Florida High School Massacre

[Kulindahr]

Marco has four school aged children. They're probably more in tune with what is going on, so don't be surprised if they help weaken his position. He's sucked on the NRA teat for a total of $3 million dollars, so he's going to be a tough wean, though.

I give credit to Marco for showing up (unlike every state-level official from the governor on down). The students deserve immense credit for calling bullshit and holding his feet to the fire. The optics of it were mixed for the Senator- he needs to wake up because the ground is shifting quickly under his feet.

It's always good to see this kind of democracy in action- where both constituents and politicians show up, listen, explain their positions.

He needs to bite the bullet and propose solutions that are based on the Constitution instead of contrary to it. There is no power in the Constitution for gun control, but there's one heck of a lot for militia control. He should have pointed out that current law requires teachers to be powerless to protect their students except by doing what was done: confront the shooter and die, giving the students a little bit more time when the shooter's attention isn't on them.

It would also help if he'd propose a law stating that giving publicity to mass shooters is inciting mass murder, since publicity/"fame" is one thing driving many of them.

And he ought to take up La Pierre's rhetoric and introduce a bill for a national mental health system providing care for any who need it, and allowing local authorities to filter for people unbalanced enough to not be competent for having weapons.

 

[Kulindahr]

I give no backpats to Rubio. He turned up because his constituency (employer) wanted to see him. The dialog is needed, but he slapped these kids in the face. When asked if he'd forgo NRA money, he said "they buy into my agenda, I don't buy into theirs." It would appear that his agenda is pretty awful. I suggest they fire him.

The agenda they share is the value and dignity of human life. The students and others in Florida are dead because the legislature deemed their lives unworthy of protection by forbidding anyone there to be able to stop a shooter, and because they deemed citizens' mental health unworthy of care. A robust system of community-based mental health care, with 24-hour drop-in centers with volunteers and professionals present could have caught this kid before he went ballistic -- all the evidence that he needed help was there.

Though they're also dead because both the FBI and the local authorities had the information that he was dangerous, yet did nothing. The sad thing here is that people are proposing to give more authority to the very people who failed to act on the authority they already have.

 

[gsdx]

If we cave to kids' emotions that have been pumped up by anti-gun teachers and politicians, the Republic is lost.

I'm sorry, but that is the most heartless thing you've ever said here. Those kids watched their classmates being slaughtered in cold blood and to say that their emotions are not real is disgusting. That's as bad as that asshole who said they were paid off. But it certainly says volumes about you.

And you still haven't explained why any American needs a weapon made for WAR in their arsenal. I keep asking and you keep ignoring me. My guess is that you CAN'T explain it. Pure and simple.

 

[Kulindahr]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in all this discussion about arming teachers is what do the teachers think of it? And, as this article observes:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/again-could-armed-teachers-stop-173557547.html

Yet there are teachers across the country who are already armed, and in places where training is being offered free the classes are packed.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is not a solution:



https://ca.news.yahoo.com/tearful-student-asks-trump-apos-132135623.html

If protecting the children is so damned important, get rid of the guns that can slaughter them in double digits in just a few minutes. Raising the age won't solve a thing if Daddy or Big Bro can still buy them.

Congress has no authority to ban guns; it is in fact forbidden from doing so. The right to keep and bear arms includes the right to decide which arms you want to keep and bear, just as the right to free speech includes the right to decide what words you want to use.

What Congress does have the authority for is to organize and discipline the militia. It would arguably be valid for Congress to require that local militia stations be established (we actually used to have them; every town of over a few thousand used to have a National Guard Armory) where weapons deemed especially appropriate for the militia would have to be kept.

 

[Kulindahr]

Now its being reported that not only the armed resource officer, but ALSO three armed Broward County police officers remained outside, waiting for the gunshots to stop.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/23/four-sheriffs-deputies-hid-during-florida-school-shooting/

Wow!!!

^ If that's true, some heads should roll all the way up to the top of the ladder.

No kidding.

With a team of four, taking out an untrained shooter would be easy; the odds of an officer being wounded would be low. And in fact firearms training people have posted on gun sites the tactics needed, and they're hardly rocket science, just common sense: one or two officers get close enough to provide distracting cover fire while the other two keep hidden and move to where they have a shot at the shooter. According to a couple of U.S. Marines on one site, even trained infantry can be taken out this way if they're alone.

How about a law requiring those who claim to "serve and protect" to get their asses in there and actually serve and protect?

 

[Kulindahr]

I wouldn't have went in either unless i was robocop.

Alone, unless you knew the territory well, that might be reasonable, except for the fact that all the resource officer had to do was provide distracting fire to take the shooter's attention off the students, while waiting for the police to arrive. Once there were three good guys with guns on the scene, there was no excuse for not moving in.

 

[Kulindahr]

So much for the "fight fire with fire" plan. It seems like only one of five actually fired. Four qualified armed men balked while one "man" with nothing to lose was horribly in charge.

It makes a sharp contrast: over and over we see videos of cops shooting unarmed citizens, yet the cops can't get their asses in there and stop one untrained mass-murderer?

 

[Kulindahr]

New guns mean new laws needed. It is that simple.

If you want to keep old laws you have use old guns like a 200 year old gun.

So the press should be limited to muscle-powered printing presses, and there should be no freedom of speech on TV or the internet because they aren't 200-year-old technology?

That argument is foolish. The meaning of "bear arms" is to carry the ordinary weapons of the common soldier.

 

[Kulindahr]

You don’t get to change the argument that enthusiasts have been pounding for years when this kind of situation does actually happens and doesn’t work out in the way it should have, with the “good guy” with the gun stopping the shooter.

Accept the fact that these “solutions” that NRA and gun enthusiasts push aren’t absolute, have some dignity.

I'm not changing anything -- the good guy actually has to DO something. No one has ever said that just standing around will stop anything; in fact, by just standing around, he ceased to be a good guy because he was allowing the bad guy to keep on being bad.

 

[Kulindahr]

You still haven't explained to me why in hell anyone needs an assault weapon.

As the Supreme Court has said, "need" is not relevant to a protected right. No one "needs" broadcast news, no one "needs" the internet, no one "needs" to vote.

Besides which, the term "assault weapon" means nothing more than "scary-looking gun". ALL weapons are "assault weapons", if you want to get picky, because every weapon in existence started its life as a military weapon, even the humble .22.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm sorry, but that is the most heartless thing you've ever said here. Those kids watched their classmates being slaughtered in cold blood and to say that their emotions are not real is disgusting. That's as bad as that asshole who said they were paid off. But it certainly says volumes about you.

More emotion, projecting emotion where there is none -- and lying as a result. This is why the discussion about the Second Amendment never goes anywhere: those opposed to guns almost always lie.

Caving in to emotion is always bad; it results in demagogues as leaders. We got Trump because people caved to emotion.

And you still haven't explained why any American needs a weapon made for WAR in their arsenal. I keep asking and you keep ignoring me. My guess is that you CAN'T explain it. Pure and simple.

I haven't ignored anything -- that's another lie.

The Second Amendment MEANS "weapon made for WAR" -- that's its whole point. So I'm not saying any American "needs" anything, the Constitution is saying that citizens having such is necessary to the security of a free state.

 

[cocksucker4use]

Firstly, Marco Rubio is a pathetic closet case (lotsa background from his ill-fated prez bid). To ask him to agree to not take NRA money is like handing him a cardboard box to pack his shit and go home. But putting him on the spot about it is so FUCKING awesome. We should all have cajones like Mr. Guttenberg. Marco should check it out. As stated fucking everywhere, nobody who is not on Active Duty in our military should have access to automatic weapons. Another related issue, is that getting help for family members who don't want it is WAY hard. For instance, if you're a parent and your adult child shows markings of schizophrenia, try to get some help. Not happening. Try to put grandma in the nursing home without going to court....given she gets lost in the kitchen and can't get out. Just saying that this young man is all over guns and sounds real iffy, is not enough. He needs to have stated a specific plan and have specific persons in that plan. It seems intuitive that if you have this wacko kid and you call the cops they should be able to do something. Analagous to domestic abusers, the cops say to call them after he kills you and the kids. That's fucked up and needs to change. That the victims of violence are standing up and saying "no more" is awesome. They should be joined by the hundreds and thousands of bereaved families and those who survived random attacks. Arming teachers and priests and churchgoers and crossing guards and janitors...this is not the answer. You think some of these people aren't on the edge? WTF? Ban automatic weapons, period. For other guns, why not impose a tax...like cigarettes or gas? You want a shot gun? Great, that'll be $149 plus $1000 tax to support the victims of gun violence.

 

[KaraBulut]

He needs to bite the bullet and propose solutions that are based on the Constitution instead of contrary to it. There is no power in the Constitution for gun control, but there's one heck of a lot for militia control.

There doesn't have to be an explicit power- government can regulate anything that is not explicitly excluded in the Constitution (e.g. political speech).

There's plenty of court cases that support the government's ability to regulate weaponry. Even the Heller re-interpretation of two centuries of precedent supported that that government can regulate weapons; it just can't prevent people from owning guns for personal protection.

There are plenty of options for self-protection that don't require semi-automatic military-grade weaponry and Scalia's opinions made that clear.

It probably doesn't matter what Congress does. They can continue taking the money while progressive States and local jurisdictions put the necessary regulations in place.

 

[gsdx]

The Second Amendment MEANS "weapon made for WAR" -- that's its whole point. So I'm not saying any American "needs" anything, the Constitution is saying that citizens having such is necessary to the security of a free state.

A free state 250 years old.

Meanwhile, thanks to Johaninsc, this is how hypocritical your beloved NRA is:

 

[Kulindahr]

Firstly, Marco Rubio is a pathetic closet case (lotsa background from his ill-fated prez bid). To ask him to agree to not take NRA money is like handing him a cardboard box to pack his shit and go home. But putting him on the spot about it is so FUCKING awesome. We should all have cajones like Mr. Guttenberg. Marco should check it out. As stated fucking everywhere, nobody who is not on active duty in our military should have access to automatic weapons. Another related issue, is that getting help for family members who don't want it is WAY hard. For instance, if you're a parent and your adult child shows markings of schizophrenia, try to get some help. Not happening. Try to put grandma in the nursing home without going to court....given she gets lost in the kitchen and can't get out. Just saying that this young man is all over guns and sounds real iffy, is not enough. He needs to have stated a specific plan and have specific persons in that plan. It seems intuitive that if you have this wacko kid and you call the cops they should be able to do something. Analagous to domestic abusers, the cops say to call them after he kills you and the kids. That's fucked up and needs to change. That the victims of violence are standing up and saying "no more" is awesome. They should be joined by the hundreds and thousands of bereaved families and those who survived random attacks. Arming teachers and priests and churchgoers and crossing guards and janitors...this is not the answer. You think some of these people aren't on the edge? WTF? Ban automatic weapons, period. For other guns, why not impose a tax...like cigarettes or gas? You want a shot gun? Great, that'll be $149 plus $1000 tax to support the victims of gun violence.

SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that you can't tax a right.

Saying "No more" is awesome, but they're calling for a change in symptom and not in the problem. This is one result of the failure of schools to teach critical thinking. A logical response would be to note that three faculty/staff were killed trying to save students, and realize that they died because the law prohibited them from being able to d anything else.

 

[Kulindahr]

There doesn't have to be an explicit power- government can regulate anything that is not explicitly excluded in the Constitution (e.g. political speech).

There's plenty of court cases that support the government's ability to regulate weaponry. Even the Heller re-interpretation of two centuries of precedent supported that that government can regulate weapons; it just can't prevent people from owning guns for personal protection.

There are plenty of options for self-protection that don't require semi-automatic military-grade weaponry and Scalia's opinions made that clear.

It probably doesn't matter what Congress does. They can continue taking the money while progressive States and local jurisdictions put the necessary regulations in place.

No -- the Constitution itself says the government has only those powers it is explicitly assigned.

And the Supreme Court has also ruled that military weapons are exactly what the Second Amendment protects.

 

[Kulindahr]

A free state 250 years old.

Meanwhile, thanks to Johaninsc, this is how hypocritical your beloved NRA is:

That's a lie -- typical anti-gun response.

https://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/nraban.asp

 

[johaninsc]

worth a read..

What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns (The Atlantic)

 

[gsdx]

SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that you can't tax a right.

Assault weapons are NOT a right. CARRYING them is. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you have the right to weapons. Nowhere.

If the government can tax the hell out of cigarettes and gasoline, they can tax the hell out of assault weapons.