Another shooting, another 10 youth killed, and where is the Republican reaction?

[otters]

They're irrelevant. […]

BTW, those anecdotes aren't deflection, […]

Now you've finally explained why you're "despaired", I suppose.

 

[otters]

BTW, Kulindahr: your "conclusions" aren't merely disgusting, they're dastardly.

 

[Kabluey]

The "rest of the developed world" is accustomed to thinking in terms of rights coming from the government, which at root means they believe that they are the property of the state. The United States was the first and is perhaps still the only country where people have realized that governments are creatures of power, that must be shackled and regarded with mistrust lest they turn again to tyranny, as governments have all through history.

The "rest of the developed world" regards their citizens as disposable, required to be victims who cannot select the great equalizer for defending themselves against the animals among us who would attack them. They "care" about their citizens only in the aggregate, not as individuals -- only the elite and the powerful, who are allowed to have bodyguards, are considered to be real individuals worthy of protection.

Try to ban weapons in the United States, and if there is any spirit of liberty left here, government functionaries will die in the tens of thousands as free people set things to rights.

BTW, the "rest of the developed world" is hardly entitled to an opinion, since for the most part they rely on the United States to be the nation with military might, so they can indulge in other pursuits. When all those other nations step up and assume the burden of their own defense instead of leaning on the U.S., they might be worth listening to.

In the mean time, your kids can keep shooting each other.
Your college students can get sprayed with gunfire because a misfit feels bad.
You can be shot anywhere as random collateral damage by someone you've never met. About four times more often than people in other countries.

Yay for USA and its military might.
But understand, paranoid gun nuts in the suburbs have nothing to do with a country's military might.

The totalitarian government takeover of citizens you seem to fantasize about is that, a fantasy.

But a reasonable government would be aware of the risks of certain groups of citizens holding guns, and hopefully have plans in place to protect others if they go militant.

 

[Telstra]

Saw bits and pieces of the program "the civil war" very sad.
If American high court is good and powerful, why can't they do anything about gun laws and the NRA ?

 

[Kabluey]

BTW, Kulindahr: your "conclusions" aren't merely disgusting, they're dastardly.

They're not dastardly, as much as childishly defensive.
The I'm not listening, I know you are, you said you are defense is in action.

When there's no rational defense for wanting to have guns, some people stick to crazy, it seems. Hence the term 'gun nut'.

 

[otters]

They're not dastardly, as much as childishly defensive.
The I'm not listening, I know you are, you said you are defense is in action.

When there's no rational defense for wanting to have guns, some people stick to crazy, it seems. Hence the term 'gun nut'.

I guess you're right.
My bad.
I was [STRIKE]thinking[/STRIKE] misguidedly supposing these people would have an average intelligent grown-up person's mind, but of course they don't.

 

[Benvolio]

Saw bits and pieces of the program "the civil war" very sad.
If American high court is good and powerful, why can't they do anything about gun laws and the NRA ?

Because the Constitution is very clear:"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The introductory stuff about the militia does not alter the operative portion of the law. And a majority of the people are not yet ready to take away that right. You can conduct a craftily worded poll to produce any result you want, but the people are not ready for the change.

 

[otters]

Because the Constitution is very clear:"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The introductory stuff about the militia does not alter the operative portion of the law. And a majority of the people are not yet ready to take away that right. You can conduct a craftily worded poll to produce any result you want, but the people are not ready for the change.

Probably — sadly — true. In other words, one would be:

misguidedly supposing these people would have an average intelligent grown-up person's mind, but of course they don't.

 

[Telstra]

Because the Constitution is very clear:"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The introductory stuff about the militia does not alter the operative portion of the law. And a majority of the people are not yet ready to take away that right. You can conduct a craftily worded poll to produce any result you want, but the people are not ready for the change.

Yes it is also very clear "the Constitution" is for ancient guns and NOT for modern guns.
I'm ok with the gun buyers getting ancient guns !!!

 

[otters]

Yes it is also very clear "the Constitution" is for ancient guns and NOT for modern guns.
I'm ok with the gun buyers getting ancient guns !!!

Not bad, Telstra, this could be a valid objection. Professor SCALIA, please?

 

[thewiz]

They're irrelevant. What is relevant is that one every few minutes, a person in the United States is defended by a gun against a criminal -- and that's by the most pessimistic estimates. If the NRA's favorite researchers are correct, it's multiple times per minute.

BTW, those anecdotes aren't deflection, they're demonstration that the liberal position doesn't give a shit about individuals: they WANT those of us protected by guns to be raped and assaulted and molested rather than let anyone be armed against the criminals,so long as they can have their statistics.

I'd have to call bullshit on this statement. As a former police officer, someone who works with police departments on a daily basis, and who is heavily involved in policing today: guns are not "defending" against the criminal element. Why do you think criminals are, today, better armed than most police and civilians? Because when one group gets weapons, the next wants better. I see it all the time with police -- they now want 50 mm firearms mounted on ARV's to "defend" against the citizenry (take a look at the response in Ferguson to see what happens next). Trying to one up results in an escalation of response. My son and his unit that was on patrol in Afghanistan found that when they went into villages they did not go armed. Packing heat with one's finger on a trigger only caused the citizens to think they were being "invaded" and respond accordingly.

Most crime is solved because criminals prey on each other. In DC and many other large communities (Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia) the homicide rate is high because criminals respond to "dissing" or attacks by other criminals (or gangs). I can tell you the police response to homicides is often "wait a couple days and we'll find out who the perpetrator is" because they are killed -- plain and simple. Sadly, often caught in the crossfire are innocents who wouldn't stand a chance if they were armed with a surface to air missile.

And statistics do matter unless you suppose that humans are different in the United States than the rest of the world in which case you should likely go into research because from what I've seen, people respond in the same way, conduct crime the same, and even set houses on fire in the same ways no matter where you are in the world. The difference in the US is that guns are within inches away and often are used to respond whereas the rest of the world relies on fists.

 

[thewiz]

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...y-open-carry-gun-advocates-dearborn/73599110/

And this is why we should ban guns from crazies. I get a briefing each month on these types of groups. ISIS has nothing on them; they desire a pure, white race and are angry that they can't have it so they'll resort to guns and violence. Out of their ranks came the likes of Timothy McVeigh and other extremists which those proclaiming the evils of Islam fail to acknowledge.

 

[TX-Beau]

SOOOOooooooooooo, making progress are we? Page five of yet another gun thread, Same characters, same arguments, same old...

Kinda underscores the problem doesn't it. Despite a majority of Americans wanting something perfectly Constitutional - we get nothing, becuase that Whore LaPierre bought a bunch of Republicans (and not a few Dems) while singing Yankee Doodle all the way to the bank.

 

[thewiz]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222

And Wayne LaPierre has bought both Dems and Republicans although he has turned on Democrats which is why the White House will be rolling out a series of executive decisions on firearms, ammo, registration, etc. Another shooting today should convince people we have a problem and putting our heads up our asses and denying that guns are not a problem is going to guarantee one thing: someone will be standing but it may be none of us.

The link above points out the fact that it is a fallacy the good guys have guns. I'm glad they are finally releasing the info that in many of the mass shootings there have been people with guns and carrying in the vicinity. Putting more guns, as the one individual says, would have resulted in him shooting the wrong person which is normally the case.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/us/northern-arizona-university-shooting/index.html

 

[Kulindahr]

In the mean time, your kids can keep shooting each other.
Your college students can get sprayed with gunfire because a misfit feels bad.
You can be shot anywhere as random collateral damage by someone you've never met. About four times more often than people in other countries.

Yay for USA and its military might.
But understand, paranoid gun nuts in the suburbs have nothing to do with a country's military might.

The totalitarian government takeover of citizens you seem to fantasize about is that, a fantasy.

But a reasonable government would be aware of the risks of certain groups of citizens holding guns, and hopefully have plans in place to protect others if they go militant.

You really ought to read my posts.

It's an incredible blind spot liberals seem to have: they aren't interested in whether something would be effective, they want their proposals supported whether they would do any good or not. That's why right wingers are convinced that the whole liberal agenda is to deliberately keep doing things that have no effect on the problem, so they ca just pile up more laws and congratulate themselves on their successes, and when their successes are seen as not successes, their claim is that it didn't go far enough. You couldn't come up with a better plan to keep the right fringe crazy if you tried!

Background checks won't accomplish anything. Making a gun harder to purchase won't accomplish anything. The only thing that is going to be effective is taking the militia pieces in the Constitution seriously and getting Congress to do something about "organizing, arming, and disciplining" the militia. Heck, get local militias organized and get the "crazies" into them, and there's a good chance that alone will keep them from turning into animals that prey on civilized humans! After all, if they're in an actual militia, that will give them some self-respect (which seems to be an element missing in just about all of them), and they'll seek to earn more respect from their fellow militia members -- and that would depend on them handling and caring for guns properly, and not misusing them.
And the ones that the militia officers recognize as beyond help, those officers could get barred from having weapons.


BTW, the citizens of Weimar Germany were certain that a totalitarian takeover was a fantasy, too. That's why they went along with gun confiscation, and allowed a lot more evil, until they had no options but to go along in order to get along. That's why the Framers of the Constitution tried to shackle government by allowing only enumerated powers: no one ever believes a government will turn totalitarian until it already has and they can't figure out how they missed it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Saw bits and pieces of the program "the civil war" very sad.
If American high court is good and powerful, why can't they do anything about gun laws and the NRA ?

So far the "high court" has read the Constitution the way it was meant to be read, although they keep watering it down. If you take the language of the Second Amendment seriously, there can't be any gun laws, period -- "shall not be infringed" is actually a more powerful restriction than the "shall make no law" of the First Amendment.

As for the NRA, why would you want any government to have to authority to just decide what organizations are allowed to form and what aren't? If the government can decide to ban the NRA, it could just as properly decide to ban the Human Rights Campaign, all gay websites, etc.

 

[Kulindahr]

They're not dastardly, as much as childishly defensive.
The I'm not listening, I know you are, you said you are defense is in action.

When there's no rational defense for wanting to have guns, some people stick to crazy, it seems. Hence the term 'gun nut'.

I guess you're right.
My bad.
I was [STRIKE]thinking[/STRIKE] misguidedly supposing these people would have an average intelligent grown-up person's mind, but of course they don't.

Ad hominem, when faced with facts.

 

[Kulindahr]

Because the Constitution is very clear:"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The introductory stuff about the militia does not alter the operative portion of the law. And a majority of the people are not yet ready to take away that right. You can conduct a craftily worded poll to produce any result you want, but the people are not ready for the change.

They can't take away the right -- no one can. As Thomas Jefferson wrote and the other agreed, rights come from our Creator (however you take that), not from government and not from our fellow citizens.

That was the great step forward of the American Revolution, the recognition that men have rights, by nature, and don't have to wait for any government to honor them, rights that can't be taken away but only penalized.

It's actually nice to know that there are still enough people in this country who understand that, who are willing to set their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" on the line to fight rather than surrender the right to keep and bear arms (or any other right). At the same time, it's very sad that the heirs of the liberals who recognized that and enshrined it, who should be the champions of the individual, have lost the will to fight for liberty.

 

[otters]

Ad hominem, when faced with facts.

LOL, obviously, benvolio did teach you to write this Latin phrase

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes it is also very clear "the Constitution" is for ancient guns and NOT for modern guns.
I'm ok with the gun buyers getting ancient guns !!!

There's not a single word in there about "ancient" guns. It says "arms", and that word means the weapons carried by the military, just as the phrase "bear arms" referred to the weapons of the ordinary soldier.