Yet another school shooting

[LordKiran]

So I'm going to say what I say everytime there's an islamic terror attack in the west. Why bother making a new thread each and everytime just so we can all say and be told the same things over and over again?

Just make a sub-thread next to the presidential election one.

"Mass shootings"

and

"Islamic terror attacks in the west"

 

[Malintent]

The Constitution does not prohibit gun control laws or even limited types of gun ownership bans. The barriers are all political, not legal. Unfortunately, the court system is dominated by a pro-gun SCOTUS that will seek creatve ways to block some practical gun control measures. For example, they have now ruled that gun ownership is protected if the purpose is home defense, even though the purpose made explicit in constitutional language is militia duty.

.. and the state police fill that role... so what the 2nd amendment REALLY says is that States have the right to form their own police force, independent of the Federal government, and arm them. We do that. done. average citizens are not guaranteed the right, by the constitution, to own and use guns. The state has the right to form an armed police force.

If you want to own a gun, become a cop or join the military.

I disagree.

2nd amendment: a well regulated militia blah blah blah ==> the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Correction... "the right of THE people to....blah blah blah" THE people are the aforementioned militia. This was written before there was a fire department, replacing the bucket brigade, and the police force, replacing the militia.

Two points under consideration: there are two other reasons for keeping and bearing arms: hunting for food and personal home defense. While the Constitution does not mention either of these, it does say in the 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It further states in the 10th amendment "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."

There is no enumerated right that dictates HOW you hunt food or defend yourself. correct that the constitution only grants states rights - like to make a police force (or the old fashioned way of pronouncing "police" - ma-lish-ah). It does not grant or remove the ability for a STATE to make a law prohibiting non-militia (police) from arming themselves with muskets.

So I will say that an absolutist statement of "If you want to own a gun, become a cop or join the military" is negated by rights of the people, recognized since the beginning to hunt and for personal defense.

The constitution does not grant rights to individuals. It prohibits certain rights from being removed from people. I am still of the opinion that people still enjoy their right to have an armed militia (police) that is independent of the federal government, protect them.

BUT this counter needs to be a nuanced view. The states retain a right if so voted within the state to regulate the types of guns/weapons etc, i.e. states' rights. Congress itself does not have an enumerated power to regulate guns, EXCEPT the commerce clause. Because trade across states and between states is so frequent with our current technology and society, the laws now need to be federal.

So in my interpretation, there is nothing stopping Congress from making a law to ban AR-15's or similar, provided such law is reasonable, allows for hunting, and allows for personal defense [by other types of guns]. [A possible exception could be if a state has explicitly allowed automatic weapons in its state Constitution or its state laws. We might then need Supreme Court to step in.] Still, Congress can never ban guns completely to citizens unless there is a Constitutional Convention.

Ya, I think I agree with what you are saying here... but it seems inconsistent with everything else you posted, but that may be my lack of comprehension..

I think we agree that a state can say, "firearms that are protected under the constitution are defined in our state to be hand-loaded musket ball firing smooth barreled muskets". Those "hand cannons" that are commonly sold elsewhere are weapons of mass destruction and highly illegal in our state... possession resulting in life in prison as a minimum, and death as a maximum penalty.

A bit extreme, but unconstitutional?

 

[rousseau]

 

[LordKiran]

Mass shootings by themselves are the leftwing version of Islamic terrorism in the west. A sporadic sensationalist problem that doesn't actually mean much in the grand scheme of things. It's only when the total scale of gun injuries and fatalities across the nation every year are taken into consideration that you begin to have a case for gun control. Even if mass shootings are horrible at the end of the day life is seemingly cheap these days no matter who you are or where you come from. People say Thoughts and Prayers the same way they do after a Hurricane because they've resigned themselves to the problem: Something that sucks but isn't big enough to warrant doing something about on a national scale.

 

[Iznomneak]

 

[Elixir]

Mass shootings by themselves are the leftwing version of Islamic terrorism in the west. A sporadic sensationalist problem that doesn't actually mean much in the grand scheme of things. It's only when the total scale of gun injuries and fatalities across the nation every year are taken into consideration that you begin to have a case for gun control. Even if mass shootings are horrible at the end of the day life is seemingly cheap these days no matter who you are or where you come from.

I vehemently disagree. Yeah we "lost" 17 kids this week, and in the grand scheme of things that's a negligible number. But the real world effects are NOT negligible, nor is the number of people effected. 3000 students at that school were directly traumatized, ALL of their families were terrorized, neighboring communities were also stricken, and most of the entire population of ~300 million was shocked and dismayed. I don't support any view that tends to normalize these events or minimize their impacts. It's not about the numbers lost, it's about the color of the fabric of our society.

 

[Toni]

Yeah, I know I'm the only person in this world who feels for this kid's pain and wants to know what we are going to do to stop school shootings.

We need to start dealing with this before anyone even thinks that a possible solution to whatever bad things they are feeling and experiencing gets resolved with a gun or twenty.

Anything to pretend the problem is society at fault.

Some of the reports have said he killed small animals. That's a big, big red flag and not due to his recent losses.

His losses were not only 'recent.' He has had a life filled with losses which were not his fault. However he lost his biological parents, he lost them as a very young child. He lost his adoptive father as a young child. Whatever family his adoptive mother had seems to have always held themselves at a distance.

Yes, killing animals is a huge red flag.

Not all kids who kill animals grow up to shoot up schools or movie theaters. 100% of those who do not have access to weapons do not shoot up schools or movie theaters or concert venues or campuses.

I don't know if there were any interventions to help this clearly troubled kid and his family, or to what extent he and his family were given help. I do know that real, effective help for troubled kids, or for that matter, troubled adults, is often patchwork, hard to find, or simply not available or cohesive.

I do know that at least some schools look at kids that they identify as 'different' and as targets of bullies as threats, rather than as kids who deserve to be helped. Because we all 'know' that the targets of bullies shoot up schools, right? Funny how nobody ever thinks that the solution might be to deal with the bullies.

Unless and until we decide as a nation and as a society that every single child deserves to grow up in a safe, secure and loving family and are willing to invest what it takes to ensure that happens--and to find ways to fill in where something goes wrong, gun control (which I heavily support!) will not be sufficient to prevent such tragedies, anymore than antibiotics are a solution to sanitation problems.

 

[laughing dog]

Yeah, I know I'm the only person in this world who feels for this kid's pain and wants to know what we are going to do to stop school shootings.

We need to start dealing with this before anyone even thinks that a possible solution to whatever bad things they are feeling and experiencing gets resolved with a gun or twenty.

Anything to pretend the problem is society at fault.

Some of the reports have said he killed small animals. That's a big, big red flag and not due to his recent losses.

I am pretty sure you have no fucking clue what this young man was going through. Which you have no reality-grounded basis for any of your comments.

 

[Malintent]

Yeah, I know I'm the only person in this world who feels for this kid's pain and wants to know what we are going to do to stop school shootings.

We need to start dealing with this before anyone even thinks that a possible solution to whatever bad things they are feeling and experiencing gets resolved with a gun or twenty.

Anything to pretend the problem is society at fault.

Some of the reports have said he killed small animals. That's a big, big red flag and not due to his recent losses.

I am pretty sure you have no fucking clue what this young man was going through. Which you have no reality-grounded basis for any of your comments.

Translation: "There were good people on both sides"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

... On the surface, fine. Look at the details and it's not so fine. You can't let even a family member borrow a gun. ...

Oh, the humanity!!

Why should you be allowed to let a family member borrow a gun?

How can this "right" to loan firearms to family possibly be so vitally important as to render measures to prevent people from dying unacceptable?

1) It's going to do squat about mass shootings.

2) If multiple people in a household do shooting sports your approach effectively requires that each has their own guns unless they always participate together.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

ironic coming from someone who doesn't seem to have a problem with police shooting unarmed, innocent people if they feel threatened.

Few of those are innocent. The unarmed people that get shot are almost all either attacking the cops or simulating a weapon.

Now this sounds like the full on paranoid propaganda the NRA pushes. Even ignoring the whole overblown 'gun grabber' epithet, how is a list of gun owners a 'holy grail'?

Because you can't hope to confiscate guns if you don't build a list first.

Also, look at the crap of putting people's psychiatric records in law enforcement databases. It would be illegal for a doctor to submit records to such a system!

And why would a person's entire psychiatric record need to be in the database? Why not just a flag that Dr. X has submitted that patient Y is a potential danger. Then the patient can petition to have the flag removed.

You're talking how it should be implemented (except that instead of flag it should be the identity of the person who put it there), not how they proposed it. See what I mean about overreach from the left?

- - - Updated - - -

Why are people do dumb they fall for this shit? Seriously. Do people really think atheists run around with ATHEIST written on their shirts? This is like a cartoon where the artist labels things: a can of soda with the word SODA on it.

Actually, the cartoonist is sensible. Soda? Energy drink? Beer? They can't use a brand name, so "soda" it is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

lot less paperwork involved in purchasing a firearm than a car.

And it's a lot easier to rent a car than a gun. Probably one reason automotive vehicles are becoming more popular as weapons of mass murder...

Disagree.

To rent a car I need a driver's license and if local, proof of insurance. (While in theory they should ask whether or not you're local the reality is most people leave their insurance card in their car and don't have it with them when traveling. I have yet to be asked for insurance when presenting a non-local license.)

Multiple places here will rent you a gun with less. (Now, taking it off the premises is another matter. I don't know what precautions they have to prevent them walking out the door.)

 

[laughing dog]

I am pretty sure you have no fucking clue what this young man was going through. Which you have no reality-grounded basis for any of your comments.

Translation: "There were good people on both sides"

That would be a mis-translation. It should obvious to anyone that Toni's and my remark should be translated into "Better to nip this behavior in the bud before a tragedy occurs" which has absolutely nothing to do with good people or blaming anyone. Duh.

 

[whichphilosophy]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=04UqzYOdGNs[/YOUTUBE]



Michael Moore -

 

[marc]

Few of those are innocent. The unarmed people that get shot are almost all either attacking the cops or simulating a weapon.

yea, the usual excuses you give for every shooting, that are regularly debunked, not that you would ever admit it.

Because you can't hope to confiscate guns if you don't build a list first.

as I said, exactly the paranoid propaganda that the NRA has been pushing for as long as I can remember. I'm guessing the evidence of this plot to confiscate all guns is hidden right next to Obama's real birth certificate. So did you believe the rhetoric that Obama was going to take all guns away?

 

[Elixir]

lot less paperwork involved in purchasing a firearm than a car.

And it's a lot easier to rent a car than a gun. Probably one reason automotive vehicles are becoming more popular as weapons of mass murder...

Disagree.

To rent a car I need a driver's license and if local, proof of insurance. (While in theory they should ask whether or not you're local the reality is most people leave their insurance card in their car and don't have it with them when traveling. I have yet to be asked for insurance when presenting a non-local license.)

Multiple places here will rent you a gun with less. (Now, taking it off the premises is another matter. I don't know what precautions they have to prevent them walking out the door.)

Maybe it's okay if you have a rented car?

- - - Updated - - -

lot less paperwork involved in purchasing a firearm than a car.

And it's a lot easier to rent a car than a gun. Probably one reason automotive vehicles are becoming more popular as weapons of mass murder...

Disagree.

To rent a car I need a driver's license and if local, proof of insurance. (While in theory they should ask whether or not you're local the reality is most people leave their insurance card in their car and don't have it with them when traveling. I have yet to be asked for insurance when presenting a non-local license.)

Multiple places here will rent you a gun with less. (Now, taking it off the premises is another matter. I don't know what precautions they have to prevent them walking out the door.)

It's been a while since I was in the Reno airport... do they have gun rental counters?

 

[RavenSky]

View attachment 14542

Talk about biased reporting!

This is actually is one of the things His Flatulence got right.

The problem is that "mental illness" is a very broad category--and most people who fall into that category have no reason to be prohibited from having guns. No regard for the constitution at all.

You, apparently, have zero idea what the legislation actually said.

When an American suffers from a severe mental illness, to the point that he or she receives disability benefits through the Social Security Administration, there are a variety of limits created to help protect that person and his or her interests. These folks cannot, for example, go to a bank to cash a check on their own.

There was also a federal policy in place to prevent that person from purchasing a gun. There was a mechanism in place for this reason: the Social Security Administration would report the names of those who receive disability benefits due to severe mental illness to the FBI’s background-check system.

Last year, none other than Chuck Grassley sponsored legislation to block that reporting. It passed the Republican-led Congress exactly one year ago today, with the unanimous support of every GOP senator, along with four red-state Democrats and an independent.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/grassley-the-wrong-senator-the-wrong-message-guns

This is what Trump signed.

 

[Kharakov]

CBS reporting now 17 dead, gunman captured, used an AR 15.

This will continue to happen until we turn our schools into prisons or fortresses.

This will continue to happen until we turn our prisons and fortresses into schools.

 

[RavenSky]

Another heartbreaking exchange between siblings during the shooting - brothers this time, both students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Few of those are innocent. The unarmed people that get shot are almost all either attacking the cops or simulating a weapon.



Because you can't hope to confiscate guns if you don't build a list first.

Also, look at the crap of putting people's psychiatric records in law enforcement databases. It would be illegal for a doctor to submit records to such a system!

And why would a person's entire psychiatric record need to be in the database? Why not just a flag that Dr. X has submitted that patient Y is a potential danger. Then the patient can petition to have the flag removed.

You're talking how it should be implemented (except that instead of flag it should be the identity of the person who put it there), not how they proposed it. See what I mean about overreach from the left?

- - - Updated - - -

Why are people do dumb they fall for this shit? Seriously. Do people really think atheists run around with ATHEIST written on their shirts? This is like a cartoon where the artist labels things: a can of soda with the word SODA on it.

Actually, the cartoonist is sensible. Soda? Energy drink? Beer? They can't use a brand name, so "soda" it is.

Strawman. I did not say the cartoonist was sensible or not. Reading.