[Discussion] Mass Shooting at Uvalde Elementary School

[Dahobbs 17,420]

2 hours ago, Bevo said:

I called out dahobbs for acting emotionally and cussing unnecessarily instead of addressing the topic. dahobbs in his way stated that my post wasn't relevant. Congratulations, you encapsulated both dahobbs' point and my point in a single post: Not only did you not address the topic, you acted emotionally, cussed, and in your attempted personal attack went on to something totally irrelevant to the subject. What exactly are you doing, trying to pick a fight? LOL. Anyway, since this thread is cloak disguised as daily news and any post that is perceived contradictory to the circle jerk is stifled and the poster personally attacked, I think I'll step back and enjoy this vacation Monday.

You are the one that attacked me. Your post was completely non responsive to anything I said. I pointed that out (gasp, with one curse word using a common phrase for emphasis) and you became a giant baby. The only one being emotional here is you. 

[South Austin 52,105]

33 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Wait is this a non cussing board

[Neonmoon 38,127]

Who the fuck uses the word cuss? 

[Kel Varnsen 8,429]

[Chopper 17,150]

Is there a major disconnect within people who profess to be "Originalists" of the Constitution, people who believe the "Plain Meaning" of the original words of the Constitution are supreme? I've looked and looked but I have found semi-automatic weapons appear to not have existed in 1789. So how could the Constitution protect the right to own something that didn't exist? In fact, the Winchester rifle didn't even exist until more than 50 years after the adoption of the Constitution - prior to that almost all rifles were muzzle loaders. Pistols in fact were not in public use until 1836 when a 5 shot Colt was borne.

The fact is those who bleat on about the 2nd amendment have no idea what it means, nor its intent. They willfully ignore the antecedent reason for the right to bear arms -- A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State. Those words are just inconvenient to their goal so they ignore the phrase entirely. They (the extreme right/republican party) do so because keeping people fearful, resentful and angry is not simply an aspect of their agenda, it's almost the entirety of it.  The republicans are after power and a breakdown of society is central to the way they have decided to claim and cease power.

Even if you could somehow find a meaning in the 2nd amendment to confer an unimpeachable individual right to own a firearm, that right would extend only as far as a single shot pistol and a muzzle loading rifle. (edit: to clarify, that is If you are a self-proclaimed Originalist, as almost all Republicans claim to be.) All else is right wing propaganda, fantasy and delusion.

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Chopper

[midtown 3,341]

56 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Is there a major disconnect within people who profess to be "Originalists" of the Constitution, people who believe the "Plain Meaning" of the original words of the Constitution are supreme?

I think you can apply that to many parts and amendments to the constitution.   There are lots of things that we use the constitution to keep or protect that did not exist in 1789.   Freedom of speech has limits of course; and we've determined as a society that the right to bear arms does have  limits like automatic weapons, bazookas, grenades, mortars etc.  I don't think its a jump at all to include other firearms that are clearly very dangerous while still protecting the 2nd amendment. 

We seem to have three sets of people IMO.  Those who think there should be pretty much zero public ownership of firearms vs those who don't think there shouldn't be any restrictions on firearms and last those like me and I expect the majority of Americans, including firearm owning Americans, who are in the middle and want stricter gun acquisition laws.   I think and hope this middle ground group is making its voice heard. 

Edited May 29, 2022 by midtown

[Chopper 17,150]

25 minutes ago, midtown said:

I think you can apply that to many parts and amendments to the constitution.   There are lots of things that we use the constitution to keep or protect that did not exist in 1789.   Freedom of speech has limits of course; and we've determined as a society that the right to bear arms does have  limits like automatic weapons, bazookas, grenades, mortars etc. 

My point is NOT that there can be no middle point on gun laws. It is that there is no Constitutional Right to own one. (Republicans will not compromise on this. They have lied so much and so often about a supposed individual right that does not exist, it would be unfathomable for them to now compromise. They have abused and stacked the Supreme Court, which is fully complicit in their power grab.)

The republican line is that there can be no limits on guns. Their claim is based on their manipulation of the Constitution. Unfettered right to carry. Concealed carry. No need for a license. Mental problem, no problem, go buy a gun. 18 years old and want to buy a AR on a payment plan? Go for it.

But freedom of speech? Hell they'll accept your freedom of speech as long as it doesn't interfere with their power grab. See Florida, for example.

As for other things that we rely on the Constitution to protect but which are not specifically enumerated, like a woman's right to control her own body, or the right of gay people to marry, republicans are happy (and ready) to kick those to the curb DESPITE their firm basis in the Constitution.

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Chopper

[midtown 3,341]

17 minutes ago, Chopper said:

It is that there is no Constitutional Right to own one.

This is when the debate or any compromise breaks down and the middle of the road firearm owners say "well we better just keep letting the NRA protect our rights."  As soon as someone says this I  think you lose support from a very large percentage of Americans who do feel as if the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms is constitutional.  

[Chopper 17,150]

22 minutes ago, midtown said:

This is when the debate or any compromise breaks down and the middle of the road firearm owners say "well we better just keep letting the NRA protect our rights."  As soon as someone says this I  think you lose support from a very large percentage of Americans who do feel as if the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms is constitutional.  

Their feelings are of zero interest to me. The way they've (anyone who's supposedly middle of the road) been manipulated and misled is. In fact, the republicans and the NRA will refuse to cede that very basic fact about the 2nd amendment because THEY have zero interest in a compromise.

You must have missed the leader of the republican party on a NRA stage on Friday dancing a little jig to the dead children of Uvalde as he paid fealty to their extreme and outrageous definition of the 2nd Amendment.

No sane or moral or informed person supports the NRA. The NRA is a corrupt organization interested in only one thing: Selling more weapons.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Chopper

[Chopper 17,150]

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

I called out dahobbs for acting emotionally and cussing unnecessarily instead of addressing the topic. dahobbs in his way stated that my post wasn't relevant. Congratulations, you encapsulated both dahobbs' point and my point in a single post: Not only did you not address the topic, you acted emotionally, cussed, and in your attempted personal attack went on to something totally irrelevant to the subject. What exactly are you doing, trying to pick a fight? LOL. Anyway, since this thread is cloak disguised as daily news and any post that is perceived contradictory to the circle jerk is stifled and the poster personally attacked, I think I'll step back and enjoy this vacation Monday.

Well gosh darn it!

[midtown 3,341]

8 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Their feelings are of zero interest to me.

It's not their feelings.  Its their support and votes that you want

[Chopper 17,150]

2 minutes ago, midtown said:

It's not their feelings.  Its their support and votes that you want

Large percentages of Americans already support limiting gun availability. Heck, more than half support government seizure of semi automatics. This country is politically controlled by a very extreme minority and they won't allow regulation of guns because it's against their self-interest.

[Chopper 17,150]

This is hilarious. Shot & chaser.

I have a related story. tldr: I once greeted the President and the VP alone in a small hallway totally unchecked by any Secret Service or police of any sort. None were in the near vicinity.

Longer version: I worked on Capitol Hill during the Clinton presidency. There used to be a tradition of the "Speaker's Dinner," for which the President and Vice President would visit the Capitol together to share a dinner with the Speaker and other House leaders. As I recall, it was a bipartisan tradition. The Capitol would be on lockdown of course. I'm a 6'3" white male, fit and better looking than average, esp in a suit, and my good friend at the time was a Black female; she wore glasses and looked like central casting sent her as a smart, young aide. Walking together, we would often be mistaken for a congressman and his aide, even by Capitol Police. When Clinton and Gore came to Capitol Hill for dinner, we must have taken it as a challenge to see how close we could get to the dining room in the basement of one of the House buildings. Turns out, we got close enough to stand right outside the dining room, totally alone, and were there to shake hands with both the Pres and VP as they emerged from the dinner. The Secret Service, which trailed behind them, looked at us with a WTF but didn't bother us.

(note: visitors to the Capitol were x-rayed in those days but staff wasn't, nor were you if you drove or were driven into the underground parking garage by someone with a pass.)

Edited May 29, 2022 by Chopper

[midtown 3,341]

Large percentages of Americans already support limiting gun availability. Heck, more than half support government seizure of semi automatics. This country is politically controlled by a very extreme minority and they won't allow regulation of guns because it's against their self-interest.

I bet the same percentage would also agree that even though we clearly need more regulation they also support the 2nd amendment and although some don't agree, the Supreme Court has upheld it for 100s of years.

[Chopper 17,150]

2 minutes ago, midtown said:

I bet the same percentage would also agree that even though we clearly need more regulation they also support the 2nd amendment and although some don't agree, the Supreme Court has upheld it for 100s of years.

C'mon, hundreds of years??? Do you seriously believe that? It was 2008 that the Court decided the 2nd amendment conferred upon individuals the right to own a gun. Look it up, Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller. Among the most appalling and dishonest of Supreme Court decisions.

 

[midtown 3,341]

C'mon, hundreds of years??? Do you seriously believe that? It was 2008 that the Court decided the 2nd amendment conferred upon individuals the right to own a gun. Look it up, Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller. Among the most appalling and dishonest of Supreme Court decisions.
 

I don't follow constitutional law as much as I used to. I had no idea that legal firearm ownership started in 2008. How did I aquire a firearm in 1994?

[Chopper 17,150]

Just now, midtown said:

I don't follow constitutional law as much as I used to. I had no idea that legal firearm ownership started in 2008. How did I aquire a firearm in 1994?

Oh boy. Well from what I can tell, possibly you got fortunate and won a game of russian roulette OR maybe, just maybe, you are failing to understand. Here, let me google it for you.

https://lmgtfy.app/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=heller decision supreme court

[Atxracer 797]

2 hours ago, midtown said:

I  think you lose support from a very large percentage of Americans who do feel as if the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms is constitutional.  

I would guess that at least 80-90% of Americans have never even read the second amendment.  

Just for the record, I am about as republican as it gets, I have read the second amendment and don’t believe the 2nd amendment allows us to own whatever gun we want. 

[Bookman 4,610]

4 hours ago, Chopper said:

Is there a major disconnect within people who profess to be "Originalists" of the Constitution, people who believe the "Plain Meaning" of the original words of the Constitution are supreme? I've looked and looked but I have found semi-automatic weapons appear to not have existed in 1789. So how could the Constitution protect the right to own something that didn't exist? In fact, the Winchester rifle didn't even exist until more than 50 years after the adoption of the Constitution - prior to that almost all rifles were muzzle loaders. Pistols in fact were not in public use until 1836 when a 5 shot Colt was borne.

The fact is those who bleat on about the 2nd amendment have no idea what it means, nor its intent. They willfully ignore the antecedent reason for the right to bear arms -- A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State. Those words are just inconvenient to their goal so they ignore the phrase entirely. They (the extreme right/republican party) do so because keeping people fearful, resentful and angry is not simply an aspect of their agenda, it's almost the entirety of it.  The republicans are after power and a breakdown of society is central to the way they have decided to claim and cease power.

Even if you could somehow find a meaning in the 2nd amendment to confer an unimpeachable individual right to own a firearm, that right would extend only as far as a single shot pistol and a muzzle loading rifle. (edit: to clarify, that is If you are a self-proclaimed Originalist, as almost all Republicans claim to be.) All else is right wing propaganda, fantasy and delusion.

 

That's only for abortion. When it comes to guns, they are textualists.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Bookman

[deadshank 24,651]

Just watched Biden’s air flotilla go by just to the north of my deer camp.  Tried to get a pic but it would be too difficult to discern without enhanced enhance features.   
 

Several Ospreys and Marine One.   
 

Thanks for making the trip, Joe.   Being El Presidente must be shitty at times.   
 

 

[Chopper 17,150]

1 hour ago, Bookman said:

That's only for abortion. When it comes to guns, they are textualists.

But similarly to the 2nd amendment they have to look past plain words on the page. (but i'm probably botching the name, ay)

Edited May 29, 2022 by Chopper

[Beau Vine 53,978]

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,802]

8 hours ago, Bevo said:

I called out dahobbs for acting emotionally and cussing unnecessarily instead of addressing the topic. dahobbs in his way stated that my post wasn't relevant. Congratulations, you encapsulated both dahobbs' point and my point in a single post: Not only did you not address the topic, you acted emotionally, cussed, and in your attempted personal attack went on to something totally irrelevant to the subject. What exactly are you doing, trying to pick a fight? LOL. Anyway, since this thread is cloak disguised as daily news and any post that is perceived contradictory to the circle jerk is stifled and the poster personally attacked, I think I'll step back and enjoy this vacation Monday.

I may have missed something, that’s not unusual since I’m old and inattentive, but I don’t think you guys really have a genuine beef.  You were saying you like to go hunting with your kids, he was saying your underage kids aren’t the ones buying the guns.  HOW FUCKING HARD is that to understand?  We should increase the age for firearm sales.  That has fuckall to do with taking your kids hunting.

Wait is this the non-cussing board?  That exists?

[Chopper 17,150]

Not surprising in the least.

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by Chopper

[Chopper 17,150]

Organized and well-funded sociopaths.

A gun and a prayer: How the far right took control of Texas’ response to mass shootings

The “God-given right” to self-defense has become a rallying cry in Texas politics, further cementing gun ownership as a holy cause and political identity. The state’s Republican leadership has spent decades carrying the banner.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/29/texas-mass-shootings-self-defense-gun-ownership/

 

 

[midtown 3,341]

Oh boy. Well from what I can tell, possibly you got fortunate and won a game of russian roulette OR maybe, just maybe, you are failing to understand. Here, let me google it for you.
https://lmgtfy.app/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=heller decision supreme court

I will fully admit I was wrong. I am shocked that the Supreme Court had never ruled on the second amendment in history. Have they ever not heard a case that was 2nd amendment related in order to leave a ruling in place from a lower court? Is it possible or likely that there simply have not been many cases that even made it that far because the 2nd amendment is so accepted as fact?

[Dahobbs 17,420]

10 minutes ago, midtown said:

3 hours ago, Chopper said:

Oh boy. Well from what I can tell, possibly you got fortunate and won a game of russian roulette OR maybe, just maybe, you are failing to understand. Here, let me google it for you.
https://lmgtfy.app/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=heller decision supreme court

I will fully admit I was wrong. I am shocked that the Supreme Court had never ruled on the second amendment in history. Have they ever not heard a case that was 2nd amendment related in order to leave a ruling in place from a lower court? Is it possible or likely that there simply have not been many cases that even made it that far because the 2nd amendment is so accepted as fact?

The fact that the second amendment exists is of course accepted as fact. What the second amendment actually protected was very much up for debate. The existence of a private right of ownership was not commonly accepted fact. 

Of course, until this year, the existence of a women's right to choose was Constitutional fact for decades. Apparently that doesn't mean much anymore. 

[LW Goatman 1,117]

5 hours ago, Chopper said:

“Give”, lol.

[Bookman 4,610]

2 hours ago, Chopper said:

But similarly to the 2nd amendment they have to look past plain words on the page. (but i'm probably botching the name, ay)

But the commas are placed so they don't have to give any meaning at all to the first part.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,659]

That clause explains the purpose of the amendment. There's no way to seriously dispute that. It should be given meaning. 

[Willfully Horn 7,913]

On 5/28/2022 at 2:52 PM, B00M said:

collectors are not the problem.

Neither are owners of firearms that require special permits.

[B00M 6,280]

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Of course, until this year, the existence of a women's right to choose was Constitutional fact for decades. Apparently that doesn't mean much anymore. 

It's amazing to me how few gun owners see the parallel.

[fattyflattie 4,636]

On 5/28/2022 at 11:19 AM, Jshep34 said:

Honest question to any gun owners on here, what/why is the need for a common citizen to own a high capacity long rifle? Any style weapon that can fire 10 plus rounds in a single clip while firing on 1 squeeze of the trigger?


 

I may be reading this incorrectly, but are you asking why a common citizen should own a fully automatic weapon?   

[Willfully Horn 7,913]

🤔

[Bookman 4,610]

5 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

That clause explains the purpose of the amendment. There's no way to seriously dispute that. It should be given meaning. 

Scalia accepted that but then he gave it no meaning at all:

Quote

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[Sawbonz 27,392]

10 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

That clause explains the purpose of the amendment. There's no way to seriously dispute that. It should be given meaning. 

It’s terribly written; the first part is a phrase not a clause. Also is leaving out conjunctions a thing in legal texts? Because it isn’t acceptable in any other type of written English. 
 

There is no serious case to be made the founders did not expect individuals to possess firearms. A majority of those the founders would consider citizens owned firearms at the outset of the revolution 

Study of probate records itemizing gun ownership. Best data to determine but per authors likely greatly underestimates actual rate. 50% in New England; 40% in middle colonies; 70% in south.

Edited May 30, 2022 by Sawbonz

[ClubWhatever 12,086]

It needs to be amended.  The destructive capability of arms has advanced to the point where public safety considerations that didn’t exist before must now be factored in.   But will it?   No.  Not in our lifetimes.  

[tbone_ 14,020]

It needs to be amended.  The destructive capability of arms has advanced to the point where public safety considerations that didn’t exist before must now be factored in.   But will it?   No.  Not in our lifetimes.  

This. We’ve proven as a species we can’t handle the right as it exists today.

[Jshep34 2,303]

I may be reading this incorrectly, but are you asking why a common citizen should own a fully automatic weapon?   

Yes.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Chopper 17,150]

7 hours ago, Bookman said:

Scalia accepted that but then he gave it no meaning at all:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Yes. Scalia was an extremist who's left a couple of horrible legacies that I think about nearly every day: A right to own firearms with power of such a magnitude that the authors of the Constitution clearly could never have even imagined let alone intended to protect, and his equating spending money with freedom of speech which has helped (mostly) republicans funnel huge amounts of dark money into politics.

Edited May 30, 2022 by Chopper

[fattyflattie 4,636]

2 minutes ago, Jshep34 said:

Yes.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

I'm not trying to be the call a clip a magazine guy, but there are so few fully automatic weapons in private hands.  It's a .000000001% type deal.  And it takes some big time background checks.  And a lot of money.  And time.  And special taxes.  There have not been any mass murders I can think of where a full auto firearm was used.

Semi-auto with binary triggers are the closest you'll get to it, and they should be outlawed.  That's coming from someone who probably sits on the other side of the debate from you.  Binary triggers = no fucking reason needed whatsoever.  

[tbone_ 14,020]

What’s a binary trigger?

[tbone_ 14,020]

Never mind, I looked it up.

So as long as it takes twice as long to mow down a fourth grade class as it would with a binary trigger, then that weapon is ok? Is that the logic?

[Homercles 10,205]

5 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Never mind, I looked it up.

So as long as it takes twice as long to mow down a fourth grade class as it would with a binary trigger, then that weapon is ok? Is that the logic?

I’m actually amazed and pleased fatty is in favor of banning them.  I’m down with that.  Yes you can still kill people with a bolt/slide action, and yes we still need better age/background checks…but many more opportunities to intervene and/or shooter to make mistakes if they’re cycling the action manually.  

[Bookman 4,610]

3 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

There is no serious case to be made the founders did not expect individuals to possess firearms. A majority of those the founders would consider citizens owned firearms at the outset of the revolution 

Study of probate records itemizing gun ownership. Best data to determine but per authors likely greatly underestimates actual rate. 50% in New England; 40% in middle colonies; 70% in south.

What does that have to do with anything?

[Eskimohorn 5,610]

Never mind, I looked it up.

So as long as it takes twice as long to mow down a fourth grade class as it would with a binary trigger, then that weapon is ok? Is that the logic?

If you want to be able to secure schools, you take away a suicidal mass shooter’s ability to storm a compound.

[Bookman 4,610]

3 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

If you want to be able to secure schools, you take away a suicidal mass shooter’s ability to storm a compound.

Let's build moats around every school.

[Jshep34 2,303]

I'm not trying to be the call a clip a magazine guy, but there are so few fully automatic weapons in private hands.  It's a .000000001% type deal.  And it takes some big time background checks.  And a lot of money.  And time.  And special taxes.  There have not been any mass murders I can think of where a full auto firearm was used.
Semi-auto with binary triggers are the closest you'll get to it, and they should be outlawed.  That's coming from someone who probably sits on the other side of the debate from you.  Binary triggers = no fucking reason needed whatsoever.  

Appreciate the response. Just trying to understand the everyday civilian need for certain weapons.

[Sawbonz 27,392]

33 minutes ago, Bookman said:

What does that have to do with anything?

Did you read the post I was responding to?