Joe Scarborough reverses his stance on gun control

[Kulindahr]

I maintain that the 2nd Amendment either needs further amending, or a new Supreme Court ruling that narrows it down to what it actually says, instead of broadening Otto the meaningless "hey, let's have a cowboy state!"

You got one of those decisions in Heller, another in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

 

[Kulindahr]

Perhaps, but one did on Friday.



Actually, there's about 10,000 dead Americans who would argue that point. There were obviously a few "Rambos" on the loose last year.

We don't regulate cars or drivers or builders or industries because of the law abiding majority. We regulate them because of the dangerous few.

Cars are irrelevant -- there's no protected right to a car. Besides that, the regulations for cars are set by the people who own the roads, which is perfectly legitimate.

 

[TX-Beau]

Kuli will insist on his version of "facts," people will get killed because of lax and ineffective regulation, Kuli will insist on his version of "facts," and around and around we go.

The constitution obviously does not inform on this point, no matter what verbiage people toss at you that they insist is invincible - it's become what it has because the right has a fetish about this fantasy they have where they are like that 70's tv show guy who lived on the mountain with a bear. That's the real problem, thinking a gun solves one, one they made up for the gun to solve. That's also what they don't want to talk about. Ever.

 

[TX-Beau]

You got one of those decisions in Heller, another in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Neither of these is in the constitution - they are OPINIONS about it no more, no less.

 

[andysayshi]

You cite the "investigations" of a scofflaw formally rebuked by the US Dept. of Justice for interfering with ongoing operations, and rebuked by the government of several states for interfering with their jurisdictions?

Anyone who was caught selling his licensed assault rifle would be caught within the year, because they have to report annually. Every last legal assault rifle in the country is known to the feds and is listed by model and serial number; if I understand the rules correctly, they have ballistic data on those weapons as well, and any bullet fired from one and found at a crime scene would be identified promptly. The holders of those licenses are a privileged elite who don't sell to just anyone; in fact selling means transferring the license. The cheapest of those guns is going to run you around $10k, BTW.

There hasn't been an assault rifle used in a crime in the US for decades -- so the regulations are hardly "toothless".

More semantics and diversion. The facts are the facts: Any US citizen can buy a military-capable firearm within a few hours in the US, without submitting to a background check.

Whatever the laws may be, or are supposed to be, they are not preventing this from happening. And the NRA has fought hard to make those laws weaker or nonexistent for years and years.

I really don't care about the semantics of what you consider to be an "assault rifle", and I doubt the parents of 20 children in Newtown care much either. The fact that a single mother felt her Government and a depressed economy were such an imminent threat to her life that she owned a small arsenal of lethal weapons, including a rifle that is basically an adapted M16 military weapon, tells me more than I want to know about US gun owners. Ironically, her protection ended up being much more dangerous than the economy. Sadly, her deluded fears cost many more lives than her own.

Here's how Bushmaster advertised the gun that helped kill 27 people on Friday: as a "Man Card". To be a real man you need a big gun.

 

[TX-Beau]

But no Andy, the suburban commando is just a myth.

 

[Kulindahr]

More semantics and diversion. The facts are the facts: Any US citizen can buy a military-capable firearm within a few hours in the US, without submitting to a background check.

Whatever the laws may be, or are supposed to be, they are not preventing this from happening. And the NRA has fought hard to make those laws weaker or nonexistent for years and years.

I really don't care about the semantics of what you consider to be an "assault rifle", and I doubt the parents of 20 children in Newtown care much either. The fact that a single mother felt her Government and a depressed economy were such an imminent threat to her life that she owned a small arsenal of lethal weapons, including a rifle that is basically an adapted M16 military weapon, tells me more than I want to know about US gun owners. Ironically, her protection ended up being much more dangerous than the economy. Sadly, her deluded fears cost many more lives than her own.

Here's how Bushmaster advertised the gun that helped kill 27 people on Friday: as a "Man Card". To be a real man you need a big gun.

You keep insisting on a lie as a fact.

And that you would judge all ninety million or more gun owners on the basis of one says you're not interested in real conversation.

 

[andysayshi]

What lie is that? That I can buy a weapon in hours without a background check? Go tell Rossen and Bloomberg. THEY PROVED THEY CAN DO IT!

I could get on a plane today in Sydney, fly to Arizona, and in less than 24 hours own a Bushmaster just like Mrs Lanza's.

I think poor Mrs Lanza is indicative of the problem in the US. A women so deluded about the dangers of her Government, of the economy, and of her fellow countrymen, that she collected a cache of weaponry that was greater than what a soldier carries into a combat zone.

Mrs Lanza didn't break the law. She didn't hurt anybody. She didn't mean anybody harm. But her insecurities and paranoia prompted her to own the very implements that would ultimately kill her. She was, in fact, the tool of her own destruction.

What possible reason can a single mother, who lives on a suburban block, who doesn't hunt, and who has a troubled teenage son, possibly have to own a rifle capable of emptying its 30 round magazine in 30 seconds? What about her life justifies the ownership of such a lethal device?

It has nothing to do with judging 90 million gun owners. It has everything to do with assessing a recurring, devastating problem that is not getting fixed, is not getting better, and is being enabled by the sorts of evasive arguments you keep making about "rights" and "laws" and "regulations".

 

[andysayshi]

A well written piece in the New Yorker today:

So let’s state the plain facts one more time, so that they can’t be mistaken: Gun massacres have happened many times in many countries, and in every other country, gun laws have been tightened to reflect the tragedy and the tragic knowledge of its citizens afterward. In every other country, gun massacres have subsequently become rare. In America alone, gun massacres, most often of children, happen with hideous regularity, and they happen with hideous regularity because guns are hideously and regularly available.

The people who fight and lobby and legislate to make guns regularly available are complicit in the murder of those children. They have made a clear moral choice: that the comfort and emotional reassurance they take from the possession of guns, placed in the balance even against the routine murder of innocent children, is of supreme value. Whatever satisfaction gun owners take from their guns—we know for certain that there is no prudential value in them—is more important than children’s lives. Give them credit: life is making moral choices, and that’s a moral choice, clearly made.

All of that is a truth, plain and simple, and recognized throughout the world. At some point, this truth may become so bloody obvious that we will know it, too. Meanwhile, congratulate yourself on living in the child-gun-massacre capital of the known universe.

Read more:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...wn-and-the-madness-of-guns.html#ixzz2FSw1OoSY



And a nicely worded comment on the article's page - here's a snippet:

I come from a family of hunters and military service members. I empathize - or did - with gun owners and second amendment supporters. You don't want to feel defenseless in your own home. I get it.

But you know what? My kids don't want to feel defenseless in their own school. We've gone beyond the pale. Your right to own a weapon cannot trump our childrens' rights to the liberty and domestic tranquility that is afforded in our Constitution. It's reached the point of absurdity. And it's a violation of the social contract that makes our country and our freedoms so wonderful: what you do cannot impede upon my rights.

The most recent assaults - Oregon, Colorado, Connecticut - remind me of the suicide bombings that plagued Israel in the 1990s - a person, loaded with explosives, blows him or herself up in the middle of a crowd, annihilating everyone around. If these recent murders had been bombings rather than shootings, I think the tenor of the debate right now would be radically different. We would not tolerate such acts of destruction in our country. We would do something.

But the fact that these mass killings have involved legal weapons, rather than explosives, confuses the issue for some: "It's not the gun, it's the shooter..." Please. It's the fucking gun.

Joe isn't the only conservative American changing his tune. I hope this is America's Dunblane or Port Arthur. I hope the US finally starts to fix this horrible, mindless, senseless problem.

 

[Kulindahr]

What lie is that? That I can buy a weapon in hours without a background check? Go tell Rossen and Bloomberg. THEY PROVED THEY CAN DO IT!

They didn't prove what you and they claimed, that they could buy a military weapon.

I could get on a plane today in Sydney, fly to Arizona, and in less than 24 hours own a Bushmaster just like Mrs Lanza's.

And do what with it? Commit a felony by trying to leave the state?

What possible reason can a single mother, who lives on a suburban block, who doesn't hunt, and who has a troubled teenage son, possibly have to own a rifle capable of emptying its 30 round magazine in 30 seconds? What about her life justifies the ownership of such a lethal device?

That's a pretty slow rate of fire -- pretty much proves it wasn't any military weapon.

It has nothing to do with judging 90 million gun owners. It has everything to do with assessing a recurring, devastating problem that is not getting fixed, is not getting better, and is being enabled by the sorts of evasive arguments you keep making about "rights" and "laws" and "regulations".

But you're not trying to assess anything so long as you can't even get your facts straight.

 

[Kulindahr]

A well written piece in the New Yorker today:



Read more:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...wn-and-the-madness-of-guns.html#ixzz2FSw1OoSY

If you approve of that, then you should have no problem with being called pro-rape. Any politician who votes to make it hard for a citizen to get a handgun for defense has just as much taken the side of the rapist, and is pro-rape.

So based on the "logic" of your article, calling Feinstein and Schumer "pro-rape" is just being honest.

 

[andysayshi]

They didn't prove what you and they claimed, that they could buy a military weapon.



And do what with it? Commit a felony by trying to leave the state?



That's a pretty slow rate of fire -- pretty much proves it wasn't any military weapon.



But you're not trying to assess anything so long as you can't even get your facts straight.

Once again, you completely ignore the reality and truth by obfuscating about semantics and categorizations. I don't care what you consider an "assault" weapon or a "military" weapon. You can call the 50 calibre fully automatic sniper rifle that Rossen purchased in Arizona during his investigation a Love Gun Of Peace, for all I care. But your disingenuous approach to this argument is plain to see.

 

[andysayshi]

If you approve of that, then you should have no problem with being called pro-rape. Any politician who votes to make it hard for a citizen to get a handgun for defense has just as much taken the side of the rapist, and is pro-rape.

So based on the "logic" of your article, calling Feinstein and Schumer "pro-rape" is just being honest.

By your own logic, then, you should have no problem being called "pro-school-shooting", as your own attitude is what enables events like last Friday's massacre. As it says in the New Yorker, congratulate yourself on living in the child-gun-massacre capital of the known universe.

 

[Kulindahr]

By your own logic, then, you should have no problem being called "pro-school-shooting", as your own attitude is what enables events like last Friday's massacre. As it says in the New Yorker, congratulate yourself on living in the child-gun-massacre capital of the known universe.

Except I've made proposals which would actually deal with school shootings, from arming teachers to flagging psychos into the NICS.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Marvelously without content except stirring emotional images. People will take it as an endorsement of authoritarianism and believe he wants all the rigorous limitations statists drool over.

The way forward is not to try to cripple the Second Amendment, but to use it.

Kul this is like a sociologist accusing another of cultural bias. Short and to the point-- your entire side of the debate is also highly emotionally charged, with sweeping claims about oppressive government tyranny and other fear-based considerations.

There is a rational, pragmatic middle ground between "we shouldn't have any weapons at all and live in utopia" and "everyone should be armed to the teeth out of terror that their government is out to get them." I would very much like to see you take some fair steps towards that middle ground with the rest of us.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kul this is like a sociologist accusing another of cultural bias. Short and to the point-- your entire side of the debate is also highly emotionally charged, with sweeping claims about oppressive government tyranny and other fear-based considerations.

It's just a matter of listening for content. He didn't have any except generalities and platitudes. Obama turns out to have had more substance, in his speech.

 

[Rolyo85]

Except I've made proposals which would actually deal with school shootings, from arming teachers to flagging psychos into the NICS.

You seem overly confident those would "deal" with shootings. All I see is adding more violence to the mix (arming teachers, which by the way is VILE AND EVIL, just as an fyi), and pure fantasy (most "psychos" are not obvious until they crack).

 

[Kulindahr]

You seem overly confident those would "deal" with shootings. All I see is adding more violence to the mix (arming teachers, which by the way is VILE AND EVIL, just as an fyi), and pure fantasy (most "psychos" are not obvious until they crack).

Can't count very well, I see.

Shooter comes into school where no one is armed, just keeps killing kids until the cops get there, runs death toll towards thirty...

Shooter comes into school, principal and teachers are armed, shooter kills two kids, gets taken out by an armed adult.


Which has less violence? The one where armed citizens took out the bad guy.

Which on is evil? The one where you just let kids die until the "official" non-protectors get there to clean up.



As far as I'm concerned, anyone who opposes arming teachers is saying they'd rather watch kids die than trust people who care for those kids to protect them when it counts.


As for your "psychos" comment, the point made in some Florida legislation that got crushes by Marion Hammer and her slimy lobbyists was that all the shooters in the last year or more have been noticed well beforehand as dangerous. In other words, they were "obvious" before they cracked.

 

[Rolyo85]

Can't count very well, I see.

Shooter comes into school where no one is armed, just keeps killing kids until the cops get there, runs death toll towards thirty...

Shooter comes into school, principal and teachers are armed, shooter kills two kids, gets taken out by an armed adult.


Which has less violence? The one where armed citizens took out the bad guy.

Which on is evil? The one where you just let kids die until the "official" non-protectors get there to clean up.



As far as I'm concerned, anyone who opposes arming teachers is saying they'd rather watch kids die than trust people who care for those kids to protect them when it counts.


As for your "psychos" comment, the point made in some Florida legislation that got crushes by Marion Hammer and her slimy lobbyists was that all the shooters in the last year or more have been noticed well beforehand as dangerous. In other words, they were "obvious" before they cracked.

I pick option 3 - Shooter never comes into the school because he never found a gun to shoot people with.

To turn a country into a cowboy state is vile and evil, yes. And as was asked in a neighbor thread - where does it end? More guns will always equal more gun deaths. Statistics don't lie, and it isn't me that has trouble with counting, or we wouldn't be having an argument whether 10 000 is more than 40.

And you could claim that all people with mental issues are identifiable beforehand, but it is an indefensible claim, so I refuse to argue about it.

 

[Kulindahr]

To turn a country into a cowboy state....

There's paranoia if I ever saw it. It shows me that your entire position is based on the paranoia that ordinary citizens can't be trusted. It's part of an attitude that thinks there's some kind of elite privileged with the capacity to make decisions for everyone else.

Until violent crime drops to zero, disarming the law-abiding is gambling with innocent lives.