Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
64 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BREAKING: Shooting at Pathmark in Old Bridge, NJ (Original Post) Are_grits_groceries Aug 2012 OP
oy. horrifying. nt xchrom Aug 2012 #1
Now you just leave that lone wolf alone malaise Aug 2012 #2
NJ has some of the absolute strictest gun control laws in the country TheCruces Aug 2012 #5
cause NJ has some of the highest walls and most severe checkpoints at every crossing point to lapfog_1 Aug 2012 #7
+1 nt Bonobo Aug 2012 #8
Riiiight. We can't keep out illegal immigrants or drugs, yet somehow we'll have an impenetrable Edweird Aug 2012 #12
Other countries seem to be able to do this. lapfog_1 Aug 2012 #13
What the fuck does Japan have to do with any of this? Edweird Aug 2012 #17
you were attempting to make the point that "we can't keep out drugs so why bother" lapfog_1 Aug 2012 #19
I don't live in Japan. If we are going to use other countries then I'll just point out Switzerland Edweird Aug 2012 #21
You should feel embarrassed by that RandiFan1290 Aug 2012 #26
While your insult may have seemed 'high minded' and biting conceptually, it's far too ambiguous. Edweird Aug 2012 #30
We can't read your mind, genius. Pacafishmate Aug 2012 #55
Ooh a tag team! how cute RandiFan1290 Aug 2012 #59
Ok, not Japan... but England lapfog_1 Aug 2012 #29
I heard Ben Stein try to make that same argument on "Sunday Morning" a few weeks ago, SammyWinstonJack Aug 2012 #32
And yet we have gun controls... even national gun controls. lapfog_1 Aug 2012 #36
No, you're making unconstitutional suggestions pipoman Aug 2012 #33
I do not live in England either. Edweird Aug 2012 #34
actually I AM a rocket scientist (aerodynamics, which is actually much harder than rockets) lapfog_1 Aug 2012 #43
Oh yeah, cause it's not like the largest mass shooting on record didn't happen in Norway TheCruces Sep 2012 #64
Never mind the pesky Bill of Rights... pipoman Aug 2012 #25
I think we can allow gun owners lapfog_1 Aug 2012 #35
Now, apply that argument to the REST of the Bill Of Rights. You know, it only applies to the Edweird Aug 2012 #37
OK. so let's NOT lapfog_1 Aug 2012 #39
No restrictions on any weapon that can be carried by one man. Pacafishmate Aug 2012 #57
Where can I get parchment and a quill? hack89 Aug 2012 #38
but by that false equivalency lapfog_1 Aug 2012 #41
For the most part, they are legal to own... pipoman Aug 2012 #42
because law is never "settled" lapfog_1 Aug 2012 #44
Except it will not happen in this pipoman Aug 2012 #45
So how does the internet, TV, digital media, radio fit into the framers vision? hack89 Aug 2012 #46
The dividing line is between discriminate and indiscriminate weapons. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #62
Yeah, yeah, yeah, pipoman Aug 2012 #40
Ok using your logic Missycim Aug 2012 #49
You're right, the National Firearms Act ( effectively bans machine guns) is unconstitutional. Pacafishmate Aug 2012 #56
"Other countries seem to be able to do this." KansDem Aug 2012 #58
Perhaps those countries have rational drug laws and therefore no rampant gang violence. nt hack89 Aug 2012 #60
You'll get no argument out of me... KansDem Aug 2012 #61
+1000 nt Selatius Aug 2012 #14
Look, I'm from NJ and I live in southern NM (hence my user name) TheCruces Sep 2012 #63
Exactly!! liberallibral Aug 2012 #51
WTF? smirkymonkey Aug 2012 #3
You're kidding me... a la izquierda Aug 2012 #4
Link from ABC ananda Aug 2012 #6
It was a co-worker that shot 2 and killed himself. What's with the 'body armor' BS? Edweird Aug 2012 #9
So, have we become so used to mass shootings by people in body armor lapfog_1 Aug 2012 #10
or maybe you're not being told the truth...... Edweird Aug 2012 #11
Officiall, 3 dead ananda Aug 2012 #15
Yeah, employee shot 2 co-workers and then killed himself. At 4:30 am. While the store was closed. Edweird Aug 2012 #20
you saying that there wasn't a shooting and nobody was killed? lapfog_1 Aug 2012 #16
I'm saying it wasn't a mass shooting by a person in body armor. Edweird Aug 2012 #18
how many co-workers (that's an assumption on your part, no?) does it take to be a mass shooting? lapfog_1 Aug 2012 #22
The FBI defines mass murder as 4 or more with no cooling off period. Edweird Aug 2012 #24
Well, we certainly needed that exact point of order. Are_grits_groceries Aug 2012 #28
Or, you could just, you know, try telling the truth..... Edweird Aug 2012 #31
I didn't say mass shooting. Are_grits_groceries Aug 2012 #23
I didn't say that you did. I was responding to another poster. Edweird Aug 2012 #27
As was I... lapfog_1 Aug 2012 #48
This is odd, NJ Missycim Aug 2012 #47
We have some of the strictest JustAnotherGen Aug 2012 #50
I am in the Port of Newark right Missycim Aug 2012 #53
To allow people a very tall soapbox to better make implication LanternWaste Aug 2012 #54
Seem like we were overdue. sadbear Aug 2012 #52

TheCruces

(224 posts)
5. NJ has some of the absolute strictest gun control laws in the country
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:17 AM
Aug 2012

Just an FYI.

Lunatics will find a way.

lapfog_1

(29,166 posts)
7. cause NJ has some of the highest walls and most severe checkpoints at every crossing point to
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:28 AM
Aug 2012

other states.



I don't care about this issue, but please stop telling everyone that gun control laws at some locality or other makes any difference.


The only gun control laws that would make a difference are national gun control laws... which would have to be enforced at every border crossing and airport that has international flights.

 

Edweird

(8,570 posts)
12. Riiiight. We can't keep out illegal immigrants or drugs, yet somehow we'll have an impenetrable
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:56 AM
Aug 2012

firearm dragnet.....

lapfog_1

(29,166 posts)
13. Other countries seem to be able to do this.
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:59 AM
Aug 2012

how many mass shootings are there in Japan, for example.

lapfog_1

(29,166 posts)
19. you were attempting to make the point that "we can't keep out drugs so why bother"
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:09 AM
Aug 2012

with national gun control (ban all multi-shot long guns and all handguns, for example).

And your argument is that we can't keep drugs out of the country...

I am pointing out with direct examples that other countries seem to be able to enforce their gun control laws.

 

Edweird

(8,570 posts)
21. I don't live in Japan. If we are going to use other countries then I'll just point out Switzerland
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:12 AM
Aug 2012

and win the thread - but I do not live in Switzerland either. I live in the USA. Japan, like Switzerland, is an entirely different culture.

 

Edweird

(8,570 posts)
30. While your insult may have seemed 'high minded' and biting conceptually, it's far too ambiguous.
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:27 AM
Aug 2012

To which "that" are you referring?

lapfog_1

(29,166 posts)
29. Ok, not Japan... but England
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:25 AM
Aug 2012

or I suppose that we are an entirely different culture than England too.

BTW, my point was that some one always comes along when there is a shooting incident like this and points out that the locale where the shooting happens "has some of the strictest gun control laws" as if to say that "see, gun control laws don't work because New Jersey has gun control laws and yet this gunman was able to just open fire"... and they never ever talk about how easy it is to go to the next state, a few hours drive away, attend a gun show and buy whatever the hell they want, usually without a background check.

Make your case for or against gun control, but please keep the absurd NRA talking points about local gun control laws out of any reasonable conversations about the effectiveness or lack thereof of gun control. We have NEVER tried gun control in this country so we can't say anything about how it might work or might not.

All we can do is look at NATIONS with gun control laws and see how they stack up when compared to us.

But you don't want to go there, do you...

SammyWinstonJack

(44,129 posts)
32. I heard Ben Stein try to make that same argument on "Sunday Morning" a few weeks ago,
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:36 AM
Aug 2012

about gun control, in the aftermath of the "Batman" premier mass shootings.


We don't need no stinkin' gun controls!

lapfog_1

(29,166 posts)
36. And yet we have gun controls... even national gun controls.
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:40 AM
Aug 2012

and no one has committed a mass murder in recent times with a fully automatic machine gun.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
33. No, you're making unconstitutional suggestions
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:37 AM
Aug 2012

which are so far from reality they don't deserve discussion. Why, after one of these incidents are there all of these ideas put forward which are completely impossible without constitutional amendment?

 

Edweird

(8,570 posts)
34. I do not live in England either.
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:38 AM
Aug 2012

Additionally, I made no comment about the local gun laws. I did, however, point out that our porous borders that make drug and illegal immigrant interdiction nearly impossible will have the same effect on firearms with a nationwide gun ban. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see it, but you do need to be in willful denial to dispute it.

lapfog_1

(29,166 posts)
43. actually I AM a rocket scientist (aerodynamics, which is actually much harder than rockets)
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:02 AM
Aug 2012

And you make these claims that our borders are so porous that we can't possibly stop the flow of guns into the US (when, in fact, the illegal arms trade right now goes the other way). You have NO EVIDENCE of that, just your opinion.

So I do dispute it.

and I have provided counter examples of OTHER COUNTRIES with gun control (national) that do not have the level of mass murder of random people by "lunatics".

Again, please quit using the tired NRA talking point that when a shooting happens in a state or district or city with strict gun control in the US, that somehow this shows how ineffective gun control laws are.

TheCruces

(224 posts)
64. Oh yeah, cause it's not like the largest mass shooting on record didn't happen in Norway
Wed Sep 5, 2012, 08:46 AM
Sep 2012

And seriously, dude? Rocket scientist? LMFAO.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
25. Never mind the pesky Bill of Rights...
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:18 AM
Aug 2012

the first thing you will have to do to make your fantasy even possible is to amend the Bill of Rights....good luck, let us know when that is accomplished, then we can actually consider your suggestion...

lapfog_1

(29,166 posts)
35. I think we can allow gun owners
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:38 AM
Aug 2012

to have all of the muzzle loading "firearms" they want..

Because when the bill of rights to you elude to was written and adopted, that was what was available... so that was what they were talking about.

Or can we all go out and buy grenade launchers (or tanks, or nuclear weapons) because they are ALSO "arms"?

How is a semi-automatic rifle with a 100 round magazine (like in Aurora) protected by the 2nd amendment and a fully automatic sub machine gun NOT protected?

And if I should be able to buy a sub machine gun, why not a grenade launcher? Why not field artillery... most modern semi-automatic rifles have accuracy and more effectiveness that revolutionary war era cannon.

How was it determined what is protected under the Bill of Rights and what isn't? Arms is all it says... so I'm happy to let all "arms" that existed in the late 1700s be protected, up to and including cannon.

But if you allow SOME restrictions on technologically advanced "arms" (fully automatic machine guns), then I think you have already given up on your precious "Bill of Rights" argument.

 

Edweird

(8,570 posts)
37. Now, apply that argument to the REST of the Bill Of Rights. You know, it only applies to the
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:41 AM
Aug 2012

technology that existed at the time.

lapfog_1

(29,166 posts)
39. OK. so let's NOT
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:46 AM
Aug 2012

how is it I can't buy one of these as an ordinary citizen?



Again, once you allow ANY restrictions on the definition of ARMS in the 2nd amendment, your entire reliance on that amendment for owning any arms is out the window.

So your position is that there should be no restrictions on any type of weapon.

lapfog_1

(29,166 posts)
41. but by that false equivalency
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:54 AM
Aug 2012

this would also be illegal today



and your right to free speech is still protected.

You can't have it both ways, either the right to arms is protected by the amendment to the constitution or it isn't. and that means you either live with the idea that the framers of the bill of rights knew what they wanted (someone walking around with a muzzle loading pistol or long gun) OR they figured that whatever came along would be covered as well... and taken to the conclusion, that means everything that our military uses today is also OK for me to own as a private citizen because, well, it's in the amendment that you keep pointing to.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
42. For the most part, they are legal to own...
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:01 AM
Aug 2012
"that means everything that our military uses today is also OK for me to own as a private citizen because, well, it's in the amendment that you keep pointing to."

You like pretending that all of the enumerated rights don't have minimal limitations is silly and contrary to reality..what don't you understand about "settled law"?

lapfog_1

(29,166 posts)
44. because law is never "settled"
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:09 AM
Aug 2012

lets talk about the threat to abortion (also settled law) that will come about it Romney is elected.

If a Supreme Court can interpret the law one way or another, a different one can change it.

Settled law (and the constitution) says that Negros only count as 3/5ths of a person when doing the census.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

which wasn't fixed until 100 years later.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
45. Except it will not happen in this
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:16 AM
Aug 2012

case in either of our lifetimes. How about we get creative and find answers that might actually help the problem which are not impossible pipe dreams, eh? Even if you started today it would take literally decades to move an inch. How about we start by making mental health services and addiction services available to anyone who needs them? No constitutional hurtles and a very liberal, Liberal, Democratic goal I'd say..

hack89

(39,171 posts)
46. So how does the internet, TV, digital media, radio fit into the framers vision?
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:19 AM
Aug 2012

as well as women and blacks voting, abortion or marriage equality?

You can't have both ways either.

America decided in 1934 where to draw the line on what guns the public can own - it has worked fine. No one is trying to expand that definition so your concern about military hardware is a strawman.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
62. The dividing line is between discriminate and indiscriminate weapons.
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 01:36 PM
Aug 2012

It is a general rule with minor exception. Discriminate weapons are those that are carried and used by individual soldiers and are aimed at individuals. Indiscriminate weapons are usually crew served and are aimed at areas or at vehicles and buildings. So artillery is an indiscriminate weapon, while a rifle is a discriminate one.

I can use a rifle or handgun for hunting or self-protection, but that is rather hard to do with an artillery piece. BTW - You can own indiscriminate weapons and live shells, but they have to be registered and are very expensive.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
40. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:48 AM
Aug 2012

and the only form of media was a printing press...

Just because you know nothing about precedent and decisions which have defined the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean that those precedents and decisions don't exist.

Just to humor you, the standard set through the SCOTUS is, "in common use for lawful purposes". Millions upon millions of semiautomatic firearms are just that, "in common use for lawful purposes". Fully automatic weapons are completely legal in most states. Again, the second amendment has already been defined through case law...it's there for the reading...pretending it isn't, or ignorance of it's existence doesn't mean it isn't done..

Thank goodness that the threshold for constitutionality isn't the lapfog standard.

 

Missycim

(950 posts)
49. Ok using your logic
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:23 AM
Aug 2012

You can only use a manual printing press and the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the internet,radio or TV. Ok?

 

Pacafishmate

(249 posts)
56. You're right, the National Firearms Act ( effectively bans machine guns) is unconstitutional.
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:47 AM
Aug 2012

As for your technology at the time of founding argument, let's see what else that logic can be extended to. There should be no freedom of speech apart from documents written with a quill pen and actual spoken words. The freedom of speech does not apply to the internet because the founders could never have envisioned such a subversive technology!!! That's what you are saying right?

TheCruces

(224 posts)
63. Look, I'm from NJ and I live in southern NM (hence my user name)
Wed Sep 5, 2012, 08:32 AM
Sep 2012

I'm well-familiar with gun laws in both states, and idiotic Border Patrol checkpoints.

Most gun control laws exist just to make people who are scared of guns feel better.

 

liberallibral

(272 posts)
51. Exactly!!
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:32 AM
Aug 2012

Lunatics and criminals WILL find a way... I'd rather give ordinary citizens a chance to defend themselves, than disarm them.....

ananda

(28,782 posts)
6. Link from ABC
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:20 AM
Aug 2012
http://abcnews.go.com/US/jersey-shopping-plaza-shootout-leaves-dead/story?id=17124439#.UECdjEpfU7A

Police in New Jersey have reportedly shot and killed a man suspected of being involved in a shootout inside a shopping plaza this morning that left several people dead.

Police responded to shots fired inside the Pathmark supermarket on Route 9 in Old Bridge, N.J., just before 4 a.m. There was a confrontation with the gunman, according to WABC-TV.

lapfog_1

(29,166 posts)
10. So, have we become so used to mass shootings by people in body armor
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:49 AM
Aug 2012

that this doesn't even deserve a headline someplace.

CNN, HuffingtonPost, cable news...

Not even a mention on the cable news channel, a b-roll mention at Huffpo and CNN.

ananda

(28,782 posts)
15. Officiall, 3 dead
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:03 AM
Aug 2012
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2012/08/31/official-dead-supermarket-shooting/PJq7afXiczxJc0nksOvG4J/story.html

At least three people have died in a shooting at a New Jersey supermarket early Friday, a law enforcement official said.

The person believed to be the shooter is among the dead, a law enforcement official briefed on the shooting told The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the shooting took place in a different jurisdiction.
 

Edweird

(8,570 posts)
20. Yeah, employee shot 2 co-workers and then killed himself. At 4:30 am. While the store was closed.
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:09 AM
Aug 2012
 

Edweird

(8,570 posts)
18. I'm saying it wasn't a mass shooting by a person in body armor.
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:08 AM
Aug 2012

It was an employee that killed two co-workers and then killed himself at 4:30am - the store was closed.

lapfog_1

(29,166 posts)
22. how many co-workers (that's an assumption on your part, no?) does it take to be a mass shooting?
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:13 AM
Aug 2012

Since you have determined that killing 2 people isn't enough.

Are_grits_groceries

(17,111 posts)
28. Well, we certainly needed that exact point of order.
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:23 AM
Aug 2012

Tell you what. If it was one person, especially one I loved, it would be a mass shooting.

I will check the Eff Bee of Eye dictionary before I dare post anything else. Maybe I'll check the Bible and Koran along with other sources to cover all angles.

It is so gratifying to see that the Nit Picking Police are patrolling.

Are_grits_groceries

(17,111 posts)
23. I didn't say mass shooting.
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:15 AM
Aug 2012

I also said details sketchy because they are. As with a lot of stories, there are clarifications as more info comes in. I checked what I could when it was reported.

 

Edweird

(8,570 posts)
27. I didn't say that you did. I was responding to another poster.
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:20 AM
Aug 2012

The 'body armor' thing tho.... I know that you were just relaying the information you had at the time, but there is a lot more info out now....
http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2012/08/old_bridge_police_investigatin.html

lapfog_1

(29,166 posts)
48. As was I...
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:22 AM
Aug 2012

From the ABC article:

There was a confrontation with the gunman, who was reportedly in body armor, and the suspect was killed. He was tentatively identified as a man in his 20s who is a current or former employee.
Related Content

PHOTOS: Shooting inside Pathmark in Old Bridge

MORE: Follow us @EyewitnessNYC
MORE: Contact the WABC-TV New Jersey Bureau
It is unknown how many others were shot before police responded

JustAnotherGen

(31,681 posts)
50. We have some of the strictest
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:27 AM
Aug 2012

I don't care about the gun control laws - or policy right now. I care about those people dead a few miles down the road.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
54. To allow people a very tall soapbox to better make implication
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:36 AM
Aug 2012

"why would this happen?


To allow people a very tall soapbox to better make implications regarding their dogmatic positions on gun ownership.

I imagine that's one reason why this would happen...

sadbear

(4,340 posts)
52. Seem like we were overdue.
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:35 AM
Aug 2012

What's it been since the last shooting, 3 weeks? These things have been happening every two weeks lately. This is progress.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»BREAKING: Shooting at Pat...