Multiple casualties at Pittsburgh synagogue - Shooter says "All these Jews need to die"

[Cheerful Charlie]

...but we drastically restrict ammo. You can only buy, say, 10 rounds/month. You can buy as much as you want at a shooting range, but you can't take it out with you. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything at all about ammo. You can still buy all the blackpowder and shot you want for things like muzzle loaders (which is what the founding fathers had in mind).

That's actually what Israel does--severe limits on how much ammo you can have, but it doesn't apply to what you do at the range. It works for them because the country is so small and urban that you can't legally shoot (other than in a self defense situation) anywhere else. It wouldn't work in the US because of hunting and varmint control, not to mention plenty of people out west (farmers, ranchers) have land big enough they can shoot on it without a problem.

Not to mention that, once again, the anti-gun left is trying to push the false idea that the Constitution gives us our rights instead of restricting government.

"Well regulated militia".

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Not to mention that, once again, the anti-gun left is trying to push the false idea that the Constitution gives us our rights instead of restricting government.

"Well regulated militia".

"," <---comma.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Not to mention that, once again, the anti-gun left is trying to push the false idea that the Constitution gives us our rights instead of restricting government.

"Well regulated militia".

"," <---comma.

Your point is not relevant to the point being made.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

"," <---comma.

Your point is not relevant to the point being made.

Disagreed.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

"," <---comma.

Your point is not relevant to the point being made.

Disagreed.

You're wrong.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

You're wrong.

You're free to believe anything you like regardless of veracity.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You're wrong.

You're free to believe anything you like regardless of veracity.

A comma simply doesn't refute the justification for a right to bear arms as defense of the country. It doesn't matter where you put it. If you think you can put the comma somewhere to refute such justification as a well-regulated militia, then demonstrate it. You wrote comma, so justify it. The burden is yours.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? A .22 is plenty lethal -- and much more so at range than your standard-issue family bible. Do you really want me to drop links showing how misguided this sort of thinking is?



Well, whatever you do, don't question your own thinking. Good lord knows what happens when you actually engage in earnest discussion!

So, just so we're clear, since you consider a .22 single-shot rifle to be lethal, you think it should be banned?

Uh, no. Where did you get that idea? Would you be so kind as to link to the particular post that gave you that impression?

Restricted with mental health checks, fingerprints, $1000 safes and regular police checks to ensure it's both in the proper possession of the owner and properly secured? What, exactly are you proposing here? If the same as above, why do you have a problem with the same requirements of other rights?

I actually don't have problems with restrictions on other rights. For instance, even if your religion calls for sacrificing a child every Harvest Moon, I'm still not going to prize the freedom of religion higher than the right to live.

What I am proposing here is that people who own firearms should demonstrate the ability to own them responsibly.

I notice you've added a requirement that I didn't mention ("$1000 safes"). You're feeding me boilerplate. That, and the wrong imputation I pointed out above, leads me to believe you think you're arguing against stereotypical gun-banner, but you're not. I'm an individual with his own opinion and would appreciate being treated as such. If you'd like to know where I stand on something, just ask, but you should stop imputing points to me that I haven't made and don't always agree with. It's a courtesy I'm extending to you; certainly you can reciprocate.

What's wrong with being happy with the status quo? I already mentioned that if we're going to rip open the Constitution, let's get it right. Let's have mental and IQ checks for all of our rights. Not that those who are subpar would be treated inhumanely, only that they'd be treated like minors; no voting rights, no gun rights, mandatory school attendance for their own good, etc.

Again, not all untrammelled rights are as deadly. Restrictions should be weighed in the balance of the cost, because the outcome can be deadlier depending on the right being expressed. You telling me I'm going to burn in Hell for being an atheist harms me a lot less than a .22 upside the noggin; so your right to wield a gun should be regulated (just as the Amendment calls for, by the way) more than your right to religious expression.

Every enumerated right is regulated. Why should the right to own a gun be any different?

This "all your rights" stuff is a canard you're mounting to deflect from the simple idea that if you want to own a killing weapon, you should be both sane and free of a felony history. Now, if you think crazies and felons should be able to own guns, just say so.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

You're wrong.

You're free to believe anything you like regardless of veracity.

A comma simply doesn't refute the justification for a right to bear arms as defense of the country. It doesn't matter where you put it. If you think you can put the comma somewhere to refute such justification as a well-regulated militia, then demonstrate it. You wrote comma, so justify it. The burden is yours.

I'm content to let SCOTUS discuss the comma.


https://www.businessinsider.com/the-comma-in-the-second-amendment-2013-8
Take a look at the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That little, red comma caused the Supreme Court to strike down D.C.'s ban on handguns, the country's strictest gun control law to date.

Before the Supreme Court heard the case, the D.C. circuit court of appeals nixed the ban, too. "According to the court, the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' On this reading, the bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,'" The New York Times reported.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And?
From the article:

Anti-gun academics have also argued the framers really meant "A well regulated militia ... shall not be infringed," the Times said

No one here made that argument.

Also, it's kind of funny how in every thread around here where conservatives victimize others, it gets turned around into conservatives becoming victims...

Can't we discuss how Trump's rhetoric has pushed Nazis in America out in the open without a conservative yelling about people taking their guns?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

...Can't we discuss how Trump's rhetoric has pushed Nazis in America out in the open without a conservative yelling about people taking their guns?

Fuck the Nazis. They're scumbags. Are you making a straw man argument or has someone really defended the fucking Nazis as mainstream conservatives?...other than you, that is.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...Can't we discuss how Trump's rhetoric has pushed Nazis in America out in the open without a conservative yelling about people taking their guns?

Fuck the Nazis. They're scumbags. Are you making a straw man argument or has someone really defended the fucking Nazis as mainstream conservatives?...other than you, that is.

So you agree about RW rhetoric.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

...Can't we discuss how Trump's rhetoric has pushed Nazis in America out in the open without a conservative yelling about people taking their guns?

Fuck the Nazis. They're scumbags. Are you making a straw man argument or has someone really defended the fucking Nazis as mainstream conservatives?...other than you, that is.

So you agree about RW rhetoric.

I disagree with the Alt-Right/pro-nazi rhetoric along with any other far left or far right rhetoric. I support traditional conservative values, which are now mostly held by Libertarians. I disagree with the RNC on "modern conservative" values like pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc. and other authoritarian policies which are nobodies business except the people involved.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Here's what I don't understand.

Terrorists hijack planes and commit mass murder once, and airplane travel in and around the US changes overnight with security measures that would have seemed excessive only months prior.
A kid falls off an overpass bridge and safety fences are erected all over the place immediately.
Some fuckwit was being an idiot with fireworks and suddenly, they're harder to purchase than a gun.
A lawsuit that should have been thrown out now requires Rowenta to add the disclaimer "Never iron clothes while they are being worn".

Americans are notorious for having the stigma of excessive restrictions when something occurs not involving firearms. But mass shootings are now more frequent than a monthly occurence and yet nothing can be done. You need those shooters that make you look like an extra for Black Hawk Down because, well, reasons.

Unbelievable.

We do tend to overreact but we are far from alone in this. However, what you are missing is banning guns comes with a substantial non-monetary cost that the other things do not. The left eternally tries to pretend guns have no redeeming value and that's false.

So what's the monetary value of a 6 year old, Loren?

Also, you're utterly wrong about other things not having the same cost, or more. Speaking from insider knowledge of the industry I work in and am intimately familiar with, the changes to the aviation industry after 9/11 and other aviation accidents (many of them didn't even result in any fatalities) cost in the billions, annually.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Here's what I don't understand.

Terrorists hijack planes and commit mass murder once, and airplane travel in and around the US changes overnight with security measures that would have seemed excessive only months prior.
A kid falls off an overpass bridge and safety fences are erected all over the place immediately.
Some fuckwit was being an idiot with fireworks and suddenly, they're harder to purchase than a gun.
A lawsuit that should have been thrown out now requires Rowenta to add the disclaimer "Never iron clothes while they are being worn".

Americans are notorious for having the stigma of excessive restrictions when something occurs not involving firearms. But mass shootings are now more frequent than a monthly occurence and yet nothing can be done. You need those shooters that make you look like an extra for Black Hawk Down because, well, reasons.

Unbelievable.

We do tend to overreact but we are far from alone in this. However, what you are missing is banning guns comes with a substantial non-monetary cost that the other things do not. The left eternally tries to pretend guns have no redeeming value and that's false.

Agreed, but it's not just a monetary cost, it's a step to complete dependence upon government.

Euros and Lefties keep trying to put the American square peg into the Socialist/Monarchist Euro round hole and it won't work. What's more amusing are all the non-Americans seeking to dictate to Americans what they should be doing. LOL

 

[Gun Nut]

Here's what I don't understand.

Terrorists hijack planes and commit mass murder once, and airplane travel in and around the US changes overnight with security measures that would have seemed excessive only months prior.
A kid falls off an overpass bridge and safety fences are erected all over the place immediately.
Some fuckwit was being an idiot with fireworks and suddenly, they're harder to purchase than a gun.
A lawsuit that should have been thrown out now requires Rowenta to add the disclaimer "Never iron clothes while they are being worn".

Americans are notorious for having the stigma of excessive restrictions when something occurs not involving firearms. But mass shootings are now more frequent than a monthly occurence and yet nothing can be done. You need those shooters that make you look like an extra for Black Hawk Down because, well, reasons.

Unbelievable.

We do tend to overreact but we are far from alone in this. However, what you are missing is banning guns comes with a substantial non-monetary cost that the other things do not. The left eternally tries to pretend guns have no redeeming value and that's false.

So what's the monetary value of a 6 year old, Loren?

Also, you're utterly wrong about other things not having the same cost, or more. Speaking from insider knowledge of the industry I work in and am intimately familiar with, the changes to the aviation industry after 9/11 and other aviation accidents (many of them didn't even result in any fatalities) cost in the billions, annually.

The aviation industry will get no tears from me... failure to invest in passenger safety for decades is what cost airlines the most. Tell us about what kinds of computers are running ATC... Tell us how an airline determines if a flaw should be addressed...

 

[Max Rockatansky]

So what's the monetary value of a 6 year old, Loren?

Also, you're utterly wrong about other things not having the same cost, or more. Speaking from insider knowledge of the industry I work in and am intimately familiar with, the changes to the aviation industry after 9/11 and other aviation accidents (many of them didn't even result in any fatalities) cost in the billions, annually.

The aviation industry will get no tears from me... failure to invest in passenger safety for decades is what cost airlines the most. Tell us about what kinds of computers are running ATC... Tell us how an airline determines if a flaw should be addressed...

The government runs ATC, the airlines have nothing to do with running it, buying computers, etc. As for passenger safety, all airlines are compliant with FAA regulations. Faulting them for not doing more is bad business. Do you hold the oil, gas and coal industries to the same standards of going beyond government regulations? The auto industry?

While I know many Lefties are anti-capitalism/pro-socialism, all companies, including airlines, operate to make money. Complying with regulations costs money (e.g. global warming), but businesses and their investors strive to make a profit, pay their taxes and move forward.

Example: after a terrorist bomb blew up PanAm 103, there were calls for bomb sniffers at all airports. The technology existed at the time but was very expensive. Flash forward 8 years when TWA 800 blew up off the coast of New York, and initially thought to be a terrorist bomb, people started asking "What happened to the bomb sniffers?" What happened is that the FAA looked at the costs, yes even governments have a budget despite the screams of Liberal spendthrifts, and did a cost-benefit analysis. At the time, the value of a life was calculated to be $4.2M. Calculate the odds of a bomb killing a planeload of passengers, the number of passengers times $4.2M and then calculate the cost of the bomb sniffers over that same time period. Choose the cheaper option. In the early 1990s, the cheaper option was just to roll the dice which is what they did. No bomb sniffers. Since then, technology has improved and costs have come down for bomb sniffers, biometric devices, etc. Like on the Godfather, “It's not personal. It's strictly business.”


https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/benefit_cost/

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...cost/media/econ-value-section-2-tx-values.pdf
VALUE OF LIFE
For analyses conducted in 2016 (with a base year of 2015), OST guidance suggests that $9.6 million be used as the current estimate for the VSL, measured 2015 dollars.

 

[Gun Nut]

nevermind.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

nevermind.

No shit.

BTW, I spent a few years in Colorado, including college. Love the state, but hate what it's become; to expensive and more like California than the US west.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's what I don't understand.

Terrorists hijack planes and commit mass murder once, and airplane travel in and around the US changes overnight with security measures that would have seemed excessive only months prior.
A kid falls off an overpass bridge and safety fences are erected all over the place immediately.
Some fuckwit was being an idiot with fireworks and suddenly, they're harder to purchase than a gun.
A lawsuit that should have been thrown out now requires Rowenta to add the disclaimer "Never iron clothes while they are being worn".

Americans are notorious for having the stigma of excessive restrictions when something occurs not involving firearms. But mass shootings are now more frequent than a monthly occurence and yet nothing can be done. You need those shooters that make you look like an extra for Black Hawk Down because, well, reasons.

Unbelievable.

We do tend to overreact but we are far from alone in this. However, what you are missing is banning guns comes with a substantial non-monetary cost that the other things do not. The left eternally tries to pretend guns have no redeeming value and that's false.

So what's the monetary value of a 6 year old, Loren?

Also, you're utterly wrong about other things not having the same cost, or more. Speaking from insider knowledge of the industry I work in and am intimately familiar with, the changes to the aviation industry after 9/11 and other aviation accidents (many of them didn't even result in any fatalities) cost in the billions, annually.

Ok, bad wording on my part--I meant rules that have costs other than simply money.

That's obviously what you're referring to with the 6 year old--but you're missing the fact that protecting that 6 year old gives criminals the major upper hand because they'll be armed while their victims will not be.