Jump to content

Reporter and Cameraman Killed on Live TV This Morning


Point Break

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 778
  • Created
  • Last Reply

just a small example of responsible storage. 193 more of them, this year.... so far.... want them posted too? You can look them up yourself. Wait a day and there will be another one - another safe tool that bit it's owner. If it was a dog, that breed would have been outlawed by now. http://everytownresearch.org/NotAnAccident/

 

A 13-year-old girl unintentionally shot herself in the leg after finding a handgun belonging to her stepfather, a Gilroy Police officer. She was treated at a local hospital for non-life threatening injuries. Police are investigating the incident, and a preliminary investigation concluded that the gun was the officer's privately owned handgun, and not his service weapon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

AP868769199708.jpg

 

Killed because tools.

 

 

 

 

ps: tools

 

 

Remembering the victims of self murder is

 

 

 

 

So your saying all three would be alive without access to guns?

 

 

Sarcasm seems lost on you. I'm saying that your idea of depriving America of access to guns is a unicorn fart and people like Troll Rosenberg who sometimes like to use self-murders to call for gun control should learn to like it all the time or not at all. Preferably, not at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so - what's the plan then. Can't have them in the house, so keep them in the car?

 

No, the plan is to take an honest look at the costs and benefits of defensive gun use. That means acknowledging that people use guns in self-defense in places other than their homes. The bogus stats you like completely ignore defensive gun uses outside the home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you know, "crazy" is not a unitary concept and there is no reliable test for any of its forms. A clinician knows it when (s)he sees it, but it ends up being a human judgment. The law, however, doesn't deal in diagnoses, but risks and capacities, such as the likelihood of harming or ability to form a concept of right and wrong. There are risky people with obvious psychiatric conditions, such as schizophrenia and psychotic depression or mania that you can see a mile off, but there are also normal-acting people with personality disorders that make them remorselessly malicious or full of uncontrollable rage. There is no good scientific understanding of any of this.

 

The idea that you can keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill in a society saturated with them makes no sense to me. It's a political myth, like deporting millions of illegal immigrants or putting God back in the classroom. The mentally ill live on the fringes of society. They are generally poor or indigent. We don't really want to know what they're up to and we'd much rather leave them alone, as long as they're not creating too great a disturbance. We accept the status quo, by and large, and I don't see it changing just to accommodate weapons.

 

A bit more on why a court should be involved

 

Under New York's SAFE Act, it seems doctor-client privilege and the Second Amendment are null and void. Under that law, guns may be confiscated when a permit holder or someone trying to get a pistol permit is receiving mental health treatment or taking medication and is "likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others."

 

What "likely" means and who gets to make that arbitrary determination is key.

 

Lynette Phillips of Upland, Calif., knows where this slippery slope can lead. She had legally purchased a gun years ago for her husband, David, as a present.

That gun and two others registered to her husband (who does not have a history of felonies or mental illness) were seized by police from the California Department of Justice wearing bulletproof vests and carrying Glocks.

 

Mrs. Phillips, it seems, had once voluntarily checked herself into a local hospital after adjustments to medication she'd been taking resulted in frequent and uncontrollable crying. When she later reviewed the file, she was shocked to find that the nurse had mistakenly recorded that she was involuntarily admitted and indicated she might be a suicide risk.

 

And even though her husband had no mental or criminal history, he lost his guns as well.

 

Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, the son of Vice President "Shotgun" Joe Biden, says one of his gun-control goals "is expanding and broadening the category of folks who have a mental health issue that we believe should prohibit them from possessing a firearm."

 

Expanding how far and on what basis?

...

 

A court could do things like check on whether Mrs. Phillips really was involuntarily committed and at risk of self-murder.
A mistake by a nurse should not be sufficient grounds for depriving her of her rights, let alone her husband.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

AP868769199708.jpg

 

Killed because tools.

 

 

 

 

ps: tools

 

 

Remembering the victims of self murder is

 

 

 

 

So your saying all three would be alive without access to guns?

Sarcasm seems lost on you. I'm saying that your idea of depriving America of access to guns is a unicorn fart and people like Troll Rosenberg who sometimes like to use self-murders to call for gun control should learn to like it all the time or not at all. Preferably, not at all.

Seems your sarcasm meter needs recalibrating.

Thanks for telling me what my idea is. Maybe you could refine it for me. Be sure to include 'empty stable' and 'the price of freedom'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As you know, "crazy" is not a unitary concept and there is no reliable test for any of its forms. A clinician knows it when (s)he sees it, but it ends up being a human judgment. The law, however, doesn't deal in diagnoses, but risks and capacities, such as the likelihood of harming or ability to form a concept of right and wrong. There are risky people with obvious psychiatric conditions, such as schizophrenia and psychotic depression or mania that you can see a mile off, but there are also normal-acting people with personality disorders that make them remorselessly malicious or full of uncontrollable rage. There is no good scientific understanding of any of this.

The idea that you can keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill in a society saturated with them makes no sense to me. It's a political myth, like deporting millions of illegal immigrants or putting God back in the classroom. The mentally ill live on the fringes of society. They are generally poor or indigent. We don't really want to know what they're up to and we'd much rather leave them alone, as long as they're not creating too great a disturbance. We accept the status quo, by and large, and I don't see it changing just to accommodate weapons.

 

 

Thanks, Moe. So the bottom line would be that we can all continue to have access to tools or we can cut off all civilian access and hope like hell that no one with a uniform or badge suffers from a mental condition that would make him violent.

 

That being the case, my bottom line is that we should continue to have access since it is our right to defend ourselves and since rounding up all the guns is a hopeless task.

 

It's really nice to have a discussion about this issue with an intelligent person who will actually answer questions.

I am against the mentally ill, whatever that means, having access to guns. However, the means to implement that end on a population scale seem beyond our capability for pragmatic, political, and legal reasons. The safety measures that make sense to me would reduce access across the board and that is beyond productive discussion at this point.

 

It is really nice to have a discussion with an honest thinker who accepts that his positions, however "correct," have risks and downsides and involve compromises.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sarcasm seems lost on you. I'm saying that your idea of depriving America of access to guns is a unicorn fart and people like Troll Rosenberg who sometimes like to use self-murders to call for gun control

Can you provide a cite to support this accusation, Tom Lie?

 

Reporter-photog-jpg.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

And who the fuck, wants to live in a country where you are so fucking scared that you have to have weapons loaded at the ready?

 

Not me. I don't even lock the doors. I have know idea where the key is for the front one and I don't have a gun. Oh the pleasure of freedom. You should try it sometime.

I think every American reading this will be very pleased that you don't want to live there. At least they haven't lost the key to their house like you you stupid cunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And who the fuck, wants to live in a country where you are so fucking scared that you have to have weapons loaded at the ready?

 

Not me. I don't even lock the doors. I have know idea where the key is for the front one and I don't have a gun. Oh the pleasure of freedom. You should try it sometime.

I think every American reading this will be very pleased that you don't want to live there. At least they haven't lost the key to their house like you you stupid cunt.

 

I'm quite happy living here, and I leave my doors unlocked more often than not. The horses are out of the barn on the gun issue, and nobody is going to round them up.

 

This excited conversation happens whenever a democRAT gets elected to the White House; I recall a similar, albeit less electronic, public fury in the days after Clinton was elected too. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if we searched PA for when the whole fury about guns began in earnest, it would be within a few weeks of Obummer being elected or taking office. It is nothing but a marketing drive to sell more guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

AP868769199708.jpg

 

Killed because tools.

 

 

 

 

ps: tools

 

 

Remembering the victims of self murder is

 

 

 

 

So your saying all three would be alive without access to guns?

Sarcasm seems lost on you. I'm saying that your idea of depriving America of access to guns is a unicorn fart and people like Troll Rosenberg who sometimes like to use self-murders to call for gun control should learn to like it all the time or not at all. Preferably, not at all.

Seems your sarcasm meter needs recalibrating.

Thanks for telling me what my idea is. Maybe you could refine it for me. Be sure to include 'empty stable' and 'the price of freedom'.

 

 

I figured "without access to guns" meant "without access to guns" and that would mean depriving Americans of access to guns. What did you actually mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sarcasm seems lost on you. I'm saying that your idea of depriving America of access to guns is a unicorn fart and people like Troll Rosenberg who sometimes like to use self-murders to call for gun control

Can you provide a cite to support this accusation, Tom Lie?

 

The numbers that were being pinned on politicians in this article are mostly self-murders. You seem to approve.

 

And who the fuck, wants to live in a country where you are so fucking scared that you have to have weapons loaded at the ready?

 

Not me. I don't even lock the doors. I have know idea where the key is for the front one and I don't have a gun. Oh the pleasure of freedom. You should try it sometime.

 

Don't know where it is? Why are you so afraid? I have never had a key to my house and don't keep loaded guns at the ready.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sarcasm seems lost on you. I'm saying that your idea of depriving America of access to guns is a unicorn fart and people like Troll Rosenberg who sometimes like to use self-murders to call for gun control

Can you provide a cite to support this accusation, Tom Lie?

 

The numbers that were being pinned on politicians in this article are mostly self-murders. You seem to approve.

 

And who the fuck, wants to live in a country where you are so fucking scared that you have to have weapons loaded at the ready?

 

Not me. I don't even lock the doors. I have know idea where the key is for the front one and I don't have a gun. Oh the pleasure of freedom. You should try it sometime.

 

Don't know where it is? Why are you so afraid? I have never had a key to my house and don't keep loaded guns at the ready.

 

So you cannot provide a cite to me saying what you accuse me of saying, Tom Lie?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And who the fuck, wants to live in a country where you are so fucking scared that you have to have weapons loaded at the ready?

 

Not me. I don't even lock the doors. I have know idea where the key is for the front one and I don't have a gun. Oh the pleasure of freedom. You should try it sometime.

 

I think every American reading this will be very pleased that you don't want to live there. At least they haven't lost the key to their house like you you stupid cunt.

I'm quite happy living here, and I leave my doors unlocked more often than not. The horses are out of the barn on the gun issue, and nobody is going to round them up.

 

This excited conversation happens whenever a democRAT gets elected to the White House; I recall a similar, albeit less electronic, public fury in the days after Clinton was elected too. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if we searched PA for when the whole fury about guns began in earnest, it would be within a few weeks of Obummer being elected or taking office. It is nothing but a marketing drive to sell more guns.

During clintons reign of terror we had the militia movement, where the same guys that come here to defend their guns would muster around campfires in cammo and drink coffee and rage against the machine.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you cannot provide a cite to me saying what you accuse me of saying, Tom Lie?

Looks to me like you can't face the fact that you approvingly cited self-murder stats used for gun control.

 

But you did. It looked like this:

 

 

 

As you know, "crazy" is not a unitary concept and there is no reliable test for any of its forms. A clinician knows it when (s)he sees it, but it ends up being a human judgment. The law, however, doesn't deal in diagnoses, but risks and capacities, such as the likelihood of harming or ability to form a concept of right and wrong. There are risky people with obvious psychiatric conditions, such as schizophrenia and psychotic depression or mania that you can see a mile off, but there are also normal-acting people with personality disorders that make them remorselessly malicious or full of uncontrollable rage. There is no good scientific understanding of any of this.

The idea that you can keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill in a society saturated with them makes no sense to me. It's a political myth, like deporting millions of illegal immigrants or putting God back in the classroom. The mentally ill live on the fringes of society. They are generally poor or indigent. We don't really want to know what they're up to and we'd much rather leave them alone, as long as they're not creating too great a disturbance. We accept the status quo, by and large, and I don't see it changing just to accommodate weapons.

 

Thanks, Moe. So the bottom line would be that we can all continue to have access to tools or we can cut off all civilian access and hope like hell that no one with a uniform or badge suffers from a mental condition that would make him violent.

 

That being the case, my bottom line is that we should continue to have access since it is our right to defend ourselves and since rounding up all the guns is a hopeless task.

 

It's really nice to have a discussion about this issue with an intelligent person who will actually answer questions.

I am against the mentally ill, whatever that means, having access to guns. However, the means to implement that end on a population scale seem beyond our capability for pragmatic, political, and legal reasons. The safety measures that make sense to me would reduce access across the board and that is beyond productive discussion at this point.

 

It is really nice to have a discussion with an honest thinker who accepts that his positions, however "correct," have risks and downsides and involve compromises.

 

 

 

I think our most dangerous amendment is the fourth. It's not even close. That one prevents arrests, prevents prosecutions, and gets guilty people off through the exclusionary rules.

 

It's basically mostly used by criminals.

 

But when I support it, people don't immediately assume it's because I like to see criminals go free. They are able to see the positive side of protecting our rights in that case, but only see the downsides of second amendment rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you cannot provide a cite to me saying what you accuse me of saying, Tom Lie?

Looks to me like you can't face the fact that you approvingly cited self-murder stats used for gun control.

 

But you did. It looked like this:

 

 

 

 

Thanks, Moe. So the bottom line would be that we can all continue to have access to tools or we can cut off all civilian access and hope like hell that no one with a uniform or badge suffers from a mental condition that would make him violent.

 

That being the case, my bottom line is that we should continue to have access since it is our right to defend ourselves and since rounding up all the guns is a hopeless task.

 

It's really nice to have a discussion about this issue with an intelligent person who will actually answer questions.

I am against the mentally ill, whatever that means, having access to guns. However, the means to implement that end on a population scale seem beyond our capability for pragmatic, political, and legal reasons. The safety measures that make sense to me would reduce access across the board and that is beyond productive discussion at this point.

 

It is really nice to have a discussion with an honest thinker who accepts that his positions, however "correct," have risks and downsides and involve compromises.

 

 

 

I think our most dangerous amendment is the fourth. It's not even close. That one prevents arrests, prevents prosecutions, and gets guilty people off through the exclusionary rules.

 

It's basically mostly used by criminals.

 

But when I support it, people don't immediately assume it's because I like to see criminals go free. They are able to see the positive side of protecting our rights in that case, but only see the downsides of second amendment rights.

 

So you cannot provide a cite showing me saying what you accuse me of saying, Tom Lie? The best you can do is try to distort some comment of mine, in which I was commenting on something associated with commemorating the deaths of 20 school children in their classroom, and try to twist that into a straw man? I'd say someone isn't getting their money's worth out of you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Sarcasm seems lost on you. I'm saying that your idea of depriving America of access to guns is a unicorn fart and people like Troll Rosenberg who sometimes like to use self-murders to call for gun control

Can you provide a cite to support this accusation, Tom Lie?

 

Reporter-photog-jpg.jpg

 

That bolded part is what I am looking for, Tom Lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

AP868769199708.jpg

 

Killed because tools.

 

 

 

 

ps: tools

 

 

Remembering the victims of self murder is

 

 

 

So your saying all three would be alive without access to guns?

Sarcasm seems lost on you. I'm saying that your idea of depriving America of access to guns is a unicorn fart and people like Troll Rosenberg who sometimes like to use self-murders to call for gun control should learn to like it all the time or not at all. Preferably, not at all.

Seems your sarcasm meter needs recalibrating.

Thanks for telling me what my idea is. Maybe you could refine it for me. Be sure to include 'empty stable' and 'the price of freedom'.

 

I figured "without access to guns" meant "without access to guns" and that would mean depriving Americans of access to guns. What did you actually mean?

 

 

 

Tom, if you want to portray some sort of similarity between these 3 gun deaths, answer me this, would these three people, who died from 2 distinctly differently motivations, be still alive if all of them was deprived of access to a gun?

 

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying to figure out how to articulate what I'm thinking, but, I think that a large part of the polarization on both sides of the issue comes from our complete distrust of the body politic. The "decision makers" are not interested in best solutions, they're interested in political "wins", and as such, stake out extreme positions.

 

I fear compromise w/r/t the infringement of any of our rights simply because I don't trust our electorate, nor our enforcement agencies to constrain their application of any proposed infringement to the situations that the infringement was intended to address. There's been a demonstrated propensity for elected officials/enforcement agencies to stretch precedent not for the good of the people, but, for expanding their own sphere of influence.

 

Short of a benevolent dictatorship, I don't know how we get there from here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying to figure out how to articulate what I'm thinking, but, I think that a large part of the polarization on both sides of the issue comes from our complete distrust of the body politic. The "decision makers" are not interested in best solutions, they're interested in political "wins", and as such, stake out extreme positions.

 

I fear compromise w/r/t the infringement of any of our rights simply because I don't trust our electorate, nor our enforcement agencies to constrain their application of any proposed infringement to the situations that the infringement was intended to address. There's been a demonstrated propensity for elected officials/enforcement agencies to stretch precedent not for the good of the people, but, for expanding their own sphere of influence.

 

Short of a benevolent dictatorship, I don't know how we get there from here.

Its called Tombstone Regulation. When enough people have been killed and the survivors have had enough, something will be done. It happened in Australia. It will happen here too, but we haven't even come close to the killing threshold yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've been trying to figure out how to articulate what I'm thinking, but, I think that a large part of the polarization on both sides of the issue comes from our complete distrust of the body politic. The "decision makers" are not interested in best solutions, they're interested in political "wins", and as such, stake out extreme positions.

 

I fear compromise w/r/t the infringement of any of our rights simply because I don't trust our electorate, nor our enforcement agencies to constrain their application of any proposed infringement to the situations that the infringement was intended to address. There's been a demonstrated propensity for elected officials/enforcement agencies to stretch precedent not for the good of the people, but, for expanding their own sphere of influence.

 

Short of a benevolent dictatorship, I don't know how we get there from here.

Its called Tombstone Regulation. When enough people have been killed and the survivors have had enough, something will be done. It happened in Australia. It will happen here too, but we haven't even come close to the killing threshold yet.

 

 

Guess we need more people to pretend that this isn't happening.

 

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak

http://www.pewsocial...public-unaware/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I've been trying to figure out how to articulate what I'm thinking, but, I think that a large part of the polarization on both sides of the issue comes from our complete distrust of the body politic. The "decision makers" are not interested in best solutions, they're interested in political "wins", and as such, stake out extreme positions.

 

I fear compromise w/r/t the infringement of any of our rights simply because I don't trust our electorate, nor our enforcement agencies to constrain their application of any proposed infringement to the situations that the infringement was intended to address. There's been a demonstrated propensity for elected officials/enforcement agencies to stretch precedent not for the good of the people, but, for expanding their own sphere of influence.

 

Short of a benevolent dictatorship, I don't know how we get there from here.

Its called Tombstone Regulation. When enough people have been killed and the survivors have had enough, something will be done. It happened in Australia. It will happen here too, but we haven't even come close to the killing threshold yet.

 

 

Guess we need more people to pretend that this isn't happening.

 

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak

http://www.pewsocial...public-unaware/

 

 

 

 

Oh boy. The partisan dupes will be shitting thier panties.. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I've been trying to figure out how to articulate what I'm thinking, but, I think that a large part of the polarization on both sides of the issue comes from our complete distrust of the body politic. The "decision makers" are not interested in best solutions, they're interested in political "wins", and as such, stake out extreme positions.

 

I fear compromise w/r/t the infringement of any of our rights simply because I don't trust our electorate, nor our enforcement agencies to constrain their application of any proposed infringement to the situations that the infringement was intended to address. There's been a demonstrated propensity for elected officials/enforcement agencies to stretch precedent not for the good of the people, but, for expanding their own sphere of influence.

 

Short of a benevolent dictatorship, I don't know how we get there from here.

Its called Tombstone Regulation. When enough people have been killed and the survivors have had enough, something will be done. It happened in Australia. It will happen here too, but we haven't even come close to the killing threshold yet.

 

 

Guess we need more people to pretend that this isn't happening.

 

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak

http://www.pewsocial...public-unaware/

 

 

 

wait, I was just reading here yesterday about the spike in killings in cities?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moe, thanks for the input. As I sort what you have to say, one over-simplistic conclusion appears: that if our country weren't awash with guns (and Second Amendment rhetoric), we could negotiate a better solution, in time. This crisis, which is snowballing,c seems to be the combination of ready guns and increasingly deteriorated American psyches.

 

There's a fundamental discussion in play here. Mental health experts want the privacy of their clients protected, and the stigma or record of accepting mental health care wcould separate some citizens from their firearms. It would be warranted in some cases, and unfair in others.

 

As I understand it, many doctors are against mandatory reporting of marginally dangerous or threatening individuals.

Please note: their criteria includes damage to oneself (meaning "self-murder".) Uniformly, they do not support the facilitation of suicide.

 

Quite a few articles are available dated the month after Adam Lanza's episode, because New York passed laws then which attracted concerns about privacy from many.

 

This doctor (Jaffe) has written quite a bit about it over the past few years for HuffPo. His group has been defined as an advocacy group, but he has thoughtful input.

 

 

Mental Illness, Patient Confidentiality and Gun Control

DJ Jaffe

Executive Director, Mental Illness Policy Org

Posted: 01/17/2013 3:04 pm EST Updated: 03/19/2013 5:12 am EDT

 

The New York Times and Wall Street Journal reported psychiatrists and psychologists are opposing a requirement inserted in New York State gun control legislation that requires them to tell county mental health directors when a mentally ill patient is likely to become dangerous. They fear this infringes on patient confidentiality and might dissuade someone with mental illness from coming in or telling the truth, for fear it could result in them losing the ability to own a firearm.

 

The reporting requirement is exceedingly important in a way that the mental health industry is avoiding mentioning: By providing directors of county mental services with the names of people with serious mental illness who may become dangerous, it allows the mental health directors to prioritize their resources.

 

The failure to report these individuals is what may have led psychiatrists to identify Jared Loughner, James Holmes, and John Hinckley as mentally ill and potentially dangerous, and then do nothing to prevent them from shooting Gabrielle Giffords, moviegoers in Aurora, Colo., and Ronald Reagan respectively.

 

Even if one believed "stigma" prevents people from seeking services, the main cause of that is violence by the minority, which tars the non-violent majority. The requirement to discretely disclose individuals who are mentally ill and potentially violent could reduce stigma by helping to lower violence rates.

 

We proposed that county mental health directors be required to accept reports of individuals with serious mental illness who are becoming danger to self or others, directly from family members. This would generate higher-quality reports than those that come from psychiatrists, many of whom still argue persons with mental illness are no more violent than others, and are therefore not likely to report many who are. Mental health directors could triage these calls from families and investigate ones that warrant it. But the mental health industry and mental health directors also opposed letting families report their loved ones need help.

 

Legislators were right to give mental health workers the responsibility to inform county mental health directors about the most seriously ill who are likely to become dangerous. They were wrong to allow directors to reject the same reports merely because they come from family members.

Good discussion, so far.

If a patient threatens to kill themselves are mental health providers not required to petition to have them committed already? And if committed I don't see a reason those people should not be allowed to purchase/possess/own a gun.

 

What about those who aren't seeking professional help? Are you suggesting perfectly healthy individuals should be forced to bear the burden of proof they are so?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The morning paper relates that the killer shot video with one hand, and shot humans with the other. Then he slipped it onto Facebook while being pursued by the police. His Twitter had multiple updates after the shooting. His video tape shows that he waited for the TV broadcast to go live before shooting.

 

The social media aspects are stunning. The tweets and tapes were "liked" and "shared" thousands of times; they will be around.

"An act that will live in infamy." Is it a video production that will be copied by others, for more infamy?

 

 

Even if mental imbalances are the crux of this, that gun was an agent in this occurrence. It's availability was an agent as well.

 

 

The shooter's 23 pages of insights point out that the Charleston Church shootings were June 17, that he put a down payment on his Glock June 19.

According to him, his act was partly a reaction to other racial violence. In other words, violence begat violence, once again.

I would submit to the audience that the social media he used was a far bigger "agent" in the event than the gun was. I would say the social media drove him to do the act. The gun was just one of the tools he used to carrying out. The social media actually did whisper to him and call him to violence. The gun did not.

 

If you are interested in curtailing 1st Am rights to stop this, I'll discuss some 2A restrictions. Deal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying to figure out how to articulate what I'm thinking, but, I think that a large part of the polarization on both sides of the issue comes from our complete distrust of the body politic. The "decision makers" are not interested in best solutions, they're interested in political "wins", and as such, stake out extreme positions.

 

I fear compromise w/r/t the infringement of any of our rights simply because I don't trust our electorate, nor our enforcement agencies to constrain their application of any proposed infringement to the situations that the infringement was intended to address. There's been a demonstrated propensity for elected officials/enforcement agencies to stretch precedent not for the good of the people, but, for expanding their own sphere of influence.

 

Short of a benevolent dictatorship, I don't know how we get there from here.

Precisely. Hence the 2nd. Its all about distrust. Now you wanna talk about how rational that distrust is? Or should we put that on the list of things which include reds under the bed and saddams wmds?

Link to post
Share on other sites

another one who thinks the 2nd is about keeping the gov't in check. How's the working for the White Supremacist movement, or the BLM?

 

Hint - we have voting for that.... It's much more effective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The morning paper relates that the killer shot video with one hand, and shot humans with the other. Then he slipped it onto Facebook while being pursued by the police. His Twitter had multiple updates after the shooting. His video tape shows that he waited for the TV broadcast to go live before shooting.

 

The social media aspects are stunning. The tweets and tapes were "liked" and "shared" thousands of times; they will be around.

"An act that will live in infamy." Is it a video production that will be copied by others, for more infamy?

 

 

Even if mental imbalances are the crux of this, that gun was an agent in this occurrence. It's availability was an agent as well.

 

 

The shooter's 23 pages of insights point out that the Charleston Church shootings were June 17, that he put a down payment on his Glock June 19.

According to him, his act was partly a reaction to other racial violence. In other words, violence begat violence, once again.

I would submit to the audience that the social media he used was a far bigger "agent" in the event than the gun was. I would say the social media drove him to do the act. The gun was just one of the tools he used to carrying out. The social media actually did whisper to him and call him to violence. The gun did not.

 

If you are interested in curtailing 1st Am rights to stop this, I'll discuss some 2A restrictions. Deal?

Both need curtailing. And that position is probably so unamerican as to be unprosecutable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

another one who thinks the 2nd is about keeping the gov't in check. How's the working for the White Supremacist movement, or the BLM?

 

Hint - we have voting for that.... It's much more effective.

Wasnt that the original intention of the amendment?

 

In a modern context, I agree, you have voting. And protesting. And petitioning. Etc.

 

The idea that you need protection from the government suggests a broken system. Add that to the list

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

another one who thinks the 2nd is about keeping the gov't in check. How's the working for the White Supremacist movement, or the BLM?

 

Hint - we have voting for that.... It's much more effective.

Wasnt that the original intention of the amendment?

 

In a modern context, I agree, you have voting. And protesting. And petitioning. Etc.

 

The idea that you need protection from the government suggests a broken system. Add that to the list

 

The propose of the 2nd Amendment is to maintain the free state. That means arms must be used to defend against tyranny. Tyranny comes to your door in a uniform.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

another one who thinks the 2nd is about keeping the gov't in check. How's the working for the White Supremacist movement, or the BLM?

 

Hint - we have voting for that.... It's much more effective.

Wasnt that the original intention of the amendment?

 

In a modern context, I agree, you have voting. And protesting. And petitioning. Etc.

 

The idea that you need protection from the government suggests a broken system. Add that to the list

The propose of the 2nd Amendment is to maintain the free state. That means arms must be used to defend against tyranny. Tyranny comes to your door in a uniform.

Tyranny comes to your door via legislation. Blaming the enforcers of that legislation is a distraction from the real tyrants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 





I've been provided with such means pretty much all my life and don't see the problem with it. Possessing a gun isn't a crime and shouldn't be and really shouldn't concern you unless there is a crime. Why does gun possession absent a crime concern you? And how do you think it's different from the guns my parents possessed about 50 years ago when I was born?

You're a good guy, if a little outré, and live at peace in the subtropics. I live in a crowded urban area full of assholes and sometimes I like to tell them what they are. Armed assholes take a lot of the fun out of city life.


Moe, I do honestly understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting a different rule for urban folk and rural folk. IOW you can only own a gun if you live in a town below X population?
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The morning paper relates that the killer shot video with one hand, and shot humans with the other. Then he slipped it onto Facebook while being pursued by the police. His Twitter had multiple updates after the shooting. His video tape shows that he waited for the TV broadcast to go live before shooting.

 

The social media aspects are stunning. The tweets and tapes were "liked" and "shared" thousands of times; they will be around.

"An act that will live in infamy." Is it a video production that will be copied by others, for more infamy?

 

 

Even if mental imbalances are the crux of this, that gun was an agent in this occurrence. It's availability was an agent as well.

 

 

The shooter's 23 pages of insights point out that the Charleston Church shootings were June 17, that he put a down payment on his Glock June 19.

According to him, his act was partly a reaction to other racial violence. In other words, violence begat violence, once again.

I would submit to the audience that the social media he used was a far bigger "agent" in the event than the gun was. I would say the social media drove him to do the act. The gun was just one of the tools he used to carrying out. The social media actually did whisper to him and call him to violence. The gun did not.

 

If you are interested in curtailing 1st Am rights to stop this, I'll discuss some 2A restrictions. Deal?

 

 

Hi Jeff. The social media killed the broadcasters. Not seventeen shots from his two Glocks. Got it.

 

 

No deal, sorry. The public needs to be made aware of these ongoing, heinous occurrences. Guns are gettin' evil.

But we could package it up real pretty and PC, for guns.

You know, like describing a gun suicide as "he died suddenly and unexpectedly."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moe, I do honestly understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting a different rule for urban folk and rural folk. IOW you can only own a gun if you live in a town below X population?

Lord, no! I was just maundering on about my subjective feelings.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I do think it's good to look at local ability to regulate tools, like potato guns, wrist rockets, leaf blowers. U know, tools.

And that begs another question. You can arm yourself with anything. Why are guns special?

 

 

Because they are more effective. hand to hand combat can be hazardous to your health. Guns are more humane than an axe

 

Paul T.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I do think it's good to look at local ability to regulate tools, like potato guns, wrist rockets, leaf blowers. U know, tools.

And that begs another question. You can arm yourself with anything. Why are guns special?

Because they are more effective. hand to hand combat can be hazardous to your health. Guns are more humane than an axe

 

Paul T.

Does the 2nd mention guns? Why are restrictions on other arms/ tools acceptable?
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My point concerned prevalence and cultural importance, not availability.

I may have missed something. Is not prevalence something that was extant to no less the degree to which guns are today, back when the aggrieved or the peaceful alike could walk in and anonymously buy about anything, any time?

 

They (guns of all sorts) were evidently of enough cultural importance that many, seemingly unlikely (by today's expectations) retailers chose to carry them either under the manufacturer's name or under their own badge.

 

The difference, I propose, is the nature of that "cultural importance". The option of extreme violence is seemingly more accepted in growing parts of US society, directly or tacitly. I put it to the membership here, that you/we can change the laws all you like... but DO NOT fail to address the culture of violence at the same time.

 

Should that element be ignored, the glamor of illegally-obtained guns will just rise (as in, NYC et al) while still others will be killed just the same. I believe it's absolutely cultural, first.

 

There's too much money to be made for any changes to happen. Just remember the victims, acknowledge them, and wait for the next one.

 

edit: that sounds crass and callous as all getout, but that's our society right now.

 

 

Sol, I'm curious.... What do you propose we do about this "society right now". I actually don't disagree with you on your observation - but there seems to be an implied tone in there somewhere that you think something should change so that we aren't just waiting for the next one. If so, what do you think that something is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My point concerned prevalence and cultural importance, not availability.

I may have missed something. Is not prevalence something that was extant to no less the degree to which guns are today, back when the aggrieved or the peaceful alike could walk in and anonymously buy about anything, any time?

They (guns of all sorts) were evidently of enough cultural importance that many, seemingly unlikely (by today's expectations) retailers chose to carry them either under the manufacturer's name or under their own badge.

The difference, I propose, is the nature of that "cultural importance". The option of extreme violence is seemingly more accepted in growing parts of US society, directly or tacitly. I put it to the membership here, that you/we can change the laws all you like... but DO NOT fail to address the culture of violence at the same time.

Should that element be ignored, the glamor of illegally-obtained guns will just rise (as in, NYC et al) while still others will be killed just the same. I believe it's absolutely cultural, first.

More people have guns now than 50 years ago, at least it seems that way.

 

 

Actually according to the polls - gun ownership is down in the US. I think Pew did a poll recently that showed that the number of households with guns is at an all-time low. It probably "seems that way" in the same way that most people in the US also think the murder rates have gone up over the years when in fact its done just the opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, "Was found dead in his home today ... there were no suspicious circumstances."

 

Edit: I was on the 13th floor in the city when someone in the building across the street jumped and killed themselves. The body was there to be seen and the services rocked up and cleaned up the mess. There was some disruption to traffic etc. When I saw the news that night there was nothing reported.

 

Same for all those others who quietly blow their brains out in a moment of depression.

Why do you suppose they weren't on the news?

 

Would you expect to hear " earlier today a colt hand gun loaded itself and its entire magazine into an unsuspecting home owner. Police located and apprehended the gun hiding in a nearby woods".

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I do think it's good to look at local ability to regulate tools, like potato guns, wrist rockets, leaf blowers. U know, tools.

And that begs another question. You can arm yourself with anything. Why are guns special?

Because they are more effective. hand to hand combat can be hazardous to your health. Guns are more humane than an axe

 

Paul T.

Does the 2nd mention guns? Why are restrictions on other arms/ tools acceptable?

You mean like explosives?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

My point concerned prevalence and cultural importance, not availability.

I may have missed something. Is not prevalence something that was extant to no less the degree to which guns are today, back when the aggrieved or the peaceful alike could walk in and anonymously buy about anything, any time?

They (guns of all sorts) were evidently of enough cultural importance that many, seemingly unlikely (by today's expectations) retailers chose to carry them either under the manufacturer's name or under their own badge.

The difference, I propose, is the nature of that "cultural importance". The option of extreme violence is seemingly more accepted in growing parts of US society, directly or tacitly. I put it to the membership here, that you/we can change the laws all you like... but DO NOT fail to address the culture of violence at the same time.

Should that element be ignored, the glamor of illegally-obtained guns will just rise (as in, NYC et al) while still others will be killed just the same. I believe it's absolutely cultural, first.

More people have guns now than 50 years ago, at least it seems that way.

Actually according to the polls - gun ownership is down in the US. I think Pew did a poll recently that showed that the number of households with guns is at an all-time low. It probably "seems that way" in the same way that most people in the US also think the murder rates have gone up over the years when in fact its done just the opposite.

I wouldn't tell a poll I owned a fire arm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Or, "Was found dead in his home today ... there were no suspicious circumstances."

 

Edit: I was on the 13th floor in the city when someone in the building across the street jumped and killed themselves. The body was there to be seen and the services rocked up and cleaned up the mess. There was some disruption to traffic etc. When I saw the news that night there was nothing reported.

 

Same for all those others who quietly blow their brains out in a moment of depression.

Why do you suppose they weren't on the news?

Just one example:

 

"The Age's code of conduct stipulates that we shall not publish information about individual cases of suicide unless it is justified by the wider public interest."

 

Generally not reported, supposedly to prevent copy-cat incidents. I did not know that until the guy jumped from the building in front of me.

In the US it isn't published because no one cares very much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I do think it's good to look at local ability to regulate tools, like potato guns, wrist rockets, leaf blowers. U know, tools.

And that begs another question. You can arm yourself with anything. Why are guns special?

Because they are more effective. hand to hand combat can be hazardous to your health. Guns are more humane than an axe

 

Paul T.

Does the 2nd mention guns? Why are restrictions on other arms/ tools acceptable?
You mean like explosives?

You had to go stupid early didn't you. But why are restrictions on some arms/tools acceptable, be they more or less effective than guns?

Why are there groups such as the nra that promote guns yet dont as strongly promote other arms/tools which fall under the same 'right'? Wouldn't supporting other arms/tools actually strengthen their argument and, at the same time, strengthen the 2nd?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

My point concerned prevalence and cultural importance, not availability.

 

I may have missed something. Is not prevalence something that was extant to no less the degree to which guns are today, back when the aggrieved or the peaceful alike could walk in and anonymously buy about anything, any time?

They (guns of all sorts) were evidently of enough cultural importance that many, seemingly unlikely (by today's expectations) retailers chose to carry them either under the manufacturer's name or under their own badge.

The difference, I propose, is the nature of that "cultural importance". The option of extreme violence is seemingly more accepted in growing parts of US society, directly or tacitly. I put it to the membership here, that you/we can change the laws all you like... but DO NOT fail to address the culture of violence at the same time.

Should that element be ignored, the glamor of illegally-obtained guns will just rise (as in, NYC et al) while still others will be killed just the same. I believe it's absolutely cultural, first.

More people have guns now than 50 years ago, at least it seems that way.

Actually according to the polls - gun ownership is down in the US. I think Pew did a poll recently that showed that the number of households with guns is at an all-time low. It probably "seems that way" in the same way that most people in the US also think the murder rates have gone up over the years when in fact its done just the opposite.

Since learning this I have wondered about where that "seems that way" comes from.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Air, You said:

 

"You had to go stupid early didn't you. But why are restrictions on some arms/tools acceptable, be they more or less effective than guns?
Why are there groups such as the nra that promote guns yet dont as strongly promote other arms/tools which fall under the same 'right'? Wouldn't supporting other arms/tools actually strengthen their argument and, at the same time, strengthen the 2nd? "

 

Not quite sure if I am following you correctly. The way I read it I think it basically says the "People" have a right to own a gun"?

 

Actually, I don't like the concept of "restrictions". Too much power to those deciding what is going to be "Restricted". I am concerned

that political agendas leak into the mix. Senator Feinstein used to/ may still? carry, but said if she had the votes, she would "Take them all".

 

I think "Back east" somewhere, machetes are, or are going to be banned? Where does it all stop?

 

Paul T

 

What is next, baseball bats, pitch forks, chain saws, crow bars, & on & on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really one cannot reasonably dispute that the existence of guns and the availability results in people getting killed with them. I think it may be reasonable to suppose that more people overall may be killed than if no one had a gun. Maybe not but its not an insane supposition.....not proven but the arguement is not without some logic. The point is..........do those deaths mean we should try to keep people from owning guns? Some people drive their cars to bars, drink and then get in that car and kill/maim other people, including innocent children and their mommies and daddies. We would like to keep cars out of the hands of people who do that or are prone to doing that but it's not practical to expect that 100% of the time. So we have laws regarding that, we try to enforce and educate and eventually we even punish. But we don't try to take cars or alcohol from everybody as a result of the senseless and preventable deaths visited upon us by those who cannot or will not curb that behavior. The freedom to drive and the freedom to drink (which is argue able far more negatively impactful to society than guns) is judged to be more important than the deaths we endure. So will gun ownership ever be so negatively impactful that we'll seek to eliminate that? From my view, take on alcohol and cigarettes first and when we knock those issues out we can try to eliminate gun ownership.

 

Frankly, I'd rather live in a country where those choices are not taken out of my hands by my government prospectively on the chance I might do something bad with any of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We require folks to register and insure that car.

Drivers need a license to drive that car.

There are rules for how you can use that car.

 

Would that we treated guns anything at all like we treat cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem for me, Point, is that we don't make those choices consciously or think about their consequences as a society. This is especially true and dangerous, now that the policy apparatus is paralyzed and empirical questions, such as whether the sky is blue or the oceans are acidifying have become matters of political identification. Guns aside, we are taking on crazy, unnecessary, risks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem for me, Point, is that we don't make those choices consciously or think about their consequences as a society. This is especially true and dangerous, now that the policy apparatus is paralyzed and empirical questions, such as whether the sky is blue or the oceans are acidifying have become matters of political identification. Guns aside, we are taking on crazy, unnecessary, risks.

Moe, you use the word society. As an outsider i see little evidence of the things that make up a society on these boards. I see lots of calls for personal freedoms and the importance of individualism. I see that sort of behavior becoming more obvious in my own country as well.

 

It seems we are on a road of the cult of the individual. And, barring emergencies when the community comes together and works like a community should, society and the values of society seem to be dissolving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Air, You said:

 

"You had to go stupid early didn't you. But why are restrictions on some arms/tools acceptable, be they more or less effective than guns?

Why are there groups such as the nra that promote guns yet dont as strongly promote other arms/tools which fall under the same 'right'? Wouldn't supporting other arms/tools actually strengthen their argument and, at the same time, strengthen the 2nd? "

 

Not quite sure if I am following you correctly. The way I read it I think it basically says the "People" have a right to own a gun"?

 

Actually, I don't like the concept of "restrictions". Too much power to those deciding what is going to be "Restricted". I am concerned

that political agendas leak into the mix. Senator Feinstein used to/ may still? carry, but said if she had the votes, she would "Take them all".

 

I think "Back east" somewhere, machetes are, or are going to be banned? Where does it all stop?

 

Paul T

 

What is next, baseball bats, pitch forks, chain saws, crow bars, & on & on?

I am not aware of the word 'guns' being mentioned at all in the constitution and amendments

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I do think it's good to look at local ability to regulate tools, like potato guns, wrist rockets, leaf blowers. U know, tools.

And that begs another question. You can arm yourself with anything. Why are guns special?

Because they are more effective. hand to hand combat can be hazardous to your health. Guns are more humane than an axe

 

Paul T.

Does the 2nd mention guns? Why are restrictions on other arms/ tools acceptable?
You mean like explosives?

You had to go stupid early didn't you. But why are restrictions on some arms/tools acceptable, be they more or less effective than guns?

Why are there groups such as the nra that promote guns yet dont as strongly promote other arms/tools which fall under the same 'right'? Wouldn't supporting other arms/tools actually strengthen their argument and, at the same time, strengthen the 2nd?

 

Which tools are you referring to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

My point concerned prevalence and cultural importance, not availability.

I may have missed something. Is not prevalence something that was extant to no less the degree to which guns are today, back when the aggrieved or the peaceful alike could walk in and anonymously buy about anything, any time?

 

They (guns of all sorts) were evidently of enough cultural importance that many, seemingly unlikely (by today's expectations) retailers chose to carry them either under the manufacturer's name or under their own badge.

 

The difference, I propose, is the nature of that "cultural importance". The option of extreme violence is seemingly more accepted in growing parts of US society, directly or tacitly. I put it to the membership here, that you/we can change the laws all you like... but DO NOT fail to address the culture of violence at the same time.

 

Should that element be ignored, the glamor of illegally-obtained guns will just rise (as in, NYC et al) while still others will be killed just the same. I believe it's absolutely cultural, first.

 

There's too much money to be made for any changes to happen. Just remember the victims, acknowledge them, and wait for the next one.

 

edit: that sounds crass and callous as all getout, but that's our society right now.

 

 

Sol, I'm curious.... What do you propose we do about this "society right now". I actually don't disagree with you on your observation - but there seems to be an implied tone in there somewhere that you think something should change so that we aren't just waiting for the next one. If so, what do you think that something is?

 

I wish I knew the answer, but I think that the key to it is to only allow contributions to candidates by voters registered in the district that candidate seeks to represent. We will still get all of the BS and propaganda, but the government will not be bought and paid for by our Best Citizens. That has to happen before any number of our problems can be addressed.

 

As to this problem, I've said before that given our American Exceptionalism ®, we should be able to devise a method for identifying those who think that killing groups of innocent people is acceptable behavior and make it more difficult for them to acquire the tools with which to accomplish their goals. This is a mental health issue, but there's too much money at stake for us to be able to address it. We can't even acknowledge the loss of two young people with bright futures, without taking a bunch of grief from someone dancing on their graves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Looks to me like you can't face the fact that you approvingly cited self-murder stats used for gun control.

 

But you did. It looked like this:

 

 

So you cannot provide a cite showing me saying what you accuse me of saying, Tom Lie? The best you can do is try to distort some comment of mine, in which I was commenting on something associated with commemorating the deaths of 20 school children in their classroom, and try to twist that into a straw man? I'd say someone isn't getting their money's worth out of you.

 

 

I don't think commemorating those deaths by pinning a bunch of self-murders to politicians is classy. I see it as dishonest because I don't think self-murders and mass murders are really all that similar, nor are they susceptible to the same kinds of solutions.

 

You think it is classy to use those self-murders to promote more gun control as a way of commemorating the lives that were taken. But then, you also seem to have some reason to believe I might think a mass murderer did nothing wrong. So you're a troll.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I do think it's good to look at local ability to regulate tools, like potato guns, wrist rockets, leaf blowers. U know, tools.

And that begs another question. You can arm yourself with anything. Why are guns special?

Because they are more effective. hand to hand combat can be hazardous to your health. Guns are more humane than an axe

 

Paul T.

Does the 2nd mention guns? Why are restrictions on other arms/ tools acceptable?
You mean like explosives?

You had to go stupid early didn't you. But why are restrictions on some arms/tools acceptable, be they more or less effective than guns?

Why are there groups such as the nra that promote guns yet dont as strongly promote other arms/tools which fall under the same 'right'? Wouldn't supporting other arms/tools actually strengthen their argument and, at the same time, strengthen the 2nd?

 

Which tools are you referring to?

 

Anything used for the purpose of arming oneself. Pretty broad but doesn't that make sense with the words and spirit of the 2nd?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We require folks to register and insure that car.

Drivers need a license to drive that car.

There are rules for how you can use that car.

 

Would that we treated guns anything at all like we treat cars.

 

 

And everything else that can be arguably used to kill another human bean?....

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We require folks to register and insure that car.

Drivers need a license to drive that car.

There are rules for how you can use that car.

 

Would that we treated guns anything at all like we treat cars.

 

 

 

And everything else that can be arguably used to kill another human bean?....

Sometimes I just want to strangle you with my mouse cord!

Or at least hit you with my keyboard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Looks to me like you can't face the fact that you approvingly cited self-murder stats used for gun control.

 

But you did. It looked like this:

 

 

So you cannot provide a cite showing me saying what you accuse me of saying, Tom Lie? The best you can do is try to distort some comment of mine, in which I was commenting on something associated with commemorating the deaths of 20 school children in their classroom, and try to twist that into a straw man? I'd say someone isn't getting their money's worth out of you.

 

 

I don't think commemorating those deaths by pinning a bunch of self-murders to politicians is classy. I see it as dishonest because I don't think self-murders and mass murders are really all that similar, nor are they susceptible to the same kinds of solutions.

 

You think it is classy to use those self-murders to promote more gun control as a way of commemorating the lives that were taken. But then, you also seem to have some reason to believe I might think a mass murderer did nothing wrong. So you're a troll.

 

Yet you cannot provide the cite showing me saying any such thing, let alone using self murders to call for gun control.

 

I call you out on your non stop bullshit because you are a liar who is incapable of making an argument without some kind of distortion or bogus assumption, not because I am a troll. You have no idea what I think, but that won't stop you from making it up and arguing against it. I am content to leave you alone and let you spew your lies to anyone who wants to listen to them, but if you spew shit about me, I will confront you about it, and I will confront you about this until you retract your statement and apologize for lying about me.

 

 

I asked about what you thought of Dylan Roof's actions because I really can't tell whether or not you think he did anything wrong. Even in this thread, you seem more sympathetic to the guy who shot the two journalists than to the people he killed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The main problem for me, Point, is that we don't make those choices consciously or think about their consequences as a society. This is especially true and dangerous, now that the policy apparatus is paralyzed and empirical questions, such as whether the sky is blue or the oceans are acidifying have become matters of political identification. Guns aside, we are taking on crazy, unnecessary, risks.

Moe, you use the word society. As an outsider i see little evidence of the things that make up a society on these boards. I see lots of calls for personal freedoms and the importance of individualism. I see that sort of behavior becoming more obvious in my own country as well.

It seems we are on a road of the cult of the individual. And, barring emergencies when the community comes together and works like a community should, society and the values of society seem to be dissolving.

There is a lot of that here and it's what to expect from a bunch of middle aged and older white guys, many of whom are entrepreneurs, and some of whom sail. Most of them would give you the shirt off their back and they have other sterling qualities, but they aren't much on communitarian values. However, if you talk to my daughter (also a sailor) and her friends, you will hear something very different and sometimes a little too far in the other direction even for me. They will inherit this particular piece of the Earth so no worries.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We require folks to register and insure that car.

Drivers need a license to drive that car.

There are rules for how you can use that car.

 

Would that we treated guns anything at all like we treat cars.

 

 

 

And everything else that can be arguably used to kill another human bean?....

Sometimes I just want to strangle you with my mouse cord!

Or at least hit you with my keyboard.

 

 

 

I get that a lot.....:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I do think it's good to look at local ability to regulate tools, like potato guns, wrist rockets, leaf blowers. U know, tools.

And that begs another question. You can arm yourself with anything. Why are guns special?

Because they are more effective. hand to hand combat can be hazardous to your health. Guns are more humane than an axe

 

Paul T.

Does the 2nd mention guns? Why are restrictions on other arms/ tools acceptable?
You mean like explosives?

You had to go stupid early didn't you. But why are restrictions on some arms/tools acceptable, be they more or less effective than guns?

Why are there groups such as the nra that promote guns yet dont as strongly promote other arms/tools which fall under the same 'right'? Wouldn't supporting other arms/tools actually strengthen their argument and, at the same time, strengthen the 2nd?

 

Which tools are you referring to?

 

Anything used for the purpose of arming oneself. Pretty broad but doesn't that make sense with the words and spirit of the 2nd?

 

Well which tools are limited/ restricted? You asked more than once and I like to answer but you need to at least name the ones you referred to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The main problem for me, Point, is that we don't make those choices consciously or think about their consequences as a society. This is especially true and dangerous, now that the policy apparatus is paralyzed and empirical questions, such as whether the sky is blue or the oceans are acidifying have become matters of political identification. Guns aside, we are taking on crazy, unnecessary, risks.

Moe, you use the word society. As an outsider i see little evidence of the things that make up a society on these boards. I see lots of calls for personal freedoms and the importance of individualism. I see that sort of behavior becoming more obvious in my own country as well.

It seems we are on a road of the cult of the individual. And, barring emergencies when the community comes together and works like a community should, society and the values of society seem to be dissolving.

There is a lot of that here and it's what to expect from a bunch of middle aged and older white guys, many of whom are entrepreneurs, and some of whom sail. Most of them would give you the shirt off their back and they have other sterling qualities, but they aren't much on communitarian values. However, if you talk to my daughter (also a sailor) and her friends, you will hear something very different and sometimes a little too far in the other direction even for me. They will inherit this particular piece of the Earth so no worries.

I disagree Moe. My wife and I donate a lot of free time to our community. We give financial assistance at times towards specific kids/families.

 

Forcedly take from me and its a big fucking no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I do think it's good to look at local ability to regulate tools, like potato guns, wrist rockets, leaf blowers. U know, tools.

And that begs another question. You can arm yourself with anything. Why are guns special?

Because they are more effective. hand to hand combat can be hazardous to your health. Guns are more humane than an axe

 

Paul T.

Does the 2nd mention guns? Why are restrictions on other arms/ tools acceptable?
You mean like explosives?

You had to go stupid early didn't you. But why are restrictions on some arms/tools acceptable, be they more or less effective than guns?

Why are there groups such as the nra that promote guns yet dont as strongly promote other arms/tools which fall under the same 'right'? Wouldn't supporting other arms/tools actually strengthen their argument and, at the same time, strengthen the 2nd?

 

Which tools are you referring to?

 

Anything used for the purpose of arming oneself. Pretty broad but doesn't that make sense with the words and spirit of the 2nd?

 

Well which tools are limited/ restricted? You asked more than once and I like to answer but you need to at least name the ones you referred to.

 

 

 

Switchblade knives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The main problem for me, Point, is that we don't make those choices consciously or think about their consequences as a society. This is especially true and dangerous, now that the policy apparatus is paralyzed and empirical questions, such as whether the sky is blue or the oceans are acidifying have become matters of political identification. Guns aside, we are taking on crazy, unnecessary, risks.

Moe, you use the word society. As an outsider i see little evidence of the things that make up a society on these boards. I see lots of calls for personal freedoms and the importance of individualism. I see that sort of behavior becoming more obvious in my own country as well.

It seems we are on a road of the cult of the individual. And, barring emergencies when the community comes together and works like a community should, society and the values of society seem to be dissolving.

There is a lot of that here and it's what to expect from a bunch of middle aged and older white guys, many of whom are entrepreneurs, and some of whom sail. Most of them would give you the shirt off their back and they have other sterling qualities, but they aren't much on communitarian values. However, if you talk to my daughter (also a sailor) and her friends, you will hear something very different and sometimes a little too far in the other direction even for me. They will inherit this particular piece of the Earth so no worries.
I disagree Moe. My wife and I donate a lot of free time to our community. We give financial assistance at times towards specific kids/families.

Forcedly take from me and its a big fucking no.

Exactly my point. You may be the nicest, most generous, guy in the world, but your values are entirely individualistic. Nothing wrong with that in your case, as long as you pay your taxes, but, contrary to popular belief, we can't run a country that way. I think even my individualistic friend Tom will agree,
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anything used for the purpose of arming oneself. Pretty broad but doesn't that make sense with the words and spirit of the 2nd?

 

We have had second amendment cases about knives and throwing stars. Maybe you didn't notice? The amendment covers arms, which can mean a lot of different tools, firearms being the most effective but not the only ones covered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't help everyone, Moe. It's called Life....and sometimes it just sucks for certain people....

I dont want to help everyone, Rick, but it's kind of you to think I'm that generous. I want a fucking Metro system that runs. Try funding that in Libertarian Eden.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can't help everyone, Moe. It's called Life....and sometimes it just sucks for certain people....

I dont want to help everyone, Rick, but it's kind of you to think I'm that generous. I want a fucking Metro system that runs. Try funding that in Libertarian Eden.

 

 

Watching how Dade County handled the MetroFail was one of the things that made a libertarian out of me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do think it's good to look at local ability to regulate tools, like potato guns, wrist rockets, leaf blowers. U know, tools.

And that begs another question. You can arm yourself with anything. Why are guns special?

Because they are more effective. hand to hand combat can be hazardous to your health. Guns are more humane than an axe

 

Paul T.

Does the 2nd mention guns? Why are restrictions on other arms/ tools acceptable?
You mean like explosives?

You had to go stupid early didn't you. But why are restrictions on some arms/tools acceptable, be they more or less effective than guns?

Why are there groups such as the nra that promote guns yet dont as strongly promote other arms/tools which fall under the same 'right'? Wouldn't supporting other arms/tools actually strengthen their argument and, at the same time, strengthen the 2nd?

 

Which tools are you referring to?

 

Anything used for the purpose of arming oneself. Pretty broad but doesn't that make sense with the words and spirit of the 2nd?

 

Well which tools are limited/ restricted? You asked more than once and I like to answer but you need to at least name the ones you referred to.

 

 

 

Switchblade knives.

 

The reason no one fights against restriction switch blade knives is there very few people who want switch blade knives.

 

Any more or is that the only one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The main problem for me, Point, is that we don't make those choices consciously or think about their consequences as a society. This is especially true and dangerous, now that the policy apparatus is paralyzed and empirical questions, such as whether the sky is blue or the oceans are acidifying have become matters of political identification. Guns aside, we are taking on crazy, unnecessary, risks.

Moe, you use the word society. As an outsider i see little evidence of the things that make up a society on these boards. I see lots of calls for personal freedoms and the importance of individualism. I see that sort of behavior becoming more obvious in my own country as well.

It seems we are on a road of the cult of the individual. And, barring emergencies when the community comes together and works like a community should, society and the values of society seem to be dissolving.

There is a lot of that here and it's what to expect from a bunch of middle aged and older white guys, many of whom are entrepreneurs, and some of whom sail. Most of them would give you the shirt off their back and they have other sterling qualities, but they aren't much on communitarian values. However, if you talk to my daughter (also a sailor) and her friends, you will hear something very different and sometimes a little too far in the other direction even for me. They will inherit this particular piece of the Earth so no worries.
I disagree Moe. My wife and I donate a lot of free time to our community. We give financial assistance at times towards specific kids/families.

Forcedly take from me and its a big fucking no.

Exactly my point. You may be the nicest, most generous, guy in the world, but your values are entirely individualistic. Nothing wrong with that in your case, as long as you pay your taxes, but, contrary to popular belief, we can't run a country that way. I think even my individualistic friend Tom will agree,

If everyone paid the same tax rate no matter what their income is (low income not getting money funnelled back through tax credits or rebates etc) I would agree with you.

 

We donate a lot of our time to our community. We also give some money to family's we believe need and appreciate it (anonymously). We don't help guys who would rather fuck off and smoke weed than work. You believe doing so is bad for the country? How so?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anything used for the purpose of arming oneself. Pretty broad but doesn't that make sense with the words and spirit of the 2nd?

 

We have had second amendment cases about knives and throwing stars. Maybe you didn't notice? The amendment covers arms, which can mean a lot of different tools, firearms being the most effective but not the only ones covered.

 

Do you have different throwing stars for different occasions as well? Or just 2nd amendment ones to exercise your rights?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You can't help everyone, Moe. It's called Life....and sometimes it just sucks for certain people....

I dont want to help everyone, Rick, but it's kind of you to think I'm that generous. I want a fucking Metro system that runs. Try funding that in Libertarian Eden.

Watching how Dade County handled the MetroFail was one of the things that made a libertarian out of me.

If those who RIDE your metro system would pay more for it maybe it would work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Anything used for the purpose of arming oneself. Pretty broad but doesn't that make sense with the words and spirit of the 2nd?

We have had second amendment cases about knives and throwing stars. Maybe you didn't notice? The amendment covers arms, which can mean a lot of different tools, firearms being the most effective but not the only ones covered.

Seems there is a federal law restricting switchblade knives. I am sure your all over it.

Can you buy explosives at your local shop? Seems there is restrictions on them too.

 

What happened to the national blow shit up association?

 

Seems the angst against gun restrictions is fever pitch. Everything else seems to get a meh. Why?

 

Why are cars so regulated? Wouldn't a car load of explosives by a legitimate weapon in a civil war?

 

The point in the argument when a particular tool is considered an 'arm' but another tool is not seems to have passed me by.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

You can't help everyone, Moe. It's called Life....and sometimes it just sucks for certain people....

I dont want to help everyone, Rick, but it's kind of you to think I'm that generous. I want a fucking Metro system that runs. Try funding that in Libertarian Eden.

Watching how Dade County handled the MetroFail was one of the things that made a libertarian out of me.

If those who RIDE your metro system would pay more for it maybe it would work?

I think you've missed moes point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Knives and batons are arms.

 

 

...

Saving it in case more posts about Aussie slingshot control show up.

 

FWIW, you're not the only country with absolutely ridiculous rules about pocket knives. We have them too. Maybe after my second cup I will return and goof on New Jersey for calling ordinary .22's "assault rifles" or something.

 

 

One difference between a legal pocket knife and an illegal "gravity knife" is technique. If you grab the blade and flick your wrist just right, a knife might open. Illegal.

 

...Gray's initial arrest may not have happened if not for an antiquated provision of Baltimore's municipal code, which prohibits the possession of a "switchblade" knife. Gray had allegedly been running from the police, for reasons that still aren't clear, and after a brief chase, officers found the knife clipped to his pocket in a closed position — he was not alleged to have brandished the knife or threatened anyone with it.

 

The arrest charge recalls an issue we've been covering in New York City for months — the NYPD's enforcement of a half-century old law against so-called "gravity knives." The law was the subject of a lengthy investigation we published last year which found as many as 60,000 questionable arrests in ten years, making the statute one of the top-ten most-prosecuted crimes in New York City.

 

 

Oklahoma is repealing their similarly-silly knife ban.

 

 

 

 

 

...

 

CT Supreme Court rules dirk knives and batons are protected arms.

 

Knives and the Second Amendment

 

Now at the printer is the first detailed scholarly analysis of Knives and the Second Amendment. 47 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, vol. 47, pages 167-215 (Fall 2013). The article is co-authored by Clayton Cramer, Joseph Olson, and me. We argue that:

  • Under the Supreme Court’s standard in District of Columbia v. Heller, knives are Second Amendment “arms” because they are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” including self-defense.
  • There is no knife that is more dangerous than a modern handgun; to the contrary, knives are much less dangerous. Therefore, restrictions on carrying handguns set the upper limit for restrictions on carrying knives.
  • Prohibitions on carrying knives in general, or of particular knives, are unconstitutional. For example, bans of knives that open in a convenient way (e.g., switchblades, gravity knives, and butterfly knives) are unconstitutional. Likewise unconstitutional are bans on folding knives that, after being opened, have a safety lock to prevent inadvertent closure.

 

 

Link to full PDF of Knives and the 2A

 

 

See also this post and the one that follows it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Anything used for the purpose of arming oneself. Pretty broad but doesn't that make sense with the words and spirit of the 2nd?

 

We have had second amendment cases about knives and throwing stars. Maybe you didn't notice? The amendment covers arms, which can mean a lot of different tools, firearms being the most effective but not the only ones covered.

 

Do you have different throwing stars for different occasions as well? Or just 2nd amendment ones to exercise your rights?

 

 

I have none but I support our protected rights whether or not I currently want or need to exercise them.

 

I do have an assault slingshot. I have not shot it in many years. I wonder if I can still hit things with it?

 

assault-slingshot.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Knives and batons are arms.

 

 

...

Saving it in case more posts about Aussie slingshot control show up.

 

FWIW, you're not the only country with absolutely ridiculous rules about pocket knives. We have them too. Maybe after my second cup I will return and goof on New Jersey for calling ordinary .22's "assault rifles" or something.

 

One difference between a legal pocket knife and an illegal "gravity knife" is technique. If you grab the blade and flick your wrist just right, a knife might open. Illegal.

 

...Gray's initial arrest may not have happened if not for an antiquated provision of Baltimore's municipal code, which prohibits the possession of a "switchblade" knife. Gray had allegedly been running from the police, for reasons that still aren't clear, and after a brief chase, officers found the knife clipped to his pocket in a closed position he was not alleged to have brandished the knife or threatened anyone with it.

 

The arrest charge recalls an issue we've been covering in New York City for months the NYPD's enforcement of a half-century old law against so-called "gravity knives." The law was the subject of a lengthy investigation we published last year which found as many as 60,000 questionable arrests in ten years, making the statute one of the top-ten most-prosecuted crimes in New York City.

 

Oklahoma is repealing their similarly-silly knife ban.

 

 

 

 

...

 

CT Supreme Court rules dirk knives and batons are protected arms.

 

Knives and the Second Amendment

 

Now at the printer is the first detailed scholarly analysis of Knives and the Second Amendment. 47 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, vol. 47, pages 167-215 (Fall 2013). The article is co-authored by Clayton Cramer, Joseph Olson, and me. We argue that:
  • Under the Supreme Courts standard in District of Columbia v. Heller, knives are Second Amendment arms because they are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense.
  • There is no knife that is more dangerous than a modern handgun; to the contrary, knives are much less dangerous. Therefore, restrictions on carrying handguns set the upper limit for restrictions on carrying knives.
  • Prohibitions on carrying knives in general, or of particular knives, are unconstitutional. For example, bans of knives that open in a convenient way (e.g., switchblades, gravity knives, and butterfly knives) are unconstitutional. Likewise unconstitutional are bans on folding knives that, after being opened, have a safety lock to prevent inadvertent closure.

 

Link to full PDF of Knives and the 2A

 

See also this post and the one that follows it.

 

 

Thanks tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You can't help everyone, Moe. It's called Life....and sometimes it just sucks for certain people....

I dont want to help everyone, Rick, but it's kind of you to think I'm that generous. I want a fucking Metro system that runs. Try funding that in Libertarian Eden.

Watching how Dade County handled the MetroFail was one of the things that made a libertarian out of me.

If those who RIDE your metro system would pay more for it maybe it would work?
Well, fares have gone up steadily, but there comes a point when you price enough to people out that too many resort to privately owned vehicles and choke the roads (we already have the worst traffic in the U.S.), making freedom-loving drivers even angrier about their taxes, some no longer find that it pays to travel to their marginal jobs and go back on public assistance, students drop out, local jurisdictions cut back further on public support for transit, and service declines further, but I'm not here to give basic lessons in the Real World. The point is that nations and municipalities needs to take on big projects that cost money, take political will, and don't benefit everyone in ways they understand. Remember my Metro when you come to me to fund your mass deportations, walls, and wars.
Link to post
Share on other sites

We require folks to register and insure that car.

Drivers need a license to drive that car.

There are rules for how you can use that car.

 

Would that we treated guns anything at all like we treat cars.

 

Aside from your need to know who around you has them, the use of firearms is already heavily governed by existing statute. What is your desired end state, and what other rules would you employ to achieve it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We require folks to register and insure that car.

Drivers need a license to drive that car.

There are rules for how you can use that car.

 

Would that we treated guns anything at all like we treat cars.

 

Aside from your need to know who around you has them, the use of firearms is already heavily governed by existing statute. What is your desired end state, and what other rules would you employ to achieve it?

 

 

Hello, Guy. Congrats on your new NRA membership. Go for it. I call bullshit on the bolded.

 

Inherent, designed weaknesses DOMINATE "existing statute."

This condition was intentional. A conspiracy to attack the GCA '68 was declared in 1974, by Larry Fucking Pratt.

 

The Zealot: Larry Pratt Is the Gun Lobby's Secret Weapon

How the fear-mongering, paranoia-stoking executive director of the Gun Owners of America remade the modern gun movement

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-zealot-larry-pratt-is-the-gun-lobbys-secret-weapon-20140714#ixzz37Sycopcr

Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

 

"Existing statute" is decomposed metal, attacked and ruined by exploding battery acid.

The acid was spewed onto "existing statute" by the SAF and NRA mentality, then ignored by "responsible" gunowners.

If ignored, "existing statute" will become useless metal.

"Existing statute" will become a rotted shadow of what it could have been, a ghost of what it was meant to be.

Even now, grafting metal in the right places could give integrity to "existing statute."

Again, welcome to the body politic of the NRA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Anything used for the purpose of arming oneself. Pretty broad but doesn't that make sense with the words and spirit of the 2nd?

We have had second amendment cases about knives and throwing stars. Maybe you didn't notice? The amendment covers arms, which can mean a lot of different tools, firearms being the most effective but not the only ones covered.

Seems there is a federal law restricting switchblade knives. I am sure your all over it.

Can you buy explosives at your local shop? Seems there is restrictions on them too.

 

What happened to the national blow shit up association?

 

Seems the angst against gun restrictions is fever pitch. Everything else seems to get a meh. Why?

 

Why are cars so regulated? Wouldn't a car load of explosives by a legitimate weapon in a civil war?

 

The point in the argument when a particular tool is considered an 'arm' but another tool is not seems to have passed me by.

Well as in most everything in life it has to with numbers of people. Not enough people care to own explosives to fight regulations. Of course you can create your own anyway. Same goes for anything else on your list.

 

Baseball aren't regulated. Anyone can make one in there garage in about an hour. In all honesty the same is true of any of the tools you listed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We require folks to register and insure that car.

Drivers need a license to drive that car.

There are rules for how you can use that car.

 

Would that we treated guns anything at all like we treat cars.

 

Aside from your need to know who around you has them, the use of firearms is already heavily governed by existing statute. What is your desired end state, and what other rules would you employ to achieve it?

 

End state would be something along the lines of what one victim's father in this case said:

 

 

 

"To suggest that we shouldn't be emotional is insulting and disingenuous… I want the nation to know I'm not trying to take away anybody's guns. I'm for the Second Amendment, but we have to do something to prevent these shootings from happening by crazy people."

 

 

I shudder to think what this post will look like years from now, once it is edited to say something else....

 

 

 

"To suggest that we shouldn't be emotional is insulting and disingenuous… I want the nation to know I'm not trying to take away anybody's guns. I'm for the Second Amendment, but we have to do something to prevent these shootings from happening by crazy people."

Prolly something like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites