Texas Shooting

[Got Stripers]

To me anyway, this points out two problems that continue to contribute. First is clearly a troubled and possibly bullied teen who based on his search history probably could or should have been on somebody’s radar. I know the arguments for and against software to flag these types of internet and social media activity as an invasion of privacy, but if your searching past school shootings to fine turn your own, tough fing #^&#^&#^&#^&. Sad that we need that type of survilllence to flag these troubled teens but it might be time.

And yet again Dads weapons are used, so what about the parents culpability is these situations? Time for stricter laws on storage and stiff fines or prosecution for parents that allow their “good kids” to go on a killing spree with dads guns.

If you think your little Johnny isn’t capable, just listen to any of the after interviews and shock that parents seem to have after their boys go bad.

[Slipknot]

Another very sad day in our history.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

To me anyway, this points out two problems that continue to contribute. First is clearly a troubled and possibly bullied teen who based on his search history probably could or should have been on somebody’s radar. I know the arguments for and against software to flag these types of internet and social media activity as an invasion of privacy, but if your searching past school shootings to fine turn your own, tough fing #^&#^&#^&#^&. Sad that we need that type of survilllence to flag these troubled teens but it might be time.take away more rights like the Patriot act if not going to solve the problem.

And yet again Dads weapons are used, so what about the parents culpability is these situations? Time for stricter laws on storage and stiff fines or prosecution for parents that allow their “good kids” to go on a killing spree with dads guns.
Pretty sure the parents did not "allow" their good kids to go on a killing spree. There already are storage laws, reaction to these things is to make them stricter. That is being defensive but it does NOT solve the problem.
If you think your little Johnny isn’t capable, just listen to any of the after interviews and shock that parents seem to have after their boys go bad.

You forgot the third point to make.
The media and society needs to stop trying to be first to get the killers name out there giving them their fame. How about a law infringing on the first Amendment that calls for all reference to the killer as murderer instead of their name. Maybe then these evil freaks will have less motivation since they won't get the notoriety. Something to think about anyway. I don't have the answers to society's complicated problem here in America the land of the free and home of the brave.

[Slipknot]

NOT A SINGLE LAW PROPOSED BY GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES WOULD HAVE PREVENTED SANTA FE...
By Kevin Ryan

...but stronger school security may have.

Almost immediately following the school shooting in Santa Fe last week, the media and gun control advocates once again began pushing the narrative that inadequate gun laws were responsible, and that stricter gun control would have prevented it. Few in the mainstream media bothered questioning that narrative. But a closer look reveals that not only is the narrative false, but also that proposals for stricter school security that many gun control advocates reject out of hand would have, in fact, helped prevent or mitigate the bloodshed.

GUN CONTROL POLICIES THAT WOULD HAVE HAD NO EFFECT ON THE SANTA FE SHOOTING

• “Assault rifle” ban - Neither weapon is considered an “assault rifle”.

• Semi-automatic firearm ban - Neither the shotgun nor the .38 revolver are semi-automatic firearms.

• Universal background checks a.k.a. “Gun show loophole” fix - Whether the weapons used were acquired from a private party or commercial seller is irrelevant, since the weapon’s buyer, the shooter’s father, would have passed a background check.

• Australian-style buyback - Both of the firearms used in the Santa Fe shooting were types that were exempt from the mandatory Australian gun buyback, and remain legal to purchase and possess today.

• “Extreme risk protection order” - Laws authorizing law enforcement agents to confiscate guns from individuals deemed to be a danger to themselves or others would have not stopped this attack, as there was little warning this particular boy was a danger. The gunman’s classmates and parents said they saw no signs of trouble before the shooting. And regardless, the firearms didn’t belong to him.

• Magazine capacity restrictions - Neither weapon utilizes magazines.

LAWS THAT WERE IN PLACE THAT WERE INEFFECTIVE, IGNORED, OR VIOLATED

• Age restriction on handgun possession - Federal law prohibits the possession of a handgun or handgun ammunition by any person under the age of 18. The shooter was 17.

• Handgun permit requirement - The shooter did not have a permit to carry a handgun as required under Texas law, since he is under the minimum age of 21.

• School firearm prohibition - State and federal law prohibits a student from carrying a firearm in school.

• Minimum shotgun barrel size law - Reports say the shotgun used by the shooter had a sawed-off barrel. Texas law requires that a shotgun must have a barrel length of 18 inches or more and an overall length of 26 inches or more.

• Explosive weapon ban - Explosive weapons, such as the pipe bombs that the attacker possessed, are illegal under state and federal laws.

PROPOSED LAWS/POLICIES THAT MAY HAVE HAD AN EFFECT IF THEY’D BEEN IN PLACE

• ”Child access prevention” (CAP) laws - CAP laws are laws that hold gun owners, such as the shooter’s father, accountable for the safe storage of firearms, imposing liability for failing to prevent guns from falling into young hands. Texas DID have such a law in place, but it applied to children under the age of 17. Since the shooter was just over 17, it’s unlikely his father will be criminally liable. If the law had applied to children under 18, perhaps the father would have taken measures to more adequately secure his firearms. However, it’s unknown how the boy gained access to them, but reports indicate the family says the weapons were stored in a locked safe. If true, CAP laws were followed yet failed to prevent the tragedy.

• Armed teachers - Texas has a school marshal program which allows for teachers and staff to be trained to conceal carry firearms in school. Over 170 school districts take part, and last November Santa Fe also signed up. Unfortunately the high school had yet to implement the program and was still working out the details.

• Stronger entry security - Several government officials have stated that schools should implement stronger entry security, reduce the number of entryways, and utilize metal detectors to prevent weapons from being brought into schools. Santa Fe High School did not have metal detectors.

LAWS/POLICIES THAT WERE IN EFFECT AND LIKELY PREVENTED FURTHER BLOODSHED

• Armed school resource officers - Santa Fe High School had 2 armed police officers patrolling the school. The gunman shot one who approached him, then talked with the other, and eventually offered to surrender. Had there been no officers present, the shooting may have continued.

[Got Stripers]

So a bullied teen wears a Trench (tribute to past shooter) coat to school daily and nobody had a clue, sorry not buying it. Searching for all the details of past school shootings possibly could have been flagged if the right people were watching for it. Maybe it’s time to raise the age well above 17 and hold these “parents” responsible when the good boy they never thought capable goes ballistic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

The kid in Fla had way more warning signs yet it still happened.
Parents need to be more involved and ask questions constantly but there is always someone that goes off the rails. Sometimes these things ARE stopped before they start. You just don’t hear about it as much just like when other mass killings don’t dominate the news because it was done by a truck or knives and not a gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So a bullied teen wears a Trench (tribute to past shooter) coat to school daily and nobody had a clue, sorry not buying it. Searching for all the details of past school shootings possibly could have been flagged if the right people were watching for it. Maybe it’s time to raise the age well above 17 and hold these “parents” responsible when the good boy they never thought capable goes ballistic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Too many people doing nothing but pointing out the imperfections in proposed solutions. They are making perfect be the enemy of good.

I'm of the opinion that the solution involves a whole lot more than guns (unless you have a way to confiscate the tens of millions that are already out there, which is impossible). We have a cultural, behavioral problem (and in my opinion, a spiritual problem) as much as we have a gun availability problem. Crappy parents, single parents, kid spending 22 hours a day online, bullying, isolationism, the violence we bombard our kids with. The further away we get from traditional family values, the more broken our moral compass becomes.

If we're serious, first thing, you limit schools to 1-2 entrances with metal detectors at each. That will cost $$, but will save some lives.

[JohnR]

Individual schools need a security assessment - what works for one (less entrances for example) may not work for others.

Less entrances brings up its own set of problems.

We do need some kind of Gun Violence Red Flag system that will pass Constitutional rules on individuals - including a process that restores rights when unproperly applied.

We may need better laws on safe storage.

All these things can help but if bot sides can't work together we are not going to have any solutions. The Ban Gun folks are only willing to confiscate, for many there is no compromise. The pro 2A folks (of which I support) are very hesitant to move on some issues when the Ban Guns people are going to again increase pressure when and if anything is done.

We already see the Ban / Confiscate people run with slogans and denigrate others that do not toe their party line and fully advocate for up to and including a complete ban.

Yep - those are the people I am going to compromise with /sarc

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Individual schools need a security assessment - what works for one (less entrances for example) may not work for others.

Less entrances brings up its own set of problems.

We do need some kind of Gun Violence Red Flag system that will pass Constitutional rules on individuals - including a process that restores rights when unproperly applied.

We may need better laws on safe storage.

All these things can help but if bot sides can't work together we are not going to have any solutions. The Ban Gun folks are only willing to confiscate, for many there is no compromise. The pro 2A folks (of which I support) are very hesitant to move on some issues when the Ban Guns people are going to again increase pressure when and if anything is done.

We already see the Ban / Confiscate people run with slogans and denigrate others that do not toe their party line and fully advocate for up to and including a complete ban.

Yep - those are the people I am going to compromise with /sarc

"Less entrances brings up its own set of problems."

Every proposed solution, will create a new set of issues to tackle. Maybe those problems are preferable to the problem of putting tiny caskets in the ground.

"The Ban Gun folks are only willing to confiscate, for many there is no compromise. The pro 2A folks (of which I support) are very hesitant to move on some issues when the Ban Guns people are going to again increase pressure when and if anything is done. "

Many on the left are fixated on solving this with gun restrictions, and common sense suggests that of all proposed solutions, gun solutions aren't going to reduce the body count as much as other solutions. But the folks who believe that the 2A is absolute aren't bending either. The pro 2A folks are going to have to throw everyone else a bone to get something done, and bump stocks and high capacity magazines are a likely offering. We can argue all day long about all the ways to kill people without bump stocks and high capacity magazines, but how do we look at our kids if we do nothing? How?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Too many people doing nothing but pointing out the imperfections in proposed solutions. They are making perfect be the enemy of good.

I'm of the opinion that the solution involves a whole lot more than guns (unless you have a way to confiscate the tens of millions that are already out there, which is impossible). We have a cultural, behavioral problem (and in my opinion, a spiritual problem) as much as we have a gun availability problem. Crappy parents, single parents, kid spending 22 hours a day online, bullying, isolationism, the violence we bombard our kids with. The further away we get from traditional family values, the more broken our moral compass becomes.

If we're serious, first thing, you limit schools to 1-2 entrances with metal detectors at each. That will cost $$, but will save some lives.

You hit the nail on the head, gun's are not the problem, although access by these troubled teens is. Parents just get a pass on being miserable at one of the most important jobs of their lives and kids today just don't value life like we older generations do.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

You hit the nail on the head, gun's are not the problem, although access by these troubled teens is. Parents just get a pass on being miserable at one of the most important jobs of their lives and kids today just don't value life like we older generations do.

Unfortunately we can't pass legislation that makes people behave responsibly.

I'd like to see what percentage of mass shooters (or for that matter, what percentage of all murderers) were raised in homes where ...

(1) there are two parents committed to the kids
(2) one parent stays at home raising the kids when they are little, and watches them like hawks and loves them like crazy
(3) families eat dinner together most nights at the dining room table, with all electronics turned off, where everyone listens to each other and gives a damn about what everyone else says
(4) where the kids know that no matter what, their parents love them
(5) where the entire family goes to church once in awhile, and talks together about what was said.
(6) where the kids are involved in SOME activity besides watching TV, be it sports, music, scouting, drama, whatever. And the parents make every effort to be at every practice/performance.

I'd be willing to bet that a staggering low % of murderers come from these types of homes. So you can't help but wonder, why one of the 2 major political parties, never stops mocking those values, and never stops saying that 'progress' is made by getting further and further away from those values.

That ideal sure ain't easy. It's not supposed to be. It's supposed to work...and in most cases, it does.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But the folks who believe that the 2A is absolute aren't bending either. The pro 2A folks are going to have to throw everyone else a bone to get something done, and bump stocks and high capacity magazines are a likely offering. We can argue all day long about all the ways to kill people without bump stocks and high capacity magazines, but how do we look at our kids if we do nothing? How?

You keep repeating this meme that the Second Amendment is not absolute. I don't even know what you mean by that. Is there some point at which it IS absolute and which no more compromise is possible except to finally revoke it? There have been limitations put on 2A already, and which, in essence, deny its original purpose--the only significant purpose which required a constitutional, written in stone, guarantee that the government cannot abridge.

Without the purpose of the Amendment being to defend, by arms if necessary, against a government that did not bind itself to its limitations as prescribed by the Constitution, there is no reason for the Amendment to exist. Hunting? States have the right to "regulate" hunting. Self defense? States have the police power to defend their citizens and to limit the ways people can defend themselves except as the Constitution prevents them.

The Amendment has already, obviously, been compromised beyond any semblance of its original intent. It is not the same Amendment, not the same right that was plainly and clearly written into the Constitution. It has been whittled down by "interpretations," in the eyes of Progressives, to be some government granted permission to allow certain weapons for a minority of people who hunt, and for a comparatively few people who might need some small arms for safety. Even those concessions can "reasonably" be further restricted, or eliminated because of emotional reactions to more or continuous gun "violence" episodes, or even to remove one easy way to commit suicide. The people can be persuaded that public "health" and safety can more efficiently be realized if guns were banned to the non-military or non-police citizens. Surely, like other things the government bans for our own good, removing guns from the small number of hunters, who could use other weapons anyway, should not ultimately be a problem.

If you think throwing another bone, added to the previous pile of bones, will be the end of it, I can only ask you WTF is wrong with you?
Sorry but there is a need for blunt, concise, and concrete logic here, not some vague notion of discussing absolutes.

You may scoff at the idea that we can forcefully, by arms, defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, but that is exactly the kind of ridicule that Alinsky minded Progressives want to implant in your head. Sure we could. If we and enough in the military want to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." And especially if our right to "keep and bear" the types of Arms which are equal to, as intended, those that current military personelle carry. Why would you want to eliminate the original meaning of the 2A when that last resort is there if we need it, and are willing to use it? And which stands as an impediment which makes government think twice or more about the possibility that we will?

Are we supposed to think that we no longer have to fear an overbearing government that has the absolute (the word fits here) authority to tell us how and what we can and cannot do? And how much of our money it can spend to assure its power and agenda? Are we supposed to think that our government actually does, and will, limit its authority to those tasks prescribed for it in the Constitution? WTF is wrong with all of us if we believe any of that? It has already breached the constitutional wall of separation between its power and our freedom. How much wider do we want that breach to expand by claiming that our constitutionally guaranteed rights are not absolute?

You do understand that our Constitution has been under Progressive assault for a long time? And that there is no end to that assault until Progressive government has removed the last vestige of limitations to its power? From this point on, any more chinks of original meaning ripped out of the Constitution will gravely harm it. There is not much of it left. Rather than any further weakening of the Constitution, the tide has to ebb and be reversed. Constitutional relevance must be restored, chink by chink, if we wish to keep it.

The real "assault weapon" being used is the attack on and destruction of our unalienable rights which are being transformed into government granted and controlled rights. And limitations on government are being transformed into limitations on the people.

All of your other proposals are proper for diminishing mass killings. The good family life, traditional values, a return to a civic minded populace, teaching the positive good to our children rather than exposing them to the quandary of post modern nihilism with its social, sexual, and ethical relativity and its destruction/deconstruction of any positive value other than sheer power. All progressive post modern solutions are resolved through power. There is no "reasonable discussion" in Progressive governance. There is only the total expression of power. Unlimited power. Things like constitutions are merely impediments.

But we can keep our Constitution, and its original Second Amendment, and we can look at our kids by restoring values in their lives and in the lives of our fellow citizens in ways that you mentioned. Have some faith in your own prescriptions. The way our society is going now is not an answer for how to look at our kids. And destroying the Constitution isn't either. How will you look at your kids if we finally incinerate that document?

Otherwise, to the muddled mind of a social outcast, in this age where power is the only useful value, the most convincing demonstration of being relevant is the total power over other lives expressed by taking a bunch of them.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You keep repeating this meme that the Second Amendment is not absolute. I don't even know what you mean by that. Is there some point at which it IS absolute and which no more compromise is possible except to finally revoke it. There have been limitations put on 2A already, and which, in essence, deny its original purpose--the only significant purpose which required a constitutional, written in stone, guarantee that the government cannot abridge.

Without the purpose of the Amendment being to defend, by arms if necessary, against a government that did not bind itself to its limitations as prescribed by the Constitution, there is no reason for the Amendment to exist. Hunting? States have the right to "regulate" hunting. Self defense? States have the police power to defend their citizens and to limit the ways people can defend themselves except as the Constitution prevents them.

The Amendment has already, obviously, been compromised beyond any semblance of its original intent. It is not the same Amendment, not the same right that was plainly and clearly written into the Constitution. It has been whittled down by "interpretations," in the eyes of Progressives, to be some government granted permission to allow certain weapons for a minority of people who hunt, and for a comparatively few people who might need some small arms for safety. Even those concessions can "reasonably" be further restricted, or eliminated because of emotional reactions to more or continuous gun "violence" episodes, or even to remove one easy way to commit suicide. The people can be persuaded that public "health" and safety can more efficiently be realized if guns were banned to the non-military or non-police citizens. Surely, like other things the government bans for our own good, removing guns from the small number of hunters, who could use other weapons anyway, should not ultimately be a problem.

If you think throwing another bone, added to the previous pile of bones, will be the end of it, I can only ask you WTF is wrong with you?
Sorry but there is a need for blunt, concise, and concrete logic here, not some vague notion of discussing absolutes.

You may scoff at the idea that we can forcefully, by arms, defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, but that is exactly the kind of ridicule that Alinsky minded Progressives want to implant in your head. Sure we could. If we and enough in the military want to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." And especially if our right to "keep and bear" the types of Arms which are equal to, as intended, those that current military personelle carry.

Are we supposed to think that we no longer have to fear an overbearing government that has the absolute (the word fits here) authority to tell us how and what we can and cannot do? And how much of our money it can spend to assure its power and agenda? Are we supposed to think that our government actually does, and will, limit its authority to those tasks prescribed for it in the Constitution? WTF is wrong with all of us if we believe any of that. It has already breached the constitutional wall of separation between its power and our freedom. How much wider do we want that breach to expand by claiming that our constitutionally guaranteed rights are not absolute.

You do understand that our Constitution has been under Progressive assault for a long time. And that there is no end to that assault until government has removed the last vestige of limitations to its power. From this point on, any more chinks of original meaning ripped out of the Constitution will gravely harm it. There is not much of it left. Rather than any further weakening of the Constitution, the tide has to ebb and be reversed. Constitutional relevance must be restored, chink by chink, if we wish to keep it.

The real "assault weapon" being used is the attack on and destruction of our unalienable rights which are being transformed into government granted and controlled rights. And limitations on government are being transformed into limitations on the people.

All of your other proposals are proper for diminishing mass killings. The good family life, traditional values, a return to a civic minded populace, teaching the positive good to our children rather than exposing them to the quandary of post modern nihilism with its social, sexual, and ethical relativity and its destruction/deconstruction of any positive value other than sheer power. All progressive post modern solutions are resolved through power. There is no "reasonable discussion" in Progressive governance. There is only the total expression of power. Unlimited power. Things like constitutions are merely impediments.

To the muddled mind of a social outcast, in this age where power is the only useful value, the most convincing demonstration of being relevant is the total power over other lives expressed by taking a bunch of them.

"You keep repeating this meme that the Second Amendment is not absolute. I don't even know what you mean by that."

I am absolutely certain you do know what I mean. George Soros shouldn't be allowed to be a nuke just because he can afford it. Similarly, one of the men who crafted the 2A, banned guns on the campus of the University of Virginia. it's not absolute. As far as my knowledge of history goes (which also isn't absolute) the guy who wrote it, didn't intend for it to be absolute.

"If you think throwing another bone, added to the previous pile of bones, will be the end of it,"

Never said any such thing. Nothing ill ever be the "end" of it, "it" being evil. I said throwing the gun grabbers a bone might get childish twits like Chris Murphy to vote for something that will actually help.

"WTF is wrong with you?"

Not a thing. You are the one who claims not to know what "absolute" means, and you are imagining that I said things that I never came close to saying. So I could ask you the same thing, but I respect you more than that.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Many on the left are fixated on solving this with gun restrictions, and common sense suggests that of all proposed solutions, gun solutions aren't going to reduce the body count as much as other solutions. But the folks who believe that the 2A is absolute aren't bending either.

Why should they bend? because banning an inanimate object has worked out so well in the past with prohibition and drugs etc. What makes them think it can even be accomplished without deaths on both sides


The pro 2A folks are going to have to throw everyone else a bone to get something done, and bump stocks and high capacity magazines are a likely offering.

Are you kidding? those people have been and will continue to pick away piece by piece until everything is not allowed, don't you get it? Swalwell and the other nutcases are not the kind of people you comprimise ANYTHING.


We can argue all day long about all the ways to kill people without bump stocks and high capacity magazines, but how do we look at our kids if we do nothing? By treating them with respect and communicating with intelligence informing of the right thing to do. Society has gone into lalaland where everything is given to them like ............... ah forget it, you know what has happened How?

We are doing something, but it is never enough

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You keep repeating this meme that the Second Amendment is not absolute. I don't even know what you mean by that. Is there some point at which it IS absolute and which no more compromise is possible except to finally revoke it? There have been limitations put on 2A already, and which, in essence, deny its original purpose--the only significant purpose which required a constitutional, written in stone, guarantee that the government cannot abridge.

Without the purpose of the Amendment being to defend, by arms if necessary, against a government that did not bind itself to its limitations as prescribed by the Constitution, there is no reason for the Amendment to exist. Hunting? States have the right to "regulate" hunting. Self defense? States have the police power to defend their citizens and to limit the ways people can defend themselves except as the Constitution prevents them.

The Amendment has already, obviously, been compromised beyond any semblance of its original intent. It is not the same Amendment, not the same right that was plainly and clearly written into the Constitution. It has been whittled down by "interpretations," in the eyes of Progressives, to be some government granted permission to allow certain weapons for a minority of people who hunt, and for a comparatively few people who might need some small arms for safety. Even those concessions can "reasonably" be further restricted, or eliminated because of emotional reactions to more or continuous gun "violence" episodes, or even to remove one easy way to commit suicide. The people can be persuaded that public "health" and safety can more efficiently be realized if guns were banned to the non-military or non-police citizens. Surely, like other things the government bans for our own good, removing guns from the small number of hunters, who could use other weapons anyway, should not ultimately be a problem.

If you think throwing another bone, added to the previous pile of bones, will be the end of it, I can only ask you WTF is wrong with you?
Sorry but there is a need for blunt, concise, and concrete logic here, not some vague notion of discussing absolutes.

You may scoff at the idea that we can forcefully, by arms, defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, but that is exactly the kind of ridicule that Alinsky minded Progressives want to implant in your head. Sure we could. If we and enough in the military want to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." And especially if our right to "keep and bear" the types of Arms which are equal to, as intended, those that current military personelle carry. Why would you want to eliminate the original meaning of the 2A when that last resort is there if we need it, and are willing to use it? And which stands as an impediment which makes government think twice or more about the possibility that we will?

Are we supposed to think that we no longer have to fear an overbearing government that has the absolute (the word fits here) authority to tell us how and what we can and cannot do? And how much of our money it can spend to assure its power and agenda? Are we supposed to think that our government actually does, and will, limit its authority to those tasks prescribed for it in the Constitution? WTF is wrong with all of us if we believe any of that? It has already breached the constitutional wall of separation between its power and our freedom. How much wider do we want that breach to expand by claiming that our constitutionally guaranteed rights are not absolute?

You do understand that our Constitution has been under Progressive assault for a long time? And that there is no end to that assault until Progressive government has removed the last vestige of limitations to its power? From this point on, any more chinks of original meaning ripped out of the Constitution will gravely harm it. There is not much of it left. Rather than any further weakening of the Constitution, the tide has to ebb and be reversed. Constitutional relevance must be restored, chink by chink, if we wish to keep it.

The real "assault weapon" being used is the attack on and destruction of our unalienable rights which are being transformed into government granted and controlled rights. And limitations on government are being transformed into limitations on the people.

All of your other proposals are proper for diminishing mass killings. The good family life, traditional values, a return to a civic minded populace, teaching the positive good to our children rather than exposing them to the quandary of post modern nihilism with its social, sexual, and ethical relativity and its destruction/deconstruction of any positive value other than sheer power. All progressive post modern solutions are resolved through power. There is no "reasonable discussion" in Progressive governance. There is only the total expression of power. Unlimited power. Things like constitutions are merely impediments.

But we can keep our Constitution, and its original Second Amendment, and we can look at our kids by restoring values in their lives and in the lives of our fellow citizens in ways that you mentioned. Have some faith in your own prescriptions. The way our society is going now is not an answer for how to look at our kids. And destroying the Constitution isn't either. How will you look at your kids if we finally incinerate that document?

Otherwise, to the muddled mind of a social outcast, in this age where power is the only useful value, the most convincing demonstration of being relevant is the total power over other lives expressed by taking a bunch of them.

Well said
That is the message that needs to be spoken

LOUDLY

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"You keep repeating this meme that the Second Amendment is not absolute. I don't even know what you mean by that."

I am absolutely certain you do know what I mean. George Soros shouldn't be allowed to be a nuke just because he can afford it.

Who should be allowed to own a nuke? Should governments be allowed to own a nuke? If so, why? Could you bear (carry) a nuke? Do the typical soldiers keep and bear nukes?

Similarly, one of the men who crafted the 2A, banned guns on the campus of the University of Virginia. it's not absolute. As far as my knowledge of history goes (which also isn't absolute) the guy who wrote it, didn't intend for it to be absolute.

The 2A, at the time, was a limitation on the federal government, not the states. And it certainly was not a limitation against private property owners, or private institutions, banning guns on their property. Nor did the 2A mean that you could just go about shooting at people or properties at will.

Clearly, given the importance of property rights to the Founders, the 2A was not intended that you could carry your weapon onto properties where the owner does not want you to do so. But neither of your examples addresses any limitation of the original 2A. There are obvious "limitations" on the carrying or using of your weapons. But what do those obvious limitations have to do with giving bones to anti-2A gun grabbers? On the grounds that the 2A is not absolute, what justifications are there for banning bump stocks or AR15s or semi-automatic guns?

I do not know what you mean by the 2A not being absolute in regards to the original 2A, its intention, and why it was created. You seem to want to come to some compromise with gun-grabbers that would destroy the original 2A and the reason for it. Your suggestions for banning the very things which would actually support the reason for the existence of the 2A don't address its absoluteness, or lack of it. They promote further degradation of it. They relegate it to some privilege the government grants and which the government can continuously reduce because there is no limitation against shrinking that which is not absolute. There is no end to the lack of absoluteness.

"WTF is wrong with you?"

Not a thing. You are the one who claims not to know what "absolute" means, and you are imagining that I said things that I never came close to saying. So I could ask you the same thing, but I respect you more than that.

Well, see, now you're the one imagining I said things that I never said. I said that I don't know what YOU mean by the 2A not being absolute.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

George Soros shouldn't be allowed to be a nuke just because he can afford it.

I agree with this....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I agree with this....

See we can find some common ground.

The 2a fanatics who claim that if we give an inch, that it necessarily follows that we’ll have to surrender handguns and hunting rifles next, are being as thoughtless and paranoid as the tin foil hat crowd on the far left. There’s no inevitability that it has to go all the way to the extreme. History shows very very few examples of things going to the extreme in either direction.

I don’t believe gun legislation will do much good. But I’d give up bump sticks and high capacity magazines, if it gets Chris Murphy and Nancy oelosi to agree to legislation that will actually do some good.

In a rational world, we wouldn’t have to throw them a bone to get things done. In the real world, sometimes you have to give a little to get a little.

If giving up those things led to legislation that saved the life of a single child, I’d do it in a second. The 2a fanatics won’t. In the event that we all have to explain ourselves someday, I’m comfortable with my position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

See we can find some common ground.

The 2a fanatics who claim that if we give an inch, that it necessarily follows that we’ll have to surrender handguns and hunting rifles next, are being as thoughtless and paranoid as the tin foil hat crowd on the far left. There’s no inevitability that it has to go all the way to the extreme. History shows very very few examples of things going to the extreme in either direction.

I don’t believe gun legislation will do much good. But I’d give up bump sticks and high capacity magazines, if it gets Chris Murphy and Nancy oelosi to agree to legislation that will actually do some good.

In a rational world, we wouldn’t have to throw them a bone to get things done. In the real world, sometimes you have to give a little to get a little.

If giving up those things led to legislation that saved the life of a single child, I’d do it in a second. The 2a fanatics won’t. In the event that we all have to explain ourselves someday, I’m comfortable with my position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I GUESS THAT WENT RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I GUESS THAT WENT RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD

No it didn’t, I just kept going with my rant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Well, see, now you're the one imagining I said things that I never said. I said that I don't know what YOU mean by the 2A not being absolute.

"Should governments be allowed to own a nuke? If so, why?"

If the Soviet Union had them, then unfortunately we needed them. They "why", and you already know this so I don't know why you're asking, is for deterrence.

"Could you bear (carry) a nuke?"

Maybe. Do they fit in suitcases? Missiles don't, but maybe a bomb does?

You're being silly just to be contrarian.

" do not know what you mean by the 2A not being absolute in regards to the original 2A"

Yes you know what I mean. I mean there are limits. I should not be allowed to keep and bear a fully automatic rile, and carry it around in a nursery school. Since I presume you agree with that statement, that means we both agree that the 2A is not absolute. We just need to figure out where to draw the line. If we can move that line in a way that doesn't surrender what I would call basic freedoms (who needs bump stocks or high capacity magazines except for Rambo wannabees), and saves a few lives, we should have a rational discussion about the pros and cons of that.

But we can't have a rational conversation, because the pro-2A fanatics claim that if we do that today, then tomorrow we necessarily surrender handguns and hunting rifles and swiss army knives and slingshots. Not even maniacs like Chris Murphy are going that far, there is no chance that will ever happen, and if that's the best argument you can come up with, then you lose the debate, because it's not a rational argument, it's tin foil hat paranoia.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Less entrances brings up its own set of problems."
Every proposed solution, will create a new set of issues to tackle. Maybe those problems are preferable to the problem of putting tiny caskets in the ground.

You are missing the point, Jim. The point is assessments to determine what best suits a particular school based on its own situation. Some places where there are less entrances might make the count inflicted go up.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The Ban Gun folks are only willing to confiscate, for many there is no compromise. The pro 2A folks (of which I support) are very hesitant to move on some issues when the Ban Guns people are going to again increase pressure when and if anything is done. "

Many on the left are fixated on solving this with gun restrictions, and common sense suggests that of all proposed solutions, gun solutions aren't going to reduce the body count as much as other solutions. But the folks who believe that the 2A is absolute aren't bending either. The pro 2A folks are going to have to throw everyone else a bone to get something done, and bump stocks and high capacity magazines are a likely offering. We can argue all day long about all the ways to kill people without bump stocks and high capacity magazines, but how do we look at our kids if we do nothing? How?

The Pro2A folks have either been throwing bones or having their bones taken away against their will for some time, and in some locations more harshly than others. The gun takers have already been chipping away for decades. When is the erosion of a right enough?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"You keep repeating this meme that the Second Amendment is not absolute. I don't even know what you mean by that."

I am absolutely certain you do know what I mean. George Soros shouldn't be allowed to be a nuke just because he can afford it. Similarly, one of the men who crafted the 2A, banned guns on the campus of the University of Virginia. it's not absolute. As far as my knowledge of history goes (which also isn't absolute) the guy who wrote it, didn't intend for it to be absolute.

"If you think throwing another bone, added to the previous pile of bones, will be the end of it,"

Guns are banned in Court Houses, Police Stations, and many other places. That does not prevent you from having them, just prevents you from bringing them into certain places.

When traveling in a car you need to have everything locked in a case, ammo separated from firearm. You can only travel between home, work, and a range. This is the law in RI. There have already been many laws and restrictions applied to good and honest people, many bones have been thrown or stolen.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

See we can find some common ground.

The 2a fanatics who claim that if we give an inch, that it necessarily follows that we’ll have to surrender handguns and hunting rifles next, are being as thoughtless and paranoid as the tin foil hat crowd on the far left. There’s no inevitability that it has to go all the way to the extreme. History shows very very few examples of things going to the extreme in either direction.

I don’t believe gun legislation will do much good. But I’d give up bump sticks and high capacity magazines, if it gets Chris Murphy and Nancy oelosi to agree to legislation that will actually do some good.

In a rational world, we wouldn’t have to throw them a bone to get things done. In the real world, sometimes you have to give a little to get a little.

If giving up those things led to legislation that saved the life of a single child, I’d do it in a second. The 2a fanatics won’t. In the event that we all have to explain ourselves someday, I’m comfortable with my position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What legislation would do some good? What is the common ground we can reach? Mental Health screening? Storage laws?

Clearly nobody wants to take away guns, the NRA just does it because it mindcontrols people and politicians. /sarc

http://buffalonews.com/2018/05/16/ro...kes-nras-case/

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

You are missing the point, Jim. The point is assessments to determine what best suits a particular school based on its own situation. Some places where there are less entrances might make the count inflicted go up.



The Pro2A folks have either been throwing bones or having their bones taken away against their will for some time, and in some locations more harshly than others. The gun takers have already been chipping away for decades. When is the erosion of a right enough?





Guns are banned in Court Houses, Police Stations, and many other places. That does not prevent you from having them, just prevents you from bringing them into certain places.

When traveling in a car you need to have everything locked in a case, ammo separated from firearm. You can only travel between home, work, and a range. This is the law in RI. There have already been many laws and restrictions applied to good and honest people, many bones have been thrown or stolen.






What legislation would do some good? What is the common ground we can reach? Mental Health screening? Storage laws?

Clearly nobody wants to take away guns, the NRA just does it because it mindcontrols people and politicians. /sarc

http://buffalonews.com/2018/05/16/ro...kes-nras-case/

"Some places where there are less entrances might make the count inflicted go up."

Good point, and something to be considered.

"The Pro2A folks have either been throwing bones or having their bones taken away against their will for some time"

True. But ask the victims' families which side has sacrificed more. There are two sides to this, not just one. Each side has a legitimate concern, not just the 2A side. CT has some strict gun laws I'm told. I can still get a handgun or a hunting rifle, I'm not a black in the segregated south who couldn't own a gun. I'm pretty sure the current situation is much closer to the ideal for the 2A crowd, than it is for the families of dead children. I'm not advocating for either extreme, I'm saying that even here in CT, I have the right to acquire a lot of different types of guns. At least I presume so. I have friends with handguns, shotguns, AR-15s. Not sure what more they want, or what they've had to surrender. But whatever they've had to surrender, I know some families in Newtown who have surrendered a lot more. The 2A crowd never talks about that.

I don't see having to lock my gun in a car, as a major infringement, but reasonable people can disagree on that point.

"What legislation would do some good? What is the common ground we can reach? Mental Health screening? Storage laws?"

Make it easier to commit the mentally ill. Policies (maybe not laws, but programs) that identify kids who are obviously isolated (the kid in FL put up every conceivable red flag), and which work with these kids to make sure they know that they matter and that someone cares about them. Policies that encourage families to stay together, instead of providing financial incentives for families to break apart. Funding for trained, carefully screened guards at schools. Policies that reduce the violence that we bombard our children with all day long. Maybe ask democrats and the media to stop endlessly mocking people of faith, and God forbid, start talking about the obvious benefits that faith can add to our lives. Maybe a national guardsmen in every school, every day.

I would trade bump stocks and high capacity magazines in a second, for all of that.

You made great points John, and you did it rationally. You didn't say "if I give up my bump stock today, then tomorrow they'll take my hunting rifle". I haven't heard any serious talk of an all-out gun grab, and until people of influence are calling for that, the right should stop acting as if that's around the corner.

I don't think gun control measures will do much, I agree with you on that. What I'm saying is, if we can't convince the left of the futility of fixing this with gun laws, that maybe we offer them something, in return for policies that will actually put a dent in the body count.

I don't see a lot of compassion from the 2A zealots on this issue...and we're better than that. I see a lot more paranoia, than I see compassion.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

See we can find some common ground.

The 2a fanatics who claim that if we give an inch, that it necessarily follows that we’ll have to surrender handguns and hunting rifles next, are being as thoughtless and paranoid as the tin foil hat crowd on the far left. There’s no inevitability that it has to go all the way to the extreme. History shows very very few examples of things going to the extreme in either direction.

I don’t believe gun legislation will do much good. But I’d give up bump sticks and high capacity magazines, if it gets Chris Murphy and Nancy oelosi to agree to legislation that will actually do some good.

In a rational world, we wouldn’t have to throw them a bone to get things done. In the real world, sometimes you have to give a little to get a little.

If giving up those things led to legislation that saved the life of a single child, I’d do it in a second. The 2a fanatics won’t. In the event that we all have to explain ourselves someday, I’m comfortable with my position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not even close to paranoid, history shows their agenda. Some have come out and said it. And then you have to nuts in SF who made a law that rain water falling on your own property does not belong to you so you cannot capture it in a rain barrel to use as you please to grow food or whatever you want, WATER for crying out loud, rain water from the sky. I don't want to see any more progressive government get ANY more power, it should be reversed. The people need to take control not the other way around.
You want to give up bones, well that bumpstock thing was supposed to be in the same bill as the concealed carry reciprocity bill and look what happened to that.
A government who does not trust the people cannot be trusted themselves.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

And then you have to nuts in SF who made a law that rain water falling on your own property does not belong to you so you cannot capture it in a rain barrel to use as you please to grow food or whatever you want, WATER for crying out loud, rain water from the sky.

Never heard of such a thing. Most if not all states encourage collecting rainwater. Some states do restrict how much you can hold as there are laws from the 1920's about maintaining large reservoirs on private property.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

not even close to paranoid, history shows their agenda. Some have come out and said it. And then you have to nuts in SF who made a law that rain water falling on your own property does not belong to you so you cannot capture it in a rain barrel to use as you please to grow food or whatever you want, WATER for crying out loud, rain water from the sky. I don't want to see any more progressive government get ANY more power, it should be reversed. The people need to take control not the other way around.
You want to give up bones, well that bumpstock thing was supposed to be in the same bill as the concealed carry reciprocity bill and look what happened to that.
A government who does not trust the people cannot be trusted themselves.

"not even close to paranoid, history shows their agenda. Some have come out and said it."

Can you list those who have said it, please?

"I don't want to see any more progressive government get ANY more power"

Not even if it helps save children's lives? If bump stocks were never available, isn't there a good chance the death toll would have been lower in Las Vegas? You can argue that cars kill a huge number of people, and therefore should we ban cars? But I don't see bump stocks as something that's as vital to our everyday lives, as cars.

None of us are advocating for anarchy, so we all agree there are worthwhile tradeoffs between liberty and security. It's just a question of whether or not we're at the point where moving the line towards safety, is warranted. I'm starting to think it is.

There is no fathomable gun law that would have prevented what happened in Texas. None. But there have been mass shooters who have used bump stocks and high capacity magazines to maximize the death count. I am willing to live without those things if it saves the life of one innocent person somewhere. I don't think that makes me a progressive liberal. But we can disagree.

Put common sense aside, and think about politics and optics. As I said, I don't see the 2A crowd showing much sympathy or empathy at all for the victims. That doesn't play well, and it gives the liberals useful, productive ammunition to use against us. So if you don't want more liberalism, that means you want as few democrats as possible to get elected. If you want to get as many conservatives elected as possible, you need to win as many elections as possible, and like it or not, that means appealing to the citizenry in those districts. That might mean throwing them a bone.

There are purple parts of the country that might choose a moderate democrat over a gun fanatic. If you won't budge from a stance of ideological purity, you might be helping the other side. And I know YOU care about those kids, I don't mean to imply you don't. But the media will portray our side as not caring, and that works on some people.

The 2018 midterms are important, I have zero interest in repeating the experience of having Nancy Pelosi as speaker. Locally in my state of CT, the democrats are extremely vulnerable, we could make some historic gains. I'd hate to lose that opportunity, because the media convinces the electorate that we don't care about dead kids. Perception matters if you want to win elections.

I completely agree that gun laws won't put a huge dent in the body count. But it might help a little, and it might get us a whole lot of political capital, and might stop the other side from acquiring political capital.

[TheSpecialist]

As a staunch member of the 2nd, there are only a couple of things I would support on the Federal Level:

1. Legislation to punish people that allow unauthorized people easy access to their guns, mandatory trigger locks, or gun safes on all guns that are not under a persons direct control.

2. All private gun sales and transfers have to be done at a dealer so that a NICS check can be done on the purchaser, the dealer should not be able to charge more than $10 per transaction

That's it , nothing else, we keep all of our guns that are legal today.
Then you have to set up school safety guidelines, metal detectors, clear backpacks, zero tolerance for bullying, violence etc.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"not even close to paranoid, history shows their agenda. Some have come out and said it."

Can you list those who have said it, please? not enough time at lunch to make a list

"I don't want to see any more progressive government get ANY more power"

Not even if it helps save children's lives? If bump stocks were never available, isn't there a good chance the death toll would have been lower in Las Vegas? You can argue that cars kill a huge number of people, and therefore should we ban cars? But I don't see bump stocks as something that's as vital to our everyday lives, as cars. no kidding, are golf clubs vital? I personally don't own, want or feel the need for a bump stock.

None of us are advocating for anarchy, so we all agree there are worthwhile tradeoffs between liberty and security. It's just a question of whether or not we're at the point where moving the line towards safety, is warranted. I'm starting to think it is.

There is no fathomable gun law that would have prevented what happened in Texas. None. But there have been mass shooters who have used bump stocks and high capacity magazines to maximize the death count. I am willing to live without those things if it saves the life of one innocent person somewhere. I don't think that makes me a progressive liberal. But we can disagree.

Put common sense aside, and think about politics and optics. As I said, I don't see the 2A crowd showing much sympathy or empathy at all for the victims. maybe you did not look or it is drowned out by the witch hunt for Trump collusion with Russians that seems to be backfiring once again That doesn't play well, and it gives the liberals useful, productive ammunition to use against us. So if you don't want more liberalism, that means you want as few democrats as possible to get elected. If you want to get as many conservatives elected as possible, you need to win as many elections as possible, and like it or not, that means appealing to the citizenry in those districts. That might mean throwing them a bone. I don't have to agree with it, they only take and never give so why should my opinion change? I can only control what I can control, I am not in the privileged ruling class

There are purple parts of the country that might choose a moderate democrat over a gun fanatic. If you won't budge from a stance of ideological purity, you might be helping the other side. And I know YOU care about those kids, I don't mean to imply you don't. But the media will portray our side as not caring, and that works on some people.I know, that is why it passed with flying colors in record time in my state

The 2018 midterms are important, I have zero interest in repeating the experience of having Nancy Pelosi as speaker. Locally in my state of CT, the democrats are extremely vulnerable, we could make some historic gains. I'd hate to lose that opportunity, because the media convinces the electorate that we don't care about dead kids. Perception matters if you want to win elections.

I completely agree that gun laws won't put a huge dent in the body count. But it might help a little, and it might get us a whole lot of political capital, and might stop the other side from acquiring political capital.

every day it moves closer and closer to confiscation piece by piece
tired of the circlejerk

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

Never heard of such a thing. Most if not all states encourage collecting rainwater. Some states do restrict how much you can hold as there are laws from the 1920's about maintaining large reservoirs on private property.

Colorado https://www.thealternativedaily.com/...-these-states/

CA http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...d_sen_v96.html

from here http://www.ncsl.org/research/environ...arvesting.aspx

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Colorado https://www.thealternativedaily.com/...-these-states/

CA http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...d_sen_v96.html

from here http://www.ncsl.org/research/environ...arvesting.aspx

This is citing obscure laws from when these western states were being settled and water rights were a huge issue for ranchers. Has nothing to so with progressive policy and I believe most laws have been updated.

[Slipknot]

I'm sure my google-fu is not up to par with yours
I could not find the exact thing I was referring to