General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI have a right
to expect that I can go through my everyday life without having to worry with some nut with a gun killing me. I have that right and that right trumps the second amendment. This is bullshit that we have to live in fear because of a bad interpretation of the second amendment.
Gun control and gun control right the hell now! tomorrow is too late, the next day is too late. We need this today right now.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Lars39
(26,109 posts)
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)
malaise
(268,952 posts)He refused to bring up the vote
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)is totally subservient to the right of everyone else, whether a nutcase or not, to possess a gun. And lots of ammunition.
Maybe if all of the people who lost someone in just several of these mass shootings were to descend upon Congress and State Legislatures everywhere, preferably showing photos of exactly what someone shot to death looks like, maybe then we'd get a little action.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)is a gun-free zone, IIRC. And I believe the shooter may have been too young to legally own a handgun.
So, What kind of gun control would have prevented this from happening.
I don't want to hear apologist at this point in time. 
sorry if it bothers you,
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)I seriously want to know what would work.
I'ne never owned, or even touched a gun; but my b-i-l is a HUUUUUGE hunting fanatic, and collector, and I have other friends who target shoot, and just recently learned that a friend met a stranger at her front door with her pistol hidden behind her back. (Lives in the country, husband works nights, etc.)
So, I hear "hunting," "sport," "personal protection." All rational people with good reasons to own guns. What points could anyone make that would convince them that they shouldn't own guns?
What laws could be passed to eliminate the kind of violence we saw today??
Personally, I think we need to do more about mental health, because besides guns, all the people involved in these kinds of things have in common is that they seem to be ticking time bombs, and their actions came as no surprise to the people who knew them.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)They're producing the intended effect there. Of course, they didn't have the NRA to contend with, nor did they have a deeply ingrained, quasi-religious gun culture.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/port-arthur-massacre-shooting-spree-changed-australia-gun-laws-n396476
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Australia isn't the U.S., and Australia doesn't have a constitutional amendment that protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)... and to enact anything resembling their gun laws would require an amendment to our 2nd Amendment. Personally, I'm all for it. Alas, I don't expect to see it happen in my lifetime.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Lock the guns up in an armory for people who serve in the militia.
Why do we run roughshod over all other amendments and treat this one like it's some sacred right? Americans are going to have to wake up one of these days.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)After my post, I was wondering how much room for interpretation there is with the existing 2nd Amendment.
The suggestion you've made, of locking guns up in an armory seems to directly contradict the words "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (my emphasis, of course). That said, I could see how the argument could be made that as long as a militia official is holding the keys, and not a federal official, then it is "the People" who are keeping the arms. But I really don't think serious gun control--as opposed to tweaks around the edges of the issue, such as background checks--can be accomplished without an amendment to the 2nd Amendment.
Your point about the other amendments is a good one. Considering how we've virtually gutted the 4th Amendment--based on the allegations of Edward Snowden, which I think are 100% accurate--and the 8th--waterboarding, anyone?--it seems odd that we're so punctilious about the 2nd. I'd rather that all the existing amendments be carefully observed, until and unless amended, as opposed to running roughshod over them, to borrow your words.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)but if we can't control the violence, we need to control the individuals who cause the violence. Otherwise we are enablers and accomplices. One way to stop the violence is by disarming Americans. Or tightly controlling their access. Register. License. Test for emotional problems.
Or we can just paint targets on our backs.
I am feeling a bit overwrought and emotional tonight because I have to walk back on a campus tomorrow and teach classes.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)It's distressing, and I can't imagine how I'd be feeling if I taught on a campus.
As hopeless as the situation sometimes feels, I do think that more and more Americans are coming to the conclusion that our approach to guns simply has to change. It feels a bit like the early stages of the gay marriage debate at this point, in terms of a major shift in public opinion being in the works, albeit slowly.
You know I'm in your court. If I could somehow enact Australia's gun control laws over here, I would in a heartbeat.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)I appreciate it. I feel so helpless sometimes. 
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)More Americans should be venting like that. Take care on campus tomorrow.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)democratic president after Obama so then there will be a 5-4 or even better 6-3 liberal majority on the court. Then the 2nd amendment says what the boys and girls in black robes says it means.
Any amendment can be interpreted anyway, and I don't think the framers at all intended the 2nd amendment to be used in the manner it's being used. 250 years ago when armies and militias were virtually indistinguishable is a very different time.
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)I left campus about 3 years ago but my husband still teaches every day on a campus in a state with conceal carry laws. We always said we would leave this state when that happened, but it isn't possible right now, he has so many years in (over 20) that we really can't do it. I worry every day that some crazy young person who got a D on a test will come in and shoot up the room. It is terrifying. You should not have to be afraid to go to work every day....
My husband couldn't watch the coverage last night...
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)And then there is the context in which the Amendment was passed. The Brits disbanded the milita ranger units so the colonists had no advanced warning of Pontiac's Rebellion. The Brits went to Lexington and Concord to confiscate weapons stored in the armories, not to confiscate weapons in individual homes.
The only way to interpret it as an indvidual right is to ignore everything that prompted its writing.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)If I ever knew this back in the day, I'd long since forgotten it. Thanks for the information. 
BarackTheVote
(938 posts)the U.S. at the time didn't have a regular military. The militia was citizens who could be called upon to defend the Several States if there came an attack. When they're talking about the militia, they're not talking about the crazy militias we have today. They're talking about an organization that is more like the present-day National Guard.
I think to own a gun, you should have to join the Guard, receive training, a license, etc.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I have been advocating for an armory for a long time, it makes sense and guns could be checked out when necessary. It would not even have to be government controlled.
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)The 2nd says nothing about where they are kept. You can keep them in a locker, in an armory, in a firing range. Doesn't have to be under the pillow or in the closet where the kids can get them.
Response to Generic Other (Reply #71)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Brainstormy
(2,380 posts)what we have is a grossly misinterpreted amendment that allows for the arming of a militia
randys1
(16,286 posts)A well regulated militia,
A well regulated militia,
A well regulated militia,
A well regulated militia,
A well regulated militia,
A well regulated militia, A well regulated militia, A well regulated militia, A well regulated militia, A well regulated militia, A well regulated militia, A well regulated militia, A well regulated militia,
A well regulated militia, A well regulated militia, A well regulated militia, A well regulated militia, A well regulated militia, A well regulated militia, A well regulated militia, A well regulated militia, A well regulated militia,
A well regulated militia,
A well regulated militia,
A well regulated militia,
A well regulated militia,
A well regulated militia,
A well regulated militia,
A well regulated militia,
branford
(4,462 posts)and their overall crime rates have not demonstrably changed much in relation to other countries', including the USA, drop in crime over the last few decades.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)On the other hand, their suicide rate by firearm had dropped significantly. And, more to the point, in the 19 years since they enacted their current gun control laws, they have not had a single mass shooting.
branford
(4,462 posts)to all other Western countries, including the USA (and the American suicide rate is much lower than other first world gun control havens like Japan and South Korea). Simply, a suicide victim is no less dead if they take their life with an instrument other than a gun.
Consistent with my prior post, Australia also had far fewer mass shootings and similar events before they enacted strict gun regulation.
My point is that the United States and Australia (and Europe, Japan, Canada, etc.) have never really been comparable in terms of violent crime or firearm ownership and use. As a matter of culture, history and law, firearms occupy a very different place in the United States than they do in Australia, Canada, most of Europe and elsewhere.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)First off, the 65 percent decline in firearm suicides between 1995 and 2006 (the latest information I could find) was not attended by a rise in other forms of suicide. That's a stunning success. As for the relative rates of suicide per capita, U.S. vs. Australia, the numbers I find are 12.1/100,000 (2012) for the United States vs. 10.6/100,000 for Australia (also 2012). I think neither statistic is particularly significant for this discussion, but it should be noted that the Australian suicide rate, contrary to your claim, is lower than the American suicide rate.
Prior to enacting their current gun control legislation, Australia had 11 mass shootings in the decade prior. I have no doubt this is fewer than the number of mass shootings that the U.S. experienced. But in evaluating the effect of Australian gun control laws on Australia, it makes little sense to look outside of Australia. And as I stated in my last post, in the 19 years since Australia enacted their current gun control laws, they have had not one mass shooting. To repeat: 11 mass shootings in the decade prior; 0 mass shootings in the 19 years since.
I understand that gun laws, crime, and gun culture are different among the United States, Australia, and most other industrialized nations. That's pretty much a given. It doesn't mean that we can't learn by their experience.
---
References
1. For the decline in firearm suicides, see the following paper from 2006 by Chapman et al., published on InjuryPrevention.com:
http://jeffsachs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Australia-Gun-Law-Reforms.pdf
2. For the comparative suicide rates, I took the data from Wikipedia, which cites information from the World Health Organization (2012).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
3. For the information on the number of mass shooting prior to and following the current Australian gun control laws, I drew from a just-published Slate article by Will Oremus:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)and start putting everyone who seems a little flakey in a mental health prison to keep the rest of us safe. And then the only one's we'd have to worry about would be, you know, the guys who get pissed at their wives and take out the family, or the guy who gets pissed at his boss and takes out his coworkers.
There is no way to control mental health without stigmatizing a lot of people who have mental health issues, but who otherwise would never hurt a fly, which is most of the people with mental health issues (like me). Stopping them from owning guns will never work as long as guns are so easy to get and so many kinds of guns are so deadly and so easy to get.
The only way to handle this is to eliminate these Rambo guns that have huge magazines and auto or semi auto firing capability and just look so damn awesome and deadly. Hunters and target shooters and self protection gun owners do not need guns like that. PERIOD!
Make it harder to get guns and eliminate the types of guns sold in America, like Australia did. Hunters can still hunt. People who need home protection can probably still get a gun. Or a big dog.
No more excuses. And you know what? You may be new to DU but I bet you have already read all the on-line discussions about how to approach this, and options available, so to come here and start spouting BUT BUT BUT we need our guns is really pretty pathetic. I'm not buying it.
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)what I heard this afternoon, was that the kid had a pistol--not a Rambo gun. (I may be wrong about the weapon used. I unplugged to go out and get some groceries.)
Also, I'm not suggesting that mentally ill people be locked up, just that treatment needs to be more readily available, and affordable.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Then you must think that all the other kids and teachers should have been armed. AmIright?
And the Aurora shooter was getting mental health care. Didn't stop him, did it?
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)the emphasis should have been on trying to prevent by intervening to treat whatever mental/emotional problems led to this.
Everything I see regarding gun control seems to focus on automatic/semi-auto weapons, none of such laws would have done anything to prevent what happened today.
So--youarewrong.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)The latest I've heard is that he had three pistols and a long rifle. But were any of them auto or semi auto? Did any of them use a large magazines, or were they single shot only?
And I edited my last post too late I guess. Because mental health care did not stop the Aurora shooter from killing, did it?
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)to know whether there are auto/semi-auto pistols. Never been that interested. More will come out in the days to come, and then we will all know.
Did James Holmes get adequate mental health care? By a psychiatrist who would have been licensed to prescribe? Thought she was just a counselor.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I'm not wasting my time with gun apologists any more.
I know this smiley is supposed to be saying Hi, but in this case it's saying Bye! Not playin.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Also, change the bully culture that we have where guns are the ultimate bully.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)He said he was on the other side of campus, so he didn't try to intervene (thankfully had the good sense not to). They found 3 pistols and one long gun on the scene. I wonder how that many guns found their way in this "gun free zone"?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)You do realize that pistol and handgun are one and the same?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Any idea what kind of rifle it was?
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)was 26 and Oregon allows concealed carry on school property
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)The first article I read said the name of the shooter is Toby Reynolds http://libertynews.com/2015/10/breaking-is-this-the-oregon-shooter-4chan-forum-says-his-name-is-toby-reynolds/ but that was a couple of hours ago. Just saw the update.
And I seriously thought all campuses were gun-free zone.
Again, my bad.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)He was 26
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)The local sheriff/police chief was/is a vocal opponent of gun control and threatened any enforcement of any laws/executive orders he felt were unconstitutional after Sandy Hook.
Haven't heard him recant any of his previous statements, but not holding my breath.
Saw an interview with a student. Veteran and concealed carry holder. Decided to not engage for fear that the SWAT team might not know he was a "good guy with a gun". Funny thing, he said he felt safe on campus and didn't feel like he had to worry about folks being out to harm him, but still never went anywhere without being armed.
branford
(4,462 posts)What benefit would accrue to eliminating his right to carry?
mythology
(9,527 posts)He might feel it impinges on his "right" to carry a gun. But obviously it's not useful for stopping a mass shooter as we've just seen.
For society, it removes one more potential oops. Whether that is yet another person doing something stupid like posing for a selfie with their fun, checking to see if there is a bullet loaded by looking down the barrel, the gun falling out and accidentally firing, or the guy getting pissed off and losing his temper.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)Next question.
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)for who they enable to have access to their firearms. Something that's too complicated for our society to deal with, I agree.
haele
(12,649 posts)It depends on the district when the college - or university is located. College-aged students are typically considered "responsible" adults, or close enough, which is a totally different take on students in K-12 schools.
Same with churches - not all congregations are "Gun Free".
Come to think of it, some states allow minors to own firearms, including handguns.
Some states turn a blind eye to weapons caches and lack of registration of firearms. Some do not. Point of fact - the sheriff in charge of Roseberg, OR had declared a few years ago that he would never enforce any gun control laws he thought were unconstitutional. Make of that what you will - I've spent some time in that area of the country, and it would not surprise me at the least that any sort of gun is easy to come by, legal or not.
Lots of end-timers and other flavors of dead enders scattered amongst the good folks there.
The problem with gun control laws is that they are all over the board, state to state, county to county, town to town. And local law enforcers often turn a blind eye due to their personal beliefs - or paranoia - to even the basic federal regulations. Loopholes abound.
And no one wants to tackle the loopholes because of - well, "freedom" and all that.
Haele
n2doc
(47,953 posts)...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…
The first right. Supersedes the fucking bizarrely written and ambiguous 2nd amendment in my opinion.
hack89
(39,171 posts)You are wrong.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)I could care less about your 'wrong'
hack89
(39,171 posts)There is absolutely nothing that trumps them. Your opinion is noted.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Life, would be the pinnacle of that pyramid.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Unless you have actual case law that says otherwise?
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Murder, manslaughter, wrongful death, ect.?
hack89
(39,171 posts)There is no nebulous right to life that trumps constitutional rights.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Rooted in the fact that it is a part of what it means to be a person. You cannot deny a person the right to life because of an enumerated right. Natural rights are bestowed upon a person the moment they take their first breath.
hack89
(39,171 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)That would follow that the right to life is also a basic, natural right.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)with minimal, if any, reduction in violence.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)My wife and I own a few firearms.
My primary issue is with the huge lobbying arm (NRA), refuses to come to the table at all to even have the discussion.
It all boils down to "Reasonable"... My idea of reasonable is going to be different from the NRA's idea, which is going to be different from the Brady Campaign's idea of reasonable.
The vast majority of these folks doing the mass shootings acquire their firearms quite easily, and quite legally. I have recently purchased a firearm in my home state from an FFL. It took me less than 5 minutes to fill out the one piece of paper, and for the PICS check to be run, before I was walking out the door with a firearm. But when I go to Walgreen's it takes me 8 minutes, and 3 pieces of paperwork, and I'm limited on my monthly purchases when I buy pseudoephedrine for my sinuses, that used to be sold over the counter. I understand that one is a right, and the other is not, however it does seem absurd that we control the purchases of sinus medication more than we do weapon sales.
branford
(4,462 posts)than making it more difficult to purchase a firearm.
When you purchased your firearm, the NICS check correctly determined that you did not meet any exclusionary criteria (e.g., involuntary commitment, felon, domestic abuse restraining order, etc.). Taking more time or it being a bigger hassle would not have changed the results.
Moreover, when the NICS system does fail, it's almost always because a government agent made a mistake or the information was incorrectly entered into the system. No law designed and implemented by man will ever eliminate bureaucratic mistakes.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) granted United States citizenship to former slaves and to all persons "subject to U.S. jurisdiction". It also contained three new limits on state power: a state shall not violate a citizen's privileges or immunities; shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and must guarantee all persons equal protection of the laws.
A maniac with a gun executing people doesn't count as "due process of law"
hack89
(39,171 posts)what do you think?
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)it has no bearing on me murdering someone - murder was a crime well before the 14A.
How does it apply to a private citizen owning a gun? How can you use the 14A to support overturning the 2A? You can't.
Your example, while technically right in a limit sense, does not provide a general enumerated right to life. Which is what we are talking about.
Sorry for the snark - need to finish my coffee before posting.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)deprive another private citizen of their gun, that's what larceny/theft laws are for. Just like murder.
Life is an enumerated right. The state can't take it away from you without due process and even that is sketchy when you combine it with the 8th amendment (a reasonable interpretation of which would be abolition of the death penalty).
hack89
(39,171 posts)it still has to be balanced with all the others. You cannot say that because guns are used to kill people than they can be totally banned (which many here are arguing). Because you have the right to own a gun. So the balancing is done through regulation. The 2A certainly allows for strict regulation.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)the meantime strict regulation can also be done. Including undoing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the gun control movement overreached and got slapped down.
The PLCAA specifically allows for gun manufacturers to be sued if they violate any federal or state law regulating the manufacture, marketing and sale of firearms. You want to sue them out of existence for selling a legal product in accordance with all laws. It is basically a recognition that the gun control movement is powerless to actually change the laws.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)so much for the rule of law.
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)what you cited is from the Declaration of Independence which was the F.U. to the kind of England, and the 2nd Amendment is a right under the Constitution, which is our governing document.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Did Hack insult you?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Old Crow
(2,212 posts)That said, the Constitution is not, nor was it ever meant to be, an unamendable document.
In my opinion, it's high time the 2nd Amendment was amended.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)But it is very, very difficult to amend, which is what the Framers intended. I suspect that any effort to alter the Second Amendment would be as fruitless as trying to alter the 1st or 4th.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)And it's also true that none of the amendments in the Bill of Rights has been amended before (not that it can't be done, simply that it hasn't been done heretofore).
That said, amendments have been made before over highly contentious issues (slavery, women's suffrage, Prohibition, to name a few). Perhaps the political climate will shift enough on gun control in the next 20 years so that something can be done. If I'm reading the information correctly online (I'm no expert on the amendment process), an amendment to the 2nd Amendment could be passed with the approval of 38 out of the 50 states (that is, 75%). So Texas and Florida and 10 other states of your choosing, for example, would not have to be onboard.
I agree that the current political climate is nowhere near ready to make even an attempt at an amendment wise. Frankly, if the issue were to be taken up now, Texas would probably attempt a secession. But 10 or 20 years from now: who knows? This country changed its stance on gay marriage faster than I ever would have thought possible.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)The ability to have a civil conversation seems to be beyond the pale for many here.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Are any of them in effect if you are not alive?
Wouldn't the right to be alive be the precursor to the enumerated rights?
Can you exercise a right if your dead?
Is it not self fucking explanatory that we do not need an amendment to the constitution declaring a right to continue breathing? It's pretty much a natural right, which all people, regardless of nationality have as a universal right.
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)All of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights and following Ammendments do apply, even to dead folks. You don't suddenly cease being an American citizen and lose all rights simply because you die. In some cases, this further extends to property formerly owned by a deceased person. In short, yes, you can exercise almost all of your legal and enumerated rights while dead.
By the same token, no, you have no "right to life." The next time someone is dying from cancer, please inform them that no matter how badly they're suffering, they won't die because they have a "universal right" to life.
Your heart is in the right place, but sadly, you're wrong about it. You have no more a "right to life" than a cow raised for the slaughter. That's just a cold, cruel fact of life.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts).... they have all changed and evolved and they all have limits (which have also changed and evolved).
our current interpretation" of the second amendment is a fairly new (in the history of the country) and even though the inmates have taken over the asylum on this ... it still does not imply free and unfettered access.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)then all abortion should be banned except when the mother might die because no matter how you slice it, the act of abortion is the ending of something that has the potential for life.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)The right to life of a fetus overrides a womans right to abort the fetus
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,112 posts)one that represents people instead of the wholesale weapons business.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)by the gun fetishists for too long.
madokie
(51,076 posts)far too long
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)and it SUCKs
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)a "right to kill" people wouldn't go to prison for murder. OMG, the hyperbole abounds!
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Response to madokie (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)A volunteer to have it pried from their hands right?
hatrack
(59,584 posts).
onecaliberal
(32,831 posts)No one is coming for your killing machine.
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)At least one OP saying "ban all firearms", several volunteers posting to confiscate every firearm, a few calls to ban the second amendment completely, one particularly unhinged person labeling all gun-owners domestic terrorists and calling to "Deal with them accordingly".
You may say it's a right-wing argument, but there's a whole crew on the left giving them the ammo for it.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)The right to life, a non-enumerated right secured through the 9th Amendment, means that no one can legally kill you except through due process as noted in the fifth amendment "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". An example of due process is the death penalty handed down by the justice system. This right is the basis for outlawing murder and the like. The only exception is self defense.
The right to life does not guarantee you safety from any possible death. It outlaws another human being killing you, except in defense of themselves if you are attacking them.
ShrimpPoboy
(301 posts)
daleanime
(17,796 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)No court has ever agreed with me, and no court ever will, but I believe it's very clear the well regulated militia as meant to serve the needs of the nation, and the militia was intended to be organized and supervised and armed in a way to make sure it was ready to mobilize and fight when needed. It was not intended to be an unorganized, unsupervised collection of random patriotic guys with a random collection of weapons, walking around armed on the streets to scare their fellow citizens in the name of "freedom."
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)And I forget why you're no longer a militia member after age 45, but it's the same kind of "logic" used to proclaim the 2nd Amendment as an absolute guarantee of firearm ownership.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Probably for the same reason militia membership does not begin until 17 and females are excluded unless they have served in the National Guard: Fitness for the rigors of armed conflict. It seems very logical.
And your failure to grasp the rationale behind the law does not invalidate the fact the law is current.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)I get the rationale behind the law. It proposes to have two kinds of militia to answer the call. As far as I can see, this is entirely consistent with the idea of the militia, as we see it in Article One and the 2nd Amendment. When I say I forget why you're no longer a member after age 45, I'm speaking of the explanation I see from various "patriot" groups who propose anyone and everyone is covered as a member of the unorganized militia, and therefore entitled to own firearms. It appears to me they're saying, "This law says exactly what it seems to say, except when we say it doesn't."
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Agreed.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)something. I agree with Bernie that we need to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.
But I also agree with the post in this thread that talks about mental illness. This is going to open up a hornets nest.
Last month my brother and his wife visited with me. They are both bi-polar and they do not own any guns. And they are afraid. Afraid of being listed as dangerous. They have been ill since their early teens and are in their 50s now - they have never been violent.
If we are going to put this all down to mental illness we are going to list them and that can make them the target for crazies like trump if they gain power in this nation. It has happened before.
I heard President Obama's speech and he talked about the shooter being not right in his head. Mental illness. But I question that it is mental illness. He is a Nazi - he has a political belief. Many before him have believed in his same ideas. The same way with the shooter in SC in the church. They have been brainwashed into beliefs that are dangerous but that is not the same thing as mental illness.
What I am saying is that we need to be very careful with this. I have no problem with denying guns to mentally ill people but I do have a big problem with labeling a whole group of people for purposes of identity.
My brother also told me that he is one of the persons who is supposed to attend the caucus in our part of Iowa for Bernie. He is sane enough to take part in our election system but somehow he should be on a list that identifies him as dangerous? He himself will tell you that he should not have a gun because he is likely to commit suicide but he is not an enemy of the state.
We are in a world of hurt on this issue.
shanti
(21,675 posts)i can also see people with mental issues being hesitant to go to the doc about their problems in case they will be labeled as dangerous. this fellow supposedly had Aspberger's, which in and of itself, is NOT a predictor of violence, just....different.
what is going on here is that many of these dudes are seeing that the perps are getting some kind of notoriety that they never had before, hence the copycats.
when will it end......? 
jwirr
(39,215 posts)and they are often encouraged in what they do.
I wrote that post because I want people to be aware that a lot of innocent people are being caught up in this and they are not able to do much about it.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
Whoa,...check out what I just found...
The original Norman Rockwell tribute to the Four Freedoms:
And then this:
Nice way of showing the insanity of gun culture.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
Please note the headline of the newspaper.
In other words, violence -- with guns, even -- was being used to obtain freedom from fear.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Why is the concept of "no need for guns" so hard to grasp?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)win you can bask in the glory of seeing Roe v Wade or marriage equality overturned. I mean, as long as we're talking about overturning precedent.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Take a moment and think about which members of that court you're all enthusiastically on board with. They also instructed the nation that corporations are people, mong other abominations of recent rulings.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Stop playing stupid.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)while thinking your opponents are then hidebound to your decrees
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)but ones you like should remain untouched simply because you disapprove of the make-up of the court -- as if RWers couldn't mirror that argument.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Everyone on fucking earth thinks rulings they disagree with should be overturned, THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF DISAGREEING WITH THE RULING.
You agree with Citizens United? If the answer is no then I'm going to take a wild guess that you *don't* want it to stand up forever.
And the fact remains, you are siding with the scum of the court against the Liberal justices on this issue.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It's a good thing you t own guns and probably a better idea that you advocate for no policy where guns might be employed.
And the fact remains you are siding with the rationale that will be used to overturn voting rights, civil rights, rights to self-defense, rights to free speech, rights to privacy...
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Like that bullshit you just posted about anyone being concerned about the self evident effect of the United States gun laws killing off Americans left and right being just like someone who wants to take away free speech and voting rights. You know, like they've taken away everyone's civil rights in the rest of the developed world that treats guns moderately sanely. We still mourn for Australia, fallen to tyranny lo these 19 years ago when they restricted their freedom talismans... I imagine they miss their free speech and voting rights terribly those poor people...
Anti people being slaughtered = anti civil rights!
Corporations = people!
Completely. Fucking. Clueless.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)There are developed nations that also have liberal gun laws without high crime. There are developed nations with more restrictive guns laws and worse crime.
If you were half as emotionally mature as you pretend amid all your ranting you would be honest enough to see that and honest enough to ask why; but you don't because caring is just a façade.
Nor do you have the honesty to separate the two arguments being made. One is about (impotent) gun laws. The other is about how you advocate for disregarding precedents you do not accept while thinking the favor won't be returned. You don't weep for Australia because Australia never had a 2A or supreme court precedent in favor of the individual right to keep and bear arms. But then again you also don't weep for the disarmed citizens of despotic regimes in places that aren't Australia. Heaven forbid the people become the final guarantors of their safety and liberty.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)There are developed nations that also have liberal gun laws without high crime.
Oh do tell. This will be entertaining.
And if you say "Switzerland" or "Israel" I may die laughing at your definition of "liberal gun laws".
And I'm just going to stop entertaining your little game where you pretend like you don't know what the " A" in "2A" stands for so anyone arguing the laws should change must be arguing for ignoring or disregarding the law as opposed to FUCKING CHANGING IT.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Maybe I'll start a campaign to change the 1A rights of gun grabbers. After all, it's not like they'll fight over it.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"Well, well, well.... maybe I'll just throw a stupid destructive tantrum that would hurt *everybody*. So there!"
Yeah, clearly you need to be telling other people to grow up. 
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)So entertaining attempting a serious debate with a juvenile.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)advocate revoking elements of the BoR you don't like and, as I have been saying throughout the sub-thread, you operate you're the only who can play at that game. If you want to revoke the 2A then I think I can work to revoke the 1A rights of gun grabbers.
But you knew that (or maybe you didn't because you're too busy spluttering).
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...of touching the Constitution at all who is making an argument equivalent to just jeopardizing all their civil rights.
Brilliant. Those idiots who ended slavery by daring amend the Constitution, didn't they know they could have their "silly arguments thrown back in their face" to end all civil rights for all Americans????
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Slavery wouldn't have been a viable institution to begin with had the slaves not been denied their rights to keep and bear arms. The Dred Scott decision even admitted as much.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...constitute an argument that jeopardizes all rights enumerated in the entire document then?
Glad we cleared that up. I expect that means that's the last we hear of any abject idiocy that people advocating the repeal of the second are somehow undermining their right to vote or free speech.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)could not have endured.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...and accidentally replying here? Because I didn't say anything that remotely resembled that.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You made an argument about amending the constitution to undo the 2A and you cited 13A as a reason that was a good thing. I noted that had the 2A rights been extended to slaves the 13A would have been moot. You petulantly ignored that point to declare yourself the winner of the debate. I ignored your petulance.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You directly declared that advocating for a repeal of the 2A threatened everything from voting rights to free speech.
As for your stunningly idiotic argument that the 2A would have ended slavery, I was ignoring it as a kindness... but fine. If you really need a lecture on the full scope of how moronic a thing it was that you said here we go.
Until the 13A slaves WERE NOT PROPER CITIZENS. There was no "fully extending" the rights of citizens to them, whether that be the right to free speech, vote, or own a gun. Essentially saying "Well... If slave owners had just armed all their slaves so they could rise up against the slave owners everything would have sorted itself out" is posdibly the single stupidest thing I've seen on the internet all week. That's like saying if the 2A rights were fully extended to prisoners the mass incarceration problem in this country would sort itself out. Well technically, yeah! But thinking the guards are ever going to arm the inmates, or slave owners ever would have armed slaves, out of some sense of Constitutional obligation requires severe fucking brain damage to believe!
The 2A would never ever ever ever EVER have fixed slavery.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Thanks for catching up.
beevul
(12,194 posts)No. Just no.
We're not kids. And more specifically, were not your kids.
Says this adult who finds your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...on equal footing on the offensiveness scale as mass murder. Clearly yours are the kind of responsible grown up hands society should feel perfectly comfortable putting deadly weapons in.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Says this adult who finds your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest.
And clearly, you are one to judge that, when you can't even correctly interpret a plainly written sentence.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)It still says the same thing
1. Person saying things you don't like.
2. Mass murder
=
3. Equally vulgar, disgusting and offensive.
Yep, you're instilling massive levels of confidence in how reasonable it is for you to be running around armed.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Wrong again.
Read it again.
You're instilling massive levels of confidence in how reasonable it is for you to be looking at others as children, while failing spectacularly at basic fundamental communication.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Because that's exactly what you said.
beevul
(12,194 posts)What I said was this:
Says this adult who finds your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest.
Look in the mirror, Pal. Its not my fault you can't correctly identify the object of my disgust, particularly since I spelled it out very plainly, above and originally. My English functions quite well.
It sure does call into question your qualifications to be looking at others as children, however.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...doesn't change what it means right? It still says the same damn thing.
Seeing as we are in a text only discussion there is only one possible object you could be directing your disgust at. THE FUCKING WORDS I TYPED THAT APPEARED ON YOUR SCREEN.
Also known as, what I said.... that you didn't like.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Also know as, what I said.... that you didn't like.
You wrote "Says the kid who doesn't want his toys taken away...".
This is the statement of a person who believes quite smugly, that others are beneath him/her, mere children. Its arrogant in the extreme, and presumptive in the worst sort of way.
I thusly commented:
Says this adult who finds your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest.
Its your smug arrogant presumptuousness, which is the subject of my ire. You could have used any number of words to convey it, yet the subject of my ire would not be any different, and those words would be equally blameless.
Lets see, that's what, 3 fails there on simple English?
Yeah, You're definitely qualified to be viewing others as children, and a shoe in for public policy wonk.
You wrote "Says the kid who doesn't want his toys taken away...".
This is the statement of a person who ..
Also known as WHAT I SAID that you didn't like. Genius.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Just because I quote your words as evidence of your viewpoint, it doesn't follow that I object to the words that indicate your viewpoint, rather than the viewpoint itself.
Use any words you like to show that you hold a smug arrogant presumptuous viewpoint, and I'll continue to object to that viewpoint, rather than the words used to indicate that you hold it, regardless of the words that indicate that you hold it.
Cripes, someone misuses a gun and you guys blame the gun, and now I take issue with your viewpoint and you think I should blame the words...jesus h Christ on a uhaul.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 4, 2015, 02:45 AM - Edit history (1)
Are you seriously trying to imply that when someone says they don't like what someone said they are saying they are literally angry at THE WORDS and not the concepts they convey... so therefore me saying you were placing something I said that you didn't like on equal ground with mass murder is *totally* different than what you actually did... which was placing me having a viewpoint you don't like on equal ground with mass murder?
If so...
1. That's mind numbingly obtuse.
2. That doesn't make you come across any better.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Heres your problem in a nutshell bud:
I never said or claimed in any way that I didn't like what you said. You are the one operating under that false premise.
I claimed that its your attitude, your smug arrogant presumptuousness, that I take issue with. And since I'm the one taking issue with it, I'm eminently more qualified to know what exactly it is that I take issue with, than you are.
Yes, I do in fact view people who view other grown adults as children to be lorded over, in the same light as murderers (mass or otherwise), rapists, thieves, and child molesters. They share a rather disgusting trait with the criminals I mentioned, you see. They all fail at recognizing and/or respecting the boundaries of others. They are every bit as harmful and destructive on an individual level and on a societal level as all the rest, and possibly worse since people just turn the other cheek rather than giving them the 'warm cup of shut the hell up' they so richly deserve.
The 'good intentions paving company' among whos numbers you surely count yourself, needs to spend some time driving on 'know your role boulevard', rather than trying to pave it over.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)
I never said or claimed in any way that I didn't like what you said. You are the one operating under that false premise.
I claimed that its your attitude, your smug arrogant presumptuousness, that I take issue with.
Oh do tell?
And, as has already been pointed out to you, we are communicating purely through text... If you were not basing your evaluation of "my smug arrogant presumptuousness" on what I said then what were you basing it on?
My body language? No.... couldn't see that...
My facial expressions? No... darn... same problem...
No, I'm pretty sure you were judging WHAT I FUCKING SAID. And you were placing that on equal ground with mass murder on the offensiveness scale.
But he'll, let's pretend it was something else. Let's assume you're spying on me in person or something and basing your evaluation of my attitude on a whole host of considerations.
That still makes you the genius who equated "smug arrogant presumptuousness" with mass fucking murder as being equally offensive while arguing what a mature adult you were we should all feel comfortable owning guns!
beevul
(12,194 posts)And I'm starting to wonder if you're capable of being correct too.
I didn't place 'what you said' on equal ground with anything. I placed 'the thing that what you said indicates about you' on equal ground. You could have said many different words to indicate that same thing about you, and it would continue to be about that thing, not the words that indicate it.
Follow along with me here:
If someone says "hey, the house is on fire (and it is)" you don't take issue with the words and try to put them out. If that's too complicated an example let me know and I'll try to simplify one for you.
Your sort of smug arrogant presumptuousness? You bet I do. I have nothing but deep contempt for it. People with that sort of view of others are precisely the last people that should be allowed anywhere near public policy. Pointing that out is the textbook definition of maturity, while your viewpoint, is the textbook definition of seeing everyone else as immature.
And that covers pretty much everything that needs saying.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...you admitted what I said on my first fucking reply to you that you've been trying to weasel your way out of ever since.
That still makes you the genius who equated "smug arrogant presumptuousness" with mass fucking murder as being equally offensive while arguing what a mature adult you were we should all feel comfortable owning guns!
Your sort of smug arrogant presumptuousness? You bet I do
An attitude you don't like and mass murder... equally objectionable. That's now your confirmed position.
That being the case, I'm done wasting my time on you.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I never denied it, and have done nothing but try to clarify my position with you, and I stand by it.
Its not just me. Essentially nobody likes that attitude. Particularly from someone that can't even succeed at basic communication. Neither are qualities that belong anywhere near public policy, let alone qualify one to have an opinion of value on it.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You find me one other person who puts "attitude I don't like" and "mass murder" on equal footing on the offensiveness scale.
Until then, feel free to waste someone else's time.
beevul
(12,194 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"Says this adult who finds your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest."
That's you Skippy. Direct quote. So strawman my ass.
Now run along back to the sandbox. Your toys probably miss you.
beevul
(12,194 posts)You said this:
It has nothing to do with 'attitude I don't like'. That's not my argument, its yours., and its a strawman.
My position is that I find your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest. That I dislike it is kind of besides the point...there are many positions I dislike, which are not equally as vulgar disgusting or offensive. Those are the metrics I used, and they're the ONLY metrics I used. Any others are your creation, and tautologically strawmen.
I appreciate you going out of your way to prove my point for me.
"Smug arrogant presumptuousness" IS FUCKING ATTITUDE.
Finding something offensive IS DISLIKING IT.
They are two different phrasings of the exact same fucking statement. Do you speak English at all? How dense are you?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Yes indeed I do, and I speak it with precision, which may be why you are having such a tough time of it.
Thre is no such thing as different phrasing of an exact same statement.
If a statement is the exact same, it can not be phrased differently.
Perhaps true, however...
I did not reply to you simply because I dislike your attitude. I come across many attitudes I dislike, yet don't comment on. Yours however, crosses the lines of being ridiculously smug disgustingly arrogant and massively presumptuous, which requires comment so that everyone else can see it for what it is.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You have placed your objection to my attitude on equal footing with your objection to mass murder.
That is all that needs to be said about you really.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Namely that you have no business anywhere near public policy.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Preferably professional adult supervision.
People who think that "bad attitude" and "massacring 10 people" are equally objectionable need to be placed under close supervision for the safety of the general public. And they sure as hell shouldn't be running around armed.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Yours is a response worthy of someone that sees other better functioning adults as children.
Its arrogant, its smug, and its presumptuous, and it indicates that you should be kept far far from public policy, just like the last guy that thought he was the 'decider'. Hopefully that comes to pass with you, better than it did with him.
I rest my case.
People who think that "bad attitude" and "massacring 10 people" are equally objectionable need to be placed under close supervision for the safety of the general public. And they sure as hell shouldn't be running around armed.
What a nice strawman you've constructed.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Your own words condemn you as effectively as anything.
"Says this adult who finds your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest."
Again... strawman my ass. See you around kiddo.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Again... strawman my ass."
If you aren't using my words and metrics, then yes its a straw man, sparky.
In another year or so of seasoning and robust debate, you wont be so prone to weaving them...that or you'll be known for weaving them...its a true thing, some folks never learn. Try not to be one of them.
You're pretty likely to see me around, I've been a member for 13 years, and a reader since almost day one.
Whatever you say mayor bloomberg.
"Says this adult who finds your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest."
Keep pleading strawman when I'm directly quoting you all day long. I'll just sit here, quoting you again.
beevul
(12,194 posts)When you do so, it isn't a strawman.
Here, I'll help you:
Hey everyone, those are MY WORDS there!!!
Hey everyone, those are MY WORDS there!!!
And they condemn you as effectively as anything I could ever write about you.
"Says this adult who finds your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest."
beevul
(12,194 posts)Only in your view. Being condemned in the eyes of someone that views people as you do, is a nice shiny badge of honor as far as I'm concerned, says this adult who finds your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"Says this adult who finds your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest."
beevul
(12,194 posts)What other people think?
Perhaps it hasn't dawned on you, by me repeatedly posting what I said to you, that I don't really give a damn what others think of it, says this adult who finds your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest.
That being said, I don't see a rush of people in here defending your smug arrogant presumptuousness, and really, who would? I also don't see a rush of people attacking me for how vulgar disgusting and offensive I find it, either.
But you go ahead...sally forth and gather a posse of likeminded smug arrogant presumptuous people to attack me, Ahab.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)....that your statement condemns you.
"Says this adult who finds your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest."
I guarantee you, it is a long way from "only my view" that placing someone's attitude you object to on equal ground with gunning down a bunch of college students in regards to offensiveness or vulgarity condemns you as unfit for civilized society... and that's putting it politely.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Its a tiny minority viewpoint that holds that others are children and should be treated as such, and a great majority resents such attitudes. But you knew that already, didn't you.
Fortunately, people who hold the smug arrogant presumptuous view that others are children, are not qualified in any way shape size or form to be deciding who is or isn't fit for society, and likewise are not qualified in any way shape size or form to be defining 'civilized' for anyone else. And, most people see those who self identify as such like you have, as such.
Now run along and hunt your whale, says this adult who finds your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest.
The idea that grown adults can and often do act like children on any number of issues is rather widespread... seeing as it's a self evident reality.
"Says this adult who finds your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest."
And for those who do not share it, the number who place their disaproval of that idea on equal ground with their disapproval of mass murder as you have stood by doing is vanishingly small and largely limited to those who either are or should be under rigorous psychological counselling.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Nice try. No, strike that. Shitty try. Terrible. Sophomoric and parochial, at best.
Nobody in this thread can be actually verified to be "acting like children", and you are certainly not qualified to make the determination that they are.
(2 of the letter P in disapproval, btw)
Oh, I grant that not everyone finds smug arrogant presumptuousness as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive as I do, but heres the thing my friend:
Everyone finds it vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, outside of people like you that think other rational thinking adults are children because they make decisions which people like you do not agree with.
(one 'L' in counseling, bud)
Again, you are in no position nor are you qualified, to be determining who should or should not should be under rigorous psychological counseling. If anything, your smug arrogant presumptuousness and malignant narcissism could use some 'examination'.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Hardly have to when you discredit your own position so thoroughly with your own words:
"Says this adult who finds your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest."
As for this...
Nobody in this thread can be actually verified to be "acting like children", and you are certainly not qualified to make the determination that they are.
I'm familiar with children and their behavior, as are most people. So... yeah, pretty sure I'm qualified to form a personal judgement on the issue. And a truly large number of Americans act like children with their toys when it comes to guns.
(2 of the letter P in disapproval, btw)
Thanks for the correction, clearly the fact that I spelled it correctly 10 words later means your instruction traveled back in time and educated me on the subject before I finished writing the sentence and is definitely not an indication that that first misspelling was a typo...
beevul
(12,194 posts)Your 'personal judgment' went right out the window when you applied it to someone whom you have never met, with zero tangible evidence any which way of how they behave within their own life:
"Says the kid who doesn't want his toys taken away..."
That proves you are not competent to be judging others.
Or didn't you really mean it eh?
See above.
...me and Unicorn have mixed it up on this subject before. I'll draw any conclusions about his conduct on the subject based on his conduct here on the forums that I feel like.
You on the other hand can just continue stubbornly sticking with your position that you're a morally bankrupt human being:
"Says this adult who finds your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest."
beevul
(12,194 posts)I'll say this, it is entertaining being labeled 'a morally bankrupt human being', by someone who has repeatedly and publicly demonstrated smug arrogant presumptuousness and malignant narcissism.
I was done with this thread, and you, quite a number of replies ago. The only reason I continued bother, was because I was curious. I wanted to know just how deep it went with you. I wanted to see just how badly you need to have the last word.
Turns out, the results of my curiosity have been very enlightening.
Feel free to have the last word. You and I both know you need it. I wont reply, I'll just look at it and know I was proven right yet again.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"Hmmm, how do I get out of this hole I'm digging? I know! I'll mockingly offer to cater to my opponents deep seated insecure need to "have the last word" then run away! That way no matter how they reply it'll at least sorta look like I was the mature one!"
Too bad this is still hanging around your neck no matter what your exit strategy was.
"Says this adult who finds your smug arrogant presumptuousness equally as vulgar, disgusting, and offensive, as the shooting that prompted its manifest."
You're still the guy who thinks an attitude you disapprove of and mass murder are equally offensive and defended that position over and over and over, no gimmick you employ in your retreat is changing that.
beevul
(12,194 posts)What you refer to, was generally about carry, not ownership, so 'gun free' in that sense is an equivocation of sorts.
This is, after all, the same 'old west' that used to give offenders their guns back when they were done serving a jail sentence, a practice which generally continued until 1968.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)That was true back then too.
The notion that EVERYONE or even a majority had a gun at home is wrong.
beevul
(12,194 posts)If I had expressed that notion, I could see why you brought it up.
But since I didn't, one has to ask, why did you bring it up?
I can picture how others don't want them just fine. Don't want one, don't have one.
See, it isn't that hard.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)A question I wake to in the morning and pass out with at night: "what would America be like without guns". 
I'll stick to reality, thanks.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Theres another question I wake to in the morning and pass out with at night: "What's my popularity with my fellow white people?"
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)I just figured since you posted something without much of a point, that I'd respond in kind.
I suppose it could be called a "non-discussion discussion"
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)StrongBad
(2,100 posts)I'd say your right is pretty well protected.
hatrack
(59,584 posts) StrongBad
(2,100 posts)I'm open to alternative studies but you won't post one because of your feels.
hatrack
(59,584 posts)Now, if the odds of dying by firearm are are 1 in 514,147 in the estimation of the esteemed Economist survey you cite from The Blaze, their calculation would seem to . . . uh . . . disagree with the CDC's data.
IOW, 3.5 X 5 = 17.5 homicide deaths by firearms per 500,000 population.
But it's OK - the odds you cite are only off by a factor of about eighteen from actual CDC data. Rock on with your StongBad self!
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)The poster above is correct, but you're not looking at the right part of the graph. Down near the bottom is "Firearms Discharge" which indeed is listed at 514,147/1.
"Assault by Firearm" is listed at 24,974/1, not far off from the CDC data you presented in your own post.
(Just seeking to clarify a bit.)
hatrack
(59,584 posts) Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)StrongBad
(2,100 posts)An individual has a 0.0035 percent chance of dying from a firearm.
That's even before we remove suicides and gang violence.
My point still stands. The odds of dying from a firearm are ridiculously small.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Unless you're living in the boonies and figure, 'fuck everyone else'.
I mean, gang violence kills a lot more people than just gang members. In my personal experience, they seem to hit more innocent bystanders than other gang members. And gun violence wrecks a hell of a lot of bodies without killing them, too.
StrongBad
(2,100 posts)lancer78
(1,495 posts)You are more likely to die in a motor vehicle incident in your lifetime then by firearm.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)Bette not get out of bed in the morning, you might die falling out of bed.
Marr
(20,317 posts)They don't need to fire bullets.
If teddy bears were killing nearly as many people every year as automobiles, I think we'd all agree there's a big fucking teddy bear problem and do something about it.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)to not have to hear Rush Limbauh spewing his BS. This right trumps the 1st amendment.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)It simply requires an understanding of the probabilities. Your overall chances of being shot are very, very low: c. 11k gun-related homicides and about four times that number of non-fatal shootings per year, nationwide, out of a US population of c. 320 million. Location is critical in determining one's individual probability more closely. It's not that relevant to mass shootings, which seem to occur randomly...but those represent a rather small minority of shootings.
One's actions and associations are the other big factor. Don't associate with people with significant records of felony crime? Aren't such a person yourself? Then your chances of being a shooting victim plummet.
Innocent people do indeed fall victim to shootings (and more often than any sane person is happy with), but as reasons to live in fear go, it's a pretty poor one. Barring certain factors, it's seriously unlikely.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)My husband called me cowering in his classroom to ask me to see if I could determine what was happening outside. When the lockdown ended, one teacher found a discarded gun in her wastebasket. You have a rather cavalier attitude about tragedies that have become commonplace in this country.
Odds are you won't get shot, so ho hum? Are you kidding me? Ban the fucking guns now.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Again, the actual probability of getting shot is low. I realize fear isn't something one has perfect control over...but I do try to make my fear proportionate to both the severity and likelihood of the threat. Getting shot's plenty severe...but it's damned unlikely.
For the record, I don't freak out worrying about terrorists, either...
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)so gun fetishists can continue to terrorize their fellow Americans. Enough. They have proven they cannot be trusted to act responsibly. Instead they will hide behind La Pierre and the gun lobby waving their big bad weapons in our faces. Hide behind their own paranoia and fear. Open carry to show what big ass bullies they can be.
Law abiding citizens have every right to fear them and want to see them stopped.
branford
(4,462 posts)Would you care to back that statement up with some actual statistical data.
There are about 80-100+ million lawful gun owners in the USA, and about 1 in 3 American adults own a firearm. As a demographic, their crime rates are well below the national average, and represent a minuscule portion of gun crime. The demographics that have the highest crime rates sadly do not reflect well on some important constituencies within the Democratic Party.
You can fear whomever you want. That does not make the fear reasonable by any standard.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)so self-centered nothing matters more than their guns. Human life means nothing to anyone who defends their guns over finding a solution to gun violence. Is compromise possible? Regulate? License? Restrict? Hell no. Because gun owners right to terrorize the rest of society trumps our lives and safety every time.
branford
(4,462 posts)You may hold any opinions you wish, but at least have the simple courtesy of providing some reliable date before you accuse 80-100 million people, 1 out of every 3 Americans, of being untrustworthy, dangerous, bullies and even terrorists. Crime and accident rates, demographics, etc., it's all easily available and mostly online, although it will not remotely support your accusations.
You complain about a reluctance to compromise. Maybe you should reflect on how your own attitudes and prejudices might render compromise impossible before casting aspersions on others.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)All the while 71 public mass shootings in 30 years, 34 since 2006. 7 in 2012, including Sandy Hook. And millions of enablers crying that it's not about too many guns.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
I don't have a shred of respect for the "good" gun owners who insist on defending, denying and further enabling this kind of carnage because they refuse to compromise on gun safety. The same people who claim they love theior country and would sacrifice their lives but not their damn weapons. Enablers. Accomplices.
Let families be torn apart to protect your guns, let children die to protect your guns, let everyone else suffer for your unwillingness to make a personal sacrifice for the good of society. Selfish. Enablers. Stand behind the NRA to fight your battles. Belittle anyone who dares to speak the truth.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
I do not need to spend a single second reflecting on my attitude.
madokie
(51,076 posts)I don't want to hear gun apologist,
No I don't associate with the kinds that would do this and I'd bet most if not all of those who were killed or wounded and scarred for life didn't either. Gun apologist all miss the point. The point is I don't want to have to live my life in fear of some nut getting a gun and opening fire for whatever reason this nut feels makes it ok to do that. Cant' you see that?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I simply don't agree that it's a fear backed up by a significant probability of it occurring.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)reasonable fear. If it isn't, drive the smallest, cheapest rust bucket you can find with no seat belts. Also doesn't count all the people who become paralyzed, amputees, or TBI victims because of cars and guns.
MasonDreams
(756 posts)Regulated by who? Feds, states, counties, cities, neighborhood watch? Frankly, I don't give a damn. Just regulate effectively. Certain criteria are needed. Do you openly advocate the violent overthrow of the US gov? I had to have 3 references to get my job. What do you know about government and the law? Car Ins. is the law, lock up your guns and have Ins. Talk to people & try to help those in need. Only the very very isolated people lose their minds. Doctors should do no harm, perhaps, with today's complex mental health chemistry, we can enlist science to help. What IS being done? NOT ENOUGH... NOT EVEN CLOSE TO ENOUGH
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)able-bodied males 18 to 45 maintain a modern military-grade rifle in operating condition satisfy your demand? Because that would qualify as a regulation of the sort intended by the founders.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)some type of military vehicle and pass a psych eval before they get their gun. 
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)ability to ride a horse or at least guide one carrying a cart of supplies to the battlefield?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)It doesn't have to be Marines fitness level, but able to run 100 yards in less than 30 seconds would be fine. lawl. Also give them a psych eval.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)that those who would be exempt are a miniscule percentage for a law intended to cast as broad a net as possible. Moreover, you seem to be operating under the assumption your disingenuous effort to exclude would have interdicted the killers about whom this debate centers.
Even if your effort to exclude were in effect would any of the killers A) be unfit for military service or B) not already detected by other healthcare professionals? Killers like Loughner, Cho, Holmes, Rogers, Alexis, Lanza, etc. already had histories of mental illness and were believed to be dangerous and yet authorities (those charged with enforcing gun control) failed to act.
Your dishonest effort to harass good people would have brought nothing of value to the effort to stopping rampage killers.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)actually made guns outright illegal would there still be shootings? Yes, but they'd be a tiny amount compared to what we have now.
It's the same reason why there are relatively few bombings. Can you build your own bombs? Sure but it's a pain in the ass. I have no doubt that if you could buy grenades or dynamite at a hunting store there would be a lot more bomb killers.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)So if a soldier lost a leg fighting for our freedom, we should tell them tough luck. Hand over your rifle until you can run 100 yards.
Keefer
(713 posts)look up the meaning of the phrase well regulated and see what it meant when the second amendment was witten.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Amendment 2 restricts only government, and calls for or authorizes nothing.
beevul
(12,194 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)
madokie
(51,076 posts)15 month war veteran and this shit Hurts, mybad I guess. From reading some of the replies I guess I should maybe arm myself and act with a swagger that no one would want to fuck with me but you know what I don't want to live my life like that. I simply want to go on about my day doing as best as an old 67 year old man can do without the thought crossing my mind that that nut over there looks like he has a gun and looks crazy as a loon so I'd best get the hell out of here before he flies off the handle. Jeeze
The second amendment needs revisited by the court is all I know for sure.
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)and found myself looking around wondering...
Something has got to change soon.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)because that's the greatest threat in my community.
madokie
(51,076 posts)get the fucking guns off our streets.
I own no guns and don't plan to ever own one and I'm not a threat to anyone
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)How does that work, exactly?
I do and I'm not a threat to anyone.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)a range and always leave them unloaded at home or in a safe at all times. Because if you leave them loaded or plink in the backyard or whatever
Accidents happen
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)their numbers dramatically though? Yes.
But could you ban screwdrivers, knives, hammers, and scissors or even significantly reduce their numbers? No.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Are you suggesting that there is no difference between the Oregon criminal murderer and responsible gun owners..... LOL at the sheer ignorance of that assessment. Next up a call to banning knives and forks.... SPORKS FOR ALL...
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)while plinking in their backyard.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)accidental gun incidents, known as accidents not necessarily criminal gun acts.... Do I have that right?
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Because the first thought I had when reading this was 'Isn't this the same thing Black Lives Matter wants, too?' It's not exactly, but it's damn similar. At least when we white folks get shot, we've got a reasonable expectation that our killer will be killed in turn or caught and put in jail.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)the gun nuts right to have military grade weapons of mass destruction is greater than our right to live a terror free life because....big money in gun selling and...tree of liberty needs watering with school kids blood?!
Welcome to Amerika, be sure and wear your body armor and pack heat everyday of your wonderful life here in the land of freedumb!
Vinca
(50,269 posts)When will it occur to all Americans that the 300 million guns in this country make us less safe and not more safe? When will they realize they could be the victim? One moment you feel safe pushing your shopping cart down the produce aisle and the next second you could be laying dead under the melons. No one is safe. Imagine Wayne LaPierre walking out of a building and being killed by a sniper. Would that change anything? He's the premier "good guy with a gun" and he's a sitting duck like the rest of us. I don't think anything will ever change. If I was a young person I'd probably move to a country that doesn't worship firearms. It's insane.
Punx
(446 posts)Here in Portland is reporting that Nazi paraphernalia was found at the shooters home as well as pics of him posing with weapons, perhaps on Face Book. I won't use his name as I think that's a reward for what he's done.
LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)like the Rude Pundit said. Georgia executed someone this week who planned a murder, but didn't actually pull the trigger.
If that is capital murder, then gun nuts are all murderers.
Seriously, is their point that everyone in the US should walk around armed all the time? Is that honestly the world they want, and they think we would be better off?
I wonder why the US has more of these events than any other country by far, and we have the highest per capita gun ownership in the world (hey, Yemen is close to us! Yemen!), and folks see no correlation.
So yeah, they are murderers.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Trump is calling for a national right to carry.....
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Then I suggest you seek some form of professional help or counseling instead of seeking new laws.
If you remove suicide from the numbers of firearm deaths your odds of ever being killed by a gun are very low.
If you are in fact not involved in some sort of criminal activity and lifestyle those odds drop even farther- a very high percentage of murders by firearms are related to gang and criminal activity.
Quit letting the media sensationalism scare you into living your life in an irrational fear of an event that is probably highly, highly, highly unlikely.
Based on the numbers you should be way more frightened of driving and getting medical care, among many other things, than a random shooting.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)so maybe they should turn in their guns and get mental counseling.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)A criminally insane person is going to get a gun and use it to kill people. Logically the only way to stop that from happening is to destroy every gun in America.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)probability of you shooting an assailant is almost 0.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)So in the very low statistical probability that I have an assailant and of course that criminal having no respect for the law to begin with will have a gun, what options do you leave me?
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)mill mugger or burglar (not worth getting caught with something illegal). So it will make it safer for you.
Big time drug dealers and mobsters would likely still have guns, but are you associating with them?
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)law don't you understand? You cannot seriously think you will be able to remove guns from society completely so those who wish to commit violent acts with guns will most certainly do it whether or not the act of having a gun is legal or illegal.....
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)far more Johns and prostitutes if it was a legal activity? What about hard drugs? Guarantee there would be more people using hard drugs if they were legal too. Shit I have no interest in abusing drugs (have family members that are addicts) but I'd have a stockpile of oxys I bought over the counter in case I got a bad toothache or smashed my thumb with a hammer.
What part of "yes there will be guns, but they will be a lot more rare and expensive (and asking for a ticket straight to jail if caught with one)" do you not understand?
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)but I digress, so your position is to make guns more expensive and illegal for the law abiding citizens and somehow that is going to curtail the murderous psycho's from killing people... Your argument makes no logical sense.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Used if they were legal. In fact I said I wished even hard drugs were legal so at this point I can't even tell if you're being serious or trolling.
I'm a mathematician, I know quite a bit how to construct logical arguments and mine is sound. Just because you are not very logically trainedoesn't mean poo.
jen63
(813 posts)They keep giving you statistics about how rare it is to be shot and THEY are they ones running around scared and carrying. It makes absolutely NO sense! Up is down. Hideous.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)Hepburn
(21,054 posts)
Rafale
(291 posts)Aunt Lydia explaining that more than one kind of freedom exists, and that “in the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from.”
Someone else read that book and got the point!
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)so what is the solution? Doesn't matter how you read the second amendment banning guns is never going to happen. How would your solution stop the atrocity that just happened in Oregon?
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Your choice to live in fear is not based on either the constitution or a coherent understanding of the minuscule probability that you'll be shot.
southmost
(759 posts)my inalienable right to life!
dpatbrown
(368 posts)As long as the GOP is in control, nothing will change until you have some GOP willing to step forward. But that takes courage to take on the NRA and lose money, and courage is in short supply. At the very least call for committee hearings. But no, NRA is against that too, so their puppets vote it down every time.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)What legislation are you proposing? What legislation could ever stop the psycho's from killing the innocent people? You cannot legislate for bad people to do the right thing.... the legislation only harms the law abiding citizens.... Give me specifics of a plan that will actually work.... You and I both know that the only way to stop psycho;s from murdering people with guns is to remove guns from society is that what we are championing now?
dpatbrown
(368 posts)I am not advocating ANY legislation. What I am proposing is for a committee to be assembled in Congress, to begin a discussion with both parties, to see if any legislation could come out of it. A starting point.
Stuart G
(38,420 posts)
Kablooie
(18,628 posts)Everything is about money and bribery in our Congress right now and the only right you have is the right to pay as much as you want to your preferred candidate.
If you don't have the cash you are whistling in the wind.
(Until we elect Bernie, of course.)
MrScorpio
(73,630 posts)I usually hear that right before someone says something that's really fuck up.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)That's firearms fatalaties over normal lifespan divided by current population (which actually understates the probability, making the risk greater than it really is, as the number of people alive during that 70-odd years is greater than the current population, but I doubt additional niceties of math will change the salient point)
Stay away from the drug trade and other street crime activity and your already tiny risk is halved at least (depending on where you live, sometimes much more than that).
Living in fear for such a tiny risk is also a right, but one it is silly to invoke.
