So to hold to the liberty of an impossible situation, we have to let some schoolchildren get murdered. Because there are real life results of this fantasy scenario.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
I do not agree or condone their actions, but I also do not condone the upheaval of our second most important law.
Change must come elsewhere. Every one of these people who injured others in this way were very ill. One of the things that is a stigma here is mental health, going to therapy, and getting help. This needs to happen more. maybe a psych eval in order to get a gun licence.
The Librarian
Banned
JohnDonut, do you believe in a right to education and healthcare?
Yes, even the most poor.
Even so about the psych eval, some people just steal the guns from family or whatever.
I also love how those trotting out the need for citizens to be armed to protect against the government think they can use their semi-automatics to defend themselves against predator drones and tanks.
When people say "ban assault weapons," it isn't some blanket statement that the gubment is going to trot out to take away your handgun; if I'm not mistaken, the 1994 assault weapons ban had a list of every single weapon it was banning and not just throwing out blanket statements to secretly come take your guns later down the road.
When people say "ban assault weapons," it isn't some blanket statement that the gubment is going to trot out to take away your handgun; if I'm not mistaken, the 1994 assault weapons ban had a list of every single weapon it was banning and not just throwing out blanket statements to secretly come take your guns later down the road.
It's going to be very interesting to see what happens here in FL. But I'm fairly convinced the GOP will run some type of hispanic in 2016, either for Prez or VP.
The GOP's solution to their demographic problems is to simply run a token candidate, rather than address any real issue(s).
You wouldn't try to fight a tank. That's too movie esque. You'd run and hide.
Arrowgigantic
Member
The people have 2nd Amendment rights, but they don't have a right to the 2nd Amendment. There is nothing about any part of the Constitution that can be justified simply by being in the Constitution. Every single clause needs a reason to be in there. If the reasoning is no longer of merit, then the clause needs to be changed or removed.
In the most recent shooting, the mother of the mentally ill man who committed the crime was a doomer. She believed in this government paranoia bullshit, but she herself wasn't mentally ill. Just stupid and misled. Nothing but gun restrictions could have prevented it.
The US is well past the point that a militia would make any difference. If the military sides with the government, the citizens will be crushed. If the military sides with the people, or splits along some lines, the addition of armed but relatively untrained citizens will be negligible. My cousin once served on a nuclear submarine whose payload could have reduced a coastal city to rubble. Even if you armed a thousand civilians with assault rifles... ten thousand, there's nothing they can do against that.
You know what's movie-esque? Creating a fantasy situation in which the United States government does something it has never come close to doing in 240 years, which is calling for the disarming of all its citizens and orders the United States Armed Forces to go to war with a few thousand private citizens all because a Democrat is currently President.
Fixed. Hate to say it but I think its true for a lot of people's irrational fear of government these days.
empty vessel
Member
Well, the National Guard is the militia. It could make some difference. But (1) the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with fighting the government; in fact, the constitution says that militias were to be used to defend the government against insurrections; and (2) as long as the National Guard is not disarmed, the 2nd Amendment is not violated.
The Librarian
Banned
There's nothing in the second amendment that describes anything at all what you've said here.
Why not? Please tell me you don't think assault rifles, automatic weapons, and pistols can do anything against a plane that can drop bombs on you.
It is a deterrent.There's nothing in the second amendment that describes anything at all what you've said here.
Why not? Please tell me you don't think assault rifles, automatic weapons, and pistols can do anything against a plane that can drop bombs on you.
Taking away guns won't solve the issue. People themselves need to change.
America doesn't have a gun problem, it has two gun problems -- urban gun violence and mass shootings. They're different issues and require different solutions*, but people only actually care about one of them. That's why these discussions are always so discursive -- people are using one problem to argue about a different problem. Assault weapon bans or magazine restrictions won't do a thing about gun violence, which is typically committed with handguns, but it might help slow down the pace of mass shootings. Personally I think that's okay, because I think urban gun violence is a symptom rather than a disease. It's also a symptom that's rapidly dropping in frequency -- one of our policy problems in this country is that we keep using a mental model that assumes the urban blight issues from the 60s to the 80s were ongoing trends, rather than, as they now appear, temporary blips in an otherwise positive trendline towards less crime and healthier urban life.
* well, a blanket ban would solve both, but it would also be impossible.
* well, a blanket ban would solve both, but it would also be impossible.
Mental illness is largely incurable. Taking away the guns is the only way to solve the issue.
The Librarian
Banned
A couple of crazy citizens having guns to prevent a tyrannical reign of their government is as much of a deterrent as a small pile of my dog's shit in front of a door I need to get through.
More disturbing is the idea that the order of the amendments somehow ranks their priority. So our "second most important law" is being able to run around with deadly weapons, while making slavery illegal isn't all that big a deal since it's in the middle of the pack. Hell, it didn't even make the Bill of Rights.
And this obviously implies there's no laws of any real importance in the unamended constitution itself.
Why is it that proponents of dogma are rarely fully conversant with it?
And this obviously implies there's no laws of any real importance in the unamended constitution itself.
Why is it that proponents of dogma are rarely fully conversant with it?
The 2nd Amendment was to protect against a British style tyranny. At the time this was accomplished by defending the US Government.
Honestly, this is not really a safe thought process. We really do need to deal with mental illness in America -- one of the more bizarre outcomes of gun control arguments is that liberals suddenly started arguing against mental health. Frankly, our understanding of mental health has basically just now reached the "let's use the scientific method" level of sophistication -- it's way too soon to write it off, especially since lack of focus is why it's taken so long in the first place. We absolutely should be investing more here, in terms of treatment, in terms of effective screening, and in terms of trust building -- if people don't believe your services work, as illustrated above, they won't use them appropriately.
The real response here is that mental health and gun control are not somehow magically opposed such that we can only choose one. We can move forward on both fronts as appropriate without arguing over the relative merits.
Are you saying that the first amendment is not our most important and, at the time, the most unique and partially what drew people here?
It was, or at least how it's educated, for allowing citizens to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, as well as within.
I'm not saying mental health isn't an issue that needs serious work in this country, but we can't open a few wards and say problem solved. The issue of guns is so slippery in the US that unless that's taken first and head on nothing will change. If politicians let the NRA dictate what issues distract from gun control then the core problem remains unchanged.
Let's set aside you putting words in my mouth and stipulate that yes, freedom of speech is our most bestest greatest law that god ever gave man on the face of this earth. Even better than not kidnapping people and forcing them and their children to toil for you until they die.
How does that make guns number two?
Even though I'm pretty pro-gun, I can't say I want NRA opening their mouth ever again. They've done nothing to make anything better, bring up horrible stereotypes and make everyone seem crazy. I cannot be supportive of them.
The bill of rights defines american society and the values therein.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I would argue that militia is not state/federally run, and as such the national guard does not count as a militia but rather "homeland security". We also have several forms of military that could defend us much more than the national guard, so the argument of national guard being our militia seems rather lame.
All of the laws are as equally as important yes. I was meaning that it was the "second most important" because it was the second major law ever made in this country. Obviously, the first few laws made are the most important, otherwise our second amendment could be something ridiculous like certain state laws regarding exotic animals or whatever.
The bill of rights defines american society and the values therein.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I would argue that militia is not state/federally run, and as such the national guard does not count as a militia but rather "homeland security". We also have several forms of military that could defend us much more than the national guard, so the argument of national guard being our militia seems rather lame.
electricpirate
Member
Well put. Every time this conversation comes up, I try to point out the different issues we are trying to solve, but that nuance seems to get washed over.
The frustrating thing is the nihilism. "Well, banning high cap magazines won't stop criminals from getting guns, so we shouldn't do that!" doesn't mean squat when it comes to slowing down a mass shooting where all the guns are acquired legally.
No one thing solves these issues, we need a hundred small fixes pushing the needle towards greater safety and security.
I'm applying for president of the Pigeon fanclub.
i am not advocating against mental health expansion, but how is it going to work? There is nothing stopping psych evals today, it hinges on the parent/spouse/relative to actively push for it. Far too often (or maybe every single shooting) is a flood of stories from family members and friends talking about how "we all knew he was different/a little off/he wasn't stable". Unless we are going to have Obama Crazy Vans driving around giving mandatory psych evals the lowest common denominator is getting someone to do something about it.
The Librarian
Banned
Money isn't the only factor, but it's a good one, so making it more affordable could be done.
What is the justification for the focus on a ban of semi-automatic rifles when 47% of murders in the US are committed with handguns and only 3% of murders are committed with rifles of any kind? If it is just a response to the problem of school shootings, I still don't understand. Is a handgun not arguably just as effective of a killing instrument as a semi-automatic rifle in that situation? If people still have the same access to handguns, then how will that slow down school shootings?
electricpirate
Member
One thing we've seen is that many unstable individuals start therapy, but don't continue with it. So I'm not sure if that's the issue. I think reforms may need to look at continuity of care when people change situations that interrupts care ( like we saw with aurora), laws to make co-ordination between mental health professionals and law enforcement easier, expansion of free mental health services (Make mental health part of preventative care, and give free yearly appointments with providers). Also, better support for things like in home treatment ( ACT teams are a good example.
Once again, we can't solve everything, but we can keep reducing these things and making things better.
thanks, i wasn't trying to be contradictory, i was just wondering how expanding ease of access helps people who don't get or seek help. Is there any kind of stat that shows the # of shooters that were at some point in time in therapy/on medication?
Alright, I'll humor gun-rights people and say guns have nothing to do with gun violence, it's just mental health (though of course most have to be mentally unhinged to murder someone).
Let's Use Alex Jones as a great example of this. Has Alex Jones (the guy who went off on a rant with Piers Morgan about 1776 coming again if they try and take our guns, and also pushed conspiracy theories about 9-11..as well as MANY other conspiracies) ever killed anyone? Has he ever used a gun for a violent act? Nope.
But should a man even Glenn Beck says is unhinged and crazy (yes, even Glenn Beck thinks this man is crazy), be allowed to own guns simply because he hasn't killed anyone? To most sane people he's a radical who pushes dangerous conspiracy theories. He also probably suffers from some kind of paranoid delusion where he feels people are out to get him.
So, should he be allowed to own guns? He's never committed a violent act with one, so should his rights to guns be revoked?
And if not, then what's the point of the mental health argument? That only once someone tries to kill, has killed or becomes a felon... THEN we revoke their gun rights? By then it's almost always too late.
Let's Use Alex Jones as a great example of this. Has Alex Jones (the guy who went off on a rant with Piers Morgan about 1776 coming again if they try and take our guns, and also pushed conspiracy theories about 9-11..as well as MANY other conspiracies) ever killed anyone? Has he ever used a gun for a violent act? Nope.
But should a man even Glenn Beck says is unhinged and crazy (yes, even Glenn Beck thinks this man is crazy), be allowed to own guns simply because he hasn't killed anyone? To most sane people he's a radical who pushes dangerous conspiracy theories. He also probably suffers from some kind of paranoid delusion where he feels people are out to get him.
So, should he be allowed to own guns? He's never committed a violent act with one, so should his rights to guns be revoked?
And if not, then what's the point of the mental health argument? That only once someone tries to kill, has killed or becomes a felon... THEN we revoke their gun rights? By then it's almost always too late.
Considering your iteratively dogmatic appeals to the order of amendments and your insistence on fantasy scenarios of sudden government tyranny and even more fantastic scenarios of successful insurrection against such tyranny with small arms, there's no small amount of irony in this statement.
So, all the laws are equally important, but the first few laws are the most important, but there are no laws in the constitution or else they would be the most important and not the amendments because the first thing you think of in any context is always the best, no matter what new information or changes in situation occur later. Got it.
When you say "the second major law ever made in this country", you make Articles 2 through 7 cry. They have numbers too!
Maybe if we didn't let the second amendment own guns it wouldn't be able to cut in line with such impunity.No, We The People do that. The constitution and our laws are simply how we decide to implement it. And we can decide to change any of it that we see fit. The Bill of Rights is merely the result of the first brainstorm on what would be good things for people, based on the knowledge and situation of the time. (Well, besides, y'know, that little bit about a whole government of self-determination they came up with before the all-important amendments.) We The Current People can add to or remove from this list based on how we want things to be now, in our current situation, with our current knowledge.
Just to be clear, this particular singleton instance of We The People would like a full repeal of the second amendment. I do like the first a lot. And the thirteenth, if that wasn't obvious.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Can citizens with semi-automatic weapons realistically compete with a tyrannical US military? Can the US military really be beaten or challenged via unconventional warfare if leaders truly don't give a fuck? Wouldn't intervention from other nations be a minimum requirement assuming any progress is made against the world's most powerful conventional military force?
eBay Huckster
Member
In our houses, quartering troops.
Obama to hold last news conference of first term
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Pres-Obama-Holds-News-Conference/10737437244/
http://www.wtop.com/41/2372452/Obama-to-hold-last-news-conference-of-first-term
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Pres-Obama-Holds-News-Conference/10737437244/
http://www.wtop.com/41/2372452/Obama-to-hold-last-news-conference-of-first-term
cartoon_soldier
Member
To announce that he is Nazi Communist Socialist Muslim Atheist!
On a serious note, will be interesting to see what he says about the debt ceiling
This is part of the reason why, while I'm not really opposed to stricter gun control legislation (I don't really give a shit about guns and I don't plan on ever owning one), I think it is far, far from some sort of magic bullet that will make a big impact in gun violence. I think most gun violence is a symptom of poverty and it would be much more effective to work on reducing poverty as a means of reducing gun violence (particularly in cities). I'm worried that pushing too hard for gun control (which I don't see realistically having any huge impact on gun violence) distracts from the poverty side of the issue, which is already pretty much ignored.
Also, I just noticed today that some people on my Facebook are starting to believe that Sandy Hook didn't actually happen (everyone involved were just paid actors) and it was all set up by the government to take away guns. Fucking idiots.
No, a handgun is not as effective in killing waves of people as a semi-automatic rifle. The focus is on making it more difficult for people unfit to own a gun to obtain one. In addition, the focus also is on universal background checks, which will make it more difficult for some people who don't need to have a gun to even get a handgun. To paraphrase Joe Biden, just because these proposals won't stop every gun murder doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to do something.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
It is basically a response to mass shootings. One-on-one you can kill someone with a handgun, you can kill them with a knife, with a bat, with basically any weapon, and gun control proponents recognize that. In a group situation a gun is what allows a killer to harm not just one or two indivuals but dozens. I don't think a handgun is "as" efective a killing instrument.
CharlieDigital
Banned
I don't know about this man.
Killing someone with your fists, a bat, or a knife seems like a much more violent and more visceral experience.
Milgram experiments showed that proximity to a subject decreased one's willingness to administer pain (though I know that this is not the primary purpose or conclusion of the experiment).
RustyNails
Member
If the military does not fire on it's own citizens, then why should we have guns? It's not like we can compete with drone attacks and other aerial strikes against the military with our handguns. Ban every weapon from civilians. That's the only solution.
I was talking to One of my older relatives here in Canada about the recent shootings in America.
When I asked him what Americans need to do to stop problems like that, he said something along the lines of "They need to get rid of all those guns but nobody has the balls to do it."
It may partially be due to the city we are in and our culture though... The crime rate right now is the lowest it's been since the early 70's.
When I asked him what Americans need to do to stop problems like that, he said something along the lines of "They need to get rid of all those guns but nobody has the balls to do it."
It may partially be due to the city we are in and our culture though... The crime rate right now is the lowest it's been since the early 70's.
They don't continue therapy because they get the illusion that they got better, and stop. The issue is for most people with mental illness, they always need therapy.
Just because they aren't doesn't mean they wont or they haven't in the past.
That's easy. It's fear or getting hurt. They're worried if they're close they'll get hurt, whereas if you're far enough away you can just shoot them.
We'd do better to focus on alcohol and drug use than mental illness if we're trying to reduce gun violence. The mentally ill are responsible for only a small fraction of gun violence in America.
Of course, banning handguns would be the real sensible thing. Let people keep their rifles, which account for a small fraction of gun violence, and take away their easily concealable pistols.
Of course, banning handguns would be the real sensible thing. Let people keep their rifles, which account for a small fraction of gun violence, and take away their easily concealable pistols.
airmangataosenai
Member
.
Obama reaches behind Chuck Todd's ear, pulls out a T-Coin, smiles, flips it to Jay Carney and leaves the room.
http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/
- Status