Texas Church Shooting

[TX-Beau]

FUCK the fucking bogus "framers and 2cnd amendment" crap excuses.

Once again.

WE ALREADY FUCKING REGULATE FIREARMS AND IT'S PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL.

Fuckin'suck-it apologists. THE ONLY QUESTION IS HOW TO REGULATE!

And fuck you to anyone who thinks we don't have a gun problem in this country, that ONLY exists because Republicans are fucking whores taking it up the ass from a lobby that ONLY cares about cash.

There it is.

Period.

There is no other issue here, and the great majority of U.S. Citizens WANT SOME FUCKING REGULATION!

I admit that years ago I was ambivalent about regulation, having grown up around guns, and grown up with gun owners; But what's happened in the last couple of decades is not what that was - and I don't want violent, puerile, whining, man children with delusions of Rambo anywhere near a fire arm.

AND if regulation is the only way to avoid that -

SO FUCKING BE IT!

THERE IS NO SUCH BINARY REALITY WHERE IT IS ALL REGULATION ANO GUNS - OR NO REGULATION AND 2CND AMENDMENT!

FUCKING SUCK IT APOLOGISTS, regulation and the 2cnd are not mutually exclusive, there can be BOTH!

 

[Kulindahr]

This, to me, is a partial counting. It should include lobbiests and Republicans. I am not arguing who has the right to have a gun, nor the legality. I am infuriated that there is no honest debate regarding the whole circumstance. A cycling friend casually referred to mass shootings as, "It's an American thing." It seems as though the whole top end will not discuss this issue without a partisan slant. So it makes me angry that we do nothing.

It makes me angry that we do nothing and unite in one thing: ignoring the Constitution, which addresses the matter. One side ignores it because they want to control people they don't trust, and the other side ignores it because it would make them shoulder some responsibility instead of just doing their own thing. Why is it we all claim allegiance to the Constitution yet no one proposes actually looking there for guidance?

I would think Democrat would love to invoke the militia concept as the Framers understood it, because it would give a basis for things they allegedly favor, such as a serious mental health care system -- community-based. And I would think the Republicans would love to invoke it as well because it would bring weapons training to a lot more people...something the Democrats ought to love as well because it would mean training in safety, safety, safety.


Plainly mass shootings are "an American thing" in that we have more of them, but one side insists on keeping its blinders tight and looking at rights but not responsibilities, while the other side insists on keeping its own blinders tight and blaming inanimate objects -- with the result that no one really looks at actual causes, and no one proposes anything more than dealing with symptoms. One side mouths platitudes but avoids committing to anything useful, while the other keeps insisting on regarding the problem as being the tools rather than the people using them.

Both sides have contributed to the problem. I read an article the other day which argued that one reason the U.S. has so much more violent crime -- not more crime in general, but what there is is more violent -- to a large extent because it has such a wide, and ever-widening, disparity in wealth, a situation that results in low-grade anger that just piles up with no release until it make some people snap. It's not anger that most people are getting poorer, but that the country as a whole appears to have a bright future.... just one that excludes most of us. And when people's futures are made to look bleaker, there's anger. Of course those who believe that wealth getting ever more concentrated is wonderful will refuse to admit that it might make some people angry! But at the same time, neither major party is going to really rock that boat, because it's from the concentrated wealth that their campaign funding arises, so it's the wealthy both parties really serve.

And the wealthy are effectively immune to the problem. They just don't go to places where someone might decide to exploit a target-rich environment, so what's it to them if someone shoots up a concert or a church or a mall or a school? It's an irritant, but not really a danger to them, so -- and this is why the Republicans don't really listen to the NRA -- their response is to support measures that will just insulate them further.

And so long as the wealthy have no interest in solving something, it won't get seriously addressed.

 

[Kulindahr]

FUCK the fucking bogus "framers and 2cnd amendment" crap excuses.

Once again.

WE ALREADY FUCKING REGULATE FIREARMS AND IT'S PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL.

Fuckin'suck-it apologists. THE ONLY QUESTION IS HOW TO REGULATE!

And fuck you to anyone who thinks we don't have a gun problem in this country, that ONLY exists because Republicans are fucking whores taking it up the ass from a lobby that ONLY cares about cash.

There it is.

Period.

There is no other issue here, and the great majority of U.S. Citizens WANT SOME FUCKING REGULATION!

I admit that years ago I was ambivalent about regulation, having grown up around guns, and grown up with gun owners; But what's happened in the last couple of decades is not what that was - and I don't want violent, puerile, whining, man children with delusions of Rambo anywhere near a fire arm.

AND if regulation is the only way to avoid that -

SO FUCKING BE IT!

THERE IS NO SUCH BINARY REALITY WHERE IT IS ALL REGULATION ANO GUNS - OR NO REGULATION AND 2CND AMENDMENT!

FUCKING SUCK IT APOLOGISTS, regulation and the 2cnd are not mutually exclusive, there can be BOTH!

Interesting that you basically go with Scalia's argument in Heller. Unfortunately, Scalia was wrong: he claimed that the First Amendment liberties are subject to regulation, so that protected by the Second must be, too -- but what he cited was not regulation of the First Amendment, but penalties for abusing it. If we take his principle (which is one the Court has followed pretty consistently since the Founding), and say that the liberties protected by the amendments should be treated equally, then what he should have done is declared that all laws pertaining to firearms be no more restrictive than those which pertain to the freedom of speech or of religion, which is to say that no prior restraint be put on their exercise, and rather the only authority the government has is to punish the abuse of the right.

So if you want to claim that the liberty protected by the Second Amendment can be subjected to such things as background checks, then to be consistent you would have to agree that before someone can publish a newspaper on magazine or even an internet blog, they must undergo a background check, and before they can attend church they must do the same, and that only people who can pass background checks get to take the Fifth Amendment as a defense or be protected against warrantless searches. And similarly, if you want to say that the government can decide how many rounds a gun's magazine can hold, then you should also say that the government can dictate how many words a publication may print.

 

[TX-Beau]

It makes me angry that we do nothing and unite in one thing: ignoring the Constitution, which addresses the matter. One side ignores it because they want to control people they don't trust, and the other side ignores it because it would make them shoulder some responsibility instead of just doing their own thing. Why is it we all claim allegiance to the Constitution yet no one proposes actually looking there for guidance?

I would think Democrat would love to invoke the militia concept as the Framers understood it, because it would give a basis for things they allegedly favor, such as a serious mental health care system -- community-based. And I would think the Republicans would love to invoke it as well because it would bring weapons training to a lot more people...something the Democrats ought to love as well because it would mean training in safety, safety, safety.


Plainly mass shootings are "an American thing" in that we have more of them, but one side insists on keeping its blinders tight and looking at rights but not responsibilities, while the other side insists on keeping its own blinders tight and blaming inanimate objects -- with the result that no one really looks at actual causes, and no one proposes anything more than dealing with symptoms. One side mouths platitudes but avoids committing to anything useful, while the other keeps insisting on regarding the problem as being the tools rather than the people using them.

Both sides have contributed to the problem. I read an article the other day which argued that one reason the U.S. has so much more violent crime -- not more crime in general, but what there is is more violent -- to a large extent because it has such a wide, and ever-widening, disparity in wealth, a situation that results in low-grade anger that just piles up with no release until it make some people snap. It's not anger that most people are getting poorer, but that the country as a whole appears to have a bright future.... just one that excludes most of us. And when people's futures are made to look bleaker, there's anger. Of course those who believe that wealth getting ever more concentrated is wonderful will refuse to admit that it might make some people angry! But at the same time, neither major party is going to really rock that boat, because it's from the concentrated wealth that their campaign funding arises, so it's the wealthy both parties really serve.

And the wealthy are effectively immune to the problem. They just don't go to places where someone might decide to exploit a target-rich environment, so what's it to them if someone shoots up a concert or a church or a mall or a school? It's an irritant, but not really a danger to them, so -- and this is why the Republicans don't really listen to the NRA -- their response is to support measures that will just insulate them further.

And so long as the wealthy have no interest in solving something, it won't get seriously addressed.

I'm sorry for you Kuli but that's just a load of twaddle. We have what he have because the gun lobby has bribed Republicans while the masters of the lobbyists have embarked on a campaign of selling an idea to idiots that guns are toys and penis extenders, recreation, and the way you make yourself a man.

There is no Constitutional bar against regulation - and anyway I no longer care about how YOU interpret the constitution, you aren't any kind of authority, you are just one opinion and the rest of us also have a say.

SINCE we already regulate firearms QUITE CONSTITUTIONALLY, who is ignoring the Constitution? No one, that's who.

Around and around we go....

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting that you basically go with Scalia's argument in Heller. Unfortunately, Scalia was wrong: he claimed that the First Amendment liberties are subject to regulation, so that protected by the Second must be, too -- but what he cited was not regulation of the First Amendment, but penalties for abusing it. If we take his principle (which is one the Court has followed pretty consistently since the Founding), and say that the liberties protected by the amendments should be treated equally, then what he should have done is declared that all laws pertaining to firearms be no more restrictive than those which pertain to the freedom of speech or of religion, which is to say that no prior restraint be put on their exercise, and rather the only authority the government has is to punish the abuse of the right.

So if you want to claim that the liberty protected by the Second Amendment can be subjected to such things as background checks, then to be consistent you would have to agree that before someone can publish a newspaper on magazine or even an internet blog, they must undergo a background check, and before they can attend church they must do the same, and that only people who can pass background checks get to take the Fifth Amendment as a defense or be protected against warrantless searches. And similarly, if you want to say that the government can decide how many rounds a gun's magazine can hold, then you should also say that the government can dictate how many words a publication may print.

See above.

 

[ballcaphair]

I'm sorry for you Kuli but that's just a load of twaddle. We have what he have because the gun lobby has bribed Republicans while the masters of the lobbyists have embarked on a campaign of selling an idea to idiots that guns are toys and penis extenders, recreation, and the way you make yourself a man.

There is no Constitutional bar against regulation - and anyway I no longer care about how YOU interpret the constitution, you aren't any kind of authority, you are just one opinion and the rest of us also have a say.

SINCE we already regulate firearms QUITE CONSTITUTIONALLY, who is ignoring the Constitution? No one, that's who.

Around and around we go....

- - - Updated - - -



See above.

The second amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's a far cry from shooting innocent citizens.

Around and around we go as moving targets.

 

[Benvolio]

FUCK the fucking bogus "framers and 2cnd amendment" crap excuses.

Once again.

WE ALREADY FUCKING REGULATE FIREARMS AND IT'S PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL.

Fuckin'suck-it apologists. THE ONLY QUESTION IS HOW TO REGULATE!

And fuck you to anyone who thinks we don't have a gun problem in this country, that ONLY exists because Republicans are fucking whores taking it up the ass from a lobby that ONLY cares about cash.

There it is.

Period.

There is no other issue here, and the great majority of U.S. Citizens WANT SOME FUCKING REGULATION!

I admit that years ago I was ambivalent about regulation, having grown up around guns, and grown up with gun owners; But what's happened in the last couple of decades is not what that was - and I don't want violent, puerile, whining, man children with delusions of Rambo anywhere near a fire arm.

AND if regulation is the only way to avoid that -

SO FUCKING BE IT!

THERE IS NO SUCH BINARY REALITY WHERE IT IS ALL REGULATION ANO GUNS - OR NO REGULATION AND 2CND AMENDMENT!

FUCKING SUCK IT APOLOGISTS, regulation and the 2cnd are not mutually exclusive, there can be BOTH!

This illustrates the problem with compromising on Constitutional Rights. If we give up one little iota, liberals will use that to take away the entire right—a bit at a time, but eventually all. Here the argument is; we already infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, therefore we can do any infringing we want, even though the constitution says they “shall not be infringed”.
We see the same thing in the area of freedom of speech, where the liberals are certain to use the “fire in a crowded theater” thing to justify silencing what they want.
Any compromise on a constitutional right is a step down a slippery slope.

 

[Telstra]

The problem with using guns to protect is, it is too late to shoot back.
A lot of people are already dead before you can shoot back.

Like this case and ALL other mass shooting cases.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm sorry for you Kuli but that's just a load of twaddle. We have what he have because the gun lobby has bribed Republicans while the masters of the lobbyists have embarked on a campaign of selling an idea to idiots that guns are toys and penis extenders, recreation, and the way you make yourself a man.

There is no Constitutional bar against regulation - and anyway I no longer care about how YOU interpret the constitution, you aren't any kind of authority, you are just one opinion and the rest of us also have a say.

SINCE we already regulate firearms QUITE CONSTITUTIONALLY, who is ignoring the Constitution? No one, that's who.

Around and around we go....

- - - Updated - - -



See above.

Emotional claptrap.

And we once "QUITE CONSTITUTIONALLY" rounded up run-away slaves and forced them back into slavery. The only way this is "constitutional" is the same way that was: by reading different parts of the document in different ways instead of being honest and reading it equally.

I'll be waiting to see you be consistent and start calling for speech control, press control, and religion control.

 

[Kulindahr]

The second amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's a far cry from shooting innocent citizens.

Around and around we go as moving targets.

And around we go ignoring the Constitution: it provides a method and an authority to Congress for dealing with this... but it's easier to whine about inanimate objects instead of paying attention to that document.

And that path is dangerous to the Republic because it just feeds the dumbing-down of the electorate. Democrats love to call Republicans "low information voters", but they rely on the very same thing -- they don't want citizens thinking for themselves on the basis of facts, because it's easier to get people excited about sound-bite talking points . So no one wants the public to understand the militia concept; if the public did, our lawmakers would have to actually buckle down and pass a new Militia Act that would require citizens to exercise responsibility -- and no politician wants citizens exercising responsibility on their own; they'd rather have government programs that control citizens than trust citizens to be actual grownups.

 

[Kulindahr]

The problem with using guns to protect is, it is too late to shoot back.
A lot of people are already dead before you can shoot back.

Like this case and ALL other mass shooting cases.

So take away the guns of the police and the military.

But generally guns are used to protect at least hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of times a year in the U.S., without anyone shooting at all -- even police who draw their guns are most likely to not have to shoot (though they've been getting more and more trigger-happy).

 

[Kulindahr]

The second amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's a far cry from shooting innocent citizens.

Around and around we go as moving targets.

And indeed the militia can, under the Constitution, be called out to protect innocent citizens -- that's what posses were. And that's a point that neither side wants to address, that an understood flip side to the right to keep and bear arms was the duty of armed citizens to aid the local sheriff when called on. In fact that can be taken as a partial measure of a "well-regulated militia", that those who are armed are willing to show up with their arms should the sheriff have need: anyone not willing to show up does not qualify as part of a well-regulated militia.

It would be interesting to see the reactions of a lot of gun owners should Congress grow a pair and pass something like a "Militia and Terrorism Act" that would require armed citizens to turn out and function under the command of their local sheriff in terrorism situations. Of course it would also be revealing if Congress would pass a "Militia Discipline Act" requiring all guns not in use (i.e. not being 'worn' or stored in a specific place to be available for home or business defense) to be stored and locked securely, on the basis that unsecured firearms are a danger to "the security of a free state" (which they plainly are -- and I'm not just talking ordinary citizens here, but some major police departments and several federal agencies which have "lost" guns that turned up in criminal hands, by the hundreds [nor do I just mean the ludicrous "Fast and Furious" operation that deliberately required gun sellers to sell to buyers for Mexican cartels; Homeland Security "misplaced" gobs of guns fairly recently]). Pushing a little harder, Congress could require anyone with militia/military training to register with their local sheriff -- not their guns, but them -- so the sheriff would know who can be called on in terrorist, hostage, or other situations.

All of that would be perfectly consistent with the militia concept of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, and thus perfectly in line with the Article I Section 8 authority over the militia (and also rest on good precedent from militia Acts in the past) -- and it would require people insisting (quite rightly) on their rights being upheld to accept the flip side of rights, i.e. responsibility.

 

[Telstra]

So take away the guns of the police and the military.

But generally guns are used to protect at least hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of times a year in the U.S., without anyone shooting at all -- even police who draw their guns are most likely to not have to shoot (though they've been getting more and more trigger-happy).

Are you crazy ??
In all or most countries, only the police and military have guns.
All the citizens don't or very afew citizens have guns (must be licensed ONLY )

And the US is just another country and should be similar to other countries in terms of gun laws.

 

[Kulindahr]

This illustrates the problem with compromising on Constitutional Rights. If we give up one little iota, liberals will use that to take away the entire right—a bit at a time, but eventually all. Here the argument is; we already infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, therefore we can do any infringing we want, even though the constitution says they “shall not be infringed”.
We see the same thing in the area of freedom of speech, where the liberals are certain to use the “fire in a crowded theater” thing to justify silencing what they want.
Any compromise on a constitutional right is a step down a slippery slope.

Actually the most egregious use of the "fire in a crowded theater" "thing" recently was by Justice Scalia in the Heller decision to justify prior restraint of liberty on the basis of after-the-abuse penalties accepted for misuse of free speech.

The attitude traces back to when the courts stood the commerce clause on its head, taking a statement meant to restrict the federal government's authority over commerce to keeping it flowing smoothly between the states and using it to justify federal meddling within states. Once it was accepted that such a mundane restriction on federal power could be turned upside down there was a clear path to extending federal power everywhere. The second element was accepting that "state interest" could trump individual rights, a proposition that has led to police getting paid vacations for killing innocent people on a no-knock warrant on the word of an anonymous informant, but can be more powerfully used to justify anything in the name of "public safety" ( that being the very concept the Nazis used to disarm Jews so they could be rounded up and slaughtered).

 

[Kulindahr]

Are you crazy ??
In all or most countries, only the police and military have guns.
All the citizens don't or very afew citizens have guns (must be licensed ONLY )

And the US is just another country and should be similar to other countries in terms of gun laws.

You said guns are useless for protecting people. If they're useless, the police don't need them nor do the military.

But in reality the police and military only get to have guns because of the right of the citizens to have guns, from which the citizens have assigned the police and military the authority to use guns on their behalf. You're turning that on its head, making government some sort of entity that must have divine right to everything and anything, and thus in essence own the citizens -- since to tell someone they may not have the weapon of their choice for self-defense is to tell them their life does not belong to them.

 

[Telstra]

Well, you are "guessing my posts".
You said things i did not say.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, you are "guessing my posts".
You said things i did not say.

I said exactly what you said -- that guns are useless for protecting people.

The logical conclusion to that is that the police and military don't need them, either.

 

[Kulindahr]

I just heard another aspect to this case: the guy was apparently an escaped mental patient, who fled from an involuntary commitment.

How did THAT not get into the system and keep gun stores from selling to him???

 

[TX-Beau]

Emotional claptrap.

And we once "QUITE CONSTITUTIONALLY" rounded up run-away slaves and forced them back into slavery. The only way this is "constitutional" is the same way that was: by reading different parts of the document in different ways instead of being honest and reading it equally.

And since we no longer round up slaves, seems to me that we can decide not to let abusive douchebags have assault rifles!

I'll be waiting to see you be consistent and start calling for speech control, press control, and religion control.

Considering that we already have speech control, and you can't tear the beating hearts out of human sacrifices in the name of Quetzalcoatl, you seem to have no actual point.

Your interpretation of the Constitution has no authority, you drone on and on about what you think some guys wanted centuries ago and pretend your opinion is definitive.

Fact is that the Constitution and the Laws inspired by it all evolve and as much as you NEVER want to admit it, regulation of firearms is already Constitutional, no matter how much the whiners want to ignore that little inconvenience.

Tag, you're it.

 

[Telstra]

I said exactly what you said -- that guns are useless for protecting people.

The logical conclusion to that is that the police and military don't need them, either.

No, the logical conclusion about my posts are the US should be like other countries.
No guns for citizens or they should apply for strict gun permit for strict use like in Australia.

 

[TX-Beau]

This illustrates the problem with compromising on Constitutional Rights. If we give up one little iota, liberals will use that to take away the entire right—a bit at a time, but eventually all. Here the argument is; we already infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, therefore we can do any infringing we want, even though the constitution says they “shall not be infringed”.
We see the same thing in the area of freedom of speech, where the liberals are certain to use the “fire in a crowded theater” thing to justify silencing what they want.
Any compromise on a constitutional right is a step down a slippery slope.

TOVARISH!!!

Don't be angry Sugarpie, I did Kuli first because as much as I disagree with him about this - I suspect he's sincere.

So, you can thank my Baby for my not making any snarky remarks about how you're supposed to be ignoring me for years, and just getting snarky remarks about how cute it is when you hopelessly confuse things in the name of regurgitated talking points.

Perhaps it's more clever in the original Russian.


BOO! Hillary Clinton is under your bed! RUNNNNNN! The Robocall is coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!!!

Don't worry Sugarlips, I still love you.