 3D print all the illegal parts themselves anyway.
Much is made of the "gun show loophole" but the bulk of the problem there is already illegal, but difficult to prove. To me, the main benefit of requiring universal background checks would be to end that as an excuse and force the feds to focus on straw purchases and corrupt gun dealers, which are the larger problem.
The nice gentleman in this photo is a sheriff's deputy working today's NFL game.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AdamBenigni/status/673524364428648450/photo/1
Does this seem like overkill to anyone else?
Big events like NFL games are a prime target, so being very visible and very prepared is good at a time like this. My only objection to that picture is that I think that civil police forces should make a very deliberate effort to keep their appearance distinct from the military. Police tactical gear should not be camo or olive drab unless that's their normal uniform color.
chop456
12-07-15, 09:31 AM
I predict that everyone will be in agreement on this subject within the next 10 posts.
Don Quixote
12-07-15, 12:24 PM
I predict that everyone will be in agreement on this subject within the next 10 posts.
I agree with you.
Napoleon
12-07-15, 03:19 PM
I agree with you.
Me too!
stroker
12-07-15, 03:29 PM
I'll be very interested to see whether now the Army is admitting women to all combat roles whether the Congress will change the definition of "militia"...
Interesting map showing firearm deaths as well as injuries in an interactive format.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/12/gun_deaths_map_how_many_people_have_died_or_been_i njured_in_shootings_around.html
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-all-lausd-schools-closed-threat-20151215-story.html
:shakehead: :saywhat: :irked:
Peeps, let's get real. :(
The link to the paper is locked out now, but this news article was in yesterday's paper written by one of the paper's columnists:
In Bucks, concealed-carry permits up 175 percent
When I arrived at the Bucks County Government Services building in Levittown on Monday morning, five people were ahead of me, four of them applying for concealed-carry gun permits.
The lone clerk at the counter went about business with an air of indifference toward us, tediously checking forms and making notations. The line grew longer. Gun permits are the rage in Bucks County, according to numbers from the sheriff’s office.
Between Nov. 13, the day Islamic jihadists murdered 130 people in Paris, and Monday, the county issued 1,521 concealed carry permits. In the same span last year, just 553 permits were issued. That’s an increase of 175 percent.
The county clerk’s slow-mo mojo gave me the opportunity to chat with fellow line-standers who were crammed in the cramped office waiting area.
“Here for a permit, like everyone else,” said a man from Newtown Township, who asked to stay anonymous. “It’s not like I’d carry (my gun) around with me all the time. But going to Philly for dinner? Sure. A movie theater? Definitely. I’d want at least a fighting chance, rather than being a sitting duck.
“I think Obama would love to take away our guns,” he said, “but he won’t do it because it would (tick) off too many people in the liberal areas.”
Agreed, I said. Liberals love their guns as much as any NRA booster, though they are shy about saying so.
Two more men came into the county office.
Gun permits? I asked.
Yes, they said.
Addressing those in line, I asked, “Is everyone here for gun permits?”
Seven of the eight people inside said yes. Another man squeezed into the waiting area. He was Mark Costello of Levittown.
“Is this where you get the form for a gun permit?” he asked.
Yes, we said.
Costello, an Army veteran, said he has considered obtaining a firearm for years. He went shooting at a range last week, enjoyed it, and decided to go for it.
“Things are so crazy anymore,” he said.
More men arrived seeking gun permits. A Newtown man told me: “Obama really has not allayed our fears that he wants our guns. Or ammunition.”
No, I said, but he has solved global warming.
“Yeah,” the Newtown man chuckled, “I guess we don’t have to worry about melting ice caps killing us.”
We all agreed: Americans no longer need fear killer ice caps. Thanks, Obama!
The county clerk pondered a woman’s passport.
Mark Costello told me, “It just seems like now is the right time to get (a gun). All the shootings. At universities, theaters, places like that.”
The Newtown man said, “I know a guy who owns 20 rifles and 10 handguns. He said Obama is the best thing that ever happened to the gun industry.”
A hundred million guns have been sold since the president took office in 2009.
“And people are hoarding ammo,” the Newtown man said, “just in case the government puts a clampdown on it.”
There were now a dozen people waiting in the government office, as the clerk moved with the alacrity of a PennDOT crew fixing potholes. I asked again: Is everyone here getting a gun permit?
Most said yes. A man in back said: “This is my third time trying to get one.”
Three times?
“I keep coming at the wrong time,” he said, with a hint of sarcasm. “The worst time to come here is at the end of the day, 3:30.” Or lunchtime.
The clerk saw the line. One man was standing outside on the sidewalk. The clerk announced she would take lunch at 11:30 and would not be back for a half hour. We’d all have to wait.
“I’m going to go home and download the form,” Mark Costello said.
Two others left. A third man, Dennis Redmond of Langhorne, a Vietnam veteran, married 41 years, headed to his car.
“Scary times,” he said. “For the first time, I’ve given my wife possession of a gun. It’s a crazy world we live in. You can come up with a hundred reasons why it’s all happening, but ultimately I don’t know that it matters. What matters is I have to protect my family.”
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.