[split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-06-2016, 01:26 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(21-06-2016 01:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are delirious. That conversation is entirely in your head.

What conversations aren't? ... wait. .... never mind.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2016, 01:35 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
Isn't it about time to retire this thread to the Colosseum?

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Old Man Marsh's post
21-06-2016, 01:40 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(21-06-2016 01:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:Still does not change our gun death epidemic. Still does not change that the GOP/NRA obstruct every measure after lying saying they want to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

That is simply not the case. They block legislation that has no demonstrable utility, or too little to justify the loss of freedoms.
No, that's not true at all.
Many block all attempts at any legislation regarding gun control.

They want unfettered access to any gun they want regardless of the utility of it, regardless of the dangers that gun may present in the wrong hands.

They want access to guns that are designed to kill people in mass. (i.e. guns of war).

Somehow, they believe that the "bad" guys will get guns anyway, hence they believe that gun laws only impact law abiding citizens.

When they look at gun statistics, they assume all the mass killings, all the homocides, would have happened anyway. But they believe more would have happened because they assume the legal owners are saving lives by fighting back.

Somehow they reason the horrendous American statistics by claiming that Americans are a violent people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2016, 01:49 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(21-06-2016 01:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(21-06-2016 01:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  That is simply not the case. They block legislation that has no demonstrable utility, or too little to justify the loss of freedoms.
No, that's not true at all.
Many block all attempts at any legislation regarding gun control.

They want unfettered access to any gun they want regardless of the utility of it, regardless of the dangers that gun may present in the wrong hands.

They want access to guns that are designed to kill people in mass. (i.e. guns of war).

Somehow, they believe that the "bad" guys will get guns anyway, hence they believe that gun laws only impact law abiding citizens.

When they look at gun statistics, they assume all the mass killings, all the homocides, would have happened anyway. But they believe more would have happened because they assume the legal owners are saving lives by fighting back.

Nice broad brush. Who is this 'they' you've created out of straw?

There are extremes on both sides of this issue and they are not the majority.

Quote:Somehow they reason the horrendous American statistics by claiming that Americans are a violent people.

The U.S. is demonstrably more violent than other first world countries. It's not just about guns.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2016, 02:06 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(21-06-2016 01:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-06-2016 01:09 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Asking hard questions is rude to you?

What are you talking about? Consider
I was referring to me. You said my perception was faulty.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2016, 02:07 PM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2016 03:22 PM by Stevil.)
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(21-06-2016 01:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nice broad brush. Who is this 'they' you've created out of straw?

There are extremes on both sides of this issue and they are not the majority.
Chas, let's be honest here.
Do you think people judged as meeting the background checks etc. should be able to do the following:
be able to freely buy machine guns?
be able to freely buy assault rifles?
be able to freely buy large capacity semiautomatics?
be able to walk around "open carry" with loaded guns, near schools, in the middle of the city, anywhere they please?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2016, 02:08 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(21-06-2016 01:09 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  Any atheist left or right well read, knows Hitchen's story about "If you asked me to kill my own son, I would say NO and fuck you!"

I am applying the same logic to our flooded gun market. The GOP/NRA sells worship, not pragmatism, but to blind loyalty to a position, not problem solving.

The GOP/NRA is literally asking society to be that child, using the metaphor that the act of blind loyalty and arbitrary loyalty is more important than the child itself.

So I say the same thing to the GOP/NRA that Hitchens said about the sick and vile story of a God asking you to murder your own child. "NO AND FUCK YOU".

The GOD in this the gun in this metaphor and the child is all the death due to blind loyalty to a position.

I've been told "a certain number of dead children is acceptable if I can keep my guns."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2016, 03:10 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(21-06-2016 12:30 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  
(21-06-2016 12:10 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I'm anti gun and I think going off like this does more harm than good.

Every state in the country has different gun laws, then on top of that the fed has some too. Chas' state is on the strict side.

We do have a problem in this country. But it's not really with guns as much as it is with crime, poverty, drugs, poor education and lousy mental health care.

Guns are the red herring. We can get rid of all the guns and we still have to deal with all these problems. if we actually stood up and did something about all these things, then the whole gun argument becomes more moot.

No, guns are not a red herring. A Quran is only an object too. It has no magic ability by itself with no human help, to jump off a table or shelf and murder someone all by itself. Funny how the west rightfully says "Your interpretation of that object does cause real harm".

The object is the problem. The Quran is the problem and a gun is a problem. Of course you cant get rid of all Muslims or all guns. But you can point out to humans that blind worship of anything and lack of pragmatism in how you view those objects is a problem.

Unless we face we make too many guns and unless we face they are too easy to get, we will not reduce gun deaths.

So, do you believe education, poverty, drug abuse, racism, and mental health care will improve once we get rid of guns? I don't agree with that at all.

If you're saying that an American citizen, known to the FBI with links to terrorist or criminal organizations shouldn't be allowed to legally purchase a firearm in any state, I agree. I don't think Chas or anyone in this thread has said they should.

While we're at it, if the Qur'an is so dangerous why aren't you advocating banning that too?

How many shootings in this country have been officially linked to Islamic terrorism?


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2016, 03:18 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(21-06-2016 01:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-06-2016 01:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  No, that's not true at all.
Many block all attempts at any legislation regarding gun control.

They want unfettered access to any gun they want regardless of the utility of it, regardless of the dangers that gun may present in the wrong hands....

Nice broad brush. Who is this 'they' you've created out of straw?

There are extremes on both sides of this issue and they are not the majority.
When i was talking about "they", it was in the context of my second sentence, setting the scene for the rest of my post.
"Many block all attempts at any legislation regarding gun control"
Note, that I said "many" rather than "the majority" which you "cleverly" accused me of saying.
I didn't say the majority, I didn't imply the majority, so why are you telling me that I have constructed a strawman?
We only have to look towards online biker's comments to support what I said.
(17-06-2016 10:20 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  A. Scrap all current gun laws.
B. Allow anyone to buy anything at all, that they desire - gun wise.
C. Make it a felony for anyone who is a felon - or is adjudicated as mentally incompetent to have a state issued identification card that has a "NOT ALLOWED TO OWN FIREARMS" on the ID...... It's a felony, if they don't comply.
D. Make it a felony for anyone who is not allowed to buy, or possess a firearm -to buy or attempt to buy one - and throw their asses in prison if caught.
E. Make it mandatory to check ID on ALL gun sales - including those between private individuals. Make it a felony to sell to someone not allowed to own or possess a firearm. Put illegal sellers in prison, alongside the idiots who aren't supposed to own guns, but had one - or tried to get one..
So here, it is very clear that online biker's position is as I have stated
Quote:They want unfettered access to any gun they want regardless of the utility of it, regardless of the dangers that gun may present in the wrong hands.

They want access to guns that are designed to kill people in mass. (i.e. guns of war).
"they" here could refer to online biker. But I know from conversations I've had with others that online biker isn't alone on this.

When online biker states
(17-06-2016 10:20 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  What this does - is target the people who do NOT obey the gun laws.

The people who DO follow the laws - aren't the problem to begin with..

Virtually every gun law to date, simply targets the law abiding citizen -- as they are the only ones who do abide by the laws...
This goes nicely with my statement
"Somehow, they believe that the "bad" guys will get guns anyway, hence they believe that gun laws only impact law abiding citizens."

When I say
"When they look at gun statistics, they assume all the mass killings, all the homicides, would have happened anyway. But they believe more would have happened because they assume the legal owners are saving lives by fighting back."
Is this a stretch? Can you not think of one person that holds this view?
I have had many conversations with people that have said, something along the lines of "even if the murderer didn't have a gun they would have used a knife or some other means.", but many times they just claim that the criminals would get guns regardless of the laws.
(17-06-2016 10:20 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Criminals and rat-ass crazy people could give a fuck for less about the laws.

When I say "Somehow they reason the horrendous American statistics by claiming that Americans are a violent people."
Well, shit, I've even heard this sentiment from you.

So where is the straw? Or were you just deflecting and obfuscating again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
21-06-2016, 07:04 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
Bolding mine.

Opinion: What America’s gun fanatics won’t tell you

By Brett Arends
Published: June 18, 2016 9:46 a.m. ET

The Second Amendment doesn’t give you the right to own a gun.

Alexander Hamilton said a “well-regulated militia” would help safeguard the freedom of the new republic because it would make the creation of a professional, mercenary army “unnecessary.”

Can we please stop pretending that the Second Amendment contains an unfettered right for everyone to buy a gun? It doesn’t, and it never has. The claims made by the small number of extremists, before and after the Orlando, Fla., massacre, are based on a deliberate lie.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t just say Congress shall not infringe the right to “keep and bear arms.” It specifically says that right exists in order to maintain “a well-regulated militia.” Even the late conservative Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia admitted those words weren’t in there by accident. Oh, and the Constitution doesn’t just say a “militia.” It says a “well-regulated” militia.

What did the Founding Fathers mean by that? We don’t have to guess because they told us. In Federalist No. 29* of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained at great length precisely what a “well-regulated militia” was, why the Founding Fathers thought we needed one, and why they wanted to protect it from being disarmed by the federal government.

The Second Amendment is an instrument of government. It’s not about hunting or gun collecting or carrying your pistol into the saloon.
And there’s a reason absolutely no gun extremist will ever direct you to that 1788 essay because it blows their baloney into a million pieces.

A “well-regulated militia” didn’t mean guys who read Soldier of Fortune magazine running around in the woods with AK-47s and warpaint on their faces. It basically meant what today we call the National Guard.

It should be a properly constituted, ordered and drilled (“well-regulated”) military force, organized state by state, explained Hamilton. Each state militia should be a “select corps,” “well-trained” and able to perform all the “operations of an army.” The militia needed “uniformity in … organization and discipline,” wrote Hamilton, so that it could operate like a proper army “in camp and field,” and so that it could gain the “essential … degree of proficiency in military functions.” And although it was organized state by state, it needed to be under the explicit control of the national government. The “well-regulated militia” was under the command of the president. It was “the military arm” of the government.

The one big difference between this militia and a professional army? It shouldn’t be made up of full-time professional soldiers, said the Founding Fathers. Such soldiers could be used against the people as King George had used his mercenary Redcoats. Instead, the American republic should make up its military force from part-time volunteers drawn from regular citizens. Such men would be less likely to turn on the population.

And the creation of this “well-regulated militia,” aka the National Guard, would help safeguard the freedom of the new republic because it would make the creation of a professional, mercenary army “unnecessary,” wrote Hamilton. “This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it,” he wrote.

That was the point. And that was why they wanted to make sure it couldn’t be disarmed by the federal government: So a future “tyrant” couldn’t disarm the National Guard, and then use a mercenary army to impose martial law.

The Founding Fathers didn’t call the republic’s new force an “army” because that term more than two centuries ago called to mind the British army, foreign mercenaries, tyrants and kings. So they said “militia” instead. But they meant a real body. Hamilton was scathing about the idea that the “militia” could just mean every Bob, Billy and Benjamin with his musket. Such amateurs would stand no chance in modern warfare against professionals, he wrote. And requiring every citizen to become a professional would be ridiculous, he said. It would be “a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss,” he wrote. Taking people away from their work in order to train them “would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country.”

The Second Amendment is an instrument of government. It’s not about hunting or gun collecting or carrying your pistol into the saloon. The Founding Fathers left it up to us to pass sensible laws about all these things. The Constitution is about government.

Today we have a professional army, anyway. Military matters have become so complex that no part-time soldiers could do it all. So you could argue that makes the Second Amendment null and void, like the parts in the Constitution about slaves and Indians being counted as “three-fifths” of a person in the Census.

But even if you still want to defend the Second Amendment, it should apply only to those who volunteer to join the “select corps” of their National Guard, undergo rigorous training to attain “proficiency in military functions” and perform the “operations of an army,” serve as ordered under the ultimate command of the president and be subject to military discipline.

So if you’re running around waving your AK-47 under the Second Amendment, and you haven’t shown up yet at your local National Guard headquarters, you’re not a “patriot.” You’re a deserter.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-am...2016-06-14

Federalist 29
|| Federalist No. 29 ||
Concerning the Militia
From the Daily Advertiser.
Thursday, January 10, 1788
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."


Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, it has been remarked that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed Constitution for calling out the POSSE COMITATUS, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty, whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when necessary? What shall we think of the motives which could induce men of sense to reason in this manner? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and judgment?

By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

FC here - we are so far beyond establishing a well regualted militia that could be described as “little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms” that the whole Second Amendment needs to be re-written or scrapped altogether.

Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition. But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee.

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes “Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire"; discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster.

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?

If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of selfpreservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: