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

[Max Rockatansky]

Max, what restrictions do you think are in the 2nd amendment? Are there any at all?

None. The Constitution limits government, not citizens. The Second Amendment doesn't give us our right of self-defense anymore than the First Amendment gives us our right of free speech or freedom of the press. It limits what government can do to stop us. There was a huge argument at the time of its writing over the issue exactly because of concern that some would think it limits citizen rights, not government.

What is the purpose of government? It's in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution plus quantly summed up in a quote attributed to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "Your right to throw a punch stops where my nose begins".

Aside from national security and foreign relations, government also resolves disputes between citizens. While I may think I have a right to build a nuke in my basement, my neighbors may disagree. Same goes for shooting off a howitzer in my back yard or setting up landmines in my yard. OTOH, my owning an AK is a common form of self-defense. I can agree on mass weapons like the nuke thing, the howitzer thing and even the Claymore thing, but now when they want to take an individual weapon, that's there the line should be drawn.

I would say in response that since you believe the federal government cannot limit firearms possession, a position I disagree with, what about states rights. The constitution says nothing about what rights as far as firearms citizens do have and it does say that rights not mentioned about the government are given to the states. By your argument, states could limit possession at their will.

That's not a completely correct assumption. There's a difference between pointing out that the Constitution limits government and saying government can't limit weapons. As I pointed out, it can limit nukes and landmines, bombs through the mail, etc. It's important to understand why.

As for the Tenth Amendment, it's important to note the actual text: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Ergo, the States can't supersede Second Amendment rights anymore than they can First Amendment rights or any others.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I would say in response that since you believe the federal government cannot limit firearms possession, a position I disagree with, what about states rights. The constitution says nothing about what rights as far as firearms citizens do have and it does say that rights not mentioned about the government are given to the states. By your argument, states could limit possession at their will.

That's not a completely correct assumption. There's a difference between pointing out that the Constitution limits government and saying government can't limit weapons. As I pointed out, it can limit nukes and landmines, bombs through the mail, etc. It's important to understand why.

As for the Tenth Amendment, it's important to note the actual text: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Ergo, the States can't supersede Second Amendment rights anymore than they can First Amendment rights or any others.

And I think this is much more important to discuss, how the Constitutional issues apply to your rights instead of the rights that were denied the murder victims. As we need to be reminded, the true victims of these massacres are gun owners.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hence the qualifier "at least".

Trump's Alt-Right fans are throwbacks to the time when the white bigotry was in the open.

I think many are beyond that. Check out Stormfront; you will see Trump's talking-points relayed almost verbatim by all manner of WSs, ANs ... and those talking points long predate Trump himself.

I read an interview with Obama about whether or not he was elected "too soon" and the election of Trump is white backlash. It's interesting point with some evidence that it's true. The good news is things like this settle out and turn to the good.

Both are possible, though I confess more doubt about the latter thought. There's a lot of complacency in the public and I'm not sure they really care about democracy as much as we'd like.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It is a favorite straw man of the right that gun control advocates all want to ban all guns. Stable, law abiding people can keep their guns, that is not an issue.
And the left would love to do something about mental health care. It is the right that prevents helping mental health care. Hell, they keep trying to cut back on all kinds of health care.
Funny how that works. Cut mental health care, and remove restrictions on gun purchases, then we somehow end up with a lot more shootings. Almost like there is a connection there somehow.

The fact is that the American mental-health-care system was gutted in the 80s, under a Republican president and a Congress that was split.

While I think we all get that these mass-shootings are perpetrated by people who are mentally unsound. But in the larger picture, these headline events are a tiny proportion of all American murders. As much as I agree that we need to take better care of the mentally ill, I'm not sure it would change the murder rate too much, though, given that the majority seem tied to other criminal behavior (drugs, turf, etc) or spontaneous acts.

That last opinion is only that; I don't have numbers to support that opinion, and I'm certainly amenable to correction by good numbers.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

I read an interview with Obama about whether or not he was elected "too soon" and the election of Trump is white backlash. It's interesting point with some evidence that it's true. The good news is things like this settle out and turn to the good.

Both are possible, though I confess more doubt about the latter thought. There's a lot of complacency in the public and I'm not sure they really care about democracy as much as we'd like.

Agreed. Kinda like Americans before Pearl Harbor; complacent, feeling falsely secure, not giving a shit about what is happening in the world around them. Something will wake that sleeping giant up...and when it does, the entertainment value will quadruple!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

... I have yet to hear a believable explanation why you must own hardware superior than what was used to storm the beaches on Normandy like the AR-15 or any AK analogue. Your day to day isn't that fucking stressful for crying out loud.

Dude, this is why I don't trust the anti-gun lobby to make rational decisions regarding gun bans: the AR-15 and AK-47 didn't exist in WWII. Additionally, most weapons used in war are fully automatic, most in the US are not...and if they are, it's very, very costly to buy and own them.

That doesn't rebut his point, Max. He was drawing a comparison, not claim that ARs or AKs were actually used in '44.

By the way, the vast majority of doggies landed on Utah and Omaha with the M-1, a semi-automatic rifle (or carbine, depending on the version you were issued) that was not capable of automatic fire, either.

 

[phands]

I read an interview with Obama about whether or not he was elected "too soon" and the election of Trump is white backlash. It's interesting point with some evidence that it's true. The good news is things like this settle out and turn to the good.

Both are possible, though I confess more doubt about the latter thought. There's a lot of complacency in the public and I'm not sure they really care about democracy as much as we'd like.

Agreed. Kinda like Americans before Pearl Harbor; complacent, feeling falsely secure, not giving a shit about what is happening in the world around them. Something will wake that sleeping giant up...and when it does, the entertainment value will quadruple!

You think war and millions of deaths is "entertainment"?????? That's sick.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Instead of just assuming and spreading bullshit accusations, why don't you propose a middle ground solution so we can discuss it?

Smart guns. Mental health checks for purchases and continued ownership. A sunset clause on building or bequeathing dumb guns. This would address the issue of stolen guns without taking guns away from responsible owners.

This would take decades, but I think it's worth it.

 

[phands]

Instead of just assuming and spreading bullshit accusations, why don't you propose a middle ground solution so we can discuss it?

Smart guns. Mental health checks for purchases and continued ownership. A sunset clause on building or bequeathing dumb guns. This would address the issue of stolen guns without taking guns away from responsible owners.

This would take decades, but I think it's worth it.

Mandatory licensing and insurance for all guns.

But an outright ban is the best.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

... I have yet to hear a believable explanation why you must own hardware superior than what was used to storm the beaches on Normandy like the AR-15 or any AK analogue. Your day to day isn't that fucking stressful for crying out loud.

Dude, this is why I don't trust the anti-gun lobby to make rational decisions regarding gun bans: the AR-15 and AK-47 didn't exist in WWII. Additionally, most weapons used in war are fully automatic, most in the US are not...and if they are, it's very, very costly to buy and own them.

That doesn't rebut his point, Max. He was drawing a comparison, not claim that ARs or AKs were actually used in '44.

By the way, the vast majority of doggies landed on Utah and Omaha with the M-1, a semi-automatic rifle (or carbine, depending on the version you were issued) that was not capable of automatic fire, either.

Disagreed about rebutting his point, but no matter. I'm satisfied with the status quo. Anyone who wants to change it will have to convince the majority of Americans why they want to chip away at the Constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed. Kinda like Americans before Pearl Harbor; complacent, feeling falsely secure, not giving a shit about what is happening in the world around them. Something will wake that sleeping giant up...and when it does, the entertainment value will quadruple!

You think war and millions of deaths is "entertainment"?????? That's sick.

Wrong again, Phands. Now work your magic to edit my post. Let's see just how Talk Free this forum really is.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

2) Translation: make it illegal for a father to buy his 12 year old child a .22 rifle for Christmas without traipsing them down to the local LW anti-gun bureau for fingerprinting and a background check. Same goes for a father letting their kid shooting the father's .22 single-shot rifle. In California this is considered an "illegal transfer of weapon".

It's a machine of death, capable of killing any human on the other end. I think it's fair that society have some assurance that such a machine is not wielded by someone suffering mental-health issues which could result in a violent break (psychopathy, sociopathy, that sort of thing).

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Instead of just assuming and spreading bullshit accusations, why don't you propose a middle ground solution so we can discuss it?

Smart guns. Mental health checks for purchases and continued ownership. A sunset clause on building or bequeathing dumb guns. This would address the issue of stolen guns without taking guns away from responsible owners.

This would take decades, but I think it's worth it.

Great! Let's see the tech. As for mental health checks, I propose we have those for all of our rights, both enumerated and unenumerated. Can't pass a mental health check? You can't vote. You most certainly can't run for office.

- - - Updated - - -

2) Translation: make it illegal for a father to buy his 12 year old child a .22 rifle for Christmas without traipsing them down to the local LW anti-gun bureau for fingerprinting and a background check. Same goes for a father letting their kid shooting the father's .22 single-shot rifle. In California this is considered an "illegal transfer of weapon".

It's a machine of death, capable of killing any human on the other end. I think it's fair that society have some assurance that such a machine is not wielded by someone suffering mental-health issues which could result in a violent break (psychopathy, sociopathy, that sort of thing).

A .22 single shot rifle is a "machine of death"? Unsurprising. You've just asserted everything the pro-Second Amendment proponents have claimed about the anti-gun left.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Great! Let's see the tech.

That's coming along. It's not perfect yet. Nor was aviation technology, nor is medicine, nor is ...

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

As for mental health checks, I propose we have those for all of our rights, both enumerated and unenumerated. Can't pass a mental health check? You can't vote. You most certainly can't run for office.

I'll take this point seriously when I can kill you with words. This is a false equivalence, because the results of exercising one's non-gun rights seem less likely to result in the deaths of innocents. Ignoring that fact strikes me as disingenuous. No right is untrammelled, but not all rights are equally deadly when exercised.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Great! Let's see the tech.

That's coming along. It's not perfect yet. Nor was aviation technology, nor is medicine, nor is ...

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

As for mental health checks, I propose we have those for all of our rights, both enumerated and unenumerated. Can't pass a mental health check? You can't vote. You most certainly can't run for office.

I'll take this point seriously when I can kill you with words. This is a false equivalence, because the results of exercising one's non-gun rights seem less likely to result in the deaths of innocents. Ignoring that fact strikes me as disingenuous. No right is untrammelled, but not all rights are equally deadly when exercised.

Nothing wrong with safety devices that help, not hinder.

Disagreed. Once we start chipping away at the Constitution, it's just a matter of time. Let's go for the whole enchilada at once so we can control it. Besides, who really wants a bunch of low IQ, low information assholes voting? Seriously.

In fact, if it was up to me, every American citizen has limited rights; no voting, no owning guns, no running for office unless they serve in the military and receive an honorable discharge.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

A .22 single shot rifle is a "machine of death"? Unsurprising.

Yes, it is. It is designed to deliver a lethal projectile that can strike a man down at quite a range. It is designed and machined to do so regularly, and in many cases without any action on the part of the shooter to even chamber the next round. As NRA types are fond of saying, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." And when they have a rifle, it's that much easier to kill, precisely because that is what a gun -- even a lowly .22 semi- -- is designed to do.

You've just asserted everything the pro-Second Amendment proponents have claimed about the anti-gun left.

No, I haven't. I've pointed out a basic fact about guns. They are deadly. I'm surprised I should have to explain that to a gun-rights advocate.

Let me know when you're ready to actually address the points I've laid. I'm hoping for a good, honest discussion.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

A .22 single shot rifle is a "machine of death"? Unsurprising.

Yes, it is. It is designed to deliver a lethal projectile that can strike a man down at quite a range. It is designed and machined to do so regularly, and in many cases without any action on the part of the shooter to even chamber the next round. As NRA types are fond of saying, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." And when they have a rifle, it's that much easier to kill, precisely because that is what a gun -- even a lowly .22 semi- -- is designed to do.

You've just asserted everything the pro-Second Amendment proponents have claimed about the anti-gun left.

No, I haven't. I've pointed out a basic fact about guns. They are deadly. I'm surprised I should have to explain that to a gun-rights advocate.

Let me know when you're ready to actually address the points I've laid. I'm hoping for a good, honest discussion.

A .22 single shot is more lethal to squirrels and rabbits than men...although a well swung Bible can kill just like anything else.

What's the point? I'm content with the status quo.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Disagreed. Once we start chipping away at the Constitution, it's just a matter of time.

Funny, I didn't see any "patriots" standing up to the government when the Patriot Act was passed. Where was the NRA then, when our right to privacy and protection from unreasonable search and seizure was being eroded? What are they waiting for?

Let's go for the whole enchilada at once so we can control it. Besides, who really wants a bunch of low IQ, low information assholes voting? Seriously.

No one wants to control you or take away your guns -- at least, I don't. I'm just asking that you demonstrate basic competence and mental soundness in order to own a thing which can be used to easily kill people.

In fact, if it was up to me, every American citizen has limited rights; no voting, no owning guns, no running for office unless they serve in the military and receive an honorable discharge.

Another difference we have between us: I favor expanding rights, not shrinking them. But that's another thread, now isn't it? I am not trying to take away any right from you. I simply think that gun owners should demonstrate that they are responsible enough to maintain ownership. I'm also a big fan of licensed pilots and drunk-driving laws. Call me crazy.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

A .22 single shot is more lethal to squirrels and rabbits than men...although a well swung Bible can kill just like anything else.

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?

What's the point? I'm content with the status quo.

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

 

[Max Rockatansky]

A .22 single shot is more lethal to squirrels and rabbits than men...although a well swung Bible can kill just like anything else.

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?

What's the point? I'm content with the status quo.

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? 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?

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.

 

[repoman]

Let's lighten the mood.