Mass Shootings

[Aqua Buddha 14484]

59 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Again regulated by who ?   Who regulates the watch dog against tyranny ?  

Militia is civilian.  Who regulates a militia whose sole intent is to safeguard against an over reaching gov't ?  Regulated in the context of the constitution is an organized civilian guard regulated by themselves, the civilian militia.   Then there's that pesky line, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.  Pretty much blows your argument out of the water a second time.  

How in the name of god do you get a militia who is supposed to protect against tyranny of gov't is to be regulated by that very gov't that tyranny may come from ?  

Quit being obtuse.  The government regulates it and the people regulate the government.  This may come as a shock to the NRA crowd but the point of the 2nd Amendment isn't having guns for the sake of having guns.  It was part of a group of rights (namely the 1st, rarely used 3rd, and 4th) that when used collectively protects the citizenry from government overreach.

And no, a militia is not civilian.  Well, they are until they're called up, which was the point of the 2nd Amendment at the time.  Eskimo touched on this but at the founding of the country, they were worried about enemies both "foreign and domestic" and we didn't have a large standing army and some even opposed the concept of one entirely.  However, we needed a tool to fight off invasions and put down internal groups (slave revolts if necessary).  So, voila, a "well regulated militia," similar to today's National Guard.  

BTW, "the government" isn't some nameless, faceless, orb in the sky.  It's made up of actual people.  Take the Jade Helm crowd, for example.  They honestly believed that men and women who grew up in America and volunteered to serve in the armed forces would willingly round up innocent American citizens and shove them into vacant Walmarts.  Aside from the stupidity and gullibility of that, Abbott wheeled to the rescue.  Do you remember what did?  He ordered the National Guard (hint: they're a "well regulated militia") to observe and report.  Why didn't Abbott call on armed volunteers?  They certainly would have had the time based on their SSDI and Social Security checks.

So, yes, the government regulates things and "We the People" regulate the government.  I think I read that somewhere.

[Aqua Buddha 14484]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

For a very long time, the courts (including SCOTUS) held that the 2nd Amendment ONLY conferred the right to bear arms on well-regulated state militias.  It was not thought to confer that right on individuals.  When the NRA experienced a shift in power to the right in the 1970s it starting pushing the "individual" angle.  THAT is where the modern perspective was born.  

The irony here is that conservatives who scream "original intent" about the Constitution are actually supporting quite the opposite when they incorrectly assert that 2A has always conferred the right of the individual to bear arms.  But hey, nobody said the American people are in general very smart, and we certainly are not very knowledgeable about our own history.  This is getting worse, and it is the planned end game of the right wing power structure.  They WANT us to be dumb, and by God, we are. 

There's an absolutely great podcast about this from RadioLab called "The Gun Show."  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Hank Kingsley 20631]

Less than 4 million total people in the 16 states that made up the US in 1790 census. 700k of those were slaves. Only 800k of those were free white males above the age of 16.  NYC population was 33k. 

Current US population: over 325 million. 

 

 

[Aqua Buddha 14484]

18 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Countdown until the right labels them crisis actors.

I never thought I'd see the day where school kids were shot and killed and church groups accused them of being part of the conspiracy.

[Aqua Buddha 14484]

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Less than 4 million total people in the 16 states that made up the US in 1790 census. 700k of those were slaves. Only 800k of those were free white males above the age of 16.  NYC population was 33k. 

Current US population: over 325 million. 

 

 

The role os slavery is not to be discounted.  The Southern states were adamantly opposed to a strong, central government but they wanted one strong enough to put down slave rebellions.  That's not much different rom where the Right is now.  They're against a strong government except when it suits them.

[wildcat09 29183]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Again regulated by who ?   Who regulates the watch dog against tyranny ?  

Militia is civilian.  Who regulates a militia whose sole intent is to safeguard against an over reaching gov't ?  Regulated in the context of the constitution is an organized civilian guard regulated by themselves, the civilian militia.   Then there's that pesky line, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.  Pretty much blows your argument out of the water a second time.  

How in the name of god do you get a militia who is supposed to protect against tyranny of gov't is to be regulated by that very gov't that tyranny may come from ?  

Militias were regulated by the states.

[jimmyjazz 45492]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Militias were regulated by the states.

Now, don't get crossed up with Onboard.  He needs the facts to be different.  The militias were civilians.  They regulated themselves.  It says right there in his history book handbook.

[GW Hayduke 1950]

2 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

What cracks me up about this whole debate about defending against tyranny of the government is that we are watching this administration push further and further into authoritarianism. And those that support him ARE the gun nuts. Looks like this precious militia is failing us. If the Founders truly meant the 2nd Amendment to be a fail safe against tyranny, then it is obviously a failure. So what’s the point of it anymore? We have constant mass shootings AND the militia is complicit with an authoritarian leaning piece of shit administration. 

Yeah, it’s a failure. 

Nice point. Firearms aren’t going to prevent tyranny. This isn’t colonial times. You aren’t going to reverse a zoning board decision with your AR. You aren’t going to pistol whip the tax man because you feel your taxes are too high. 

The rule-of-law, a free and honest press, an informed and educated electorate, and our democratic processes are our protection against tyranny. Firearms don’t have a role in that

[Bullneck 18976]

5 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Wow, nice non related topic that has zero to do with guns there sport.

Our would-be resident constitutional lawyer has some thin skin.  

Doesn't everyone on the VaTech board agree with you?  Why not hang out there and add to the echo chamber?

[jimmyjazz 45492]

44 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Our would-be resident constitutional lawyer has some thin skin.  

Doesn't everyone on the VaTech board agree with you?  Why not hang out there and add to the echo chamber?

Onboard is a Hokie?  That explains some things. 

(No offense to VT, my Dad was a visiting prof there for a bit and I have very fond memories of Blacksburg, but most Hokies I've met lean pretty hard to the right side of the seesaw.)

Edited May 26, 2018 by jimmyjazz

[atomheartbevo 89348]

3 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

The role os slavery is not to be discounted.  The Southern states were adamantly opposed to a strong, central government but they wanted one strong enough to put down slave rebellions.  That's not much different rom where the Right is now.  They're against a strong government except when it suits them.

Also Indians. They needed local militias in the frontier states. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Our would-be resident constitutional lawyer has some thin skin.  

Doesn't everyone on the VaTech board agree with you?  Why not hang out there and add to the echo chamber?

You

post spmethong unrelated to the topic . I call you out on it and I'm thin skinned gotcha.....

 

Nope not a Hokie, but a fan 

[SubliminalHorn 6643]

Well you’re certainly not a Longhorn, no way you are an alum of my University. Don’t you have a Hillary post to make in y’all’s moron thread?

[HoustonHorn 1059]

This thread is a perfect example of why this problem isn't going to be solved anytime soon.

[Aqua Buddha 14484]

57 minutes ago, HoustonHorn said:

This thread is a perfect example of why this problem isn't going to be solved anytime soon.

A large block of Americans don't even think there's a problem.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 hour ago, HoustonHorn said:

This thread is a perfect example of why this problem isn't going to be solved anytime soon.

No policy or social movement is going to “solve” this problem anytime soon.  This is a long term public health crisis.

 We can only hope to treat some of the symptoms in the short term with nominal legislation.

Long term, we need a cultural/educational paradigm shift when it comes to mental health awareness.

 

[GW Hayduke 1950]

10 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

No policy or social movement is going to “solve” this problem anytime soon.  This is a long term public health crisis.

 We can only hope to treat some of the symptoms in the short term with nominal legislation.

Long term, we need a cultural/educational paradigm shift when it comes to mental health awareness.

 

There might be an issue with defining the propblem. Lots of people think of it as only mass shootings. Our high frequency/magnitude of mass shootings should be dealt with; however, there is much more deaths/harm that result from our high nationwide rate of firearm-related deaths.

We have a nationwide rate on par with third world countries. If you haven’t yet, I invite you to explore the below list and see where the US compared. Sort by overall or homicide. Note where our peers like Canada, Australia, and Europe rank at.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

I would agree that the problem is complicated and will require a multi-pronged approach to solve; however, any proposed solutions that do not include strong gun control and an effort to lower the number of firearms in our population has little chance of making a meaningful change IMO

Edited May 27, 2018 by GW Hayduke

[GW Hayduke 1950]

A

Edited May 27, 2018 by GW Hayduke

[XYZ 2154]

The problem with gun control in the USA is, with 300 million firearms out there, how do you put the genie back in the bottle? You could ban the sale of semi-auto rifles like in the 90s, but there would still be millions of them on the street that you could buy used.

[Zombie 284]

6 minutes ago, XYZ said:

The problem with gun control in the USA is, with 300 million firearms out there, how do you put the genie back in the bottle? You could ban the sale of semi-auto rifles like in the 90s, but there would still be millions of them on the street that you could buy used.

HIghly regulating the sale of ammo would mitigate the usefulness of those guns. 

[GW Hayduke 1950]

9 minutes ago, XYZ said:

The problem with gun control in the USA is, with 300 million firearms out there, how do you put the genie back in the bottle? You could ban the sale of semi-auto rifles like in the 90s, but there would still be millions of them on the street that you could buy used.

It would be a huge undertaking without a doubt. IMO we would ban certain firearms that we deem too dangeruous and offering little value to society, like your mention of semi-auto rifles. We would also institute a registration/licencining system to slow the rate of new firearms entering the population. We would institute a nationwide buy-back program focused on removing whichever firearms we want removed, maybe just unlicensed/unregistered firearms. Folks would have the option of registering or selling back their firearms.

Edited May 27, 2018 by GW Hayduke

[GW Hayduke 1950]

14 minutes ago, XYZ said:

The problem with gun control in the USA is, with 300 million firearms out there, how do you put the genie back in the bottle? You could ban the sale of semi-auto rifles like in the 90s, but there would still be millions of them on the street that you could buy used.

And when I say “ban” I really mean heavily regulating like we do with fully automatic weapons

[BabaYaga 15201]

8 minutes ago, Zombie said:

HIghly regulating the sale of ammo would mitigate the usefulness of those guns. 

The number of guns is closer to 400M.  Not 300.  And there are an estimated five trillion rounds of ammo in the US.  

[Lurch 5919]

The problem with gun control in the USA is, with 300 million firearms out there, how do you put the genie back in the bottle? You could ban the sale of semi-auto rifles like in the 90s, but there would still be millions of them on the street that you could buy used.

Fed buys out domestic manufacturers of guns and ammo, maintaining ability to produce weapons for soldiers.
Ban import of guns and ammo.
Voluntary buyback of guns at market rate, diminishing over time.
No transfer of ownership, including at death.

It may take 20+ years adequately resolve this problem we’ve created for ourselves, but we have to start sometime.

[Neonmoon 38127]

The genie back in the bottle argument is nonsense. 

It just takes time. Guns won’t be taken out of the public overnight. Voluntary buybacks etc for a long time, then if a person has a gun after that period, you start with warnings, then fines, then eventually jail time. But that’s on a 20-30 year timeline. 

And no, you’re not going to get all the guns back. Just like you can’t stop all crime, but you will reduce the availability, and therefore the  probability of gun violence 

 

[HRSchenker 2257]

23 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

And no, a militia is not civilian.  Well, they are until they're called up, which was the point of the 2nd Amendment at the time.  Eskimo touched on this but at the founding of the country, they were worried about enemies both "foreign and domestic" and we didn't have a large standing army and some even opposed the concept of one entirely.  However, we needed a tool to fight off invasions and put down internal groups (slave revolts if necessary).  So, voila, a "well regulated militia," similar to today's National Guard.  

But in order to be called up, you have to be armed. The government isn't going to supply arms to the people's militia. You cannot have a well regulated militia if the militia (being the whole body of the people) is not armed and ready. 

[Aqua Buddha 14484]

30 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

But in order to be called up, you have to be armed. The government isn't going to supply arms to the people's militia. You cannot have a well regulated militia if the militia (being the whole body of the people) is not armed and ready. 

Who do you think arms the National Guard?

[GW Hayduke 1950]

35 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

The genie back in the bottle argument is nonsense. 

It just takes time. Guns won’t be taken out of the public overnight. Voluntary buybacks etc for a long time, then if a person has a gun after that period, you start with warnings, then fines, then eventually jail time. But that’s on a 20-30 year timeline. 

And no, you’re not going to get all the guns back. Just like you can’t stop all crime, but you will reduce the availability, and therefore the  probability of gun violence 

 

The genie back in the bottle idea is what you described. It will take years and multiple buy back events. Australia used this approach and was successful. 

[Chrispy 132]

11 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

The genie back in the bottle idea is what you described. It will take years and multiple buy back events. Australia used this approach and was successful. 

Australia is an island and doesn’t have a pourous border with a country run by a criminal organization. In other words, good luck. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

24 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Who do you think arms the National Guard?

The national guard is a govt military org.  A militia is most definitely a civilian force.  

[Pam Cummings 9550]

37 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Australia is an island and doesn’t have a pourous border with a country run by a criminal organization. In other words, good luck. 

That argument is absolute nonsense and you know it.

[GW Hayduke 1950]

24 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Australia is an island and doesn’t have a pourous border with a country run by a criminal organization. In other words, good luck. 

Ah yes. Nice move. The classic we-are-different-from-them-so-we-should-throw-our-hands-in-the-air fallacy. This one conveniently forgot about the development of boats and planes and conveniently ignored the fact that weapons move in the opposite direction. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/14/why-mexicos-drug-cartels-love-americas-gun-laws/?utm_term=.dac4bae0c3d3

[David Dennison 18561]

38 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Australia is an island and doesn’t have a pourous border with a country run by a criminal organization. In other words, good luck. 

Have you seen who's running this country?

Just sayin'.

 

[Chrispy 132]

18 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

That argument is absolute nonsense and you know it.

I do? 

[David Dennison 18561]

The Mexican cartels are running the fifteenth largest economy in the world.

Not too shabby.

 

[Chrispy 132]

18 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Ah yes. Nice move. The classic we-are-different-from-them-so-we-should-throw-our-hands-in-the-air fallacy. This one conveniently forgot about the development of boats and planes and conveniently ignored the fact that weapons move in the opposite direction. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/14/why-mexicos-drug-cartels-love-americas-gun-laws/?utm_term=.dac4bae0c3d3

It’s asking me to sign up to read your link, no thanks. I’m going to assume it’s saying that the cartels buy American weapons correct? Good luck buying their guns back. 

[David Dennison 18561]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

It’s asking me to sign up to read your link, no thanks. I’m going to assume it’s saying that the cartels buy American weapons correct? Good luck buying their guns back. 

We're really good at buying their drugs. Maybe we should look into making that less profitable for the foreign cartels buying American made fire arms.

 

[Pam Cummings 9550]

14 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I do? 

I mean, let's just think about this for a second. One country has strict gun laws and minimal manufacturing, the other has the loosest gun laws of any first world country and is a big manufacturer of firearms. Which way do you think the weapons flow?

[Chrispy 132]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

We're really good at buying their drugs. Maybe we should look into making that less profitable for the foreign cartels buying American made fire arms.

 

The opioid epidemic has proven they couldn’t care less about protecting our borders, school shootings won’t change anything on that front either. 

[David Dennison 18561]

5 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

The opioid epidemic has proven they couldn’t care less about protecting our borders, school shootings won’t change anything on that front either. 

Who is they?

[ndawg 1242]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Who is they?

Also, what do opioids manufactured and sold by US pharmaceutical companies have to do with border security?

[Chrispy 132]

1 minute ago, Pam Cummings said:

I mean, let's just think about this for a second. One country has strict gun laws and minimal manufacturing, the other has the loosest gun laws of any first world country and is a big manufacturer of firearms. Which way do you think the weapons flow?

We have strict drug laws, how’s that working out? The issue is the flow. Simply switching the supply or demand in opposite directions doesn’t address the pourous border. Also, Australia has around 24 million people, our situations are not analogous in the slightest. 

[Chrispy 132]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Who is they?

The numb nuts running our country, on both sides. 

[fattyflattie 4636]

2 hours ago, Lurch said:

 

Fed buys out domestic manufacturers of guns and ammo, maintaining ability to produce weapons for soldiers.
Ban import of guns and ammo.
Voluntary buyback of guns at market rate, diminishing over time.
No transfer of ownership, including at death.

It may take 20+ years adequately resolve this problem we’ve created for ourselves, but we have to start sometime.

 

I would begin to consider buy backs at 20-25x market rate, on some of my guns. If we have money to support drug addicts and welfare queens, we can do better than “market rate”. 

This is probably best bet at getting guns out of the population. Lol at forcefully removing them from the populace. 

[Lurch 5919]

We have strict drug laws, how’s that working out? The issue is the flow. Simply switching the supply or demand in opposite directions doesn’t address the pourous border. Also, Australia has around 24 million people, our situations are not analogous in the slightest. 

This post contains an amazing lack of self awareness.

[David Dennison 18561]

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

We have strict drug laws, how’s that working out? The issue is the flow. Simply switching the supply or demand in opposite directions doesn’t address the pourous border. Also, Australia has around 24 million people, our situations are not analogous in the slightest. 

Addressing the porous border won't have any affect on the majority of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America.

[Chrispy 132]

9 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Also, what do opioids manufactured and sold by US pharmaceutical companies have to do with border security?

You give me the awful impression of someone who has a tenuous grasp of the opioid epidemic. Heroin is cheaper and is what most addicts turn to once their prescriptions run their course or they are running low on money. 

[Lurch 5919]

I would begin to consider buy backs at 20-25x market rate, on some of my guns. If we have money to support drug addicts and welfare queens, we can do better than “market rate”. 
This is probably best bet at getting guns out of the population. Lol at forcefully removing them from the populace. 

And you’re why it will take 20+ years. Fortunately for our descendants you’re not immortal.

[David Dennison 18561]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I would begin to consider buy backs at 20-25x market rate, on some of my guns. If we have money to support drug addicts and welfare queens, we can do better than “market rate”. 

This is probably best bet at getting guns out of the population. Lol at forcefully removing them from the populace. 

You're going to have to pay for drug addicts and welfare queens on the front end or the back end. How do you want to do it? Before or after they get into the criminal justice system?