Current Topics
The Debate: Is America’s future capitalist or socialist?
by chunkstyle
52 minutes 44 seconds ago
Trump administration fights humanity
by rporter314
Yesterday at 11:18 PM
RoundTable for January 2019
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 08:33 PM
Right to life march
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 08:19 PM
shutdown confusion
by jgw
Yesterday at 08:15 PM
Justice is coming
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 08:10 PM
Miscellaneous humor thread
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 07:56 PM
It is time to consider impeachment
by jgw
Yesterday at 07:49 PM
The Shutdown Is Mitch McConnell's Fault
by jgw
01/20/19 08:53 PM
A Judge Blocked the Census From Asking About Citizenship. Here's Why It Matters
by Greger
01/19/19 04:55 PM
The Green New Deal, explained
by jgw
01/18/19 10:20 PM
‘Forgiveness is better:’ SC restaurant owner poses with man who robbed business
by Golem
01/18/19 05:42 PM
William Barr should be a convict, not Attorney General
by NW Ponderer
01/18/19 05:13 PM
Is it too soon to be talking 2020?
by Jeffery J. Haas
01/18/19 05:51 AM
Collusion has now been shown. What now?
by pondering_it_all
01/17/19 12:12 AM
The Passing Parade: Obituaries: 2019
by Golem
01/16/19 06:15 PM
Gregory Benford Wins 2019 Robert A. Heinlein Award
by Golem
01/15/19 07:07 PM
Trump's Wall Shutdown IS his policy
by pondering_it_all
01/14/19 06:59 PM
GoFundMe Wall campaign collapses: fraud campaign substituted
by pondering_it_all
01/12/19 07:20 PM
Our Embarrasment of a White House
by pondering_it_all
01/11/19 07:00 PM
Forum Stats
6248 Members
58 Forums
16468 Topics
283861 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 5 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#306154 - 03/27/18 05:19 PM Re: Gun Control [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 2250
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
My only real hope is that the kids get their way and vote EVERY elected with an 'A' rating from the NRA out of office. I know, wishful thinking, but they might pull it off! Remember, youth is a non-voting demographic that seems to have opened their eyes and brains. Just that, alone, should be enough to get the right to lose a little bit of sleep. Before now politicians have ignored that particular block - no more? (hopefully)

Top
#306219 - 04/02/18 09:52 PM Re: Gun Control [Re: jgw]
Jeffery J. Haas Online   sick


Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 13505
Loc: Whittier, California
In related news, Alex Jones has been hit by yet ANOTHER lawsuit, and this one is going before a jury.

It looks like Alex Jones' InfoWars site and his superstar writer, Kit Daniels, picked on the wrong kid one time too many, and this kid is going to fight back.

Quote:
“Plaintiff’s photograph spread across social media platforms with astonishing speed, resulting in its distribution to millions of additional people,” the suit stated.

Bankston told HuffPost he estimates the number of people who connected Fontaine’s image to that of the shooter was in the “hundreds of millions.” Threats soon poured in against the innocent man, accusing him of being a “crisis actor” involved in a “false flag operation” as part of the “deep state,” according to the lawsuit.

“In other words, Mr. Fontaine continues to suffer harassment and peril even from individuals aware of his identity as a Masschusets resident,” the lawsuit reads.


Maybe if more people file lawsuits of this nature, we can finally see a gradual end to the knee-jerk habit of the Right where they name every single gun violence victim a "crisis actor".
_________________________
"The Left ones think I'm Right, the Right ones think I'm wrong."
Leon Russell - Magic Mirror"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-H1iQ5Y6Eg

Top
#306220 - 04/02/18 10:54 PM Re: Gun Control [Re: jgw]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 16454
My hope is he can bankrupt InfoWars.

Top
#306271 - 04/06/18 09:06 PM Re: Gun Control [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 8162
Loc: North San Diego County
This is a really interesting article about mass shooters and even more important, about potential mass shooters.

Anger Isn't a Mental Illness

Quote:
We know who they are long before they do it. Before people kill, they espouse hatred and blame others for their problems. They are verbally abusive and threatening. They look for the confrontation in every interaction. They deflect kindness. They curse at strangers. They threaten to hurt animals, girlfriends, rivals—and may even do so. We are repelled by their hostility, but at the same time they infuriate us, and we want to strike back. They are offensive and ostracized. Even in the field of mental health, where we strive to suspend judgement to treat the troubled, you might hear: “I’ll tell you his diagnosis—he’s an a$$hole.”


Most mass shooters are not "mentally ill" by any definition used in this country. So restricting the mentally ill from owning guns won't be very helpful. They are far more likely to commit suicide than to kill anyone else, unless they are paranoid which is quite rare.

Mass shooters are angry. Schools know them as potential killers long before they kill. Domestic abusers are known to police before they escalate. If we had a reporting mechanism and intervention for these people, we could avoid so much carnage. THESE are the people who should not have guns.

Top
#306280 - 04/07/18 09:49 PM Re: Gun Control [Re: pondering_it_all]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 16454
One responsive point, then a general observation. First, I think most mass murderers/shooters are functionally insane at the time they commit their murders. Functionally, although not legally. I would also agree that most threats, though not all, are identifiable before the worst action. I also agree that many (I can't qualify how many) do not reach the clinical or legal definitions of 'insane' before they act. It is why I don't think background checks, while useful, are sufficient to address the gun crisis.

Which leads to my second point: we need to address weapon functionality more broadly. I own a semi-automatic handgun that can fire 14 rounds before reloading. A second clip, and my skill (acquired through military training), would allow me to fire 27 rounds, relatively accurately, in about as many seconds. An AR-15, and similar assault weapons, are designed to do the same in even less time. There is no legitimate reason to allow such weapons, with such capacity in the civilian market.

Let me elaborate: in both cases a large volume of fire power can be unleashed in a very short period of time for one purpose only: killing a large number of human beings. In a typical shooting scenario involving trained police officers, several rounds are fired, but fewer than I believed:
Quote:
With LAC shootings involving only one officer, an average of 3.59 police rounds were fired. When 2 officers got involved, the average jumped to 4.98 rounds and with 3 officers or more to 6.48. "The number of rounds fired per officer increases in multiple-officer shootings by as much as 45 percent over single-officer shootings," Aveni says.
Study reveals important truths hidden in the details of officer-involved shootings - Police One. It surprised me, because I'm used to seeing stories that indicated officers emptied they clips (typically 10-rounds). Then I realized that the average is balanced by single-round encounters, and it made more sense.

My point is, that often the volume of fire represents, literally, "overkill". In a hunting scenario, three shots is overkill. Limiting weapons to 5-rounds, or even 10, would not impede necessary usage in virtually ANY scenario.

Top
#306282 - 04/08/18 03:05 AM Re: Gun Control [Re: NW Ponderer]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 16454
By the way, one "use" for having arms under the Second Amendment can be eliminated entirely. It was never the intention of ANY of the founders/drafters of the Constitution and the Amendments to authorize insurrection against the government by means of "militias." People love to (mis)quote Jefferson in support of the notion. Fantasy arguments to the contrary are not based upon fact, law, or common sense.

I read a rather long "defense" earlier today, and although it was well laid out and thorough, it was premised upon such a fantasy. The argument was centered upon the assertion that "militias", as understood by the drafters, were groups of armed individuals not under the authority of any government. That argument is belied by nearly every document, record, law, history on the subject.

Top
#306283 - 04/08/18 04:39 AM Re: Gun Control [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 8162
Loc: North San Diego County
Every "well-regulated" militia has a command structure, ending up at the state governors and then at the President. A militia without such a command structure is just an armed gang. Or maybe a lynch mob.

Anyone who decides they need to take up arms against the government of the US is not just a moron, they are insane and just about to die for their poor decision.

Top
#306284 - 04/08/18 04:53 AM Re: Gun Control [Re: NW Ponderer]
Jeffery J. Haas Online   sick


Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 13505
Loc: Whittier, California
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer


I read a rather long "defense" earlier today, and although it was well laid out and thorough, it was premised upon such a fantasy. The argument was centered upon the assertion that "militias", as understood by the drafters, were groups of armed individuals not under the authority of any government. That argument is belied by nearly every document, record, law, history on the subject.


You really should try to link the rest of us to that, if you can find it again. Please, it's unfair to reference it and make so many of us wish we could have read it.
So please share!
_________________________
"The Left ones think I'm Right, the Right ones think I'm wrong."
Leon Russell - Magic Mirror"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-H1iQ5Y6Eg

Top
#306285 - 04/08/18 11:00 AM Re: Gun Control [Re: NW Ponderer]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 8935
Loc: New Mexico (not old Mexico)
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
The argument was centered upon the assertion that "militias", as understood by the drafters, were groups of armed individuals not under the authority of any government. That argument is belied by nearly every document, record, law, history on the subject.

Other parts of the Constitution itself belie that argument.
Art 1: Sec. 8; parts 15 and 16
Art.1: Sec. 10; part 3
Art. 2: Sec. 2; part 1
Art. 3: Sec. 3; part 1
2nd Amendment

Chiefly, it puts the Militia under the control of the President, and it does not authorize rebellion or insurrection. The only reference to arms is in connection to a well regulated militia.
_________________________
"You can't fix a problem until you understand what the problem is." Logtroll

Top
#306286 - 04/08/18 12:15 PM Re: Gun Control [Re: logtroll]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6607
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
Chiefly, it puts the Militia under the control of the President

I think only after a request has been made of the federal government for designated states to provide a force of militia (or as it is known today, the NG).

An modern example: Mr Trump called on Gov Abbott of the great state of Texas to provide NG to assist the federal government with border security, solely the province of the federal government, and the provided NG would be under the supervision of the federal government.



Now I suppose Gov Abbott could have used the NG without any federal request to assist state authorities with border security, and they would be under his supervision. I think the NG was called up by Gov Abbott (as C-in-C of state NG) to successfully repel the invasion of federal troops during Operation Jade Helm.


Regarding anything to do with the Constitution is further "proof" of my conclusion, Conservatives only say they support the Constitution while the reality is they do not. Further I have concluded if there was a ratification vote today, they would reject the Constitution. Thus any argument based on Constitutional evidence, or historical facts are rejected as irrelevant. For additionally information read the majority and minority opinions of Heller. The author who is putatively origianalist does not make that argument, and the one who putatively rejects originalism, does make that argument.
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
Page 5 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Who's Online
1 registered (Jeffery J. Haas), 47 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
TrentonP, Nosf50, erumonej, Jensen Breck, Albertapkr
6248 Registered Users
A2