HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The shooting: How many mo...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:26 PM

The shooting: How many more of these "things" are we going to put up with?

Somebody's right to own a gun DOES NOT SUPERSEDE THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT
NOT TO BE SHOT WHILE SHOPPING, AT SCHOOL, OR WALKING IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

89 replies, 5493 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 89 replies Author Time Post
Reply The shooting: How many more of these "things" are we going to put up with? (Original post)
Botany Dec 2012 OP
malaise Dec 2012 #1
madokie Dec 2012 #2
malaise Dec 2012 #31
madokie Dec 2012 #35
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #47
Botany Dec 2012 #6
justanidea Dec 2012 #11
Botany Dec 2012 #19
former-republican Dec 2012 #26
GeorgeGist Dec 2012 #87
llmart Dec 2012 #21
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #49
Pacafishmate Dec 2012 #34
Hoyt Dec 2012 #62
Pacafishmate Dec 2012 #69
Hoyt Dec 2012 #80
freshwest Dec 2012 #38
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #50
freshwest Dec 2012 #74
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #75
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #89
SCVDem Dec 2012 #45
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #65
SCVDem Dec 2012 #70
justanidea Dec 2012 #3
Laurian Dec 2012 #12
former-republican Dec 2012 #18
llmart Dec 2012 #24
oneshooter Dec 2012 #4
Turbineguy Dec 2012 #5
cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #8
Turbineguy Dec 2012 #10
Laurian Dec 2012 #7
Botany Dec 2012 #15
otohara Dec 2012 #27
RebelOne Dec 2012 #44
SCVDem Dec 2012 #48
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #52
larwdem Dec 2012 #60
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #63
Hoyt Dec 2012 #66
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #68
leftstreet Dec 2012 #9
ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #13
former-republican Dec 2012 #20
ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #28
former-republican Dec 2012 #33
ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #36
former-republican Dec 2012 #37
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #53
spin Dec 2012 #76
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #78
spin Dec 2012 #79
Hoyt Dec 2012 #81
The Straight Story Dec 2012 #14
BlueJazz Dec 2012 #16
ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #29
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #54
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #55
jberryhill Dec 2012 #58
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #61
jberryhill Dec 2012 #64
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #67
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #71
Logical Dec 2012 #17
Lex Dec 2012 #23
Logical Dec 2012 #25
WillyT Dec 2012 #22
Pacafishmate Dec 2012 #30
Ruby the Liberal Dec 2012 #32
TygrBright Dec 2012 #39
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #41
TygrBright Dec 2012 #72
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #40
Kaleva Dec 2012 #42
Aldo Leopold Dec 2012 #43
jillan Dec 2012 #46
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #57
Aristus Dec 2012 #51
NeoBergie Dec 2012 #56
abelenkpe Dec 2012 #59
Ford_Prefect Dec 2012 #73
flvegan Dec 2012 #77
Zoeisright Dec 2012 #82
moondust Dec 2012 #85
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #83
backwoodsbob Dec 2012 #84
GeorgeGist Dec 2012 #86
dmallind Dec 2012 #88

Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:28 PM

1. Remember you are not allowed to discuss gun control when gun crimes are

being committed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:30 PM

2. And that is a shame too isn't it

Just like you really can't discuss Hillary's run in '16 if she decides too
Just like you really can't discuss anything nuclear unless it's pro nuclear
Sometimes I think we simply have too many sacred cows

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:57 PM

31. When the right to weapons supercedes others right to life

Something is terribly wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:00 PM

35. You are so right

I made the choice when I got home from my war that I didn't want a gun near me anymore. 42 years later and I still don't own any guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:31 PM

47. So, what do you suggest?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:31 PM

6. please show me the part of the 2nd amendment that says:

Fucking nutballs should be able to own guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:34 PM

11. There is no part that says that.

 

(However the way the OP is worded, you seem to be saying no one has the right to own a gun and/or everyone that owns one is a nutball, but I digress)

It is federal law that those adjudicated mentally ill cannot own a gun. The problem is that our healthcare system is so broken that those with illness never get treated.

If they never get treated, then their name can't be placed in the background check system for the law to work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:38 PM

19. lots of guns and lots of mentally ill people = lots of shootings.

BTW I hunt and own guns too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:51 PM

26. You think that the mentally ill is the biggest problem with homicides

 

committed with firearms?

That's actually the least of homicides committed with firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:34 AM

87. Ah, another fact free post.

Not former enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:41 PM

21. I don't like to post on threads involving guns....

I know I have before, but I just have to say this. The argument that our mental health system is broken and that leads to people not getting the mental health care they need does not take into affect that there are many, many, many (did I say many?) people out there who are mentally ill WHO DON'T THINK THEY ARE OR DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT THEY ARE so they would never go for help. Do you get that? There is always a first time for everything. There are people with guns who think they're perfectly sane, perfectly able to think rationally in all situations, but their assessment of their mental health or abilities is only their assessment. How do you identify those people when you're handing out concealed weapons permits?

Take my word for it. I know whereof I speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to llmart (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:34 PM

49. Since when did a lack of a permit stop a mall shooter?

Did this creep in Oregon even have a permit?

Seems like a person bent on mayhem is unlikely to care that he or she is in possession of a concealed weapon in public without a permit.


Also, he had a rifle. Most states issue concealed PISTOL licenses, not 'weapons' permits.
Doesn't seem germane to this issue, does it?


Now, that said, what do you suggest? If we're going to have a policy discussion around this, can you be specific about what exactly you would like to see?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:58 PM

34. Doesn't say "Fucking nutballs" ,but it's pretty clear about "shall not be infringed".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:14 PM

62. Except for that pesky "milita" stuff that gun culture ignores.


I'll await gun cultists suddenly becoming legal scholars and grammar experts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #62)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:22 PM

69. I think we've had this argument before, but here goes.

 

A) Militia= all able bodied men.
B) The militia is a single justification for the right to keep and bear arms. Do you really expect them to list out every use for arms?
C) The emphasis is on " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Don't take things at face value. I like how you berate "gun cultists" for actually analyzing the amendment and not just seeing the word militia and folding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:26 AM

80. One can analyze all day . Those who don't need a gun in their pants in public, know what it means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:42 PM

38. Interpretation of that sentence is the problem. Those who ascribe to individual RK&BR,

See the Second as almost two different sentences, not one part agreeing with the first part. Those who see the second part as supporting the first part, see only one entity protected, the militia.

The government doesn't call the armed forces militias very often, they are not gathered quickly and on the spot like a group of vigilantes.

The government goes after the citizen militias who seek to take the law into their own hands and intimidate their neighbors with firepower. Or to oppose the acts of government.

The individual aspect of intimidation is largely ignored. The individual RK&BR group has persuaded the Supreme Court to agree with them.

Is your solution to repeal the Second Amendment, or more regulations? The ALEC funded initiatives making guns legal anywhere is a big problem.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:40 PM

50. We read it even more differently than you suggest.

The first half is the goal, the second is the means. Allow me to re-phrase it (and this is from a linguistics professor, this is not my analogy.)

A well-read electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.


A 'well regulated' militia, in that time meant equipped, trained, etc. Like a well regulated clock. (Regulator being one of the most iconic brands) There used to be state laws that required all males to have a certain amount of powder, shot, a working rifle, etc.


The militia is formed of the people. A militia needs to be trained, and equipped. Therefore, the people, of whom the militia is formed, shall not have it's possession of armaments infringed. That's what it says, plain as day, to people who advocate for RKBA.

We could argue if that is the true meaning of regulated in this context. I have seen some argue that 'regulated' in this context was intended to mean the militia held in check from becoming a rogue standing army, by an armed populace. I don't buy it, but I have seen that explanation tossed about as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #50)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:42 PM

74. I think those who believe that is anachronistic hold that we have a different society today.

We have modernized governments and supplied police, national guard and armed forces for all o of the kinds of things appropriate at the time the Bill of Rights was written. Possibly, in less established communities, that would be appropriate. Much like in any tribal society like Afghanistan.

In urban environments, police are available and given authority to do all the things the people you cite being trained and organized once did back in the century this was written. On a state level there is the national guard to keep public order. As a nation, we have the armed forces to protect us from attacks by foreigners, such as the British were seen at that time as Americans became attached to this soil and said it was not England's property.

Considering the far greater level of technology and organization available to the three groups above, the need for a civilian militia as you described it well in the historical sense, appears dubious. In worse case scenarios, or in apocalyptic fantasies, they would not be considered trustworthy, as they would operate as marauding armed gangs.

Armed militias acting as vigilantes have committed terrorist acts in the past. I refer you to the KKK, and the New KKK as posted here on DU in the V&MM forum. These are as some people envision militias to be, and I'd like to see if there is another version of this you think practical now.

The idea that we still need to protect that way of doing things is abused by several persons, mainly on the right, thus the suspicions here at DU. Some people envision a society that is unarmed and looked over by lawful authority. Those may hold stronger to the view that the day of legal militias and firearms has passed and should be relegated to a more brutish past.

We appear to have a mixture in our society now. I think that universal health care with mental health care not being stigmatized, with more of a social safety net and education would prevent the OP events from happening.

Right now, we are confronted with a conspiracy theory-induced paranoia and irrational hatred and people are arming themsleves to excess, Also, they have few outlets for handling things properly in their lives and communities. That's not an excuse, but I think if we don't get more civlized here, we are going to have more trouble as the OP suggests.

I support RK&BR within reason. As I said before in other threads, I now live in a peaceful area with police and services that are acceptable to the people here. I feel no need to be armed. When I lived in a rural area where neighbors were far away and law enforcement was about an hour away, I had dogs and a gun. Not so much to protect myself from two legged predators, but four legged ones, or no legged ones.

Usually a person arranges their life to not have to confront danger from man or beast. That is part of the argument against individual gun ownership. Those who insist on arming themselves when they seem to have no danger, can be seen as paranoid. Or as we have seen in recent years, potential assassins and wanting mayhem. They are against proper lawful authority and are thought criminal.

I do not support the concept of militias because of the abuse of the right and the lack of need for it. I don't trust strangers with guns drawn without just cause governed by lawful authority, democratically supervised. Well, that is an ideal situation.

I could make this more coherent, but I"m worn out this evening. Thanks for the interesting reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #74)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:11 AM

75. No worries, it's been a rough week.

I've long been an advocate of our governor calling up the militia for various purpose. First that comes to mind is flood control. Why not? There are legal mechanisms in place to do it, and we have a State Guard that is not part of the state National Guard, that can provide command and control structure to direct sandbagging, door to door notifications, and such. No reason it can't be used for this purpose. After all, 'security of a free state' can be served in this way as well, right?

If nobody shows up in that circumstance, I would stand with the 'anachronistic' crowd. And it would be proven beyond a doubt at that point.

There are other mechanisms that provide or protect possession as well. Out state constitution explicitly protects RKBA for individual self defense as well as a state militia purpose. All of those levels will need to be addressed in that case.


I live in a major city, and I do carry sometimes. Permit and all. I am not generally satisfied with the idea of police protection after Gonzales vs. City of Castle Rock. However, the legislature COULD address that by hiring more police, not just for more coverage, but so the police can have more 'downtime' of low intensity work, which should facilitate lots of improvements to police-citizen relations.

I'm also going to do some camping next month, so that means a rifle. We don't have a whole lot of predators about in this area, but we do have some.


I strongly agree with you on the paranoia levels. The rhetoric from the NRA last election was absolutely awful. (and from the right in general) There's a range near my house I would love to use, but it requires membership in the NRA, and I refuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:22 PM

89. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:28 PM

45. A well regulated militia

I think a militia should be made to drill and excercise.

Well regulated and physically fit.

Oh yeah. Since it is a militia, there will be a psych test and a police records search.

Wouldn't want the wrong people in our militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #45)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:18 PM

65. You may have meant that sarcastically but...

That is a legally valid approach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #65)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:25 PM

70. I was looking for a loophole

I also want the NRA logo updated from animal hunting rifles to something which reflects their lobbying efforts.

An AK-47 crossed with an AR-15 in a wreath of tiny handguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:31 PM

3. As long as this country has a broken health care system this will continue to happen

 

We live in a country that allows those with serious mental illness to wander around untreated, then when they finally commit an act of violence, we wonder why.

People who feel the need to take out their frustrations by gunning down innocent people have serious mental illness. Illness that can be detected (most people that know them probably already know they need help) and treated.

Unfortunately you can't mention healthcare in this country without being accused of being a dirty commie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:34 PM

12. One issue does not exclude the other. This madness is multi-faceted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:37 PM

18. For most murders in this country the person wasn't deemed mentality incompetent to stand trial

 

Some people are just bad.
The motivation can usually be tracked back to drugs , money , vengeance , gang affiliation

The mass shooting perpetrator isn't the norm for most homicides committed in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justanidea (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:43 PM

24. "Most people that know them"

may know they have mental health issues but you can't always convince them of that and you can't force someone to get mental health help if they are convinced they are OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:31 PM

4. IBTL n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)


Response to Turbineguy (Reply #5)


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:33 PM

10. You are correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:31 PM

7. Amen.

Hope you don't get locked for talking guns outside the gun forum. I have a problem with that rule as the increased number of mass shootings is a serious issue effecting all of us and should not be hidden away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:36 PM

15. I hunt and own guns

Last edited Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:22 PM - Edit history (1)

I carry 3 to 5 slugs when I deer hunt ..... I do not plan to get into a
fire fight w/ the deer. People's 1st amendment freedoms are just if not
more important than others 2nd amendment freedoms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:52 PM

27. Persuit of Happiness

Meh!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:26 PM

44. Too bad the deer don't have guns. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:32 PM

48. I'm glad you don't shoot trees.

So many poor trees get shot every year.

I like Venison summer sausage myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laurian (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:41 PM

52. Increased number?

Do you have data for that assertion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #52)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:08 PM

60. what

you dint see increased number of mass shootings

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to larwdem (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:16 PM

63. Fine, I'll do your homework for you.

United States Mass shootings:

1910's: 2
1920's: 2
1930's: 9
1940's: 8
1950's: 1
1960's: 6
1970's: 13
1980's: 32
1990's: 43
2000's: 24



As you can see, the number last decade was lower than the previous two decades.
(Source: Grant Duwe, Minnesota Department of Corrections)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #52)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:19 PM

66. Don't need "data, " it's evident. Gun culture won't accept it until NRA does study planned for

Last edited Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:29 AM - Edit history (2)

year 2525 or later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #66)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:20 PM

68. 'evident'.

Ok. I will adjust my dictionary accordingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:33 PM

9. Shoppers' Rights Now !!

I understand your passion but this isn't a 'rights' issue

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:35 PM

13. The solutions to violent gun crime are difficult in the US.

The amount of guns already in our society, the black market, the Bill of Rights...

Personally, I think expanding our mental health care system, and other social programs and education, would be the best way to decrease violent crime in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:39 PM

20. That's really not going to decrease gun homicides in this country

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:53 PM

28. There seems to be a link between education and crime.

Generally speaking, the more education a person has, the less likely they are to commit a violent crime.

Increased social programs should ideally cause less desperation.

At the very worst, my plan would increase education and social programs here in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:58 PM

33. A lot of those criminals are already to deeply involved in the criminal culture

 

I think an increase in opportunity for inner cities for the very young children growing up would do wonders
in the future of country.

Strong parenting , good schools it's a combination of things involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:07 PM

36. I don't disagree with your post, but I would like to point out that

some of the mass shooters were not deeply involved in any criminal culture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #36)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:16 PM

37. "Agree" most of those were mentally ill

 

but I'm just talking about the majority of firearm homicides committed through out the country

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:43 PM

53. +1

I would also like to see SOME workable form of registration to stem the flow of lawfully owned guns to the grey and black markets, but single payer, covering mental health would be a huge bonus.


Also, switch the 'incentive' for reporting of mental health issues to NICS from an 'incentive', to a punishment for failure to comply. Get some mileage out of that too. Might not apply to this tragedy, but overall, that should provide some assistance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:24 AM

76. Federal registration has little chance of ever becoming law. ...

Even if it did many honest people would simply refuse to comply and the criminal element would totally ignore the law.

Firearm registration has failed in Canada. Why would it be a success here?

I feel improving the NICS background check, finding a way to require it to be used for all private sales and stronger enforcement for those who straw purchase firearms or smuggle these weapons would be far more effective.

Improving our mental heath care system and reporting those with serious mental issues to the NICS as you suggest would also help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #76)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:37 AM

78. Canada's registration program was obviously designed to frustrate and piss off

gun owners, and cost millions to maintain. It's bad design should serve in a template fashion for us only in how NOT to do it.

Obviously registration requires repeal of the 86 FOPA.



I think it could be done, and in doing so, better protect gun owners, but will it be done, or will it be done right? Total unknowns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:20 AM

79. I would place the possibility of registration at the Federal level passing at less than 10% ...

and only if an extremely large number of tragic shootings by mentally disturbed individuals or the murder of a very important politician or leader occurs. The Gun Control Act of 1968 resulted because of the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King.

Let's pray that we never have to live through times like those years again. I'm old enough to remember those days.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #76)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:33 AM

81. Then they aren't really "honest." They are just "thugs/terrorists/criminals."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:35 PM

14. Simple - make a law against shooting people. Problem solved. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:36 PM

16. I think we should be allowed to have these. It's a gun. It's called a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueJazz (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:53 PM

29. OK, but only if you can get a concealed carry permit for it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueJazz (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:43 PM

54. Technically you probably can, with the correct paperwork.

Your big problems probably will be cost and transportation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueJazz (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:46 PM

55. In some states with the proper permits, you can.

Own, build, repair.

That's not classified as a firearm, it's classified as ordnance, or a Destructive Device (indiscriminate fire, like a grenade), and is heavily restricted for obvious reasons that do not violate the 2nd amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #55)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:58 PM

58. What are those "obvious reasons"

The authors of the 2nd Amendment never saw a revolver.

So what's wrong with "original intent"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #58)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:11 PM

61. Obvious reasons in that it cannot be used

in a direct-fire manner. That is a weapon that destroys buildings. It's fire cannot be 'directed' to a target without hitting everything else. (which also means it has no valid self defense purpose) Same reason you cannot claim the 2nd amendment when attempting to purchase mortars, grenades, and things like that. They are restricted and held to be a completely different kettle of fish, by the courts and the various legislatures. (I cannot have one of those in my state at all, but go south one state, and you can.)

The authors of the 2nd amendment most certainly saw ordnance. While private citizens have been allowed in various ways to possess some types of ordnance (The framers saw cannon, mortars, etc), no court has ever accepted the 2nd as justification for that possession.


(Also, the framers saw a 20 shot repeating rifle. Look up what rifle Meriwether Lewis carried on the Lewis and Clark expedition. Those who don't know their history, etc)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #61)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:17 PM

64. The second amendment says nothing about...

..."directed" or "valid self defense purpose". Please direct me to those words in the second amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:20 PM

67. I don't have to.

You can certainly try and direct me to a SC decision that accepts the 2nd as valid justification for possession of a destructive device.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:26 PM

71. The word you seem confused about is "arms".

The courts and legislatures have ruled that ordnance does not fall into that category.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:36 PM

17. Can't wait to hear your plan for collecting 300 million guns! And...

You have no idea who the shooter is. He may have legally obtained a gun. And there's nothing you can do about it.

Guns are legal to possess, manufacture and sell. Until you ban all guns and take them away from every citizen in this country, there's nothing you can do about some nut going on a shooting spree.

But if you have a plan I would love to hear it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:43 PM

23. This country is insane when it comes to guns. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:46 PM

25. I agree we seem to have an obsession with them! n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:43 PM

22. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:56 PM

30. Are the two mutually exclusive?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:58 PM

32. But if everyone were armed

His assault rifle could have NEVER gotten all of those shots out. Just like the single-loading-musket framers intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:01 PM

39. A quick review of the "rules" about when it's okay to discuss gun policy might be in order:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:07 PM

41. TygrBright!

I am simply delighted to see that you're here posting your most helpful and insightful thoughts!

I wish you well, and the happiest of seasons, and I wish we'd have modded together, but in any event I still hold you in the highest regard!

excitedly (but also respectfully),

NYC_SKP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #41)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:28 PM

72. awww, thanks! Nice to see you, too.

I'm beginning to believe I'll survive yet another "Holiday" season, so hopefully I'll be around for awhile.

Hope all's well with you!

appreciatively,
Bright

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:04 PM

40. Here. I Fixed it:

..

..

Somebody's right to own a gun DOES NOT SUPERSEDE THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT

NOT TO BE SHOT WHILE SHOPPING, AT SCHOOL, OR WALKING IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

And NOTHING should prevent me from TAKING OUT THE MoTHerFUCKER who shoots the shopper, the student, or the pedestrian.

Because we sure as FUCK can't trust the government!


There.

I fixed it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:10 PM

42. Probably quite a few.

As long as the general public continues to accept these things as a matter of course, there will be little movement towards greater gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:22 PM

43. Another great post by Botany

who is quickly becoming one of my favorites here.

Thumbs up, big guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:31 PM

46. It's as if the NRA is more powerful than our elected officials. Even when a Congresswoman was shot

they didn't do a thing.

When is enough enough?


I know guns don't kill people.
But assholes with guns do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:48 PM

57. Arizona acutally has a law that could have prevented that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011007049.html

Anyone could have reported him to the state for his behavior that got him kicked out of college as a potential danger.

No one did.

Sucks, but the opportunity was there, no one wanted to get involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:48 PM

56. How do we reverse this new norm?

My kids are growing up in a time when random acts of violence and mass shootings are par for the course. There has always been crime, yes, but this is a new breed of violence... and it seems like an epidemic. We now have the next generation desensitized to murder. I have talked with my kids about this recently. They were surprised that this is not the way it was when I was their age. news like this barely catches their attention...I think because it's just one after another... I worry about how this culture of killing is growing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:08 PM

59. K&R

Couldn't agree more

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:34 PM

73. I think part of the answer is to tax hell out of ammunition sales. Then only the rich could afford

mass murder which could reduce the suspect pool considerably. (yes, that is sarcasm)

I think another step would be to remove FOX news and all its iterations from the airwaves in the interest of public health and safety. (not sarcasm)

I think an arrest warrant for Rupert Murdoch on the same charges could go a long way to reducing excess fear and paranoia. I'd add one for Roger Eugene Ailes too for flagrant abuse of the public trust, and possession with intent to do bodily harm to public sanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 12:28 AM

77. Wow. Who specifically ever said that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 01:43 AM

82. Infinity.

There is no will to do the right thing in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:37 AM

85. +1

Americans DEMAND the power to quickly and easily snuff the life out of anything that comes near them and the Second Amendment guarantees them that right!

Without their guns a lot of braindead Americans would feel powerless. How sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:15 AM

83. So long as it doesn't happen to "me"!

That's the root of it, really. Plain self-centeredness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:24 AM

84. when we evolve as a society to where we deal with the root causes of violent crime

I will drive to your house and hand over every non hunting gun I own.

Until then I will keep them...and yes I have enough guns to be considered a gun nut by the gun control crowd here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 10:32 AM

86. Until the militia gets well-regulated ...

the loose canons will continue to fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Original post)

Wed Dec 12, 2012, 11:14 AM

88. hundreds of thousands of them of course

The public's right not to be shot is already enforced by rather strict laws against doing so.

The public's right to own and carry firearms does not include a right to shoot needlessly not just at the public but even in public.

The two rights are in no way confounded or exclusive.

One would think that outrage at needless deaths would be prioritized by overall number of deaths. Surely if it is death we seek to minimize, we should address those causes that claim the greater number of deaths first, and most rigorously, no?

So when do we address smoking first at 435,000 a year in the US? Over ten times those from guns. Or isn't it about the deaths with you after all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread