Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On February 25 2018 04:05 Taelshin wrote: Why is everyone so focused on guns when this was a breakdown in law enforcement from the FBI to the sheriffs office and then finally to the boots on the ground. Don't get me wrong I am not a big gun guy or anything but it feels like we should all be focusing on the above mentioned things instead of gun laws ect.
Are you starting to sympathize with NRA members and gun owners that think it’s more about taking aim at gun rights than calmly analyzing what went wrong in the tragedy?
Are you recognizing that arguments like arming teachers (or the "good guy with a gun") from the NRA are more about driving gun purchases than calmly analyzing/providing responsible proposals?
I want to believe that you're engaging with this honestly (lord knows I've done my share of trying to get liberals to do a little self-reflection), but this is certainly a sticking point at the moment.
Actually, making schools a harder target is useful, even if the discussion turns to rejecting it. The voices that don’t care about the details (such as weak sheriffs department follow up) and only advance ban-the-guns arguments should see five different kinds of responses.
While I appreciate your determination, I have to reject the idea that you're approaching this from a truth-seeking perspective and not one intended to stick it to your partisan opposition.
That doesn't invalidate some of your criticisms on it's own, but it does significantly undermine the moral tone of your arguments.
And likewise I think you’re ideologically unsuited to tell the difference between truth seeking and partisanship.
Bruh, you're pretending like arming teachers isn't a categorically stupid idea that pretty much everyone involved (save for the people pitching it from the sidelines) can identify it is and acting like it's not because of partisan blinders. No one with an ounce of sense could take that seriously.
You may very well be right about me not being suited to tell the difference, I'm also not an MLB umpire but I can call balls and strikes for a junior high game. This isn't a nuanced supreme court case where I'm far out of my depth, this is one virtually anyone remotely connected to the locale can tell you. The tiny fraction of people (I'm sure will be all over Fox News and right wing media outlets) in schools that think this isn't a patently stupid idea would still probably prefer something different than what the NRA/Republicans/Trump are proposing.
Should liberals own the fact that learning more about the issues would strengthen their arguments, obviously. But when you to try to paint the left as disingenuous actors, then pretend the right is standing on righteous justice and the bill of rights, it's going to be obvious to everyone that your argument is hollow. This is true despite the legitimate part of the premise.
I have a hard time reconciling your view that it's a "categorically stupid idea that pretty much everyone involved ... can identify it is" when polling shows Americans split on the topic. It appears to be another example of presuming that one's own considered ideas are the only sane ones on the map.
I'd be interested in seeing polls of teachers- not all Americans- and what their split of opinions would be... Because teachers would be the ones involved, and non-teachers don't necessarily understand the appropriate context of the job.
I haven't seen any official polling data, but I've seen and heard hundreds of teachers across the nation speak out against the idea of them having guns in their classrooms or on their person inside school (including teachers who own guns). I haven't heard of any teachers supporting the idea.
It doesn't matter what the patsy thinks about being the patsy, otherwise no-one would ever be the patsy.
On February 25 2018 04:05 Taelshin wrote: Why is everyone so focused on guns when this was a breakdown in law enforcement from the FBI to the sheriffs office and then finally to the boots on the ground. Don't get me wrong I am not a big gun guy or anything but it feels like we should all be focusing on the above mentioned things instead of gun laws ect.
Are you starting to sympathize with NRA members and gun owners that think it’s more about taking aim at gun rights than calmly analyzing what went wrong in the tragedy?
Are you recognizing that arguments like arming teachers (or the "good guy with a gun") from the NRA are more about driving gun purchases than calmly analyzing/providing responsible proposals?
I want to believe that you're engaging with this honestly (lord knows I've done my share of trying to get liberals to do a little self-reflection), but this is certainly a sticking point at the moment.
Actually, making schools a harder target is useful, even if the discussion turns to rejecting it. The voices that don’t care about the details (such as weak sheriffs department follow up) and only advance ban-the-guns arguments should see five different kinds of responses. https://twitter.com/stephengutowski/status/967470926446104577
While I appreciate your determination, I have to reject the idea that you're approaching this from a truth-seeking perspective and not one intended to stick it to your partisan opposition.
That doesn't invalidate some of your criticisms on it's own, but it does significantly undermine the moral tone of your arguments.
And likewise I think you’re ideologically unsuited to tell the difference between truth seeking and partisanship.
Bruh, you're pretending like arming teachers isn't a categorically stupid idea that pretty much everyone involved (save for the people pitching it from the sidelines) can identify it is and acting like it's not because of partisan blinders. No one with an ounce of sense could take that seriously.
You may very well be right about me not being suited to tell the difference, I'm also not an MLB umpire but I can call balls and strikes for a junior high game. This isn't a nuanced supreme court case where I'm far out of my depth, this is one virtually anyone remotely connected to the locale can tell you. The tiny fraction of people (I'm sure will be all over Fox News and right wing media outlets) in schools that think this isn't a patently stupid idea would still probably prefer something different than what the NRA/Republicans/Trump are proposing.
Should liberals own the fact that learning more about the issues would strengthen their arguments, obviously. But when you to try to paint the left as disingenuous actors, then pretend the right is standing on righteous justice and the bill of rights, it's going to be obvious to everyone that your argument is hollow. This is true despite the legitimate part of the premise.
I have a hard time reconciling your view that it's a "categorically stupid idea that pretty much everyone involved ... can identify it is" when polling shows Americans split on the topic. It appears to be another example of presuming that one's own considered ideas are the only sane ones on the map.
I'd be interested in seeing polls of teachers- not all Americans- and what their split of opinions would be... Because teachers would be the ones involved, and non-teachers don't necessarily understand the appropriate context of the job.
I haven't seen any official polling data, but I've seen and heard hundreds of teachers across the nation speak out against the idea of them having guns in their classrooms or on their person inside school (including teachers who own guns). I haven't heard of any teachers supporting the idea.
It doesn't matter what the patsy thinks about being the patsy, otherwise no-one would ever be the patsy.
Yeah I just meant in terms of engaging in a legitimate and intellectually honest conversation
Just the fact that having a gun in the room automatically increases testosterone needs to be considered. Ex: if you thought teachers were mean BEFORE they have access to a gun, they will be worse after, jokes aside.
And what happens when a group of kids get a hold of the gun?
How does this affect young generations when your authority figure is the person with the gun?
Do you know who she is? She's Nick Naylor. When I saw her speaking, I was like "That's Nick Naylor! He's real!" Some of you know who Nick Naylor is, but most of you are like "Huh? Who the hell is Nick Naylor?"
I like how she opened with "Where was ... when ... happened?" instead of "What about ...?", that was a really refreshing take.
On a less snarky note after scrolling through most of the video, do we know how many cases of for example background checks are done correctly and result in access to a weapon being denied in the US? How many cases of for example threats to shoot up a school happen and how many of those are actually acted on by law enforcement?
Without those pieces of information I can't just dismiss these kinds of checks and the system as a whole in general, it's like dismissing birth control as a valid contraception because I can bring up a few women who got pregnant while on them.
On February 26 2018 07:28 r.Evo wrote: I like how she opened with "Where was ... when ... happened?" instead of "What about ...?", that was a really refreshing take.
On a less snarky note after scrolling through most of the video, do we know how many cases of for example background checks are done correctly and result in access to a weapon being denied in the US? How many cases of for example threats to shoot up a school happen and how many of those are actually acted on by law enforcement?
Without those pieces of information I can't just dismiss these kinds of checks and the system as a whole in general, it's like dismissing birth control as a valid contraception because I can bring up a few women who got pregnant while on them.
I feel like our background checks are a facade. You do the dance, you get the guns. In some states and cities, it's more stringent, in others, it's much less. The truth of the matter is that the government in the US does not have the capability to track every gun, and I mean that in the most practical sense possible. Many people who are shooters do not purchase guns themselves, but have a parent with a firearm, or know where they can steal a firearm. Since certain cities have firearm bans, it creates a black-market for illegal sellers, which leads to people owning guns that are unregistered, which further complicates the problem.
I've seen no serious proposal put forward by any politician here in the US to address the problem. President Trump has said he wants to "arm teachers", but I highly doubt that he would want to put that on the floor of Congress in the current sociopolitical climate.
On February 26 2018 07:28 r.Evo wrote: I like how she opened with "Where was ... when ... happened?" instead of "What about ...?", that was a really refreshing take.
On a less snarky note after scrolling through most of the video, do we know how many cases of for example background checks are done correctly and result in access to a weapon being denied in the US? How many cases of for example threats to shoot up a school happen and how many of those are actually acted on by law enforcement?
Without those pieces of information I can't just dismiss these kinds of checks and the system as a whole in general, it's like dismissing birth control as a valid contraception because I can bring up a few women who got pregnant while on them.
I feel like our background checks are a facade. You do the dance, you get the guns. In some states and cities, it's more stringent, in others, it's much less. The truth of the matter is that the government in the US does not have the capability to track every gun, and I mean that in the most practical sense possible. Many people who are shooters do not purchase guns themselves, but have a parent with a firearm, or know where they can steal a firearm. Since certain cities have firearm bans, it creates a black-market for illegal sellers, which leads to people owning guns that are unregistered, which further complicates the problem.
I've seen no serious proposal put forward by any politician here in the US to address the problem. President Trump has said he wants to "arm teachers", but I highly doubt that he would want to put that on the floor of Congress in the current sociopolitical climate.
Background checks do what they're supposed to do - check against the NICS to identify if the person is a felon or not. What do you think a background check should check for? Please, tell me. Every FFL has to run one of these.
As for the black market - what are laws going to do here? You want a War on Guns just like the War on Drugs? It'll turn out just as successful. All I hear is emotion and zero facts. How about you check statistics on school shootings prior to 1990 and after 1990. Then ask yourself how this change might have occurred. What factors are different now than they were before.
Please say you want to deny people their 2A rights based on having a MI as defined by the DSM V. Please go there. I'll shred you to pieces.
On February 26 2018 07:28 r.Evo wrote: I like how she opened with "Where was ... when ... happened?" instead of "What about ...?", that was a really refreshing take.
On a less snarky note after scrolling through most of the video, do we know how many cases of for example background checks are done correctly and result in access to a weapon being denied in the US? How many cases of for example threats to shoot up a school happen and how many of those are actually acted on by law enforcement?
Without those pieces of information I can't just dismiss these kinds of checks and the system as a whole in general, it's like dismissing birth control as a valid contraception because I can bring up a few women who got pregnant while on them.
I feel like our background checks are a facade. You do the dance, you get the guns. In some states and cities, it's more stringent, in others, it's much less. The truth of the matter is that the government in the US does not have the capability to track every gun, and I mean that in the most practical sense possible. Many people who are shooters do not purchase guns themselves, but have a parent with a firearm, or know where they can steal a firearm. Since certain cities have firearm bans, it creates a black-market for illegal sellers, which leads to people owning guns that are unregistered, which further complicates the problem.
I've seen no serious proposal put forward by any politician here in the US to address the problem. President Trump has said he wants to "arm teachers", but I highly doubt that he would want to put that on the floor of Congress in the current sociopolitical climate.
Background checks do what they're supposed to do - check against the NICS to identify if the person is a felon or not. What do you think a background check should check for? Please, tell me. Every FFL has to run one of these.
As for the black market - what are laws going to do here? You want a War on Guns just like the War on Drugs? It'll turn out just as successful. All I hear is emotion and zero facts. How about you check statistics on school shootings prior to 1990 and after 1990. Then ask yourself how this change might have occurred. What factors are different now than they were before.
Please say you want to deny people their 2A rights based on having a MI as defined by the DSM V. Please go there. I'll shred you to pieces.
That's not exactly true.
If the FBI determines that the buyer was prohibited, the agency sends out a retrieval order to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF is then responsible for getting the gun back.
Retrieval orders are relatively rare: A NICS operations report from 2000 noted that of more than 45,000 default proceeds issued that year, approximately 5,000 resulted in a retrieval order.
Seems as though a pretty significant number of people that are supposed to be prevented from buying guns by background check aren't. Not because of deceit or manipulation, but simply because the process failed. Or worked like it was supposed to (leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have been able to buy them but for the FBI's failure) depending on your perspective I guess.
On February 26 2018 07:28 r.Evo wrote: I like how she opened with "Where was ... when ... happened?" instead of "What about ...?", that was a really refreshing take.
On a less snarky note after scrolling through most of the video, do we know how many cases of for example background checks are done correctly and result in access to a weapon being denied in the US? How many cases of for example threats to shoot up a school happen and how many of those are actually acted on by law enforcement?
Without those pieces of information I can't just dismiss these kinds of checks and the system as a whole in general, it's like dismissing birth control as a valid contraception because I can bring up a few women who got pregnant while on them.
I feel like our background checks are a facade. You do the dance, you get the guns. In some states and cities, it's more stringent, in others, it's much less. The truth of the matter is that the government in the US does not have the capability to track every gun, and I mean that in the most practical sense possible. Many people who are shooters do not purchase guns themselves, but have a parent with a firearm, or know where they can steal a firearm. Since certain cities have firearm bans, it creates a black-market for illegal sellers, which leads to people owning guns that are unregistered, which further complicates the problem.
I've seen no serious proposal put forward by any politician here in the US to address the problem. President Trump has said he wants to "arm teachers", but I highly doubt that he would want to put that on the floor of Congress in the current sociopolitical climate.
Background checks do what they're supposed to do - check against the NICS to identify if the person is a felon or not. What do you think a background check should check for? Please, tell me. Every FFL has to run one of these.
As for the black market - what are laws going to do here? You want a War on Guns just like the War on Drugs? It'll turn out just as successful. All I hear is emotion and zero facts. How about you check statistics on school shootings prior to 1990 and after 1990. Then ask yourself how this change might have occurred. What factors are different now than they were before.
Please say you want to deny people their 2A rights based on having a MI as defined by the DSM V. Please go there. I'll shred you to pieces.
If the FBI determines that the buyer was prohibited, the agency sends out a retrieval order to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF is then responsible for getting the gun back.
Retrieval orders are relatively rare: A NICS operations report from 2000 noted that of more than 45,000 default proceeds issued that year, approximately 5,000 resulted in a retrieval order.
Seems as though a pretty significant number of people that are supposed to be prevented from buying guns by background check aren't. Not because of deceit or manipulation, but simply because the process failed. Or worked like it was supposed to (leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have been able to buy them but for the FBI's failure) depending on your perspective I guess.
You say "significant" number, but that's just not true. I suppose you're going to rationalize it and say that more than once is "significant", but statistically, it's not. That wasn't my point though - the point is, that there ARE background checks, so when people say there should be background checks, who's against background checks, etc. it's disingenuous. Then there is the *wink wink* that people with MI should have their 2A rights revoked (you don't think there is a decent amount of people with SPMI that will not seek treatment if in doing so they have their 2A rights revoked?). So much for the loving liberal - stereotyping people with SPMI as violent criminals who can't be trusted to have a gun. Such tolerance. The fact is, people with SPMI are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than commit them, and that goes for the truly stereotyped people with Schizophrenia, depression, bipolar, etc.
Now, as someone who is for drug legalization (for the most part, I peg you here, at least for marijuana), do you think people should have their 2A rights revoked because they had some pot on them? Another one of those little "unintended consequences" of the Drug War I suppose. Cut the drug war and drug prohibition you massively cut violence and crimes associated with Drugs (see: Alcohol Prohibition and every other Prohibition known to man for vices).
So then, what else should background checks, check for? I presume MI is out (if not tsk tsk). Drugs? That should be out too, no? What else other than checking if they're a felon (which, I'd argue, is getting just as ridiculous since the number of felony-level crimes has dramatically risen on the books...if you're going to argue this, it should be violent felons, not just felons writ large)? Maybe you think it should be 7 days instead of 3. Regardless, folks acting like we don't do "background checks" or more "background checks" is the answer are just .... let me put this as blunt as I can - stupid. I know you have a different perspective on this compared to others that share a lot of your beliefs, but really, all I see is more ban ban ban mania this time with a dose of "for the children".
It's funny. Prior to 1986 automatic weapons were legal. Prior to 1968 a great deal of explosive ordnance was legal. Yet, here we are today, with more bans on weapons than those times, and yet, we have a higher rate of "mass" shootings and killings. It's obviously the guns though.
On February 26 2018 07:28 r.Evo wrote: I like how she opened with "Where was ... when ... happened?" instead of "What about ...?", that was a really refreshing take.
On a less snarky note after scrolling through most of the video, do we know how many cases of for example background checks are done correctly and result in access to a weapon being denied in the US? How many cases of for example threats to shoot up a school happen and how many of those are actually acted on by law enforcement?
Without those pieces of information I can't just dismiss these kinds of checks and the system as a whole in general, it's like dismissing birth control as a valid contraception because I can bring up a few women who got pregnant while on them.
I feel like our background checks are a facade. You do the dance, you get the guns. In some states and cities, it's more stringent, in others, it's much less. The truth of the matter is that the government in the US does not have the capability to track every gun, and I mean that in the most practical sense possible. Many people who are shooters do not purchase guns themselves, but have a parent with a firearm, or know where they can steal a firearm. Since certain cities have firearm bans, it creates a black-market for illegal sellers, which leads to people owning guns that are unregistered, which further complicates the problem.
I've seen no serious proposal put forward by any politician here in the US to address the problem. President Trump has said he wants to "arm teachers", but I highly doubt that he would want to put that on the floor of Congress in the current sociopolitical climate.
Background checks do what they're supposed to do - check against the NICS to identify if the person is a felon or not. What do you think a background check should check for? Please, tell me. Every FFL has to run one of these.
As for the black market - what are laws going to do here? You want a War on Guns just like the War on Drugs? It'll turn out just as successful. All I hear is emotion and zero facts. How about you check statistics on school shootings prior to 1990 and after 1990. Then ask yourself how this change might have occurred. What factors are different now than they were before.
Please say you want to deny people their 2A rights based on having a MI as defined by the DSM V. Please go there. I'll shred you to pieces.
That's not exactly true.
If the FBI determines that the buyer was prohibited, the agency sends out a retrieval order to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF is then responsible for getting the gun back.
Retrieval orders are relatively rare: A NICS operations report from 2000 noted that of more than 45,000 default proceeds issued that year, approximately 5,000 resulted in a retrieval order.
Seems as though a pretty significant number of people that are supposed to be prevented from buying guns by background check aren't. Not because of deceit or manipulation, but simply because the process failed. Or worked like it was supposed to (leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have been able to buy them but for the FBI's failure) depending on your perspective I guess.
You say "significant" number, but that's just not true. I suppose you're going to rationalize it and say that more than once is "significant", but statistically, it's not. That wasn't my point though - the point is, that there ARE background checks, so when people say there should be background checks, who's against background checks, etc. it's disingenuous. Then there is the *wink wink* that people with MI should have their 2A rights revoked (you don't think there is a decent amount of people with SPMI that will not seek treatment if in doing so they have their 2A rights revoked?). So much for the loving liberal - stereotyping people with SPMI as violent criminals who can't be trusted to have a gun. Such tolerance. The fact is, people with SPMI are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than commit them, and that goes for the truly stereotyped people with Schizophrenia, depression, bipolar, etc.
Now, as someone who is for drug legalization (for the most part, I peg you here, at least for marijuana), do you think people should have their 2A rights revoked because they had some pot on them? Another one of those little "unintended consequences" of the Drug War I suppose. Cut the drug war and drug prohibition you massively cut violence and crimes associated with Drugs (see: Alcohol Prohibition and every other Prohibition known to man for vices).
So then, what else should background checks, check for? I presume MI is out (if not tsk tsk). Drugs? That should be out too, no? What else other than checking if they're a felon (which, I'd argue, is getting just as ridiculous since the number of felony-level crimes has dramatically risen on the books...if you're going to argue this, it should be violent felons, not just felons writ large)? Maybe you think it should be 7 days instead of 3. Regardless, folks acting like we don't do "background checks" or more "background checks" is the answer are just .... let me put this as blunt as I can - stupid. I know you have a different perspective on this compared to others that share a lot of your beliefs, but really, all I see is more ban ban ban mania this time with a dose of "for the children".
It's funny. Prior to 1986 automatic weapons were legal. Prior to 1968 a great deal of explosive ordnance was legal. Yet, here we are today, with more bans on weapons than those times, and yet, we have a higher rate of "mass" shootings and killings. It's obviously the guns though.
5,000 people (in one particular year with not nearly as many requests as say during Obama's presidency) walking around with guns their background checks said they shouldn't have sounds significant to me. The ATF having at least that many situations where they are tasked with taking away a weapon someone shouldn't have in a single year seems significant to me.
You may be right that it adds up to being statistically insignificant, but they are significant social burdens nonetheless.
Personally I'm all for a constitutional convention where we could address a few different issues at once, but barring that, we can increase restrictions without infringing on the 2A according to even Scalia. Depending on your count around 1 out of 10 guns bought don't require a background check. So between those and the failed background checks we have a lot of people with guns they shouldn't have (in a responsible society).
There's plenty of things contributing to mass shootings that aren't guns and I'd love a comprehensive approach/view but we can't even just require every transfer to pass a background check in the 21st century. Hundreds more will die in mass shootings, and hundreds of thousands more by suicide long before we address even the most rudimentary aspects of any one contributor.
What I find far more realistic (and scary personally) is that this scare is used to marginalize and oppress aberrant political groups while doing nothing to deal with the underlying issues, much like the drug war as you mentioned.
On February 26 2018 07:28 r.Evo wrote: I like how she opened with "Where was ... when ... happened?" instead of "What about ...?", that was a really refreshing take.
On a less snarky note after scrolling through most of the video, do we know how many cases of for example background checks are done correctly and result in access to a weapon being denied in the US? How many cases of for example threats to shoot up a school happen and how many of those are actually acted on by law enforcement?
Without those pieces of information I can't just dismiss these kinds of checks and the system as a whole in general, it's like dismissing birth control as a valid contraception because I can bring up a few women who got pregnant while on them.
I feel like our background checks are a facade. You do the dance, you get the guns. In some states and cities, it's more stringent, in others, it's much less. The truth of the matter is that the government in the US does not have the capability to track every gun, and I mean that in the most practical sense possible. Many people who are shooters do not purchase guns themselves, but have a parent with a firearm, or know where they can steal a firearm. Since certain cities have firearm bans, it creates a black-market for illegal sellers, which leads to people owning guns that are unregistered, which further complicates the problem.
I've seen no serious proposal put forward by any politician here in the US to address the problem. President Trump has said he wants to "arm teachers", but I highly doubt that he would want to put that on the floor of Congress in the current sociopolitical climate.
Background checks do what they're supposed to do - check against the NICS to identify if the person is a felon or not. What do you think a background check should check for? Please, tell me. Every FFL has to run one of these.
As for the black market - what are laws going to do here? You want a War on Guns just like the War on Drugs? It'll turn out just as successful. All I hear is emotion and zero facts. How about you check statistics on school shootings prior to 1990 and after 1990. Then ask yourself how this change might have occurred. What factors are different now than they were before.
Please say you want to deny people their 2A rights based on having a MI as defined by the DSM V. Please go there. I'll shred you to pieces.
That's not exactly true.
If the FBI determines that the buyer was prohibited, the agency sends out a retrieval order to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF is then responsible for getting the gun back.
Retrieval orders are relatively rare: A NICS operations report from 2000 noted that of more than 45,000 default proceeds issued that year, approximately 5,000 resulted in a retrieval order.
Seems as though a pretty significant number of people that are supposed to be prevented from buying guns by background check aren't. Not because of deceit or manipulation, but simply because the process failed. Or worked like it was supposed to (leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have been able to buy them but for the FBI's failure) depending on your perspective I guess.
You say "significant" number, but that's just not true. I suppose you're going to rationalize it and say that more than once is "significant", but statistically, it's not. That wasn't my point though - the point is, that there ARE background checks, so when people say there should be background checks, who's against background checks, etc. it's disingenuous. Then there is the *wink wink* that people with MI should have their 2A rights revoked (you don't think there is a decent amount of people with SPMI that will not seek treatment if in doing so they have their 2A rights revoked?). So much for the loving liberal - stereotyping people with SPMI as violent criminals who can't be trusted to have a gun. Such tolerance. The fact is, people with SPMI are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than commit them, and that goes for the truly stereotyped people with Schizophrenia, depression, bipolar, etc.
Now, as someone who is for drug legalization (for the most part, I peg you here, at least for marijuana), do you think people should have their 2A rights revoked because they had some pot on them? Another one of those little "unintended consequences" of the Drug War I suppose. Cut the drug war and drug prohibition you massively cut violence and crimes associated with Drugs (see: Alcohol Prohibition and every other Prohibition known to man for vices).
So then, what else should background checks, check for? I presume MI is out (if not tsk tsk). Drugs? That should be out too, no? What else other than checking if they're a felon (which, I'd argue, is getting just as ridiculous since the number of felony-level crimes has dramatically risen on the books...if you're going to argue this, it should be violent felons, not just felons writ large)? Maybe you think it should be 7 days instead of 3. Regardless, folks acting like we don't do "background checks" or more "background checks" is the answer are just .... let me put this as blunt as I can - stupid. I know you have a different perspective on this compared to others that share a lot of your beliefs, but really, all I see is more ban ban ban mania this time with a dose of "for the children".
It's funny. Prior to 1986 automatic weapons were legal. Prior to 1968 a great deal of explosive ordnance was legal. Yet, here we are today, with more bans on weapons than those times, and yet, we have a higher rate of "mass" shootings and killings. It's obviously the guns though.
5,000 people (in one particular year with not nearly as many requests as say during Obama's presidency) walking around with guns their background checks said they shouldn't have sounds significant to me. The ATF having at least that many situations where they are tasked with taking away a weapon someone shouldn't have in a single year seems significant to me.
You may be right that it adds up to being statistically insignificant, but they are significant social burdens nonetheless.
Personally I'm all for a constitutional convention where we could address a few different issues at once, but barring that, we can increase restrictions without infringing on the 2A according to even Scalia. Depending on your count around 1 out of 10 guns bought don't require a background check. So between those and the failed background checks we have a lot of people with guns they shouldn't have (in a responsible society).
There's plenty of things contributing to mass shootings that aren't guns and I'd love a comprehensive approach/view but we can't even just require every transfer to pass a background check in the 21st century. Hundreds more will die in mass shootings, and hundreds of thousands more by suicide long before we address even the most rudimentary aspects of any one contributor.
What I find far more realistic (and scary personally) is that this scare is used to marginalize and oppress aberrant political groups while doing nothing to deal with the underlying issues, much like the drug war as you mentioned.
Wegandi seems like a reasonable guy. Real class act. I'm sure his response will be reasonable, calm, rational, devoid of personal insults, and will be based on facts and logic.
On February 25 2018 04:05 Taelshin wrote: Why is everyone so focused on guns when this was a breakdown in law enforcement from the FBI to the sheriffs office and then finally to the boots on the ground. Don't get me wrong I am not a big gun guy or anything but it feels like we should all be focusing on the above mentioned things instead of gun laws ect.
Are you starting to sympathize with NRA members and gun owners that think it’s more about taking aim at gun rights than calmly analyzing what went wrong in the tragedy?
What steps should the FBI or local law enforcement have taken in light of the many complaints they received about the shooter? Were they legally authorized to take the shooter's guns away or involuntarily commit him to a mental health facility? Any talk of how law enforcement should have done more is pointless if there aren't laws on the books allowing them to do more.
On February 25 2018 04:05 Taelshin wrote: Why is everyone so focused on guns when this was a breakdown in law enforcement from the FBI to the sheriffs office and then finally to the boots on the ground. Don't get me wrong I am not a big gun guy or anything but it feels like we should all be focusing on the above mentioned things instead of gun laws ect.
Are you starting to sympathize with NRA members and gun owners that think it’s more about taking aim at gun rights than calmly analyzing what went wrong in the tragedy?
What steps should the FBI or local law enforcement have taken in light of the many complaints they received about the shooter? Were they legally authorized to take the shooter's guns away or involuntarily commit him to a mental health facility? Any talk of how law enforcement should have done more is pointless if there aren't laws on the books allowing them to do more.
The threats of physical harm to others, his suicidal history (and conclusions from a behavioral health therapist that he didn’t post a risk), and mental health issues from his own calls to police and putting a gun to people’s heads in the past should get a look first and foremost. Then we can move on to new laws on guns (you can look at what I support in this very thread). I don’t think an attitude of pronouncing what he should’ve been found guilty of from the outside as a non-state resident is very helpful right now.
On February 26 2018 07:28 r.Evo wrote: I like how she opened with "Where was ... when ... happened?" instead of "What about ...?", that was a really refreshing take.
On a less snarky note after scrolling through most of the video, do we know how many cases of for example background checks are done correctly and result in access to a weapon being denied in the US? How many cases of for example threats to shoot up a school happen and how many of those are actually acted on by law enforcement?
Without those pieces of information I can't just dismiss these kinds of checks and the system as a whole in general, it's like dismissing birth control as a valid contraception because I can bring up a few women who got pregnant while on them.
I feel like our background checks are a facade. You do the dance, you get the guns. In some states and cities, it's more stringent, in others, it's much less. The truth of the matter is that the government in the US does not have the capability to track every gun, and I mean that in the most practical sense possible. Many people who are shooters do not purchase guns themselves, but have a parent with a firearm, or know where they can steal a firearm. Since certain cities have firearm bans, it creates a black-market for illegal sellers, which leads to people owning guns that are unregistered, which further complicates the problem.
I've seen no serious proposal put forward by any politician here in the US to address the problem. President Trump has said he wants to "arm teachers", but I highly doubt that he would want to put that on the floor of Congress in the current sociopolitical climate.
Background checks do what they're supposed to do - check against the NICS to identify if the person is a felon or not. What do you think a background check should check for? Please, tell me. Every FFL has to run one of these.
As for the black market - what are laws going to do here? You want a War on Guns just like the War on Drugs? It'll turn out just as successful. All I hear is emotion and zero facts. How about you check statistics on school shootings prior to 1990 and after 1990. Then ask yourself how this change might have occurred. What factors are different now than they were before.
Please say you want to deny people their 2A rights based on having a MI as defined by the DSM V. Please go there. I'll shred you to pieces.
That's not exactly true.
If the FBI determines that the buyer was prohibited, the agency sends out a retrieval order to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF is then responsible for getting the gun back.
Retrieval orders are relatively rare: A NICS operations report from 2000 noted that of more than 45,000 default proceeds issued that year, approximately 5,000 resulted in a retrieval order.
Seems as though a pretty significant number of people that are supposed to be prevented from buying guns by background check aren't. Not because of deceit or manipulation, but simply because the process failed. Or worked like it was supposed to (leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have been able to buy them but for the FBI's failure) depending on your perspective I guess.
You say "significant" number, but that's just not true. I suppose you're going to rationalize it and say that more than once is "significant", but statistically, it's not. That wasn't my point though - the point is, that there ARE background checks, so when people say there should be background checks, who's against background checks, etc. it's disingenuous. Then there is the *wink wink* that people with MI should have their 2A rights revoked (you don't think there is a decent amount of people with SPMI that will not seek treatment if in doing so they have their 2A rights revoked?). So much for the loving liberal - stereotyping people with SPMI as violent criminals who can't be trusted to have a gun. Such tolerance. The fact is, people with SPMI are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than commit them, and that goes for the truly stereotyped people with Schizophrenia, depression, bipolar, etc.
Now, as someone who is for drug legalization (for the most part, I peg you here, at least for marijuana), do you think people should have their 2A rights revoked because they had some pot on them? Another one of those little "unintended consequences" of the Drug War I suppose. Cut the drug war and drug prohibition you massively cut violence and crimes associated with Drugs (see: Alcohol Prohibition and every other Prohibition known to man for vices).
So then, what else should background checks, check for? I presume MI is out (if not tsk tsk). Drugs? That should be out too, no? What else other than checking if they're a felon (which, I'd argue, is getting just as ridiculous since the number of felony-level crimes has dramatically risen on the books...if you're going to argue this, it should be violent felons, not just felons writ large)? Maybe you think it should be 7 days instead of 3. Regardless, folks acting like we don't do "background checks" or more "background checks" is the answer are just .... let me put this as blunt as I can - stupid. I know you have a different perspective on this compared to others that share a lot of your beliefs, but really, all I see is more ban ban ban mania this time with a dose of "for the children".
It's funny. Prior to 1986 automatic weapons were legal. Prior to 1968 a great deal of explosive ordnance was legal. Yet, here we are today, with more bans on weapons than those times, and yet, we have a higher rate of "mass" shootings and killings. It's obviously the guns though.
What it is is a culture of guns that is celebrated by a substantial amount of Americans and which, at least in my opinion, was massively twisted over the years. Analogue to how the first amendment becomes more and more twisted since the legal reality doesn't align with the perception of the people anymore, but that's a different story for a different thread.
The rise in mass shootings (we're at almost the same amount of school shootings in the 21st century than in all of the 20th century combined) is a symptom of this culture, just like you arguing that there should be no (or very few) exceptions to the 2nd amendment is a symptom of it.
From the perspective of an outsider, who has also seen what your founders had written on these issues, arguing for total availability of firearms seems like complete insanity that was never intended because it's so incredibly irrational. The American founders were a lot of things, I'd sometimes go as far as the word 'naive' from a modern perspective, but they certainly weren't stupid.
Samuel Adams argued that the constitution should never be construed "to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms" - peaceable citizens.
Here, have Joseph Story on this:
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.
Well. Regulated. Militia. Those words don't come from nothing, yet in 2006 the US Supremecourt found that this extends to "an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes".
Guns are cool, everyone should have one. They make people safer, everyone should have one! People who use guns are cool, everyone should use one! The only person to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, hence I should have a gun since I'm a good person!
That kind of culture is a complete perversion of both common sense and what your founders had intended. The basic issue is that it's visible everywhere and people don't even see it anymore. If I look up Columbine on wikipedia this is the first thing I see. For comparison this is the picture I find when looking up one of the worst school shootings Germany had. The trick is also that I had to look it up in the first place. I didn't know the name of who committed it before I looked it up. I don't know the names of the victims and the only people who have a right to know them are family and friends. The victims deserve their privacy.
More people died there than at Columbine, yet I'm confident most people haven't heard about it. Meanwhile a lot, lot more people all around the globe know Harris and Klebold.
Now, this is where you'll likely go "See, you agree with me! It's the evil media making money off this and spreading the word!" - And that's where bullshit needs to be called: "The media" celebrates the killers by putting their name and picture everywhere and it turns victims into cash cows not because it's evil or because of some agenda, but because of money.
Because the American people love hearing about it and because the American state shrugs and says: "What privacy?" - Because a lot of people would have loved to be the hero with a good gun at the scene who stopped the perpetrator. In reality, there are no good guns except those who serve a well defined purpose. Like for hunting. Like in law enforcement.
Or, like the American founders intended, for the purpose of giving citizens the means to rise up against a tyrannical government that should be afraid of them. You don't need pistols for that. You don't need every single individual armed for that. You don't need to even discuss that arming teachers is in any way shape or form a reasonable response to random kids deciding to shoot up schools.
[...] among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. - Joseph Story, 1833.
Weapons shouldn't be cool in the sense of todays America. The right to bear arms should be a burden since it represents a right that comes with a massive degree of responsibility. The responsibility of being able to kill another human being in an instant. Regulations are the tool of the state by which it ensures that something that requires responsibility also is treated responsibly. Samuel Adams knew this, so did Joseph Story, Madison and all the others.
Yet at some point this turned into "Everyone should have any kind of gun!" because gun culture as a whole has gone berserk.
The government not letting me have an M1A1 tank is unconstitutional. I need it to protect my house in case a burglar breaks in. That fucker sure is going to be sorry he came to my home. Ain't no tank-free zone here.
On February 27 2018 05:09 ninazerg wrote: The government not letting me have an M1A1 tank is unconstitutional. I need it to protect my house in case a burglar breaks in. That fucker sure is going to be sorry he came to my home. Ain't no tank-free zone here.
Its a slippery slope. Before you know it the burglars are carrying C4 and you got rock paper scissored. Best keep a few back up guns just in case.
On February 26 2018 07:28 r.Evo wrote: I like how she opened with "Where was ... when ... happened?" instead of "What about ...?", that was a really refreshing take.
On a less snarky note after scrolling through most of the video, do we know how many cases of for example background checks are done correctly and result in access to a weapon being denied in the US? How many cases of for example threats to shoot up a school happen and how many of those are actually acted on by law enforcement?
Without those pieces of information I can't just dismiss these kinds of checks and the system as a whole in general, it's like dismissing birth control as a valid contraception because I can bring up a few women who got pregnant while on them.
I feel like our background checks are a facade. You do the dance, you get the guns. In some states and cities, it's more stringent, in others, it's much less. The truth of the matter is that the government in the US does not have the capability to track every gun, and I mean that in the most practical sense possible. Many people who are shooters do not purchase guns themselves, but have a parent with a firearm, or know where they can steal a firearm. Since certain cities have firearm bans, it creates a black-market for illegal sellers, which leads to people owning guns that are unregistered, which further complicates the problem.
I've seen no serious proposal put forward by any politician here in the US to address the problem. President Trump has said he wants to "arm teachers", but I highly doubt that he would want to put that on the floor of Congress in the current sociopolitical climate.
Background checks do what they're supposed to do - check against the NICS to identify if the person is a felon or not. What do you think a background check should check for? Please, tell me. Every FFL has to run one of these.
As for the black market - what are laws going to do here? You want a War on Guns just like the War on Drugs? It'll turn out just as successful. All I hear is emotion and zero facts. How about you check statistics on school shootings prior to 1990 and after 1990. Then ask yourself how this change might have occurred. What factors are different now than they were before.
Please say you want to deny people their 2A rights based on having a MI as defined by the DSM V. Please go there. I'll shred you to pieces.
That's not exactly true.
If the FBI determines that the buyer was prohibited, the agency sends out a retrieval order to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF is then responsible for getting the gun back.
Retrieval orders are relatively rare: A NICS operations report from 2000 noted that of more than 45,000 default proceeds issued that year, approximately 5,000 resulted in a retrieval order.
Seems as though a pretty significant number of people that are supposed to be prevented from buying guns by background check aren't. Not because of deceit or manipulation, but simply because the process failed. Or worked like it was supposed to (leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have been able to buy them but for the FBI's failure) depending on your perspective I guess.
You say "significant" number, but that's just not true. I suppose you're going to rationalize it and say that more than once is "significant", but statistically, it's not. That wasn't my point though - the point is, that there ARE background checks, so when people say there should be background checks, who's against background checks, etc. it's disingenuous. Then there is the *wink wink* that people with MI should have their 2A rights revoked (you don't think there is a decent amount of people with SPMI that will not seek treatment if in doing so they have their 2A rights revoked?). So much for the loving liberal - stereotyping people with SPMI as violent criminals who can't be trusted to have a gun. Such tolerance. The fact is, people with SPMI are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than commit them, and that goes for the truly stereotyped people with Schizophrenia, depression, bipolar, etc.
Now, as someone who is for drug legalization (for the most part, I peg you here, at least for marijuana), do you think people should have their 2A rights revoked because they had some pot on them? Another one of those little "unintended consequences" of the Drug War I suppose. Cut the drug war and drug prohibition you massively cut violence and crimes associated with Drugs (see: Alcohol Prohibition and every other Prohibition known to man for vices).
So then, what else should background checks, check for? I presume MI is out (if not tsk tsk). Drugs? That should be out too, no? What else other than checking if they're a felon (which, I'd argue, is getting just as ridiculous since the number of felony-level crimes has dramatically risen on the books...if you're going to argue this, it should be violent felons, not just felons writ large)? Maybe you think it should be 7 days instead of 3. Regardless, folks acting like we don't do "background checks" or more "background checks" is the answer are just .... let me put this as blunt as I can - stupid. I know you have a different perspective on this compared to others that share a lot of your beliefs, but really, all I see is more ban ban ban mania this time with a dose of "for the children".
It's funny. Prior to 1986 automatic weapons were legal. Prior to 1968 a great deal of explosive ordnance was legal. Yet, here we are today, with more bans on weapons than those times, and yet, we have a higher rate of "mass" shootings and killings. It's obviously the guns though.
What it is is a culture of guns that is celebrated by a substantial amount of Americans and which, at least in my opinion, was massively twisted over the years. Analogue to how the first amendment becomes more and more twisted since the legal reality doesn't align with the perception of the people anymore, but that's a different story for a different thread.
The rise in mass shootings (we're at almost the same amount of school shootings in the 21st century than in all of the 20th century combined) is a symptom of this culture, just like you arguing that there should be no (or very few) exceptions to the 2nd amendment is a symptom of it.
From the perspective of an outsider, who has also seen what your founders had written on these issues, arguing for total availability of firearms seems like complete insanity that was never intended because it's so incredibly irrational. The American founders were a lot of things, I'd sometimes go as far as the word 'naive' from a modern perspective, but they certainly weren't stupid.
Samuel Adams argued that the constitution should never be construed "to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms" - peaceable citizens.
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.
Well. Regulated. Militia. Those words don't come from nothing, yet in 2006 the US Supremecourt found that this extends to "an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes".
Guns are cool, everyone should have one. They make people safer, everyone should have one! People who use guns are cool, everyone should use one! The only person to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, hence I should have a gun since I'm a good person!
That kind of culture is a complete perversion of both common sense and what your founders had intended. The basic issue is that it's visible everywhere and people don't even see it anymore. If I look up Columbine on wikipedia this is the first thing I see. For comparison this is the picture I find when looking up one of the worst school shootings Germany had. The trick is also that I had to look it up in the first place. I didn't know the name of who committed it before I looked it up. I don't know the names of the victims and the only people who have a right to know them are family and friends. The victims deserve their privacy.
More people died there than at Columbine, yet I'm confident most people haven't heard about it. Meanwhile a lot, lot more people all around the globe know Harris and Klebold.
Now, this is where you'll likely go "See, you agree with me! It's the evil media making money off this and spreading the word!" - And that's where bullshit needs to be called: "The media" celebrates the killers by putting their name and picture everywhere and it turns victims into cash cows not because it's evil or because of some agenda, but because of money.
Because the American people love hearing about it and because the American state shrugs and says: "What privacy?" - Because a lot of people would have loved to be the hero with a good gun at the scene who stopped the perpetrator. In reality, there are no good guns except those who serve a well defined purpose. Like for hunting. Like in law enforcement.
Or, like the American founders intended, for the purpose of giving citizens the means to rise up against a tyrannical government that should be afraid of them. You don't need pistols for that. You don't need every single individual armed for that. You don't need to even discuss that arming teachers is in any way shape or form a reasonable response to random kids deciding to shoot up schools.
[...] among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. - Joseph Story, 1833.
Weapons shouldn't be cool in the sense of todays America. The right to bear arms should be a burden since it represents a right that comes with a massive degree of responsibility. The responsibility of being able to kill another human being in an instant. Regulations are the tool of the state by which it ensures that something that requires responsibility also is treated responsibly. Samuel Adams knew this, so did Joseph Story, Madison and all the others.
Yet at some point this turned into "Everyone should have any kind of gun!" because gun culture as a whole has gone berserk.
And what did you find wrong in Heller when the majority argued it was in keeping with the founders intentions vs it’s a “perversion” of “what your founders had intended?”
Or what’s your opinion on post-Columbine training on LEOs entering the school to challenge the shooter vs this months decision to stay outside the schools and wait during the event?
On February 26 2018 07:28 r.Evo wrote: I like how she opened with "Where was ... when ... happened?" instead of "What about ...?", that was a really refreshing take.
On a less snarky note after scrolling through most of the video, do we know how many cases of for example background checks are done correctly and result in access to a weapon being denied in the US? How many cases of for example threats to shoot up a school happen and how many of those are actually acted on by law enforcement?
Without those pieces of information I can't just dismiss these kinds of checks and the system as a whole in general, it's like dismissing birth control as a valid contraception because I can bring up a few women who got pregnant while on them.
I feel like our background checks are a facade. You do the dance, you get the guns. In some states and cities, it's more stringent, in others, it's much less. The truth of the matter is that the government in the US does not have the capability to track every gun, and I mean that in the most practical sense possible. Many people who are shooters do not purchase guns themselves, but have a parent with a firearm, or know where they can steal a firearm. Since certain cities have firearm bans, it creates a black-market for illegal sellers, which leads to people owning guns that are unregistered, which further complicates the problem.
I've seen no serious proposal put forward by any politician here in the US to address the problem. President Trump has said he wants to "arm teachers", but I highly doubt that he would want to put that on the floor of Congress in the current sociopolitical climate.
Background checks do what they're supposed to do - check against the NICS to identify if the person is a felon or not. What do you think a background check should check for? Please, tell me. Every FFL has to run one of these.
As for the black market - what are laws going to do here? You want a War on Guns just like the War on Drugs? It'll turn out just as successful. All I hear is emotion and zero facts. How about you check statistics on school shootings prior to 1990 and after 1990. Then ask yourself how this change might have occurred. What factors are different now than they were before.
Please say you want to deny people their 2A rights based on having a MI as defined by the DSM V. Please go there. I'll shred you to pieces.
That's not exactly true.
If the FBI determines that the buyer was prohibited, the agency sends out a retrieval order to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF is then responsible for getting the gun back.
Retrieval orders are relatively rare: A NICS operations report from 2000 noted that of more than 45,000 default proceeds issued that year, approximately 5,000 resulted in a retrieval order.
Seems as though a pretty significant number of people that are supposed to be prevented from buying guns by background check aren't. Not because of deceit or manipulation, but simply because the process failed. Or worked like it was supposed to (leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have been able to buy them but for the FBI's failure) depending on your perspective I guess.
You say "significant" number, but that's just not true. I suppose you're going to rationalize it and say that more than once is "significant", but statistically, it's not. That wasn't my point though - the point is, that there ARE background checks, so when people say there should be background checks, who's against background checks, etc. it's disingenuous. Then there is the *wink wink* that people with MI should have their 2A rights revoked (you don't think there is a decent amount of people with SPMI that will not seek treatment if in doing so they have their 2A rights revoked?). So much for the loving liberal - stereotyping people with SPMI as violent criminals who can't be trusted to have a gun. Such tolerance. The fact is, people with SPMI are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than commit them, and that goes for the truly stereotyped people with Schizophrenia, depression, bipolar, etc.
Now, as someone who is for drug legalization (for the most part, I peg you here, at least for marijuana), do you think people should have their 2A rights revoked because they had some pot on them? Another one of those little "unintended consequences" of the Drug War I suppose. Cut the drug war and drug prohibition you massively cut violence and crimes associated with Drugs (see: Alcohol Prohibition and every other Prohibition known to man for vices).
So then, what else should background checks, check for? I presume MI is out (if not tsk tsk). Drugs? That should be out too, no? What else other than checking if they're a felon (which, I'd argue, is getting just as ridiculous since the number of felony-level crimes has dramatically risen on the books...if you're going to argue this, it should be violent felons, not just felons writ large)? Maybe you think it should be 7 days instead of 3. Regardless, folks acting like we don't do "background checks" or more "background checks" is the answer are just .... let me put this as blunt as I can - stupid. I know you have a different perspective on this compared to others that share a lot of your beliefs, but really, all I see is more ban ban ban mania this time with a dose of "for the children".
It's funny. Prior to 1986 automatic weapons were legal. Prior to 1968 a great deal of explosive ordnance was legal. Yet, here we are today, with more bans on weapons than those times, and yet, we have a higher rate of "mass" shootings and killings. It's obviously the guns though.
What it is is a culture of guns that is celebrated by a substantial amount of Americans and which, at least in my opinion, was massively twisted over the years. Analogue to how the first amendment becomes more and more twisted since the legal reality doesn't align with the perception of the people anymore, but that's a different story for a different thread.
The rise in mass shootings (we're at almost the same amount of school shootings in the 21st century than in all of the 20th century combined) is a symptom of this culture, just like you arguing that there should be no (or very few) exceptions to the 2nd amendment is a symptom of it.
From the perspective of an outsider, who has also seen what your founders had written on these issues, arguing for total availability of firearms seems like complete insanity that was never intended because it's so incredibly irrational. The American founders were a lot of things, I'd sometimes go as far as the word 'naive' from a modern perspective, but they certainly weren't stupid.
Samuel Adams argued that the constitution should never be construed "to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms" - peaceable citizens.
Here, have Joseph Story on this:
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.
Well. Regulated. Militia. Those words don't come from nothing, yet in 2006 the US Supremecourt found that this extends to "an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes".
Guns are cool, everyone should have one. They make people safer, everyone should have one! People who use guns are cool, everyone should use one! The only person to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, hence I should have a gun since I'm a good person!
That kind of culture is a complete perversion of both common sense and what your founders had intended. The basic issue is that it's visible everywhere and people don't even see it anymore. If I look up Columbine on wikipedia this is the first thing I see. For comparison this is the picture I find when looking up one of the worst school shootings Germany had. The trick is also that I had to look it up in the first place. I didn't know the name of who committed it before I looked it up. I don't know the names of the victims and the only people who have a right to know them are family and friends. The victims deserve their privacy.
More people died there than at Columbine, yet I'm confident most people haven't heard about it. Meanwhile a lot, lot more people all around the globe know Harris and Klebold.
Now, this is where you'll likely go "See, you agree with me! It's the evil media making money off this and spreading the word!" - And that's where bullshit needs to be called: "The media" celebrates the killers by putting their name and picture everywhere and it turns victims into cash cows not because it's evil or because of some agenda, but because of money.
Because the American people love hearing about it and because the American state shrugs and says: "What privacy?" - Because a lot of people would have loved to be the hero with a good gun at the scene who stopped the perpetrator. In reality, there are no good guns except those who serve a well defined purpose. Like for hunting. Like in law enforcement.
Or, like the American founders intended, for the purpose of giving citizens the means to rise up against a tyrannical government that should be afraid of them. You don't need pistols for that. You don't need every single individual armed for that. You don't need to even discuss that arming teachers is in any way shape or form a reasonable response to random kids deciding to shoot up schools.
[...] among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. - Joseph Story, 1833.
Weapons shouldn't be cool in the sense of todays America. The right to bear arms should be a burden since it represents a right that comes with a massive degree of responsibility. The responsibility of being able to kill another human being in an instant. Regulations are the tool of the state by which it ensures that something that requires responsibility also is treated responsibly. Samuel Adams knew this, so did Joseph Story, Madison and all the others.
Yet at some point this turned into "Everyone should have any kind of gun!" because gun culture as a whole has gone berserk.
And what did you find wrong in Heller when the majority argued it was in keeping with the founders intentions vs it’s a “perversion” of “what your founders had intended?”
Please don't misquote me. I called a specific widespread category of modern American gun culture a perversion of what your founders had intended, not the decision in Heller.
I used Heller as an example that the portion of "militia" is for all intents and purposes irrelevant from a legal point of view since then which, while a sound logical argument, frames the 2nd amendment as a generic right to bear arms, not a specific one for specific purposes. I consider this decision a symptom of it being irrelevant from a cultural point of view since a much longer time.
The prefatory clause is de facto made irrelevant with Heller and turned into "any use of guns in traditionally lawful purposes is fine". I'm with Justice Stevens in that if the founders had that intention the prefatory clause would sound different or not exist at all. Considering that decision was 5-4 in the end I'm curious how you seemingly are able to see it as clear cut and obvious.
Or what’s your opinion on post-Columbine training on LEOs entering the school to challenge the shooter vs this months decision to stay outside the schools and wait during the event?
Are we talking about regular police units when you mention "LEOs"? My opinion is that if you have to train your regular police to deal with what is for all intents and purposes similar to a terrorist attack then something is already very, very wrong.
Challenging an active shooter should not by default be expected to be done by regular citizens or regular police units, that's what special units are there for. However, considering there were 65 school shootings in 2017 and considering we had 18 in the last 8 weeks alone then you might just be right that training regular police for what amounts to anti-terror operations might very well be reasonable.
The ideal case would be regulations, laws and practices that aim to reduce the amount of shootings now before it escalates even further while also beefing up special units that are trained to deal with this.
But I guess when it's frequent enough then any decent person with a gun is good enough in a pinch.
Question: What do you believe the United States does, does not or has, has not that causes it to have so many school shootings compared to other western nations?
On February 27 2018 05:09 ninazerg wrote: The government not letting me have an M1A1 tank is unconstitutional. I need it to protect my house in case a burglar breaks in. That fucker sure is going to be sorry he came to my home. Ain't no tank-free zone here.
Its a slippery slope. Before you know it the burglars are carrying C4 and you got rock paper scissored. Best keep a few back up guns just in case.
You bring up a valid point, and I suppose the inner-city lower-socioeconomic hoodlums with high amounts of melanin will want to take my hard-earned suburban possessions in order to sell to feed their insane crack addiction, and while I drool fantasizing about blowing them to utter smithereens for setting foot on my property (Which was given to me by God), I do concede that they may acquire ever-more brutal weapons to satisfy their savagery, which I have read about on fringe extreme right-wing websites.
EPT
