Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Politesse]

Please try to stay on topic regarding the school shooting. While discussing related issues, such as trans rights, is reasonable, let's try to avoid derailing the conversation too far from the main focus.

Sorry! Was not paying attention to thread title and didn't realize I was feeding a derail.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Most mass shootings are overwhelimingly commited by men. More mass shootings have been commited by incels than trans persons. About half of male mass shooters have had legal problems with violent abuse of significant others. Many have a history of mental illness. Yet the NRA and like minded progun groups oppose red flag laws.

They're right to oppose red flag laws--the problem is the laws are basically guilty until proven innocent, generally with no way to prove your innocence. Make a red flag law that's fair to the falsely accused and you'll get a lot more support. The concept is good, the implementation is not.

The trouble is that buying weapons that can be readily used to kill a decent number of people in America is so simple, that unless red flag laws are as you note, they'd be effectively useless.

But I get your point, saving the lives of a small number of people isn't worth the cost of restricting access to guns to people that might not be in the right mind to own them.

So you're fine with shitting on the Constitution if it's to accomplish something you like?

And it would be possible to make a red flag law that didn't have the problem. We have a decent model of how to handle it: same as we do with restraining orders. Red flag should be akin to a temporary restraining order, a case must be made in court to extend it. And if not, the guns must be returned without cost or damage.

I believe blind adoration to gun ownership over the lives of children at schools or beaten spouses/girlfriends is shitting on the Constitution.

 

[Patooka]

So you're fine with shitting on the Constitution if it's to accomplish something you like?

And it would be possible to make a red flag law that didn't have the problem. We have a decent model of how to handle it: same as we do with restraining orders. Red flag should be akin to a temporary restraining order, a case must be made in court to extend it. And if not, the guns must be returned without cost or damage.

That's like saying convicted felons should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society. Good luck dying on that hill.

 

[Jarhyn]

So you're fine with shitting on the Constitution if it's to accomplish something you like?

And it would be possible to make a red flag law that didn't have the problem. We have a decent model of how to handle it: same as we do with restraining orders. Red flag should be akin to a temporary restraining order, a case must be made in court to extend it. And if not, the guns must be returned without cost or damage.

That's like saying convicted felons should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society. Good luck dying on that hill.

Personally I think it should depend on the felony.

I would say it's like a sex offender kind of thing. Weapon offender should be a thing.

And deadly weapons in public should not.

 

[Patooka]

So you're fine with shitting on the Constitution if it's to accomplish something you like?

And it would be possible to make a red flag law that didn't have the problem. We have a decent model of how to handle it: same as we do with restraining orders. Red flag should be akin to a temporary restraining order, a case must be made in court to extend it. And if not, the guns must be returned without cost or damage.

That's like saying convicted felons should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society. Good luck dying on that hill.

Personally I think it should depend on the felony.

I would say it's like a sex offender kind of thing. Weapon offender should be a thing.

And deadly weapons in public should not.

My point is all the "The constitution" and "Shall not be infringed" advocates never think their arguments to their logical conclusion. Fact is everyone believes in gun control. Anyone who argues say "Hippy dippy happy dappy CONSTITUTION", and believes that to be meaningful argument is acting in bad faith.

 

[Copernicus]

So you're fine with shitting on the Constitution if it's to accomplish something you like?

And it would be possible to make a red flag law that didn't have the problem. We have a decent model of how to handle it: same as we do with restraining orders. Red flag should be akin to a temporary restraining order, a case must be made in court to extend it. And if not, the guns must be returned without cost or damage.

That's like saying convicted felons should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society. Good luck dying on that hill.

Personally I think it should depend on the felony.

I would say it's like a sex offender kind of thing. Weapon offender should be a thing.

And deadly weapons in public should not.

My point is all the "The constitution" and "Shall not be infringed" advocates never think their arguments to their logical conclusion. Fact is everyone believes in gun control. Anyone who argues say "Hippy dippy happy dappy CONSTITUTION", and believes that to be meaningful argument is acting in bad faith.

Personally, I think that the Constitution pretty clearly limits the right to "keep and bear arms" to state-run militias that were always considered an arm of the federal government. That's the way "well-regulated militias" were defined in Federalist No. 29 by Alexander Hamilton, and that was the basis for the initial clause of the 2nd Amendment. However, the NRA-dominated Republican Party has gone along with their complete revision of history on that subject, and the current Supreme Court now follows their doctrine of simply ignoring the plain wording in the initial clause of the amendment. It has also become the default interpretation accepted by most Americans. Perhaps a future Supreme Court will see fit to restore the interpretation to the saner and more sensible version that prevailed up until the Heller ruling, which completely overturned the precedent that had prevailed prior to 2008.

 

[marc]

My point is all the "The constitution" and "Shall not be infringed" advocates never think their arguments to their logical conclusion. Fact is everyone believes in gun control. Anyone who argues say "Hippy dippy happy dappy CONSTITUTION", and believes that to be meaningful argument is acting in bad faith.

A modest proposal

Maybe we can help people against any kind of regulation to understand by referring to them as ‘convicted pedophile’ at every opportunity. After all it is free speech, it would be against the constitution to prevent us from saying it according to their reasoning

 

[Jarhyn]

So you're fine with shitting on the Constitution if it's to accomplish something you like?

And it would be possible to make a red flag law that didn't have the problem. We have a decent model of how to handle it: same as we do with restraining orders. Red flag should be akin to a temporary restraining order, a case must be made in court to extend it. And if not, the guns must be returned without cost or damage.

That's like saying convicted felons should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society. Good luck dying on that hill.

Personally I think it should depend on the felony.

I would say it's like a sex offender kind of thing. Weapon offender should be a thing.

And deadly weapons in public should not.

My point is all the "The constitution" and "Shall not be infringed" advocates never think their arguments to their logical conclusion. Fact is everyone believes in gun control. Anyone who argues say "Hippy dippy happy dappy CONSTITUTION", and believes that to be meaningful argument is acting in bad faith.

Do you really expect the people who argue a bronze age book over science to be capable of doing more?

It's no better than a bible quote being offered as an argument against evolution.

 

[Copernicus]

Does anyone here recall that Congress passed a sweeping new bipartisan gun law that was signed by President Biden to much fanfare nine months ago? This was the political response to Uvalde. It was the most significant gun legislation in decades. At the signing, Biden declared that "Lives will be saved." Politicians were patting themselves on their backs furiously.

What was in that law? Some strengthened background checks and tweaks to the laws targeting gun trafficking and more money for mental health services to children in schools. Nothing about banning assault weapons or types of ammunition or handgun sales. No mandated waiting periods to purchase a weapon. No mandated rules on storing weapons. No limits on the capacity of ammunition clips that can be fitted to guns as part of their conversion to assault weapons suitable for committing mass murders.

What will be the response this time? Republicans who sponsored the last legislation are already saying that enough is enough. They are clearly exhausted from their last effort. John Cornyn, one of the sponsors of that legislation, doesn't see room for any more compromises. Mass shootings have picked up since that bill was signed, although it did prevent a little over a hundred people from buying guns and result in some more arrests for gun trafficking. The Republican majority in the House wants to loosen controls on gun purchases and constraints on the behavior of people who own guns.

The only possibility of progress is for Democrats to take control of both houses of Congress, the presidency, and change the Republican chokehold on the Supreme Court. Bipartisanship is not only rarer than it used to be, but it simply won't do anything to fix the problem. I won't live to see that happen. Maybe clothing styles will start to incorporate body armor and camouflage.

After Nashville, Congress confronts limits of new gun law​

 

[Elixir]

The only possibility of progress is for Democrats to take control of both houses of Congress, the presidency, and change the Republican chokehold on the Supreme Court. Bipartisanship is not only rarer than it used to be, but it simply won't do anything to fix the problem. I won't live to see that happen.

I dunno. Trump is doing everything possible to make it happen. Maybe after some court spectacles, Americans will finally be ready to exorcise the evil.

 

[Copernicus]

The only possibility of progress is for Democrats to take control of both houses of Congress, the presidency, and change the Republican chokehold on the Supreme Court. Bipartisanship is not only rarer than it used to be, but it simply won't do anything to fix the problem. I won't live to see that happen.

I dunno. Trump is doing everything possible to make it happen. Maybe after some court spectacles, Americans will finally be ready to exorcise the evil.

Trump is irrelevant to the gun problem. He just uses it to cement his hold on his power base, but so do all the other Republicans, not to mention a few Democrats with red and purple constituencies.

 

[Elixir]

The only possibility of progress is for Democrats to take control of both houses of Congress, the presidency, and change the Republican chokehold on the Supreme Court. Bipartisanship is not only rarer than it used to be, but it simply won't do anything to fix the problem. I won't live to see that happen.

I dunno. Trump is doing everything possible to make it happen. Maybe after some court spectacles, Americans will finally be ready to exorcise the evil.

Trump is irrelevant to the gun problem. He just uses it to cement his hold on his power base, but so do all the other Republicans, not to mention a few Democrats with red and purple constituencies.

Of course HE is irrelevant. But his voters are the ones keeping corrupt Republicans in office. Get them disenchanted enough and the chances of taking both houses and the presidency would rise significantly.

 

[Copernicus]

The only possibility of progress is for Democrats to take control of both houses of Congress, the presidency, and change the Republican chokehold on the Supreme Court. Bipartisanship is not only rarer than it used to be, but it simply won't do anything to fix the problem. I won't live to see that happen.

I dunno. Trump is doing everything possible to make it happen. Maybe after some court spectacles, Americans will finally be ready to exorcise the evil.

Trump is irrelevant to the gun problem. He just uses it to cement his hold on his power base, but so do all the other Republicans, not to mention a few Democrats with red and purple constituencies.

Of course HE is irrelevant. But his voters are the ones keeping corrupt Republicans in office. Get them disenchanted enough and the chances of taking both houses and the presidency would rise significantly.

My feeling is that, once Trump is out of the picture, we will learn that he is not what is keeping Republicans in office. The country is split pretty evenly in support for the two parties. The center swings back and forth to give an edge to one party or the other, based on fickle priorities. Guns are just one of those factors that shift priorities.

 

[Elixir]

My feeling is that, once Trump is out of the picture, we will learn that he is not what is keeping Republicans in office. The country is split pretty evenly in support for the two parties. The center swings back and forth to give an edge to one party or the other, based on fickle priorities. Guns are just one of those factors that shift priorities.

I hope and pray (as an atheist, that’s radical) that you’re wrong, and the cult of personality accounts for 5-7% of the turnout of right wing extremists at the polls.

The.country could be nearly evenly split in terms of party affiliations (it’s not) but there is currently strong consensus on several issues that might auger a “lurch” to the left in’24

This thread b is about guns, and unless one of the best case scenarios takes place, I may not live to see anything done about it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The trouble is that buying weapons that can be readily used to kill a decent number of people in America is so simple, that unless red flag laws are as you note, they'd be effectively useless.

But I get your point, saving the lives of a small number of people isn't worth the cost of restricting access to guns to people that might not be in the right mind to own them.

So you're fine with shitting on the Constitution if it's to accomplish something you like?

And it would be possible to make a red flag law that didn't have the problem. We have a decent model of how to handle it: same as we do with restraining orders. Red flag should be akin to a temporary restraining order, a case must be made in court to extend it. And if not, the guns must be returned without cost or damage.

I for one am fine with not making the constitution do something it was never meant to if it saves our children from being murdered.

It is not “shitting on the constitution” to say that you have free speech, but you can’t defame someone and make them lose their business over a lie.

It is not “shitting on the constitution” to say that you have free Religion but you can’t stone adulterers.

It is not “shitting on the constitution” to say that you have private communication with your lawyer, but not if you’re asking your lawyer to cover up your crime.

It is not “shitting on the constitution” to say that you have free Press but not if yu are knowngly spreading lies and calling them news.


And it is not “shitting on the constitution” to say that you have freedom to bear arms, but not when you are a danger to society, and not the kind of arms where the only use is a danger to society.

The point is due process and innocent until proven guilty.

I suppose you're fine with locking up women in Gilead states because they visited an abortion website?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you're fine with shitting on the Constitution if it's to accomplish something you like?

And it would be possible to make a red flag law that didn't have the problem. We have a decent model of how to handle it: same as we do with restraining orders. Red flag should be akin to a temporary restraining order, a case must be made in court to extend it. And if not, the guns must be returned without cost or damage.

That's like saying convicted felons should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society. Good luck dying on that hill.

I don't support felons having firearms.

The problem I'm pointing out with the red flag laws is they are guilty until proven innocent--and in many cases you don't even get your day in court. Accusation = punishment with no recourse.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So you're fine with shitting on the Constitution if it's to accomplish something you like?

And it would be possible to make a red flag law that didn't have the problem. We have a decent model of how to handle it: same as we do with restraining orders. Red flag should be akin to a temporary restraining order, a case must be made in court to extend it. And if not, the guns must be returned without cost or damage.

That's like saying convicted felons should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society. Good luck dying on that hill.

I don't support felons having firearms.

The problem I'm pointing out with the red flag laws is they are guilty until proven innocent--and in many cases you don't even get your day in court. Accusation = punishment with no recourse.

If this was long term or permanent, this would be a viable concern.

 

[ZiprHead]

Tennessee GOP strips Democrats of committee assignments for protesting school shootings

Last Thursday, a group of demonstrators congregated at the Tennessee capitol to protest the massacre of six — including three nine-year-old children — at the Covenant School in Nashville. They were trying, as so many other anguished Americans have before, to get a state legislature to do something to stop the killing of school kids and their teachers.

The demonstration involved speeches, shouting, and signs, but nothing else. No one was arrested or injured.

Some protestors voiced their pleas for action in the legislature's public gallery. Three Democratic lawmakers — Reps. Gloria Johnson, Justin Pearson, and Justin Jones — chanted along with them. As Pearson explained,

“We listened to them and helped to elevate the issue that they are demanding justice for.”

I am all for decorum in legislative matters. And I think most people would agree that the three Reps should get a warning, like a yellow card, or two minutes in the penalty box. I suspect the Representatives themselves would accept some form of censure.

However, the Republican House Speaker, Cameron Sexton, viewed the offense in a far harsher light. He said,

“Two of the members, Representative Jones and Representative Johnson, have been very vocal about Jan. 6 and Washington, D.C., about what that was. What they did today was equivalent, at least equivalent, maybe worse depending on how you look at it, to doing an insurrection in the State Capitol.”

Worse than Jan. 6?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Protesting a school massacre that happened verses trying to overthrow an election because of fake fraud...

Yup, both are just as bad.

 

[Gospel]

This is all paid for by gun lobbyists. Remove that money from our politics and we MIGHT see a change. Until then it will continue to be money over everything else.