Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[bilby]

And it is. Red flag usually doesn't give the accused any defense. And you often don't get your guns back even if you're cleared.

Oh, no!

That's just tragic. I'm overwhelmed with sympathy for any poor person who has to suffer such an awful fate.

In other news, school shooters usually don't give their victims much of a defence, and you often don't get your children back, even if the shooter is killed or arrested.

One of these tragedies is not like the other. One of these tragedies demands action to defend the defenceless victims.

Hint: It's not the one you have picked.

So the Constitution is only for you, not for those you don't like?

The Constitution that applies to me doesn't make any mention whatsoever of bearing arms.

But that's irrelevant; The US Constitution applies to everyone in US jurisdiction, and I have not at any time said, suggested or implied otherwise - You are accusing me of something I have not done, for purely rhetorical reasons, and you should be ashamed of yourself for so doing.

Having said which, it can, has been, and quite possibly should be amended. It's not a straitjacket, nor is it immutable.

As it stands, the second amendment is clear to me - it allows people to bear arms in the context of ensuring the existence of a well regulated militia. The courts could and should make clear that this doesn't include private individuals obtaining firearms for the sole purpose of shooting at human targets, other than in the context of coming under military or police command.

That would bring the US in line with other developed nations, without the need for any further amendment to your precious second amendment.

The Constitution applies equally to everyone in US jurisdiction, as does the Declaration of Independence, which recognises that the people have a right to life - a right that strongly implies not letting other citizens, acting without the authority of the state, decide to randomly gun them down.

 

[Copernicus]

As it stands, the second amendment is clear to me - it allows people to bear arms in the context of ensuring the existence of a well regulated militia. The courts could and should make clear that this doesn't include private individuals obtaining firearms for the sole purpose of shooting at human targets, other than in the context of coming under military or police command.

And it is equally important to recognize that the term "well regulated" referred to training in the use of firearms in militia actions. This is clearly stated in Federalist #29, where Hamilton discusses the concept of a "well regulated militia" at length. In those times, soldiers had to be trained to keep up a barrage of coordinated firing, which meant that some would shoot while others reloaded their single-shot muskets. Repeating rifles only came into use during the Civil War, although not all soldiers were supplied with them.

In modern usage, people tend to misconstrue the old wording as meant to express "controlled by authority" rather than "clockwork behavior". In our modern reality, shooters can fire hundreds of rounds per minute without needing to reload until a large capacity magazine runs out of ammunition. So the original intent doesn't actually have any relevance to modern reality. The amendment has been reimagined and repurposed by the gun industry and its ability to gull the public, which is mainly interested in the recreational aspect of weaponry.

 

[Patooka]

And it is. Red flag usually doesn't give the accused any defense. And you often don't get your guns back even if you're cleared.

I can't help but think if that was even remotely true the NRA would be parading those statistics night and day. Seeing as they aren't...

Think the press will say much?!

Remember the case in IIRC Florida where the accuser wouldn't bother to go to court (it was most likely wrong identity), the sheriff finally relented under public pressure.

And there are stunts like storage fees that can easily end up more than the value of the guns.

Do you need me to explain how utterly non-responsive and unproductive your reply was? I can do it in 3 words - Show your working.

 

[Tigers!]

And there are stunts like storage fees that can easily end up more than the value of the guns.

And that is a problem precisely how?
If the cost of storage makes the erstwhile gun-owner reconsider the costs of gun ownership then that is not bad. If it causes said gun owner to get rid of their gun (correctly, lest someone pipe up with nonsense of criminals) then surely that is not a bad thing?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And there are stunts like storage fees that can easily end up more than the value of the guns.

And that is a problem precisely how?
If the cost of storage makes the erstwhile gun-owner reconsider the costs of gun ownership then that is not bad. If it causes said gun owner to get rid of their gun (correctly, lest someone pipe up with nonsense of criminals) then surely that is not a bad thing?

The point is it amounts to taking them with no proof of wrongdoing. Why does innocent until proven guilty not apply to gun owners?

 

[Copernicus]

And there are stunts like storage fees that can easily end up more than the value of the guns.

And that is a problem precisely how?
If the cost of storage makes the erstwhile gun-owner reconsider the costs of gun ownership then that is not bad. If it causes said gun owner to get rid of their gun (correctly, lest someone pipe up with nonsense of criminals) then surely that is not a bad thing?

The point is it amounts to taking them with no proof of wrongdoing. Why does innocent until proven guilty not apply to gun owners?

The weapons are to be confiscated on a reasonable basis. Not every gun owner is going to trigger a red flag law, and gun owners need to be aware that their weapons will be confiscated if they appear to threaten the safety of the public. There are reasons why they impound the vehicles of drunk drivers, and those drivers need to pay storage fees to get their impounded vehicles back. If someone is making threats of violence, then that person should be prohibited from owning guns. Public health and safety regulations do restrict individual liberties by their very nature, so pointing out that somebody's rights are being restricted by a red flag law does not per se justify doing away with red flag laws. We still require people to drive safely and operate safe vehicles, even if driving erratically and driving an unsafe vehicle doesn't actually harm anyone.

 

[bilby]

And there are stunts like storage fees that can easily end up more than the value of the guns.

And that is a problem precisely how?
If the cost of storage makes the erstwhile gun-owner reconsider the costs of gun ownership then that is not bad. If it causes said gun owner to get rid of their gun (correctly, lest someone pipe up with nonsense of criminals) then surely that is not a bad thing?

The point is it amounts to taking them with no proof of wrongdoing. Why does innocent until proven guilty not apply to gun owners?

Same reason it doesn't apply to drunk drivers who refuse to be tested for blood alcohol.

 

[Tigers!]

And there are stunts like storage fees that can easily end up more than the value of the guns.

And that is a problem precisely how?
If the cost of storage makes the erstwhile gun-owner reconsider the costs of gun ownership then that is not bad. If it causes said gun owner to get rid of their gun (correctly, lest someone pipe up with nonsense of criminals) then surely that is not a bad thing?

The point is it amounts to taking them with no proof of wrongdoing. Why does innocent until proven guilty not apply to gun owners?

Sigh.
I am not suggesting that confiscation is required.
Merely that if the proper and safe storage of guns at home imposes a monetary, effort cost to owning a gun(s) that some gun owners consider too much then I for one would be happy that there is at least one more gun(s) out of circulation. Give them an easy, relatively way to turn in their guns.
(I keep forgetting that when talking about guns everybody goes nuclear. Nuances are lost and reading comprehension fails alarmingly.)

 

[ZiprHead]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/10/us/louisville-ketucky-incident/index.html

Ongoing right now.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ben Shapiro says trans people should be banned from owning firearms | Media Matters for America - he says “That seems to me a pretty significant symptom of an underlying mental malaise”

The gun control narrative is ridiculous in the sense that this person legally obtained the guns. I'm unaware what law would -- would be passed that would've prevented this person from obtaining the guns. I'm perfectly fine with banning people who suffer from gender dysphoria from purchasing weapons. That seems to me a pretty significant symptom of an underlying mental malaise that is going -- that could theoretically be a problem in terms of owning firearms. But I don't think the left believes the same thing.

An exception to gun-rights absolutism from a prominent right-winger.

The funny part is that, aren't both the recent violent trans people on testosterone? And wouldn't that more be an argument against "people exposed to testosterone" owning guns, not trans people in general?

I don't really think he would like it if the feminist movements started making note of the fact, that it appears that the testosterone is the causal agent for the disparate outcomes...

In fact it would provide a fairly strong, but also very fucked up argument, using this logic, that the sensible course of action is to castrate anyone with a particular fascination with violence.

Personally, I think the better course of action is to just be in the lookout for violent ideations and prescribe mandated therapy, education in conflict de-escalation, and prevention of violent incident triggers such as bullying through the identification of problem actors and remediation through education.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And there are stunts like storage fees that can easily end up more than the value of the guns.

And that is a problem precisely how?
If the cost of storage makes the erstwhile gun-owner reconsider the costs of gun ownership then that is not bad. If it causes said gun owner to get rid of their gun (correctly, lest someone pipe up with nonsense of criminals) then surely that is not a bad thing?

The point is it amounts to taking them with no proof of wrongdoing.

The proof of wrong doing is what they are trying to avoid in the first place. This is about RISK MITIGATION.

Why does innocent until proven guilty not apply to gun owners?

When it applies to a risk assessment regarding a person and their ability to possess firearms and not actually being put in jail and incarcerated. Because I mean, we could do that too. Be even safer! But that would be a bit extreme, so we'll jet hold onto the guns for a bit, because is it that big of a deal... are we temporarily removing their access to be able to get to work? Is his livelihood being put at risk, or are we merely reducing the chances of someone else being killed at his inconvenience?

I can only imagine an ex-spouse's last thoughts while being murdered is that "thank goodness they didn't violate his rights of possessing firearms".

 

[Toni]

And it is. Red flag usually doesn't give the accused any defense. And you often don't get your guns back even if you're cleared.

Oh, no!

That's just tragic. I'm overwhelmed with sympathy for any poor person who has to suffer such an awful fate.

In other news, school shooters usually don't give their victims much of a defence, and you often don't get your children back, even if the shooter is killed or arrested.

One of these tragedies is not like the other. One of these tragedies demands action to defend the defenceless victims.

Hint: It's not the one you have picked.

So the Constitution is only for you, not for those you don't like?

Well, the US Constitution isn’t for bilby at all unless he comes to the US or only insofar as it might pertain to foreign policy.

 

[Elixir]

You don’t have to be a criminal to have your “rights” truncated. If your eyesight goes bad you can lose your drivers license. Because it is likely that if you’re allowed to drive a car you have an elevated chance of hurting someone else.

 

[Gospel]

All because some people think the Founding Fathers would think for a moment, that this was an acceptable cost to a nearly unregulated firearm trade in our nation.

The reason we overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution is not because some people think the Founding Fathers would have thought their law was better public policy than our law. What the Founding Fathers would have thought is immaterial and the court system doesn't give a rat's ass about that. We overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution because the Constitution is the law the states agreed to be governed by when they joined the union. When a judge enforces a contract you agreed to last year that you now want to get out of, it isn't because she thinks a-year-ago-you knew what's in your best interests better than present-day-you.

If your assertion were accurate, firearms would exclusively belong to well-regulated militias. Laws are not overturned solely because they violate the Constitution; rather, they are overturned when a sufficient number of legislators and judges are financially incentivized to do so, or when the failure to adopt a particular law would result in significant financial losses for an industry or the government itself.

You must be talking about the Hollywood Studios produced America.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You don’t have to be a criminal to have your “rights” truncated. If your eyesight goes bad you can lose your drivers license. Because it is likely that if you’re allowed to drive a car you have an elevated chance of hurting someone else.

I guess the founding fathers should have written the right to drive an automobile into the Constitution. Seems like a gross oversight on their part.

 

[Copernicus]

You don’t have to be a criminal to have your “rights” truncated. If your eyesight goes bad you can lose your drivers license. Because it is likely that if you’re allowed to drive a car you have an elevated chance of hurting someone else.

I guess the founding fathers should have written the right to drive an automobile into the Constitution. Seems like a gross oversight on their part.

However, they knew all about horse-drawn wagons and drunken people driving them. Their major focus of concern at the time seems to have been over whether slaves might be using them to escape their masters. Drunken drivers weren't as much of a problem back then. Slaves getting their hands on guns--now that's where a well-regulated militia might be needed.

 

[bilby]

However, they knew all about horse-drawn wagons and drunken people driving them.

Sure, but unless the horse is drunk, a drunken wagoneer is a very minor threat, because his vehicle has the horse sense not to obey an instruction to veer into oncoming traffic, or off the roadway and over a precipice.

Whereas a motor vehicle just goes wherever the driver points his steering wheel.

 

[Gospel]

However, they knew all about horse-drawn wagons and drunken people driving them.

Sure, but unless the horse is drunk, a drunken wagoneer is a very minor threat, because his vehicle has the horse sense not to obey an instruction to veer into oncoming traffic, or off the roadway and over a precipice.

Whereas a motor vehicle just goes wherever the driver points his steering wheel.

So they did have self driving vehicles back then!!!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is it amounts to taking them with no proof of wrongdoing. Why does innocent until proven guilty not apply to gun owners?

The weapons are to be confiscated on a reasonable basis. Not every gun owner is going to trigger a red flag law, and gun owners need to be aware that their weapons will be confiscated if they appear to threaten the safety of the public. There are reasons why they impound the vehicles of drunk drivers, and those drivers need to pay storage fees to get their impounded vehicles back. If someone is making threats of violence, then that person should be prohibited from owning guns. Public health and safety regulations do restrict individual liberties by their very nature, so pointing out that somebody's rights are being restricted by a red flag law does not per se justify doing away with red flag laws. We still require people to drive safely and operate safe vehicles, even if driving erratically and driving an unsafe vehicle doesn't actually harm anyone.

Reasonable basis? The case I mentioned earlier was simply a name match with a name that wasn't remotely unique. And, more importantly, he had no ability to clear his name. I suppose you also approve of CPS taking the kid of the Florida Covid whistleblower for posting a meme?

 

[Copernicus]

The point is it amounts to taking them with no proof of wrongdoing. Why does innocent until proven guilty not apply to gun owners?

The weapons are to be confiscated on a reasonable basis. Not every gun owner is going to trigger a red flag law, and gun owners need to be aware that their weapons will be confiscated if they appear to threaten the safety of the public. There are reasons why they impound the vehicles of drunk drivers, and those drivers need to pay storage fees to get their impounded vehicles back. If someone is making threats of violence, then that person should be prohibited from owning guns. Public health and safety regulations do restrict individual liberties by their very nature, so pointing out that somebody's rights are being restricted by a red flag law does not per se justify doing away with red flag laws. We still require people to drive safely and operate safe vehicles, even if driving erratically and driving an unsafe vehicle doesn't actually harm anyone.

Reasonable basis? The case I mentioned earlier was simply a name match with a name that wasn't remotely unique. And, more importantly, he had no ability to clear his name. I suppose you also approve of CPS taking the kid of the Florida Covid whistleblower for posting a meme?

How does your take on these two anecdotes have anything to do with the need for red flag laws? You can find anecdotes of people being treated poorly or charged incorrectly all the time, and the point has already been made that gun ownership comes with financial and safety risks that the owner is responsible for.