Jump to content

Just Another High School Shooting


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I've never been a big fan of T&P's.  That is a purely leftist PA dogwhistle concoction.  So discuss away.  In fact I think we should be discussing within the first 30 sec why the schools are so vulnerable to bad people with weapons being able to get inside the building and causing harm.  If enough civil and criminal lawsuits were filed against the school boards for doing nothing to protect the students - schools will start making the necessary changes.  If it saves just one child, then it will be deemed to have been worth the effort, right?  Unless you all are going to claim that not having metal detectors and guards at schools is just the price of freedom.

Now if all ya'llz want to turn the topic to toolz rather than actually protecting children, then please do so.  At your own risk.  When one of you proffers an actual new tool law that would have a real effect on this problem, as opposed to just some pablum to appease the masses and be seen as "doing something", then I am ALL EARS.  

So razy, What you and the NRA suggest WILL actually work and have an almost overnight change in the ability of nutbags like this to harm children in schoolz.  What the rest of your elk suggest will have almost zero effect on the problem.  But in the meantime, you and your elk only have T&P.  Just sayin.

Actually, it was the Presidents thoughts and prayers, plus all the other rightie politicians.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Every gun or ammo purchase should include a mandatory contribution to an enormous compensation fund for the victims of shootings. The contribution level should be set to maintain the fund in the 10's

I want to laugh at your nations idiocracy but then I think of those kids, their families, friends and the impact this will have on their lives. In response I don’t pray to some sky fairy, I just hugge

The people who are causing the problem are called gun owners.

Posted Images

7 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

DOING SOMETHING involves your gun going into government hands with NO compensation to you. 

I like where your head is at.  How do we make that happen?

In California and CT, it has already happened. The confiscation programs in those states offer no compensation to former owners when a gun is handed in to the state. Of course, there's only about a 15% Cooperation rate in CT because gun owners didn't buy their guns to give to the government for the most part. Only about 15% did, it seems. It remains to be seen how Cooperative gun owners in California are. That confiscation program is being held up by an Uncooperative judge.

Florida legislators are trying to make it happen here.

Funny how so many of the people who are wondering if it's too soon to talk about confiscation programs never seem to actually visit the threads about confiscation programs. For example,

30 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The full phrase takes longer to write than the act it describes. The abbreviation is much less of an impingement upon our time, and our rights.

Do you have any thoughts on the proposal by legislators in our state to ban and confiscate my old .22 in response to incidents like this one?

Now wait for the crickets. We have lots of Florida voters here who have not weighed in on the attempt to DO SOMETHING in our state.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, badlatitude said:

You Don't have the capacity to question or judge my actions, I am no longer a gun owner, and that is all that matters in regards to any conversation about firearms.

Your guns are still not safely in government hands.

And you accepted money for them instead of just handing them to the government.

So they're still out there, creating the same danger as mine by being in private hands. The same danger that existed when they were in your hands.

I still think that's very little danger at all, but the fact remains that you unleashed assault weapons on the populace just like any of the gun manufacturers.

If I'm not mistaken, you unleashed assault weapons on the populace of a state where you don't live. Jocal will be along to explain to you how bad it is when one state "exports" deadly assault weapons to another.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Do you have any thoughts on the proposal by legislators in our state to ban and confiscate my old .22 in response to incidents like this one?

Yes.

its a fucking good idea.

Draw a line in the sand, and stick to it even though it is completely arbitrary and stupid.

Id rather that Tom, who I suspect Id get along with just fine, has to buy another rifle with slightly smaller mag capacity, rather than have my kids shot at school.

You fuckers really need to work out why it is that shooting up a school is seen as cool. Then change your culture so it is not cool at all. Then perhaps you can have your guns back.

Australia had a shooting today as well. One bikie fuckwit shot another bikie fuckwit. They take it as a point of pride that no innocents get hurt. Even our lowlife scum don't understand the immorality of your gun bully culture.

Actually, I just had an idea for you. Make it legal to shoot anyone carrying a gun. Go nuts for a few months and I suspect the problem will die out of its own accord.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But its time to Repeal the 1st Amendment!  

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

and that will solve the problem how ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Sorry, I'm beyond sending T&P.

When the USA values all it's children, there might be some point.

hear , hear

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it goes further than the first A.

There's the culture of entitlement to contend with.

Kids in other countries have acess to guns, but they don't go around shooting up their schoolmates because they got expelled or their girlfriend dumped them.

When americans stop raising their kids with a "me first and fuck everyone else" attitude, things may change.

Their parents have to change too.

You could keep your guns if people just stopped being so self absorbed, started taking responsibility for the well being of the whole not the one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

When americans stop raising their kids with a "me first and fuck everyone else" attitude, things may change.

seen the current clown in the big house ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

If so, he broke all kinds of additional laws as automatic rifles are VERY heavily regulated.

17 dead , hardly gives a flying shit about laws .

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

For those of you who are not aware..... THIS is what BL owns and fondles while in the same breath condemning people who own scary guns.

fn_scar17_black_g.jpg

I think his new gig is to condemn people who sell such scary guns. Which is way less hypocritical than before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Thanks Meli - this is about the only real pertinent contribution to this story here, other than my posts of course.  

But seriously, this is exactly what I've been saying here and for years.  Do you fucks think his AR-15 made him feel this way???We have always had gunz in this country, but this increase in extreme narcissism fueled by social media and other stuff is new.  And has interestingly coincided with the increase in mass shootings.  Coincidence??  I think not.

But gunz!

 

so what do you propose to do about it?

From what I've read of your idea's, your form of libertarianism is the epitome of narcissism 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If one accepts the power of life and death as an extreme power, one still has to point to the gun industry. Please point out the innocent bystanders killed directly by video gamers , television users, movie watchers or hip-hop listeners using these entertainment products.

Yes, individuals are responsible but so is society; we restricted class III weapons because of their "excessive" lethality.  We can do the same if we had the political will; AR use increases the number of victims and the number of dead.  Can't we at the very least reduce the body count?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

does anybody hear anything?  kinda like a broken air conditioner making weird sounds??   

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have guns, I like shooting them.  But at what point will the gun guys realize /admit it is going to take a multi pronged approach to slow down things like this school shooting.  Ease of access to these weapons is one of the prongs any way you look at it.....if you are serious about stopping these mass shootings.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You can damn well bet that the moment you guys take my advice and actively start going after 1st Amendment rights to limit violence, the newly formed NAPVC (National Association for the Prevention of Violence Censorship) would fight tooth and nail for your rights just as hard or harder for your 1A rights to be bombarded with violence than the NRA fights for 2A rights.  $peech > gunz

 

 

chirp chirp chirp....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Some of us can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. If you think advocating gun control means giving all of your attention to the task whilst ignoring other issues, you clearly aren't someone of that capability. Your family has my condolences.

Tell me, aside from Milliken's comment - where ANYONE else has acknowledged the need to change how we address people who display indicators that warrant mental health screening?     THAT is where we need to focus - if a person's behavior indicates that they may be a threat - we need to establish a system of positive intervention, to include insuring that the individual is isolated from the means to cause harm.   yes - this is draconian, yes, there will be many false positives (probably more false positives at first than "real" issues), and yes, some people who were just running their mouths will be upset at being held to account for their comments.   

What will happen, though, is that people will stop casually talking about inflicting violence upon others, people will more carefully consider their comments and behavior, and we'll have a means to proactively prevent the "disenfranchised lone wolf" from acting out.   This is one of the fixes I've advocated - in addition to the MADD campaign to socially stigmatize violent reaction.  We do this - and yeah, enforce the firearms confiscation laws that are already on the books in most places for individuals charged w/domestic violence or having been institutionalized, while providing for an objective JUDICIAL review and a mandatory return of one's property upon a positive judicial review and we'll start making progress towards stemming these senseless acts of violence.   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

I think it goes further than the first A.

There's the culture of entitlement to contend with.

Kids in other countries have acess to guns, but they don't go around shooting up their schoolmates because they got expelled or their girlfriend dumped them.

When americans stop raising their kids with a "me first and fuck everyone else" attitude, things may change.

Their parents have to change too.

You could keep your guns if people just stopped being so self absorbed, started taking responsibility for the well being of the whole not the one.

Meli - welcome to the club.  The other part of this is that kids are taught that anything negative that happens to them is someone else's fault, and is cause for retribution.   My wife is a teacher - she caught a kid in her class a couple years ago w/drug paraphernalia in the classroom.  She called the office, who came to the class w/teh school's Resource Officer ( uniformed, armed Sheriff's deputy assigned to the school).  The kid was taken to the office, wasn't criminally charged, and the parents, when they showed up, threatened the principal, the resource officer and my wife because the kid's illegal paraphernalia had been confiscated.   They told the kid, in the office, in front of the principal, my wife, and the resource officer "You don't let these bitches get away with this - you get yours".   At which point, thankfully, the parents WERE charged with the threat, the kid was pulled from the school.    

The point?   You're absolutely right, and the behaviors you described are, IMHO, prime contributors to the attitudes that are responsible for a lot of the violent incidents we suffer today. 

Thanks for your thoughts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Tell me, aside from Milliken's comment - where ANYONE else has acknowledged the need to change how we address people who display indicators that warrant mental health screening?

With all due respect, Chesapeake, how are you going to enforce your mental health screening repercussions without breaching the right to privacy, the right to free speech, the right to due process, the right to freedom of association, etc? Are you going to require mental health checks for every gun purchase? Annual updates at the doctors for those that have bought their AR-15 legally in the past (like this kid) and/or require registration of everyone that has access to such weapons so you can find them for this "screening"? Are all kids expelled from school, like guns, and considered "weird" to be on a national watch list? Who fund that watch list? Whose ass is held responsible if someone on this list shoots up the school? What's to stop that person from simply broad brushing everyone even suggested as a problem as needing their speech, privacy, and due process rights curtailed? Have you even thought of the basic issues with your "plan" before hand-waving it as a solution?

 

9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What will happen, though, is that people will stop casually talking about inflicting violence upon others, people will more carefully consider their comments and behavior, and we'll have a means to proactively prevent the "disenfranchised lone wolf" from acting out.

Right. So instead of restricting the lethal weapons the vast majority of people have no need for, and will never need, you are going to curtail at least three other constitutionally protected rights the rest of the world thinks somewhat more important than access to firearms. Not only that, but the only way you can do that is by some means of registration and licensing (which gun nutters are against) in order to even know that these people need to have their guns taken from them once identified through some hand-waved, unfunded, unproven screening process. 

The reason people don't discuss mental health screenings is that they are too expensive, prone to failure, and require (to be even marginally effective) breaching more universally agreed upon rights than simply those US-exclusive "Second Amendment" rights you're so scared of losing in the first place. We don't talk about it for the same reason we mock those advocating "thoughts and prayers" - because that shit doesn't work.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

With all due respect, Chesapeake, how are you going to enforce your mental health screening repercussions without breaching the right to privacy, the right to free speech, the right to due process, the right to freedom of association, etc? Are you going to require mental health checks for every gun purchase? Annual updates at the doctors for those that have bought their AR-15 legally in the past (like this kid) and/or require registration of everyone that has access to such weapons so you can find them for this "screening"? Are all kids expelled from school, like guns, and considered "weird" to be on a national watch list? Who fund that watch list? Whose ass is held responsible if someone on this list shoots up the school? What's to stop that person from simply broad brushing everyone even suggested as a problem as needing their speech, privacy, and due process rights curtailed? Have you even thought of the basic issues with your "plan" before hand-waving it as a solution?

 

Right. So instead of restricting the lethal weapons the vast majority of people have no need for, and will never need, you are going to curtail at least three other constitutionally protected rights the rest of the world thinks somewhat more important than access to firearms. Not only that, but the only way you can do that is by some means of registration and licensing (which gun nutters are against) in order to even know that these people need to have their guns taken from them once identified through some hand-waved, unfunded, unproven screening process. 
Nope - as is already statute in many places - when an individual is deemed a threat (ala Domestic Violence restraining order/involuntary confinement) the police have the authority to search the individual's residence and remove (to hold safely, not dispose of) firearms.  The other side of this is that there must be protections for individuals who are the targets of spurious vindictive claims.   

The reason people don't discuss mental health screenings is that they are too expensive, prone to failure, and require (to be even marginally effective) breaching more universally agreed upon rights than simply those US-exclusive "Second Amendment" rights you're so scared of losing in the first place. We don't talk about it for the same reason we mock those advocating "thoughts and prayers" - because that shit doesn't work.

To the 1st part?  You have no compunction suggesting widespread infringement of a right that you don't personally value, yet object to individual, behaviorally-induced infringements that are by and large already on the books, but, with no enforcement mechanism or budget?    I'm talking about positive intervention for everyone who exhibits behaviors that indicate that they may be a threat - not just when they want to buy a gun.  It *will* work, and yeah - it will require a correction to what is now an overly liberal (in the classic use of the word) interpretation of statute that permits people who's behaviors have indicated that they are a threat to society.  

So - if we're going to talk about infringement of rights - let's go for a complete solution.  

Do you want to address the problem - or just get rid of guns? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Do you want to address the problem - or just get rid of guns? 

The problem will be found in human nature. It was found there in 1285 in England, as men in armor developed a pattern with public weapons. The dispute began among common enemies. The mistake which put quill to law?  By 1328, the intimidattion had spread to court justices and scholars. The use of weapons was made illegal. Castile doctrine developed later, and came to stay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Nope - as is already statute in many places - when an individual is deemed a threat (ala Domestic Violence restraining order/involuntary confinement) the police have the authority to search the individual's residence and remove (to hold safely, not dispose of) firearms.  The other side of this is that there must be protections for individuals who are the targets of spurious vindictive claims.   

Which would have done nothing whatsoever in this case. The individual did not have a domestic violence restraining order taken against them and was not involuntarily confined. The police did not have the authority to search his residence nor to remove his firearms (to be held safely or otherwise). The same was also not possible for the Las Vegas shooting. Did not apply to the Sandy Hook shooting (where the guns were not the assailant's). And so on.

In order for you to deal with problems like that - you need to enforce some kind of involuntary mental health screening, based on denying a person their freedom of speech, confiscating their property without due process, because some rubber-stamper decides they might break the law. And you are suggesting this as a solution because you consider that the right to firearms is more important than those rights.

 

14 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

To the 1st part?  You have no compunction suggesting widespread infringement of a right that you don't personally value, yet object to individual, behaviorally-induced infringements that are by and large already on the books, but, with no enforcement mechanism or budget?

As pointed out above - no, they are not "by and large already on the books". The necessary measures are certainly not on the books to prevent this particular incident. They can't be without doing away with free speech, privacy, and due process (at the very least) - rights I have always been open about believing magnitudes more important than the odd US-centric legal right to firearms. 

 

14 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - if we're going to talk about infringement of rights - let's go for a complete solution.

Sure thing. You go ahead and see what you can do about doing away with at least three legal rights as required for your solution. As someone advocating a plan that actually has a record of 4x less homicide than your country has at the moment, I'll continue to advocate for the idea that has some proof, rather than dreams and pixie dust, behind it.

 

14 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Do you want to address the problem - or just get rid of guns? 

Address the problem. I know of a solution that has worked in multiple countries across the world. You have an untried, untested, and less free approach you wish to implement for the purposes of keeping your guns. You want to pursue that, go for it - I'm not going to advocate against you. The requirement of restricting freedoms that the majority of the world (and I would suggest, majority of your country) consider more important than your access to one kind of tool will kill that plan without my help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

With all due respect, Chesapeake, how are you going to enforce your mental health screening repercussions without breaching the right to privacy, the right to free speech, the right to due process, the right to freedom of association, etc? Are you going to require mental health checks for every gun purchase? Annual updates at the doctors for those that have bought their AR-15 legally in the past (like this kid) and/or require registration of everyone that has access to such weapons so you can find them for this "screening"? Are all kids expelled from school, like guns, and considered "weird" to be on a national watch list? Who fund that watch list? Whose ass is held responsible if someone on this list shoots up the school? What's to stop that person from simply broad brushing everyone even suggested as a problem as needing their speech, privacy, and due process rights curtailed? Have you even thought of the basic issues with your "plan" before hand-waving it as a solution?

 

Right. So instead of restricting the lethal weapons the vast majority of people have no need for, and will never need, you are going to curtail at least three other constitutionally protected rights the rest of the world thinks somewhat more important than access to firearms. Not only that, but the only way you can do that is by some means of registration and licensing (which gun nutters are against) in order to even know that these people need to have their guns taken from them once identified through some hand-waved, unfunded, unproven screening process. 

The reason people don't discuss mental health screenings is that they are too expensive, prone to failure, and require (to be even marginally effective) breaching more universally agreed upon rights than simply those US-exclusive "Second Amendment" rights you're so scared of losing in the first place. We don't talk about it for the same reason we mock those advocating "thoughts and prayers" - because that shit doesn't work.

This presentation is as solid as a rock, imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Hillary said:

Legal Guns are not an issue because they kill so many innocents they are an issue because the are the low hanging fruit of visual visceral images that can be used to incite (there's that downside again) political divisiveness and gin up votes. 

 

sez the guy who bragged about snagging such a great deal on 4 Bushmasters......    and if anyone is good at political divisiveness it's you Comrade. 

It is time to restrict the sale and ownership of weapons like this.  They aren't the same as those from WWI and II, and fuck you and the bullshit about 2nd amendment rights - you can own all the muskets you want.  And fuck Unca Tom as am not advocating anything about .22lr.

There is no way to predict and restrict who should or should not be purchasing these weapons - civilian versions of "tools" designed for one thing - kill people in mass quantities, so if you own one or want to purchase one it has to be registered and licensed and carry insurance including the safe storage of.  It just isn't the same as whipping out that bolt action 30.06 with 4 rounds or even that 1911 with 7.   As a country we are way behind the 8 ball and my little rant will do no good as so many will protest to the very end.  Either of which is more than enough for home defense. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Hillary said:

Legal Guns are not an issue because they kill so many innocents they are an issue because the are the low hanging fruit of visual visceral images that can be used to incite (there's that downside again) political divisiveness and gin up votes

Quote

the are the low hanging fruit of visual visceral images

Translation: gun mayhem always looks stupider than shit, that's why you pick on us.

Quote

used to incite (there's that downside again) political divisiveness and gin up votes

Progressives tend to be inclusive, and they seldom go rabid or single-issue, Jack.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, cmilliken said:

 The young man was a known threat.  There has to be something between 'aw shucks, he hasn't killed anyone, guess we have to leave him alone' and 'oh crap, 15 dead kids'.  It can't be that bimodal.  We have to come up with some sort of process where threats create a proportional loss of liberty but it can't be the 'oh crap, you're on the list, too bad for you, forever, there is no appeal' kinda nonsense.  It's going to cost money, take time, require leadership, and involve compromise... sooner we get started, sooner we get to the end.  That's it.

What loss of liberty pray tell.  The loss of liberty that comes with being gun downed in your youth?  I believe that the right to life, liberty (guns are not equal to liberty, quite the opposite apparently), and the pursuit happiness is the most important liberty of all.  How many more people have to needlessly die before Americans realize that a.) Guns are not an essential part of living in the 21st century, and b.) That obviously allowing almost anybody in the country to have easy access to highly lethal weapons capable of mass killing is obviously not a good idea.  Repeating the same bull shit that it's going to take time is just that, bull shit.  We have run out of time.  

The only answer is to get rid of the guns.  Now.  If people want to die as imagined martyrs for a lost cause, bring it on.  I will happily join the squads of gun grabbers, happily prying the guns out of the cold dead hands of the selfish sons of bitches that think their precious right to bear arms is more important the lives of people I care about, which is everyone but the gun nutters.

I have had enough of this pitiful head shaking and hand wringing.  "Oh it's a difficult problem", "Oh, it will take generations to change", Oh, it's a slippery slope, first they came for my guns, then they'll come for my freedom of speech, etc.", "Oh, we need more mental health screening (whatever that means).  "Oh, it's a process, it will take time."  This is complete fucking insanity. The US appears to the the only country in the world that is willing to pay the price of innocent men,, women and children getting killed over the selfish stupidity of a minority of the population, over an anachronistic, bull shit 'right'.

The choice is simple. All you fucking gun lovers get in line and give up you weapons.  Or die when they take them from you.  At least you fuckers have a choice, those that were killed in Orlando, Las Vegas, Florida, etc., didn't have a choice.  Give up the guns or die trying to hold on to them you stupid, selfish fuck heads.  

Fine, I will give you gun nutters one other choice. If you won't give up your guns, you can line up and I will personally shove your scary, black, phallic symbol up your ass so far, you will be choking on your flash suppressor.   Your choice assholes, but the deaths have to stop.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2018 at 11:13 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I don't think that the Poles are clamoring for private ownership of guns, but how do the Poles you know feel about allowing government to be intrusive?   I know nothing of the Polish constitution, or if they even have one - but, the folks from Poland that I know personally, who left during the time of Communist rule want to be nowhere near a government that doesn't support individual rights, free speech, and the ability of an individual to address government wrongs in a just court of law.  Granted, my exposure is much less than yours - I'm only talking about a dozen folks. Even though their backgrounds and education are different, they're all quite consistent in that perspective. 

My point is that we ought to treat the 2nd like we do all our rights - and anyone who wishes to avoid intrusive government should understand that. If we give up the 2nd - we've established a precedent for our government to more easily infringe on our other enumerated rights.  Think about the amendments we've had to date - aside from the 18th and 21st - almost every one has been to protect individuals from over-reaching government authority.   

We ought to be able to address the problem of violence without repealing an enumerated right.  If we can't?  Then perhaps we as a society have devolved to the point where we no longer warrant those protections, and the majority can no longer conduct themselves responsibly, and DO need the government to make decisions for them.   I hope we're not there yet.   

 

Please tell me what is so sacred about this "enumerated right"?  It came form the minds of the Framers.  It isn't some inherent right granted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Gun Fairy.  It was granted buy a bunch of intelligent guys, sitting around, trying to build a framework to establish a new country.  At the time it was written, the 2A provided a reasonable answer to a problem of the time.  These circumstances have long passed.  

It is not the majority that is causing the problem, it is a minority of loudmouthed, selfish idiots backed by powerful special interest groups with a lot of money.  Yes, your right, that sounds like pretty much everything in politics today.   It has nothing to do with freedom, or with noble ideals.  It has to do with the selfish idea that just because a minority of the people in the country believe they have the selfish right to own toys that make them feel better.  It isn't a practical argument, it is an ideological one.  It has nothing to do with protecting ones home and family, it has to do with people sensing a loss of control over their miserable lives, that they have brought upon themselves mostly, through poor choices.  It has to do with "They are against it, therefore I am for it,because they are wrong and I am right.  It is insanity at its finest.

It is this attitude that is turning the US into a stinking cesspool of shallow thinking fools, concerned only with their own needs.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2018 at 6:46 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm actually OK with this.  Its part of my push to address the violence problem with a MADD-style approach.  Education and shame are two very powerful toolz.  

But why stop at just making gunz uncool.  Why aren't we instead focusing on making violence uncool?  That's a very serious question?  Instead, our society is doing exactly the opposite.  We glamorize violence.  We make violence ultra-cool.  Kids get to do virtual violence 14 hours a day on their playstations.  Rap muzak is all about popping a cap in some drug dealer rival or cop with their four fives or their nines.  We all laughed when John Travolta shot Marvin in the face and his brains were splattered all over the back window of the car.  

Trying to make gunz unkool without also making violence itself unkool is a losing battle, IMHO.  As AGITC has said numerous times - until we address the current trend of solving disputes with violence - no amount of taking someones tool away is going to change the equation.  

Coming from a person that revels in the 'coolness' of his private arsenal, that is just too ironic.  YCMTSU folks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

What loss of liberty pray tell. 

Since you asked, when someone is deemed unstable or a threat, they lose the ability to function openly and freely in society.  They may lose the right to own a gun.  They may lose their right to operate heavy machinery.  They may lose the right to rent a vehicle over 3 tons.   They may lose the right to gain a visa to travel abroad.  They may lose the right to fly a plane.  They may lose the right to work in public transportation or drive a bus.  They may be restricted an not allowed near schools or churches.  They may have restraining orders against entering movie theatres or day care centers.  They may be required to wear a tracking device.  They may lose any number of liberties until they are deemed not a risk through some sort of review process and can regain full privileges.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Which would have done nothing whatsoever in this case. The individual did not have a domestic violence restraining order taken against them and was not involuntarily confined. The police did not have the authority to search his residence nor to remove his firearms (to be held safely or otherwise). The same was also not possible for the Las Vegas shooting. Did not apply to the Sandy Hook shooting (where the guns were not the assailant's). And so on.
Actually, no - the individual was already known by the school to be troubled.  Had mandatory intervention occurred?  If that intervention warranted an involuntary commitment, then the police ( according to most statutes) would have absolutely had the right to search his residence and remove any weapons found.  

In order for you to deal with problems like that - you need to enforce some kind of involuntary mental health screening, based on denying a person their freedom of speech, confiscating their property without due process, because some rubber-stamper decides they might break the law. And you are suggesting this as a solution because you consider that the right to firearms is more important than those rights.

Au contraire, I do not at all advocate doing this without due process, and establishing an equitable review must be part of any solution that's implemented.  What we have now is ineffective, in that intervention isn't possible until it's too late, and what we would hope intervention would prevent has happened. 

As pointed out above - no, they are not "by and large already on the books". The necessary measures are certainly not on the books to prevent this particular incident. They can't be without doing away with free speech, privacy, and due process (at the very least) - rights I have always been open about believing magnitudes more important than the odd US-centric legal right to firearms. 

They are - anyone charged w/DV, the subject of a restraining order, or involuntary commitment is cause for the individual to be forced to surrender any weapons in their possession.  The problem is that this is rarely enforced. 

Sure thing. You go ahead and see what you can do about doing away with at least three legal rights as required for your solution. As someone advocating a plan that actually has a record of 4x less homicide than your country has at the moment, I'll continue to advocate for the idea that has some proof, rather than dreams and pixie dust, behind it.

 

Address the problem. I know of a solution that has worked in multiple countries across the world. You have an untried, untested, and less free approach you wish to implement for the purposes of keeping your guns. You want to pursue that, go for it - I'm not going to advocate against you. The requirement of restricting freedoms that the majority of the world (and I would suggest, majority of your country) consider more important than your access to one kind of tool will kill that plan without my help.

What I propose addresses the problem while appropriately maintaining the rights of everyone who's behavior doesn't warrant otherwise.  Nothing that I propose will happen without an individual's behavior and actions warranting it to happen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm glad you agree with me that no new gun law would have prevented this.

However, I strongly disagree with you that this has anything to do with the 2A or your perceived "gun dystopia".  Rather what is at issue here is a societal wide "violence dystopia".  And its not only condoned by society but protected by other Constitutional Amendments that I don't think our FF's had any intention of seeing either.  For proof of this, I once again bring to the Jury's attention that there have always been gunz in US society and they were far far easier to obtain way back when just a few short decades ago - certainly in yours and my lifetimes.  Kids used to bring gunz to school back then too- they brought them to school for show and tell, gun safety, or for hunting or target practice after school.  No troubled teen ever thought about shooting up his or her school of they got into a fight with the school bully or got teased at school by the popular kids.  

So it is not that guns have caused people to be more violent - because gunz have always been with us.  Society itself has become more violence tolerant and violence numb.  Kids and young adults being bombarded 24/7 by violent images, news, music, games, TV, movies, etc has caused this.  The sudden rise of social media and all the ill side-effects of people being bullied on line or rival gang members shooting up another over a disrespectful tweet has caused this "violence dystopia".  If we repealed the 2A tomorrow and all the guns were sucked up by jocal's giant helicopter magnet over night.  We would still have this issue.  But instead of school shootings.... we would be reading about school bombings or school arsons or school poisonings, or.......

But hey, keep clinging to your blaming religion and gunz as the causal factor.  The longer you do that, the more children will die because you will be ignoring the REAL problem.  

I would say if anything, it is the 1st Amendment that has mutated into a speech fetish cult where anything goes and there isn't a way back from it.  All these dead kids are just the price of people being able to stroke, polish and discharge their precious smart phones and other social media and mass media devices that bring violence to their eyeballs on demand.   

I don't suggest arming all the school staff - but I have often called for fortifying the schools and other places where we mandate that children assemble.  Raz'r and the NRA agrees with you on this.  Are courthouses and other gov't buildings more important than schools?  Because you rarely hear of a shooting in a courthouse or Federal building.

Except other cultures play the same video games, and they don’t have school shootings. It’s the guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

Please tell me what is so sacred about this "enumerated right"?  It came form the minds of the Framers.  It isn't some inherent right granted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Gun Fairy.  It was granted buy a bunch of intelligent guys, sitting around, trying to build a framework to establish a new country.  At the time it was written, the 2A provided a reasonable answer to a problem of the time.  These circumstances have long passed.  

It is not the majority that is causing the problem, it is a minority of loudmouthed, selfish idiots backed by powerful special interest groups with a lot of money.  Yes, your right, that sounds like pretty much everything in politics today.   It has nothing to do with freedom, or with noble ideals.  It has to do with the selfish idea that just because a minority of the people in the country believe they have the selfish right to own toys that make them feel better.  It isn't a practical argument, it is an ideological one.  It has nothing to do with protecting ones home and family, it has to do with people sensing a loss of control over their miserable lives, that they have brought upon themselves mostly, through poor choices.  It has to do with "They are against it, therefore I am for it,because they are wrong and I am right.  It is insanity at its finest.

It is this attitude that is turning the US into a stinking cesspool of shallow thinking fools, concerned only with their own needs.  

No Ed - what's turned the US into a nation w/an apparently disproportionate # of  disenfranchised individuals who feel that their only recourse is to express themselves violently is an overly permissive liberal perspective that refuses to hold anyone accountable for their own behavior, who advocates that any disappointment is due to someone else's willing discrimination and persecution, who advocate that hearing something we don't like, or heaven forbid, having someone say they don't like US is something that's worthy of retribution.   THAT is what has created the mess - over the past 6 decades.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hillary said:

All that hatred. All that decisiveness for 816 lives across 35 and 1/2 years. If you have such a bleeding heart for freedoms that cause heartache tackle Alcohol. Then I might think you actually care. 

Meanwhile go enjoy another Fast and Furious movie made by your liberal misogynistic friends and hypocrites in Hollywood.   

Never seen one, not into that stuff.  What you call hatred I label disgust at the waste of so many innocents - but then you obviously don't remember the months and months of you whining about the loss of your son.  hypocritical jack.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I never said anything about ALL soft targets.  Razr and I are calling for hardening places where children are REQUIRED to gather in mass.  Just like we do for courthouses and other gov't buildings.  

And I never once said it could ever be fully stopped.  But if you can harden a target enough, you can actually deter all but the most dedicated murderers.  I don't get that the vast majority of these troubled emo teens meet that definition.  Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Besides, hardening schools is a stop gap measure.  The REAL prize is attacking the root cause of the problem.  Any guesses as to what that might be?  Hint..... its not toolz.  Just sayin.

Just re-read what you said there.  If you can't see the stupidity of your words, then you are truly blind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Tell me, aside from Milliken's comment - where ANYONE else has acknowledged the need to change how we address people who display indicators that warrant mental health screening?     THAT is where we need to focus - if a person's behavior indicates that they may be a threat - we need to establish a system of positive intervention, to include insuring that the individual is isolated from the means to cause harm.   yes - this is draconian, yes, there will be many false positives (probably more false positives at first than "real" issues), and yes, some people who were just running their mouths will be upset at being held to account for their comments.   

What will happen, though, is that people will stop casually talking about inflicting violence upon others, people will more carefully consider their comments and behavior, and we'll have a means to proactively prevent the "disenfranchised lone wolf" from acting out.   This is one of the fixes I've advocated - in addition to the MADD campaign to socially stigmatize violent reaction.  We do this - and yeah, enforce the firearms confiscation laws that are already on the books in most places for individuals charged w/domestic violence or having been institutionalized, while providing for an objective JUDICIAL review and a mandatory return of one's property upon a positive judicial review and we'll start making progress towards stemming these senseless acts of violence.   

 

Yeah, sure.  Who is going to pay for the screening.  What standards will be used?  How will privacy be protected?  Your answer is another 'kick the can down the road', 'look, we are doing something' bull shit answer. We don't have 50-75 years to wait for these essentially ineffective solutions to be implemented. The time for suggesting pie in the sky, magic fairy answers has passed. It is time to take, grab, eliminate, abolish, eradicate, wipe out, and destroy guns in America.  Then maybe something will change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ed Lada said:

Then maybe something will change.

Ed, you can hand it off to Bent Sailor right here. He observes, dryly and often, that other leading nations show results by the very social rejection of guns which you describe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

Since you asked, when someone is deemed unstable or a threat, they lose the ability to function openly and freely in society.  They may lose the right to own a gun.  They may lose their right to operate heavy machinery.  They may lose the right to rent a vehicle over 3 tons.   They may lose the right to gain a visa to travel abroad.  They may lose the right to fly a plane.  They may lose the right to work in public transportation or drive a bus.  They may be restricted an not allowed near schools or churches.  They may have restraining orders against entering movie theatres or day care centers.  They may be required to wear a tracking devise.  They may lose any number of liberties until they are deemed not a risk through some sort of review process and can regain full privileges.

 

I ask a legitimate question and I get a basket of straw men.  And you wonder why I think your approach is way off base.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So yeah, we've thought about it (at least I have) very well and it will require some sacrifice on everyone's part if you really want to make a difference.  What's interesting is that the moment the sacrifice is felt by those who don't happen to own gunz, the outcry is loud and immediate.  Suck it up buttercup.  Welcome to the game.

MADD would do a number on your ass, as a priority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

Yeah, sure.  Who is going to pay for the screening.  What standards will be used?  How will privacy be protected?  Your answer is another 'kick the can down the road', 'look, we are doing something' bull shit answer. We don't have 50-75 years to wait for these essentially ineffective solutions to be implemented. The time for suggesting pie in the sky, magic fairy answers has passed. It is time to take, grab, eliminate, abolish, eradicate, wipe out, and destroy guns in America.  Then maybe something will change.

No Ed- it's not another "kick the can down the road" - or "look we're dong something" - that;s the bullshit approach of weapons bans.  We don't have 50 years?  it took 50 years for it to get this bad - it's not going to be fixed overnight, even if you outlawed guns tomorrow.  What I propose would have immediate benefit - even if the end goal IS ( and it will be, regardless of the approach you espouse) 3 generations away. 

Why are you so opposed to accepting that certain people are behaving in a manner that warrants infringement of their freedoms and rights?  Do you want murderers roaming the streets where your grandkids are going to grow up?   No  - of course you don't.  Why do you have a problem, especially with the background you claim to have, acknowledging that there are people who's attitude, thought processes and behavior make them a hazard to themselves and the people around them?   

Edited to add:   I'll tell you what I think:  Most of you who advocate banning an object do so because you are lazy - personally and intellectually.  You don't want to be personally invested and responsible for taking part in a societal solution - you don't want to be involved, you don't want to be bothered with what "those people" do, as long as they don't bother you. 

Possession of a gun != murderous intent, and that's exactly what you're trying to promote. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No Ed - what's turned the US into a nation w/an apparently disproportionate # of  disenfranchised individuals who feel that their only recourse is to express themselves violently is an overly permissive liberal perspective that refuses to hold anyone accountable for their own behavior, who advocates that any disappointment is due to someone else's willing discrimination and persecution, who advocate that hearing something we don't like, or heaven forbid, having someone say they don't like US is something that's worthy of retribution.   THAT is what has created the mess - over the past 6 decades.  

 

Which is exactly why we need to take away the guns now.  It will take too many years, too many generations, and the deaths of too many innocent people before anything will even begin to change.  You answer is a non answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hillary said:

35 years 162 dead in school mass shootings.

30 years 857 dead from school sports

Every life is precious but the extraordinary attention given the gun issue and not others equally or more important is proof this is all about politics and not the lives lost.

 

What about Hillary? And what about your anti-alcohol crusade?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chum said:

Serious question Ed, who's guns and how? 

Everybody's guns outside of law enforcement and the military, by any means possible.   To put it bluntly, give up your guns or die trying to keep them. Binary choice, very simple.  We'll see how much the gun nutters really cherish their 'freedom'.  Better that people die for their principles that die for no other reason other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

I ask a legitimate question and I get a basket of straw men.  And you wonder why I think your approach is way off base.

What strawmen?  Those are all loses of liberty to which someone who has been deemed unstable might, and probably should, be subject.  Essentially, I'm advocating a form of 'public incarceration' which is not going to be terribly popular but I think is actually more likely and more workable than 'take all the guns away'.  If someone is a clear and present risk, they should be kept at arms length from all force multipliers.

From my perspective, your position is no more workable than the most fervent NRA Gun enthusiast.  Its a status quo argument from the other side of the mirror.  Great.  So far, history has suggested THAT is the 'straw man' argument.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hillary said:

35 years 162 dead in school mass shootings.

30 years 857 dead from sports

Every life is precious but the extraordinary attention given the gun issue and not others equally or more important is proof this is all about politics and not the lives lost.

 

Look you stupid, ignorant mother fucker.  Do you know the meaning of a false equivalence?  Obviously not.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Says Florida Students Should Have Done More To Prevent Deadly Shooting

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-shooting-students_us_5a8591f9e4b0ab6daf468ba3

 

WTF according the fucked up Trump it wasn't the shooter, NRA , or the AR-15 or the Gun/bullet manufacturer that got these Kids

killed it was themselves to blame ,

Is this asshole fuck up or what???

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Totally disagree.  First of all the 2A is and never has been about "need", but I digress.

WTF? Dude, you show no evidence of having read the Militia Act of 1792. Very basic shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jocal505 said:

WTF? Dude, you show no evidence of having read the Militia Act of 1792. Very basic shit.

Let Jeff have his little fantasies.  In his world, the right top keep and bear arms is as essential and inviolable as the right to breath.  Jeff appears to believe that the right to own firearms was something that existed since the first man even walked upright and guns didn't even exist yet.  It's a natural law, the same as gravity.  It's inescapable.  Everyday, people are rioting in the streets all over the world for the natural right to keep and bear arms!  Everybody is doing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Do you want to address the problem - or just get rid of guns? 

I have long said that many of bent's elk could give two shits about the real problem and are only interested in using this as an excuse to get rid of toolz.

Say what you want, as you are talking shit. You are imposing motivations onto others, yet shades of falsehoods pepper your many  unsourced opinions on our boards. 

  • I own a grownup toy I don't want to relinquish, ideally.
  • The carnage, tragedy, and mayhem are my primary motivation, let it stop already.
  • Full disclusure of my motivation: I HATE to listen to lies and distortions about the Bill of Rights, coming from the fucking ignorant, like you.

I'm a gunowner with a voice, baby, as bad latitude's predictions go down. He and I will lose our guns, IMO, just because.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

Everybody's guns outside of law enforcement and the military, by any means possible.   To put it bluntly, give up your guns or die trying to keep them. Binary choice, very simple.  We'll see how much the gun nutters really cherish their 'freedom'.  Better that people die for their principles that die for no other reason other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  

That would be very illegal, and require armed house to house searches. Of course the left has never had a problem with totalitarianism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mark Set said:

That would be very illegal, and require armed house to house searches. Of course the left has never had a problem with totalitarianism.

Yes, of course.  Maybe you should examine the actions of the dickhead in the Oval Office before you paint with such a broad brush.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ed Lada said:

Yes, of course.  Maybe you should examine the actions of the dickhead in the Oval Office before you paint with such a broad brush.

you mean the guy that was a Democrat until 2008 and was a top donor to Schumer and Reid? Also im not sure what he has done that could be characterized as totalitarian other than spouting off total nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Actually, no - the individual was already known by the school to be troubled.  Had mandatory intervention occurred?  If that intervention warranted an involuntary commitment, then the police ( according to most statutes) would have absolutely had the right to search his residence and remove any weapons found.  

He was known to be "troubled". There is no mandatory intervention for kids that are troubled. That would be an invasion of privacy. Nor does being "troubled" warrant involuntary commitment, so the police would not have the right to search his residence. In some hypothetical fairy land where every kid expelled requires an intervention under the law and police raiding their home for weapons, you might have a point (as their rights to privacy and due process would already be null & void). Here in the real world, that's not the case.

42 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Au contraire, I do not at all advocate doing this without due process, and establishing an equitable review must be part of any solution that's implemented.  What we have now is ineffective, in that intervention isn't possible until it's too late, and what we would hope intervention would prevent has happened. 

Sorry, but if you are advocating a world where the police can involuntarily comment a kid, then search his house for weapons and confiscate them because some people think he's "troubled" and he got kicked out of a school (not a crime) - then you are advocating a policy without due process under the law. What you have now is ineffective because you cannot have both due process under the law and the right to privacy whilst implementing an effective commitment & search/confiscation regime as you propose.

For mental health screenings to work, you would need to make them compulsory for those that don't want to get it prior to them committing a crime. If you do that, due process and privacy rights are abolished. If you do that based on public speech that doesn't break the law, you abolish freedom of speech too. The problem at hand requires freedoms to be violated - the choice is which ones. I personally believe that guns are not as important free speech, due process, and privacy. You apparently believe the opposite (your plan's success, at least, requires it).

48 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

They are - anyone charged w/DV, the subject of a restraining order, or involuntary commitment is cause for the individual to be forced to surrender any weapons in their possession.  The problem is that this is rarely enforced. 

And the point you keep missing is - none of that applied in this situation. Even with perfect enforcement - this situation would still have occurred because there was no DV, no restraining order, and no involuntary commitment. The problem isn't enforcement - the problem is that, to fix this issue, you need to go further than "what's on the books". To stop people like this under your scheme, you need to invade their privacy, deny them the due process of law, and take their guns before they've been committed/charged, or given a restraining order.

Or you could simply acknowledge that there really isn't a need for teenagers to have access to AR-15's, let alone the legal capability of buying them in the first place. Like the rest of the first world who, no matter how much you accuse them of laziness, have solved the problem you haven't even gotten past thoughts, prayers, and hand-waved multi-generational goals you cannot implement.

54 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What I propose addresses the problem while appropriately maintaining the rights of everyone who's behavior doesn't warrant otherwise.  Nothing that I propose will happen without an individual's behavior and actions warranting it to happen. 

And by "warranting it to happen", you mean "some people think he's troubled so we should take his guns". Without that, this situation would still have occurred. No domestic violence, no restraining order, no involuntary commitment - so no trigger for what currently warrants action.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Haha!  Exactly as I predicted.  The moment anyone even mentions curtailing speech, privacy or due process rights to protect the public - the pushback starts immediately.  Yet you (collective you) expect those of us who cherish ALL of our enumerated rights to just suck it up for the greater good.

Yes. Congratulations. You "predicted" the position I've been open about for years and we have discussed (at length) in the past. What shall you "predict" next, Nostrodamus? The first black president? :rolleyes: 

 

14 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The answers to all of your questions above are simple..... they will be just as easy (not) and just as invasive of rights as what you expect us "2A folks" to suck up.  So yeah, we've thought about it (at least I have) very well and it will require some sacrifice on everyone's part if you really want to make a difference.  What's interesting is that the moment the sacrifice is felt by those who don't happen to own gunz, the outcry is loud and immediate.  Suck it up buttercup.  Welcome to the game.

Incorrect. My family happily handed in guns during the amnesty period following our national gun law changes. The laws affected us and we thought that they were a reasonable response to the problem. There was no "outcry" from us then because we realised that the rights to free speech, the rights to privacy, the rights to due process, and so on were more important than our desire for firearms.

Kind of the point I've been making (for a long time). There are rights considered more important by the vast majority of people than being able to play with guns. I am willing to give up access to a tool when it is not required in order to preserve those more important rights. In much the same fashion I don't have a problem with being required to get a license, register my car, and be required to have car insurance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

In California and CT, it has already happened. The confiscation programs in those states offer no compensation to former owners when a gun is handed in to the state. Of course, there's only about a 15% Cooperation rate in CT because gun owners didn't buy their guns to give to the government for the most part. Only about 15% did, it seems. It remains to be seen how Cooperative gun owners in California are. That confiscation program is being held up by an Uncooperative judge.

Florida legislators are trying to make it happen here.

Funny how so many of the people who are wondering if it's too soon to talk about confiscation programs never seem to actually visit the threads about confiscation programs. For example,

Do you have any thoughts on the proposal by legislators in our state to ban and confiscate my old .22 in response to incidents like this one?

Now wait for the crickets. We have lots of Florida voters here who have not weighed in on the attempt to DO SOMETHING in our state.

Fuck You Tom.

Just Fuck You.

The blood of those children is on your hands as well as your gun nutter elk.

 

Now go back to whining about your rights and your .22

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

He was known to be "troubled". There is no mandatory intervention for kids that are troubled. That would be an invasion of privacy. Nor does being "troubled" warrant involuntary commitment, so the police would not have the right to search his residence. In some hypothetical fairy land where every kid expelled requires an intervention under the law and police raiding their home for weapons, you might have a point (as their rights to privacy and due process would already be null & void). Here in the real world, that's not the case.

He'd been expelled from the school for his behavioral issues - that's a bit more actionable than being "troubled". 
Edited to add link to BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43071710
the rest of your comment is based upon an intentional misinterpretation of what I've said, like suggesting that I advocate for kids to have unsupervised access to AR15s - that is simply a figment of your imagination.  

But - what we come to is exactly this:  You advocate doing something, as long as that something doesn't tread upon something you hold dear, willfully ignoring that what I propose WOULD work, and wouldn't unduly infringe upon anyone, unless of course, you think it's OK for people to advocate violence against others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I am going to say that I agree with Jeff on this one.  It is clear that the current congress won't do shit about gun violence, and as has been ascertained on other threads, aside from an all out ban on all firearms (which I just cannot see happening) it is doubtful that any proposed or passed legislation will have an effect.

So if government can't or won't fix the problem, it is up to community to handle it.  But we need to realize that we are talking about a national paradigm shift.  At the school level, we need to absolutely stop tolerating and encouraging the ridicule and putting down of others.  We need to absolutely stop tolerating and encouraging discrimination, in all forms.  At the societal level, we need to decide as a society that we are all going to make good decisions with regards to our bodies, lives, and those of our children.  We need to ensure that all of our citizens are cared for and their basic needs met.  We really just ALL, as a society need to focus on being good people.

So in short, we need to create something close to a utopia, and do it without government intervention.  I am not holding my breath.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sail611 said:

So I am going to say that I agree with Jeff on this one.  It is clear that the current congress won't do shit about gun violence, and as has been ascertained on other threads, aside from an all out ban on all firearms (which I just cannot see happening) it is doubtful that any proposed or passed legislation will have an effect.

So if government can't or won't fix the problem, it is up to community to handle it.  But we need to realize that we are talking about a national paradigm shift.  At the school level, we need to absolutely stop tolerating and encouraging the ridicule and putting down of others.  We need to absolutely stop tolerating and encouraging discrimination, in all forms.  At the societal level, we need to decide as a society that we are all going to make good decisions with regards to our bodies, lives, and those of our children.  We need to ensure that all of our citizens are cared for and their basic needs met.  We really just ALL, as a society need to focus on being good people.

So in short, we need to create something close to a utopia, and do it without government intervention.  I am not holding my breath.

Just buy more guns & ammo - then you'll be safe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

My family happily handed in guns during the amnesty period following our national gun law changes. The laws affected us and we thought that they were a reasonable response to the problem. There was no "outcry" from us then because we realised that the rights to free speech, the rights to privacy, the rights to due process, and so on were more important than our desire for firearms.

To whom it may concern. I quote this, for the honor of doing so. From a guy with no Bill of Rights etc.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

He'd been expelled from the school for his behavioral issues - that's a bit more actionable than being "troubled".  the rest of your comment is based upon an intentional misinterpretation of what I've said, like suggesting that I advocate for kids to have unsupervised access to AR15s - that is simply a figment of your imagination.  

he's 19, he could just go buy one if he passed the background check. Did he pass a background check? Of course, if there had been any incidents in his background from before he was 18 they would have been cleared from his record.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Fuck You Tom.

Just Fuck You.

Yeah, Tom. Squirrel assault weapons effectively marked your retirement 14 months ago. Out with a big whimper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

He'd been expelled from the school for his behavioral issues - that's a bit more actionable than being "troubled".  the rest of your comment is based upon an intentional misinterpretation of what I've said, like suggesting that I advocate for kids to have unsupervised access to AR15s - that is simply a figment of your imagination.

You are missing the point, so repeatedly it has to be deliberate. There is nothing "on the books" that entitles involuntary commitment, a mental health screening, or a search for weapons by the police in being expelled from school. There is nothing legally actionable about being expelled as that is not a crime, it is not a restraining order, and it is not an indication of mental health problems. Merely misbehaviour.

Then to complain about "intentional misrepresentation of what you said" in the same fucking sentence as saying I suggest you "advocate for kids to have unsupervised access to AR15s" is entering Happy Jack territory for insane levels of hypocrisy. I did no such thing. That, my good sir, is "simply a figment of your imagination"

 

 

1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

But - what we come to is exactly this:  You advocate doing something, as long as that something doesn't tread upon something you hold dear, willfully ignoring that what I propose WOULD work, and wouldn't unduly infringe upon anyone, unless of course, you think it's OK for people to advocate violence against others. 

Actually, no. I don't mind a little leeway back and forth. The problem is that your plan can only work in the situation you don't just tread on the rights the entire first world holds more dear than your precious access to guns; but you need to stomp it into paste and then torch it. Schools are not courts and they are not medical institutions. For you to "action" an expulsion from their enrolment with the search and seizure of firearms - you not only toss due process and privacy into the shredder, you're also tossing your own right to firearms in there alongside it. If being expelled from a school is enough to require losing your guns - why not losing your job? Losing your membership to the local club? Just like the school process, those are decisions made by a non-medical, non-judicial body.

Your plan doesn't work unless you stomp on multiple rights all at once, including those considered important enough to be agreed upon as "human rights" by the UN. On the other hand, "right to firearms" - not quite as important to the rest of the world. There is a reason for that and it's not because we're jealous of the US record on homicide. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, d'ranger said:

It is time to restrict the sale and ownership of weapons like this.  They aren't the same as those from WWI and II, and fuck you and the bullshit about 2nd amendment rights - you can own all the muskets you want.  And fuck Unca Tom as am not advocating anything about .22lr.

But my gun is a "weapon like this" because it's the subject of an "assault weapon" ban. Unless you're going to break the taboo and say that the grabberz in my state have gone too far with that definition.

I'm glad the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the second amendment covers technology developed since the musket and don't really feel the need to curse ignorant folks like yourself who don't know or haven't accepted it yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

You are missing the point, so repeatedly it has to be deliberate. There is nothing "on the books" that entitles involuntary commitment, a mental health screening, or a search for weapons by the police in being expelled from school. There is nothing legally actionable about being expelled as that is not a crime, it is not a restraining order, and it is not an indication of mental health problems. Merely misbehaviour.

Then to complain about "intentional misrepresentation of what you said" in the same fucking sentence as saying I suggest you "advocate for kids t