Firearm Expertise

[coachdb18]

In reference to my last post which envisioned a thorough rewrite of the 2nd Amendment that might both consolidate current judicial thought, and clarify the will of the people in regard to private ownership of 'weapons...I'm wondering what are some of the issues I would like to see clarified/included.

Here's an excerpt from a paper I found interesting from us.constitution.net ;
*****
A proposed amendment

yada yada yada

The Bill of Rights, in its entirety, was never a granting of rights by the government. It was simply a promise by the newly formed government of the United States that certain unalienable rights would never be challenged by the newly formed government. These rights belonged to the people at the time of the founding, and will always belong to the people, being their natural right as provided from their creator.

 

[HisArpy]

In reference to my last post which envisioned a thorough rewrite of the 2nd Amendment that might both consolidate current judicial thought, and clarify the will of the people in regard to private ownership of 'weapons...I'm wondering what are some of the issues I would like to see clarified/included.

Here's an excerpt from a paper I found interesting from us.constitution.net ;
*****

<Some snippage here>

****

The proposed Amendment sounds nice on the surface except...

What other Right do you have that requires a license? Or "certification"? Or training? Or any of the other things that are in there?

Once you open the door to governmental involvement and requirements, you change the Right to a privilege subject to withholding by the Gov. Or bestowing as a favor to those who seek privilege and position in exchange for money or sex or whatever. That's called corruption and the proposed Amendment actually inserts that eventuality (not potential or possibility) into our BOR.

Note; I read in the news tonight that two more police officers were shot and killed in Ohio today while responding to a 911 call. The report said a "possible" domestic situation was involved. The carnage must stop! The time is far past when we could just keep on as usual. I refuse to believe that there is no solution to the increasing bloodshed and loss of life we see engulfing this country. I don't see this as a political debate...I see it as a moral test. I wonder how history will remember us?

The "carnage" won't stop as long as criminals are allowed to walk among us. The revolving door of justice is what needs to stop.

You talk about moral tests, yet how moral is it to allow a child molester out of prison after a few years so he can continue to prey on kids? Or a drug lord to be released after his sentence so he can go back to peddling lethal drugs? Or gang members to be released on parole/probabtion back into the neighborhoods they came from so that they walk back into the life of crime that got them convicted in the first place? Or habitual drunk drivers to drive and kill?

When you talk of morality, the focus shouldn't be on guns. It should be on society. Inanimate objects aren't moral. The use of an inanimate object to create harm still doesn't shift the liability to the object. It's still the fault of the actor who does the harm. Fix THAT. Without punishing those who do no harm.

Your illustration in reverse: If it weren't for the DV call, the officers wouldn't have had to respond to the situation. Thus, THE SOLUTION to household and societal violence is to obviously prohibit people from living together. Outlaw marriage and cohabitation! Stop the violence! It's for the safety of us all!

That's how silly your position is.






NightL; you throw flamebombs about guns as if they are some sort of talisman that justifies your bad behavior. (Because GUNZ! Or GUP'S! Or MEN! Or RACISTS! and so on.) What you fail to understand is that the problem ISN'T guns or how difficult it is to get an abortion. THE PROBLEM is that our Gov has continued to fail us. ALL of us. IN ALL areas.

Abortion is only 1 area. Our legislatures and FedGov have decided that they can "regulate" abortions based on who has the majority of power at the time. This creates a flux and an ever-changing landscape of what the law is. The law is the law and that shouldn't be dependent upon whose butt is in the driver's seat every 2 or 4 years. And, not surprisingly, ever since Roe v. Wade the law keeps getting more and more restrictive. Mostly because those with an agenda seek influence to push their agenda upon "those immoral heathens" who believe differently and who seek merely to be left alone to pursue happiness.

The current gun argument and comparisons you make is the exact same sort of thinking. RESTRICT THE RIGHT in the name of 1 side of the argument.

Have you noticed that no Right is ever expanded, only restricted? Why do you think that is? Could it be that our Gov believes that freedom should be curtailed? Or even eliminated?

The People's House is not in order. It's because small thinkers who are only worried about themselves have infested it. They got there because those in our society who believe that small thinking is the wave of the future banded together and created a ruckus so that voters would act to quell the nonsense.

Once again, this is how prohibition occurred. And only lasted until we realized how stupid that sort of thinking is. Apparently we cannot remember our history, nor the lessons it contains.

We fought a WAR to bring freedom to the people of this country. We fought ANOTHER WAR to give freedom to slaves (among other reasons). Yet your ideals would revert our nation back to those pre-war days of "you don't deserve it because..." And, just like in those days, it will once again take a war to set you straight if you get your way.

How does that save lives? Or liberty? How does it create stability and safety for you and your family?

 

[yukonnights]

The proposed Amendment sounds nice on the surface except...

What other Right do you have that requires a license? Or "certification"? Or training? Or any of the other things that are in there?

Once you open the door to governmental involvement and requirements, you change the Right to a privilege subject to withholding by the Gov. Or bestowing as a favor to those who seek privilege and position in exchange for money or sex or whatever. That's called corruption and the proposed Amendment actually inserts that eventuality (not potential or possibility) into our BOR.




The "carnage" won't stop as long as criminals are allowed to walk among us. The revolving door of justice is what needs to stop.

You talk about moral tests, yet how moral is it to allow a child molester out of prison after a few years so he can continue to prey on kids? Or a drug lord to be released after his sentence so he can go back to peddling lethal drugs? Or gang members to be released on parole/probabtion back into the neighborhoods they came from so that they walk back into the life of crime that got them convicted in the first place? Or habitual drunk drivers to drive and kill?

When you talk of morality, the focus shouldn't be on guns. It should be on society. Inanimate objects aren't moral. The use of an inanimate object to create harm still doesn't shift the liability to the object. It's still the fault of the actor who does the harm. Fix THAT. Without punishing those who do no harm.

Your illustration in reverse: If it weren't for the DV call, the officers wouldn't have had to respond to the situation. Thus, THE SOLUTION to household and societal violence is to obviously prohibit people from living together. Outlaw marriage and cohabitation! Stop the violence! It's for the safety of us all!

That's how silly your position is.

HA, In response to the need for some control on weapon ownership and use: I thought we had already established that such regulation has already been resolved by the Supreme Court???

But to the larger question of regulation in general: I realize there is a portion of the populace that harbors a fear that one day the government will turn on us all. While that may be a possibility, the likelihood is remote. Further, to continue to follow the current course of virtually no control over weaponry also poses the very same risk because, as we can all see, the unbridled freedom to weaponry can also be a catalyst to the same kind of government actions.

When fear prevents the ability to seek solutions to our problems, then the entropy of the situation becomes the greater risk. And to be honest, this is my greatest concern and the impetus for me even discussing this issue here.

All of my education and personality has molded me to look forward and try to recognize problems before they become bigger problems. I think we all agree we have some problems here...you have concerns about the justice system ans so do I. But what I do not see is a concerted focus on fixing the problem. Many citizens have grave concern about the increasingly common mass killings...I think you and I and everyone who is in this discussion share those concerns.

Both of the above concerns are different problems, that may have links to one another but are not the single cause of either one. The weapon issue is not solely driven by the problems with the justice system because many incidents of carnage were by the hand of a person who had no criminal history. (I think the Las Vegas sniper was such a person)

Here is my hope: I believe that the only way forward to a solution on both of these issues is for each side to begin to tear down the barrier of ideology that prevents us from putting our collective heads together to forge out real solutions. Then hammer out a compromise knowing that is a give and take reality. I also believe we all need to come to the understanding that we are all being manipulated by various entities, not for the purpose of finding solutions...but the very opposite.

Here is my fear: Nothing is going to change. Both sides will dig in and refuse to find a compromise. Since that will prevent any solution, the entropy will continue until we find ourselves in a civil unrest that will remove us from the place of world leadership we have enjoyed for so long. Your fear of more and more criminals will meet my fear of more and more weapons.....Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico, Venezuela...the march of mankind goes on and on

I'll admit that my fear is much greater than my hope. I think this whole Thread has proven my point in regard to a growing division. If my participation does nothing except highlight that division and cause a pause for thought, it will have been some contribution.

 

[yukonnights]

The Bill of Rights, in its entirety, was never a granting of rights by the government. It was simply a promise by the newly formed government of the United States that certain unalienable rights would never be challenged by the newly formed government. These rights belonged to the people at the time of the founding, and will always belong to the people, being their natural right as provided from their creator.

coachdb,

I think the proposed change was intended in response to the huge amount of legal scholarship and opinion that separating the two distinct parts of the original would benefit all involved. The marriage of rights to own arms with the right to militias has worked to make the original intent less clear. The proposed change actual strengthens the argument for gun ownership by removing the pesky phrase linking it to being tied to a militia.

Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.

It is we the people who have to determine what restrictions we place on weapons. I think the Creator, through at least one voice, has already said; Thou shalt not kill. It didn't work out, but maybe we can try to get closer to that command.

Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.

 

[HisArpy]

All of my education and personality has molded me to look forward and try to recognize problems before they become bigger problems. I think we all agree we have some problems here...you have concerns about the justice system ans so do I. But what I do not see is a concerted focus on fixing the problem. Many citizens have grave concern about the increasingly common mass killings...I think you and I and everyone who is in this discussion share those concerns.

So your proposed solution is to disarm the settlers because of the Indian uprising?

The solutions you offer don't work in the 3-dimensional world. You cannot disarm victims and hope that the criminal element will follow. You cannot make criminals out of the innocent and claim that your efforts are designed to reduce crime.

The entire "ban guns" concept is a Distopian ideal that's been carefully crafted to appeal to emotion rather than logic. Because if it isn't "guns" it'll be rental trucks. Or IED's. Or baseball bats. Or knives. Or sharpened spoons. Or WHATEVER weapon the bad guy can find and use up to and including jawbones of asses.

Because it's NOT the "weapon" that's the problem. It's the useless laws and justice system that allows the criminals to do whatever they want. It's a society that blames the police because their kid got caught shoplifting. It's an entire social mindset that looks the other way whenever bullies band together to pick on the defenseless - to the point that suicides are rising from cyber bullying yet NO ONE does anything about it.

You want to stop crime and the pain, hurt, and terror that goes with it. I get that, I really do. But tearing down the castle walls won't stop the barbarians from invading. Worse, your ideals start in motion a concept that the king can lock you up and throw away the keys in the name of "protecting you" while leaving the barbarians free reign to burn your homes, use your women, crucify your children, and rape your goats. But hey, you're still alive down in your private little oubliette, right? Until the face of a barbarian appears to block out the light and you have no where else to run to and Gov won't protect you any longer. Not that they ever had to in the first place. Warren v. DC (Wiki page)

FREEDOM has risks. Our founding fathers knew those risks and decided that some of them were worth taking. They set down a set of rules to prevent Gov from doing exactly what you propose. Even Heller acknowledges that where it says that the Constitution takes certain policy choices off the table.

Now you propose to remove the table that those policy choices rest upon. Under the completely fictitious guise of "more freedom for everyone".

Go read Cataeno. It's at the link I posted earlier. See what the courts say about the things you want to see happen. Read Warren too while you're at it. I wonder if those poor girls preferred a phone with a nice dispatcher on the other end typing the notes of what was happening, or a well used and practiced with handgun they could point at the bad guys and insist they be left alone.

 

[coachdb18]

The marriage of rights to own arms with the right to militias has worked to make the original intent less clear. [/B]

The original intent was never unclear. the right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's a government promise not to ever try and interfere with a God given right. Anything other than that is a broken promise of the government, and cannot ever be tolerated by a truly free people.

 

[yukonnights]

The "carnage" won't stop as long as criminals are allowed to walk among us. The revolving door of justice is what needs to stop.

You talk about moral tests, yet how moral is it to allow a child molester out of prison after a few years so he can continue to prey on kids? Or a drug lord to be released after his sentence so he can go back to peddling lethal drugs? Or gang members to be released on parole/probabtion back into the neighborhoods they came from so that they walk back into the life of crime that got them convicted in the first place? Or habitual drunk drivers to drive and kill?

When you talk of morality, the focus shouldn't be on guns. It should be on society. Inanimate objects aren't moral. The use of an inanimate object to create harm still doesn't shift the liability to the object. It's still the fault of the actor who does the harm. Fix THAT. Without punishing those who do no harm.

Your illustration in reverse: If it weren't for the DV call, the officers wouldn't have had to respond to the situation. Thus, THE SOLUTION to household and societal violence is to obviously prohibit people from living together. Outlaw marriage and cohabitation! Stop the violence! It's for the safety of us all!

That's how silly your position is.

HA,

I hadn't had a chance to read the latest news on this earlier. I just did, and it doesn't support your premise since he was only a misdemeanor domestic abuser. According to Fox News, the killer was indeed a prior offender, but only for robbery. (I guess one solution is that no one ever gets out of jail once they go in? ) Here's a snippet of the article:

A Nov. 29 report said Candace Smith went to the Westerville police station asking about a protection order. She told officers that Quentin Smith had come home drunk earlier in the week and had "forced himself on her," the report said. Candace Smith said she had found out that day she had been infected with a sexually transmitted disease, according to the report.

Candace Smith also told officers that her husband had threatened to kill her, their daughter and himself if she left him. She said Smith always carried a gun despite being a convicted felon. Smith was convicted in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, of felony burglary and misdemeanor domestic violence charges in 2009 and was sentenced to four years in prison.

Now since Smith was already a felon, you seem to argue that Smith should have never been released from prison...nor should anyone ever be released once found guilty and sentenced for 'certain crimes'. That may work, but it also sounds impossible since it violates another Amendment and would bankrupt the country more than we already are. It also leaves no path to rehabilitation for those who are so inclined...let's just agree that it's a pipe-dream solution and thus it is no serious solution. (Unless maybe we should tamper with the 8th ?)

But, the thing that stands out to me is: Smith was a known felon....and yet he somehow was able to obtain (and apparently carry) a weapon. The article didn't say where or how he obtained the weapon. But it would have been a moot point where he got it...IF there were effective regulations in place to 1. prevented him from obtaining a weapon in the first place, or 2. Would have triggered an immediate arrest when such knowledge came to the attention of law enforcement. It appears that neither of these two were in place here...and two police officers are now dead.

Now maybe this was all the result of incompetence on the local police dept. But even that could have been reduced IF there were specific triggers in laws regarding weapons that would have prompted the immediate removal of the weapon upon first knowledge of it.

Sure, it sounds good...and feels good...to just say lock 'em up and throw away the key. Unfortunately, there is the 8th Amendment.

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing cruel and unusual punishment for federal crimes. The amendment states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars the states from inflicting such punishment for state crimes, and most state constitutions also prohibit the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment.

And yes again: I have read the eighth amendment... and some of the major court decisions that interpret it.

Sadly, your proposed solution of preventing weapons to get into the hands of people who should not have them isn't going to solve our problem. In fact, it comes off as trite in light of the seriousness of the issue at hand. Hopefully, you will be able to set that "solution" aside because it really is just a waste of energy that could be directed at a more meaningful solution.

So yes, it's a moral issue. When we, as a nation, refuse to face up to and address a growing public safety issue...then we become complicate in the deaths of those who paid the price for our choices. Had the police had clear and certain legal standing though codified law, and a legal mandate to enforce said law, then the weapon would have been confiscated before it was used to kill these officers. Better yet would have been adequate regulation that would have prevented Smith from obtaining a weapon in the first place.

FYI- Link to fox complete news article: http://amp.fox4news.com/news/2-ohio-officers-killed-in-line-of-duty-saturday-wife-of-suspect-called-911

 

[yukonnights]

So your proposed solution is to disarm the settlers because of the Indian uprising?

The solutions you offer don't work in the 3-dimensional world. You cannot disarm victims and hope that the criminal element will follow. You cannot make criminals out of the innocent and claim that your efforts are designed to reduce crime.

The entire "ban guns" concept is a Distopian ideal that's been carefully crafted to appeal to emotion rather than logic. Because if it isn't "guns" it'll be rental trucks. Or IED's. Or baseball bats. Or knives. Or sharpened spoons. Or WHATEVER weapon the bad guy can find and use up to and including jawbones of asses.

Because it's NOT the "weapon" that's the problem. It's the useless laws and justice system that allows the criminals to do whatever they want. It's a society that blames the police because their kid got caught shoplifting. It's an entire social mindset that looks the other way whenever bullies band together to pick on the defenseless - to the point that suicides are rising from cyber bullying yet NO ONE does anything about it.

You want to stop crime and the pain, hurt, and terror that goes with it. I get that, I really do. But tearing down the castle walls won't stop the barbarians from invading. Worse, your ideals start in motion a concept that the king can lock you up and throw away the keys in the name of "protecting you" while leaving the barbarians free reign to burn your homes, use your women, crucify your children, and rape your goats. But hey, you're still alive down in your private little oubliette, right? Until the face of a barbarian appears to block out the light and you have no where else to run to and Gov won't protect you any longer. Not that they ever had to in the first place. Warren v. DC (Wiki page)

FREEDOM has risks. Our founding fathers knew those risks and decided that some of them were worth taking. They set down a set of rules to prevent Gov from doing exactly what you propose. Even Heller acknowledges that where it says that the Constitution takes certain policy choices off the table.

Now you propose to remove the table that those policy choices rest upon. Under the completely fictitious guise of "more freedom for everyone".

Go read Cataeno. It's at the link I posted earlier. See what the courts say about the things you want to see happen. Read Warren too while you're at it. I wonder if those poor girls preferred a phone with a nice dispatcher on the other end typing the notes of what was happening, or a well used and practiced with handgun they could point at the bad guys and insist they be left alone.

HP,

I could try to respond to this...but could you remind me where I ever proposed we should "ban guns"? I recall that I proposed just the opposite. Regulate who gets them, yes...I'm guilty of that one

I'm beginning to see an entrenched belief here that the original words of the Constitution were somehow delivered by the direct hand of God. Since I've learned that discussions about religion never go well... I'll pass.

 

[yukonnights]

The original intent was never unclear. the right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's a government promise not to ever try and interfere with a God given right. Anything other than that is a broken promise of the government, and cannot ever be tolerated by a truly free people.

coachdb,
I think you missed your calling. In reading through the many court cases that have come up over the years, there sure were a lot of Supreme Court Justices who had a lot of questions about something so clear !

About that God thing; I'm pretty familiar with the Bible...could you point me to the scripture where God said this? I feel kinda stupid for having to ask, but well...

 

[yukonnights]

Well folks,

I think I've done what I set out to do here. It's been interesting. Mostly my concerns are confirmed and I wish I could do something to turn this ship into calmer waters...but the storm appears to already be too strong. I'm going to state here that; I believe the course we are on will end up tearing the soul of of this country. Take care and keep your powder dry

 

[NightL]

The entire "ban guns" concept

And There It Is Yet Again, when faced with statistics, comparative examples from other countries, cited research it always comes down to the head in the sand "you can't take all our guns away". I actually have not heard or witnessed any debate on "banning guns" as a blanket statement. That is purely the total knee-jerk reaction of the gun lust and glee brigade fanned by NRA who plays with their puppets while fleecing their money.

Sorry your argument does not hold up, do you drive a Formula One car or a nascar to the supermarket? Why not drive a armoured tank to drop the kids off to school? You do not need a military style weapon in a suburban home or city apartment. It will not provide food for your family, make you a better father, more loving husband or grow your penis any longer or whatever your imagination of masculinity is. It is just the sheer lunacy of the man-child. The same man-child that gloats, is overconfident, makes mistakes, does not store their weapons securely leaving them in hands reach of children or to be stolen. The same man-child who has insufficient ability to deal with situations of emotional distraught.

Laws, just like technology change and adapt, so the argument of "but back in 1787..." is just nonsense to hold onto. Your earlier "If they will do this over guns, what will they do over other Rights like abortion." - ah your country has been swinging those laws around constantly and continually.

An operational military style weapon has no place in a family home in USA. That statement is not "ban guns". Those who fight such discussion hold responsibility to the next mass murder using such weapons in, of course where it continually happens, USA city streets.

Question for the gun lust and glee brigade - when was the last time a vigilante took out a "baddie" with an open carry ak-47 in a US city or town? Yet police are often hindered in identifying the perpetrator of an unfolding situation due to all the man-childs whipping out their pew pews, which actually places more threat on innocent people.

Laws do indeed change constantly, maybe it is time to move on from the man-child bleat of "I want my guns, I want my guns." USA has an absolutely horrific record of mass murder and children either getting shot or shooting others with a carelessly stored weapon. The people in the US who have the courage to stand up to say "this is wrong, something has to change" are not the ones responsible for or contribute to the next mass murder or child shooting. They are not evil for taking that stand... they should be listened to and treated with respect. They should be encouraged and supported, they want to save lives.

Growing swell of public opinion can make changes. There are examples of this globally, the turning of slavery laws in America, the public rallying to pull troops out of Vietnam, the fall of the apartheid regime in South Africa, getting France to stop their nuclear testing in the South Pacific, New Zealand banning US nuclear powered warships from visiting their ports, decriminalisation of homosexuality, marriage equality, racial discrimination prevention, the suffragette movement, addressing gender pay gaps... These things started with the visions of a few and the spread of a message that was so fundamentally right and correct.

Those fighting against sensible gun control and discussion, that so many other countries successfully implement, have their fingers on the trigger alongside the next mass murderer or the child who takes their parent's gun to school - and that includes you HisArpy.

In the sheer numbers of preventable deaths this is the equivalent of a health epidemic of such magnitude where the World Health Organisation would step in for immediate containment and isolation.

Yet this thread is yet another "My one is bigger than yours. It has a shiny knob"

Oh great - watch all the gun nuts roll in salivating over their masturbatory knowledge of their pew pew items.

and it happened.

 

[coachdb18]

Laws do indeed change constantly....

There's a very good chance the laws will indeed change, allowing Constitutional carry, such that a conceal carry permit issued in any one state will be honored by all states, just like a drivers license, just like a marriage license. The time has come to end the crapworks of local laws aimed at disarming the law-abiding citizen of a basic Constitutional right.

 

[HisArpy]

Well folks,

I think I've done what I set out to do here. It's been interesting. Mostly my concerns are confirmed and I wish I could do something to turn this ship into calmer waters...but the storm appears to already be too strong. I'm going to state here that; I believe the course we are on will end up tearing the soul of of this country. Take care and keep your powder dry

Before you go, PLEASE read this article:

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/10024-what-is-ordered-liberty-anyways-dnp

It's short and pretty much illustrates the conflict between the 2 sides of this debate without mentioning the topic at all.


If you want more philosophical reading, do a search for "the concept of ordered liberty". It's a pretty weighty subject and will probably put you to sleep, but here's an article that gives a good background on it and WHY we here in the USA adhere to it's principles. It's only 4 1/2 pages:

Concept of ordered liberty article

In short, the debate isn't actually about guns. Guns are the vehicle that is being used (as is gay marriage, Abortion, and other hot-button topics) to try to impose a different political standard than the 1 we've been using for 200+ years.

In closing and ending this conversation (because it's devolving into repetitions of things already said and nitpicking) I want to say that Abortion Rights issues are undergoing the EXACT same problems as the Second Amendment right now. Abortion is a Right. That certain Gov's are trying to ban it through overburdening regulation (HI THERE TEXAS!) is a back-door tactic of the unwise and morally bankrupt. They're doing this for the same reasons as those trying to ban guns (HI MR. BLOOMBERG!), via the same tactics of over-regulation.

Our concept of liberty is not based upon this principle. The attempts to legislate out of existence that which is core to our values as a society (liberty) in favor of privilege, is an evil this country was created to escape, It is OUR JOB as citizens to prevent it, not help it along. Not even a little bit. Those who abide by and exercise their Rights under the Constitution and the 2A may not understand everything about the concepts, but they do know when someone comes along and tries to tear down our national standards for the purpose of enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else. This is such a time. This is such a reason. And the people won't allow it.
'
This isn't about guns. Nor is it about Abortion or Gay Marriage. It's about certain groups trying to alter the very fabric of the American Experiment. Yet, when analyzing the proposed changes, what we find is an attempt to remodel our system into a repetition of other political ideological systems which have shown themselves to be flawed, corrupt, and prone to disasterous failure. And that is why we hold the line over guns. And why I join those who do the same for Abortion Rights, Gay Marriage, Equal Protection, and Equality.

This isn't about guns. It's about RIGHTS.

 

[littlecordelera]

At least 17 students were shot dead at a Florida high school today by a single gunman.

Here in the United States, we love guns more than we love our own children.

 

[NightL]

It's about certain groups trying to alter the very fabric of the American Experiment.

Well ask the parents of the children who have been murdered while attending school how well the experiment is going.

How many children need to be slaughtered HisArpy before you would consider that this experiment is not working?

Yet, when analyzing the proposed changes, what we find is an attempt to remodel our system into a repetition of other political ideological systems which have shown themselves to be flawed, corrupt, and prone to disasterous failure.

Gun laws seem to be working quite well in Australia thank you very much. USA does not really seem to be a shiny example of avoiding "flawed, corrupt, and prone to disasterous failure", especially in the prevention of children being being mass murdered.

Oh, by the way I suggest you find another "we" - 'cos you and your "we" are contributors to blocking changes that would save lives, would save the lives of children. You have to live with this - 'cos right now your "we" carry a fuck load of responsibility on your shoulders.

And that is why we hold the line over guns. And why I join those who do the same for Abortion Rights, Gay Marriage, Equal Protection, and Equality.

What are you exactly saying here? That you object to the changes in law, driven by the demand of public opinion, to improve the rights of access to abortion for women? That you were opposed to marriage equality because it came about from public demand to change laws? WTF?! - Or you are not saying this and you agree that public sentiment can indeed lead to laws changing for the benefit of the people.

This isn't about guns. It's about RIGHTS.

Now perhaps you should pop over to Florida and explain your stand to the parents of the children who have been murdered, yet again in a school, murdered alongside their friends, in front of their friends, in front of their teachers.

Your "rights" are killing children time and time and time again, not only individual shootings but repeated mass murders.

How do you live with yourself HisArpy?

 

[NightL]

Florida is the 18th school shooting in the US this year - and it is only February

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/florida-is-the-18th-school-shooting-in-the-us-this-year
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/14/florida-school-shooting-brings-yearly-tally-to-18-in-2018.html
http://time.com/5159039/florida-school-shooting-parkland/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/brea...-of-the-year-and-its-only-february/ar-BBJ8ZMd
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article200125034.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/14/school-shootings-in-america-2018-how-many-so-far
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/15/florida-shooting-eighteenth-take-place-us-school-year/
http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/14/now-18-school-shootings-usa-2018-7313914/

and of course there will be hundreds of those news items around the world

It's about certain groups trying to alter the very fabric of the American Experiment.

well maybe it is about time - 'cos it is not working out so well

 

[Emerson40]

‘Murica.

 

[twister947]

At least 17 students were shot dead at a Florida high school today by a single gunman.

Here in the United States, we love guns more than we love our own children.

Indeed.

 

[yukonnights]

HisArpy,

Just so you know; I did read the link you suggested the other day. For those who didn't a brief summary:

This entire mindset is wrapped up in the political ideology of Libertarian philosophy. An ideology that rejects even the most basic of regulation of "inherent rights". The slogan is; 'My right to swing my fist only ends at the end of your nose'.

I have never been a fan of unrestrained freedom for the simple reason that it is impossible to imagine that it leads to a sustainable society. Such a system is pre-set to empower those who are already strong and weaken those who need societies help. I think the majority of people desire to live in a society that follows ideals that improve the lives of each generation, each oppressed minority, each hopeful child.

I hope anyone reading through this little discussion might take a closer look at the Libertarian philosophy, and not be swayed by high sounding slogans of freedom and virtually unrestricted God given rights. Ever wonder why anyone would eliminate regulations on pollution of our water and air...or seek to privatize our infrastructure...or to reduce regulations on the bankers and investment houses...now you now why.

This last massacre will not move the fanatic believer...but I believe they are a minority. THE ONE THING YOU NEED TO KNOW IS: They are a dedicated minority and very active in pushing their political agenda. They are well funded and politically connected. Take a moment and compare this with the more liberal population. Yes, we don't really get off on political activism...we sometimes don't have time to vote or support those opposing these destructive policies...but we better get serious or it will be too late to turn this tide of Libertarian philosophy.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

At least 17 students were shot dead at a Florida high school today by a single gunman.

Here in the United States, we love guns more than we love our own children.

And the FBI knew about him months in advance and did nothing about him.

Your fantastic government at work, dropping the ball again.

 

[Bramblethorn]

This entire mindset is wrapped up in the political ideology of Libertarian philosophy. An ideology that rejects even the most basic of regulation of "inherent rights". The slogan is; 'My right to swing my fist only ends at the end of your nose'.

I have never been a fan of unrestrained freedom for the simple reason that it is impossible to imagine that it leads to a sustainable society. Such a system is pre-set to empower those who are already strong and weaken those who need societies help. I think the majority of people desire to live in a society that follows ideals that improve the lives of each generation, each oppressed minority, each hopeful child.

To put it another way: freedom is a great thing, but it's nonsensical to act as if governments are the only threat to personal freedom. Being poor, or under-educated, or sick, or afraid that your asshole husband might shoot you and your friends if you try to leave him, all those things are limitations on personal freedoms. The children who were murdered yesterday have been silenced more effectively than any government censorship could ever achieve. But libertarianism has nothing to say about that loss of liberty, except for increasingly absurd variations of the good-guy-with-a-gun fantasy.

 

[yukonnights]

And the FBI knew about him months in advance and did nothing about him.

Your fantastic government at work, dropping the ball again.

Zeb,

I think it's a bit more complex. The mere fact that they knew 'something' does not imply they had the legal standing to act. I don't know the specif details so I can't say what they did or did not know that was legally actionable. This may be somewhat like blaming the guy for not leaving a burning building... because I had tied his hands to a bedpost

But, I do believe that we can put our collective heads together and construct a series of well thought out regulations that will both; allow the majority of sane law abiding citizens to own weapons...but also put a big dent in the access to weapons by those deemed unfit.

It's the "can't do anything" mantra that frustrates me. This is really so simple. Earlier in the conversation I proposed a common sense starting point which entails education, weapons training, testing to verify proficiency, and strict and meaningful punishments for those who do not comply...very much along the pattern of our vehicle use laws. I even read a pro-gun piece that suggested that the cost of background checks and firearm transfer fees should be a government funded responsibility based on the overall implication of the health and welfare of the populous...I agree, since burdensome fees can restrict some people's right to a weapon, training, etc. Nothing will prevent all gun deaths. But I refuse to accept that nothing can be done to lesson the number of those deaths.

But about now we're going to start to hear how we must fund armed guards at all schools. As I recall, the NRA is pushing their 'Shield" bill which would do that. How many of us really want our kids to live in what is beginning to resemble a war zone? Who's going to make billions of dollars providing this new army of school guards? And what about playgrounds, and shopping malls, movie theaters, night clubs, and on and on and on.

We've already heard; "It's a mental health issue." And yet, to the last of my hearing, the Administration has gutted any funding for research to solve this so called mental health issue. Smoke and mirrors...phony condolences to the grieving families...and tomorrow life goes on...for some of us anyway.

And again; this is the opinion of a lifelong gun owner.

 

[OTCurve]

Zeb,

But about now we're going to start to hear how we must fund armed guards at all schools. As I recall, the NRA is pushing their 'Shield" bill which would do that. How many of us really want our kids to live in what is beginning to resemble a war zone?

So a problem exists, I think we can all agree on that. But an interim suggestion to protect schools is bad?

 

[yukonnights]

So a problem exists, I think we can all agree on that. But an interim suggestion to protect schools is bad?

Perhaps not bad...maybe even necessary. I would hope it is short term though, since it really doesn't address the root problem at all. I haven't heard any proposal that specified short term though. Thanks for helping to make that point.

 

[OTCurve]

Perhaps not bad...maybe even necessary. I would hope it is short term though, since it really doesn't address the root problem at all. I haven't heard any proposal that specified short term though. Thanks for helping to make that point.

I think the biggest obstacle to finding any solution is a lack of trust. Both sides are very fervent, and while I understand the basis for the emotional need to do something, I also understand the need to do something that actually helps, and isn't just a feel good gesture.

But until both sides can be calm and actually try to communicate and not score points off of each other, the process seems to be at a standstill.