Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Why isn't gun ownership made mandatory like seat belts are if protecting the citizen when he won't protect himself is the basic principle?

I'm all for making gun ownership mandatory.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Trouble is, you want to ban a type that people have the right to have.

And which type have I proposed banning that you have a constitutional right to have?

I won't hold my breath while you present your strawman.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

Ragman wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly for the same reason and one other.
Seeing how few, if any at all, responses were offered to an interesting new wrinkle I put forth (about possible prescribed meds) I spoke of in my last post. I withdraw gladly as the discussion crabs sideways and/or goes far off topic constantly..breaking down into obfuscating A2K-aos.

It was a worthwhile post. Maybe the first one I've ever seen from you. I gave it a thumbs up. But I really didn't have a lot to add to it in the way of a reply.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

spendius wrote:
Why isn't gun ownership made mandatory like seat belts are if protecting the citizen when he won't protect himself is the basic principle?

I'm all for making gun ownership mandatory.

Thay can do THAT
if thay can make us wear seatbelts.

David

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Thanks for the left-handed compliment. I wish I could return the favor.

1 Reply

@firefly,

It somewhat shameful to be using the sad deaths of children as a propaganda tools to take away constitution rights from citizens.

To say nothing of the fact that you are bright enough to know that your dreams of a disarm American would not prevent sick people from finding ways of killing children.

I already had Move On emailing me for support to do so under the theory we can not allow the constitution to stand in our way.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:

Now think of the few sick individuals running foreign countries and controlling modern armies that this country would eventually be at the mercy of if American citizens are ever .

Red Dawn is just a movie Spurt. Trust me, if someone is able to overcome the US military, you and your little pea shooters aren't going to do much to stop them.

A lot depends on how many MILLIONS of armed Americans offer opposition.

David

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

I'm tired of hearing the same pro-gun toting spiel,from the same handful of people, in almost every thread where we try to discuss another one of these shooting rampages,

Having people defend civil rights is just a burden you have to bear when you set out to violate those civil rights.

firefly wrote:

because none of these posters seems able to acknowledge that a similar and salient feature in all of these incidents is the type of weapon involved,

That is because:

a) It isn't true. Many times the killings are carried out without assault weapons, and

b) There is nothing salient about it. Having a harmless cosmetic feature like a pistol grip has zero impact on anything.

firefly wrote:

and the fact that such weapons empower the shooter to rapidly kill many people in a matter of seconds,

Wrong. Having a harmless cosmetic feature like a pistol grip does not have any impact on how rapidly a gun can be fired.

firefly wrote:

and the fact that we have insufficient regulation over the attainability of these weapons.

You are just going to have to deal with that, because the Constitution protects our right to have them.

firefly wrote:

Whether there are other methods of killing people is beside the point.

No it isn't. The fact that killings would continue even if you were actually allowed to violate our freedom is entirely relevant.

firefly wrote:

These are currently clearly the weapons of choice in most of the mass murders in this country in the past several years and some rational discussion of how better to regulate who purchases them, or whether the size of the clips should be limited, or even whether they should be available to just about anyone, seems essential if we want to stop the type of carnage we have been witnessing with alarming frequency.

There is nothing to discuss. The Constitution protects our right to have them.

As for clip size, you're the one mainly responsible for preventing that from passing, so don't go looking at me for that one. Go find a mirror.

firefly wrote:

That type of discussion is not going to happen with any of the pro-gun group that has been the most vocal in this thread and others of a similar nature. They aren't interested in anything beyond maintaining the status quo, and they aren't really interested in discussing anything about these specific deadly rampages. It's the same old, same old, from just about all of them.

Well, we are not about to let you violate our rights. You're just going to have to accept that.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

oralloy wrote:
If you see anything I've said that you feel is factually incorrect, you are free to try to challenge those facts.

Okay...here are a few:

The left hates America's freedom even more than Osama bin Laden did.

That is why the left is always trying to overthrow our Constitution.

The Democrats are plotting a major assault on our Constitutional liberties.

The Democrats, primarily the left, are plotting a new ban on assault weapons.

That would be a grievous violation of America's Constitutional rights.

As such, it is reasonable to characterize them as hating our freedom and plotting to assault the Constitution.

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Foofie is right...

Quote:
All cats look grey in the dark, not all deaths; some are sadder than others...

And these deaths are particularly sad.

I would guess that schools may decide they have the right to not hire teachers, or any staff, that uses, owns, guns. Sort of like, we don't see clergy at gun ranges. Perhaps, those that work at schools also will be hired on the proviso that guns are not part of their, or their families' lives?

Sort of like keeping the fox out of the hen house.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

no it isn't.

unless you are a right wing loon, of course...

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Trouble is, you want to ban a type that people have the right to have.

And which type have I proposed banning that you have a constitutional right to have?

Stop playing mind games. You know very well what type.

Assault weapons.

parados wrote:

I won't hold my breath while you present your strawman.

Reality is not a straw man.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

Ragman wrote:

Thanks for the left-handed compliment.

I didn't mean it to sound like that. It's just that so often when there is a stark distinction between good and evil, you always seem to be siding with evil.

I thought that post about the medicine was terrific. If it was the case that he was on some bizarre meds that caused his actions, I really hope it comes out.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

Quote:

My fervent hope is that the public would be privy to his autopsy results...re those prior mentioned possible prescribed meds.

The results probably will be made public, although it might take a while for tests for drugs to be completed.

There really aren't any comments being made by anyone who had recent contact with him, so it's almost impossible to know whether he had any recent changes in his mood, or behavior, or his ability to function, or his relationship with his mother, etc. and we have no idea whether he was in any type of treatment or on any medication. The police have said that they do have some evidence regarding motive, but they are just not ready to discuss it yet.

I've also read that this withdrawn loner enjoyed playing very violent shooter-type video games, and, if that's true, it might also provide some link to why he choose to act out in this particular manner. When a socially isolated loner spends considerable time immersed in that sort of aggressive fantasy activity, that might be another potential red flag, as well as a contributory element to what happened, since such games can increase aggression and/or desensitize the player to it. But we don't really know whether that was how he spent his time.

Eventually I think we will know more about him. Right now, I don't think it matters. The damage he has done is irreversible. And the one thing we do know is the type of weapon he selected to inflict that damage.

2 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

no it isn't.
unless you are a right wing loon, of course...

When a party is pushing for a blatant and outrageous violation of people's Constitutional rights, I see no problem with characterizing it as an assault on American freedom.

Why wouldn't that be a fair characterization?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

it is.

if you're a right wing loon.

I think that's obvious enough to everyone here.

loon...

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Where in the Constitution is it a right to own an assault weapon?

Unless you want to argue that there can be no restrictions on voting or speech, you can't find a right to own an assault weapon in the US Constitution. Clearly some restrictions do apply to rights in the Constitution.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:
oralloy wrote:
If you see anything I've said that you feel is factually incorrect, you are free to try to challenge those facts.

Okay...here are a few:

The left hates America's freedom even more than Osama bin Laden did.

That is why the left is always trying to overthrow our Constitution.

The Democrats are plotting a major assault on our Constitutional liberties.

The Democrats, primarily the left, are plotting a new ban on assault weapons.

That would be a grievous violation of America's Constitutional rights.

As such, it is reasonable to characterize them as hating our freedom and plotting to assault the Constitution.

Humm…interesting reasoning, oralloly.

At one point in our history, people “plotted” to consider blacks as humans…not subject to slavery. At one point in our history, people “plotted” to give women the right to vote.

Are you saying it is reasonable to characterize those people as “hating our freedom and plotting to assault the Constitution?”

By the way…since you actually said: " The left hates America’s freedom even more than Osama bin Laden did”…don’t you think you ought to offer your “reasoning” for making that statement…why you assert it has to be the truth and not hyperbole?

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

I'm tired of hearing the same pro-gun toting spiel, from the same handful of people,

Your fatigue is not the problem of American patriots.

firefly wrote:

in almost every thread where we try to discuss another one of these shooting rampages, because none of these posters seems able to acknowledge that a similar and salient feature in all of these incidents is the type of weapon involved, and the fact that such weapons empower the shooter to rapidly kill many people in a matter of seconds, and the fact that we have insufficient regulation over the attainability of these weapons.

There is NO JURISDICTION to interfere in that.
Citizens can consider that when dressing
and deciding how to arm themselves for the day.

firefly wrote:

Whether there are other methods of killing people is beside the point.

Not true; if the victims can be killed ANYWAY,
that is very relevant.

firefly wrote:

These are currently clearly the weapons of choice in most of the mass murders in this country in the past several years and some rational discussion of how better to regulate who purchases them, or whether the size of the clips should be limited, or even whether they should be available to just about anyone, seems essential if we want to stop the type of carnage we have been witnessing with alarming frequency.

U exhort perpetrating a hoax of jurisdiction
to rob citizens of their rights.

firefly wrote:

That type of discussion is not going to happen with any of the pro-gun group that has been the most vocal in this thread and others of a similar nature.

Behold the scorn for both
the First and the Second Amendments!!
Firefly wants freedom-lovers to use NEITHER.

firefly wrote:

They aren't interested in anything beyond maintaining the status quo,

FALSE!
I am very interested in re-instating the personal freedom of the 18OOs.
This massacre coud not have occurred
IF the victims had been well armed
and well trained in defensive battle tactics.

This massacre was CAUSED by GUN CONTROL laws.

David

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Where in the Constitution is it a right to own an assault weapon?

You know very well where it is, because I've explained it to you dozens of times.

Rational Basis Review prohibits the government from banning harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips and flash suppressors. And the courts might even apply a more stringent standard than Rational Basis Review.

Now stop playing page after page of silly mind games.

parados wrote:

Unless you want to argue that there can be no restrictions on voting or speech, you can't find a right to own an assault weapon in the US Constitution.

Oh yes I can. And if you aren't already too busy dodging the point yet again, you can find it just above (in the large text).

parados wrote:

Clearly some restrictions do apply to rights in the Constitution.

Yes. But not restrictions that cannot meet the standard of scrutiny being applied.

2 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know