Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mass shooting at Florida school

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I'm willing to have a few people die for my right to bear arms. Sorry, but NO I enjoy my freedom and God-given rights! When the government comes to confiscate firearms, they will be creating a war they are not prepared to handle.


    Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
    I'm not calling for limiting gun availability, except for the banning of automatic or semi-automatic rifles..

    Parkland school shooting: AR-15
    Texas church shooting: AR-15
    Las Vegas shooting: AR-15
    Orlando nightclub shooting: AR-15
    Sandy Hook shooting: AR-15
    My worst jump story:
    My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
    As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
    No lie.

    ~
    "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
    -2 Commando Jumpmaster

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Persephone View Post
      Many schools are already doing this and the ones who are not...should seriously consider it.
      On top of this, they should also secure all doors and give each student a key card to enter the school.
      .
      I completely disagree. The problem won't be solved by more security. That puts a band aid on an amputation. The problem to address is why we have kids, almost always boys, who would do this sort of thing. This Florida case isn't some insane kid. It's a boy who has serious issues. Issues brought on him by family and society. That is what we need to fix.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
        I'm willing to have a few people die for my right to bear arms. Sorry, but NO I enjoy my freedom and God-given rights! When the government comes to confiscate firearms, they will be creating a war they are not prepared to handle.
        Well that's at least an honest argument. Out of curiosity why do you feel that you need to own an AR-15 instead of just a shot gun or handgun? Signed - Curious.

        Comment


        • The constitution is unambiguous. Private ownership of weapons is a right.

          Many people including those who have and currently serve as supreme court justices seem to have difficulty reading.

          What other countries do in terms of gun laws is totally irrelevant.

          US citizens have the right to keep and bear arms and be members of a militia. You cannot have a meaningful militia without semi automatic weapons.

          The only thing to debate is if the U.S. should be a nation of laws.

          What many progressives and "liberals" believe (although they refuse to admit it) is that we should not be a nation of laws but of enforced social values. Those social values should in their minds not be determined democratically but rather by the consensus of a liberal educated class in conjunction with a professional bureaucratic class. What they can never admit is that such a system is exactly what made life unbearable in the Soviet Union where constitutional rights had no meaning.

          There are a lot of snobbish people that make fun of warnings about postmodernism and neo Marxism. The attitude is captured by a quote I saw recently from some intellectual's take on Jordan Peterson. I think the majority of the intellectual class agree on the tone if not the details. It goes something like this "Jordan Peterson is the dumb persons smart person". The people who feel this way are what Victor Davis Hanson speaks to in the following quote.

          “Elite” is now an overused smear. But it is a fair pejorative when denoting a cadre that is not a natural or truly meritocratic top echelon, but is instead a group distinguished merely by schooling, associations, residence, connections and open disdain. If this is supposed to translate into some sort of received wisdom and acknowledged excellence, ordinary Americans may be pardoned for missing it.
          Opposing gun regulations is just part of opposing the undemocratic, self appointed, rule of the elites in bureaucracies, academia, progressive courts, the banking system, permanent members of the legislature, large corporations, NGOs, and entertainment workers.

          The resistance to the elites is best characterized by BREXIT. BREXIT was not about immigration or nationalism but the demonstrative incompetence of the rule by unelected elites.
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
            The constitution is unambiguous. Private ownership of weapons is a right.

            Many people including those who have and currently serve as supreme court justices seem to have difficulty reading.

            What other countries do in terms of gun laws is totally irrelevant.

            US citizens have the right to keep and bear arms and be members of a militia. You cannot have a meaningful militia without semi automatic weapons.

            The only thing to debate is if the U.S. should be a nation of laws.

            What many progressives and "liberals" believe (although they refuse to admit it) is that we should not be a nation of laws but of enforced social values. Those social values should in their minds not be determined democratically but rather by the consensus of a liberal educated class in conjunction with a professional bureaucratic class. What they can never admit is that such a system is exactly what made life unbearable in the Soviet Union where constitutional rights had no meaning.

            There are a lot of snobbish people that make fun of warnings about postmodernism and neo Marxism. The attitude is captured by a quote I saw recently from some intellectual's take on Jordan Peterson. I think the majority of the intellectual class agree on the tone if not the details. It goes something like this "Jordan Peterson is the dumb persons smart person". The people who feel this way are what Victor Davis Hanson speaks to in the following quote.



            Opposing gun regulations is just part of opposing the undemocratic, self appointed, rule of the elites in bureaucracies, academia, progressive courts, the banking system, permanent members of the legislature, large corporations, NGOs, and entertainment workers.

            The resistance to the elites is best characterized by BREXIT. BREXIT was not about immigration or nationalism but the demonstrative incompetence of the rule by unelected elites.
            It is a misconception that all rights are god-given and absolute. All rights have certain limitations and those limitations are the main focus of the Supreme Court. If you yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater when you know there is no fire the defense of right to free speech will not protect you. You cannot use the right to practice your religion to protect you against bigamy. And, yes, there are some restrictions on buying a gun, for example having a criminal record can be used to prevent selling you a gun. If you can limit some people to the right to own guns then why is it unconstitutional to limit the type of gun you can own, such as AK-15s?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
              How Congress and Trump stymied Obama's mental-health gun-control rule

              https://www.yahoo.com/news/congress-...192935462.html
              Obamaís mental health rule was inherently unconstitutional.
              You donít get to automatically take rights away from people without a hearing.
              Despite this obvious fact, Obama tried to do it anyway.

              People who are adjudicated incompetent lose their rights to own firearms. But that requires a hearing. The same as any other attempt to limit the rights of an individual.
              We do not have the right to presume that people are incompetent in the way that BOís rules provided.
              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

              Comment


              • If you can limit some people to the right to own guns then why is it unconstitutional to limit the type of gun you can own, such as AK-15s?
                That is a good question. The snarky answer is that rights cannot exist without corresponding responsibility.

                I accept that there are reasonable limitations that can be imposed on gun ownership.

                In general felons lose a number of rights including the right to own guns and vote. Those laws vary from state and are currently being tested in courts. The principal however is based on competency to meet responsibilities that come with rights just as with age restrictions and the insane. Being a felon is understood to be proof of the individuals inability to responsibly discharge the obligations of a full member of society.

                The constitutional test for the right to bear arms should therefore be set by the individuals ability to competently participate in a militia minus physical disabilities that do not impair judgment and without the requirement to belong to a formal militia. The bar necessarily must be set low to not infringe the rights of marginalized groups or individuals.

                As I stated earlier the test for what type of weapons that can be privately held must be liberal enough to ensure that a competent militia can be formed ad hoc.

                As you suggested laws are inherently arbitrary as a matter of practicality. For example competency test for voting are unconstitutional but an arbitrary red line for voting age are acceptable. In both cases the underlying criteria is competency but a test is inherently discriminatory. Age restrictions cannot be unfairly manipulated although it is arbitrary. The courts do change their minds on constitutional issues which makes a constitutional government seem arbitrary. The problem is that to often practical necessity is an excuse to favor public interest over individual rights resulting in a tyranny of the majority.

                In the case of gun ownership for example it would be impossible to argue that a total restriction on private ownership would not, if it could be enforced, reduce the risk of gun violence for the majority at the same time no rational person could argue that some individuals are not safer because they own guns.

                The argument above ignores the careful wording of the constitution which ties the right to keep and bear arms to a militia. That right indirectly insures the right to bear arms for self defense and sets a measure for competency. The right to self defense is actually not protected because of excessive force laws. You can't shoot someone for example unless they pose an immediate threat. What constitutes an immediate threat varies from state to state and is once again always going to be an arbitrary red line.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                  The constitution is unambiguous. Private ownership of weapons is a right.
                  ...
                  US citizens have the right to keep and bear arms and be members of a militia. You cannot have a meaningful militia without semi automatic weapons.
                  ...
                  .
                  What you say is true. But why stop at semi-automatic weapons? Even a rag-tag third-world militia has automatic rifles, heavy machine guns, explosives, grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft weapons, towed artillery....

                  A meaningful militia would need to have at least these weapons. Where and how do you constitutionally draw the line?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                    It is a misconception that all rights are god-given and absolute. All rights have certain limitations and those limitations are the main focus of the Supreme Court. If you yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater when you know there is no fire the defense of right to free speech will not protect you. You cannot use the right to practice your religion to protect you against bigamy. And, yes, there are some restrictions on buying a gun, for example having a criminal record can be used to prevent selling you a gun. If you can limit some people to the right to own guns then why is it unconstitutional to limit the type of gun you can own, such as AK-15s?


                    In the US 2nd Amendment rights are inherent. Or God-given. That means we possess them regardless of government action.
                    The State must have a valid and reasonable safety interest involved when it seeks to limit our rights.

                    Yelling fire in a theater isnít about free speech. It is about the risk of harm caused to others.
                    Limiting the right to own an AR15 type rifle would likely not survive a constitutional challenge as there is really nothing unique about such a rife.
                    If it just a modern semi-automatic rifle and those have been around for quite a long time.
                    The fact that an AR15 was used doesnít make it uniquely dangerous.
                    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Work_permit View Post
                      What you say is true. But why stop at semi-automatic weapons? Even a rag-tag third-world militia has automatic rifles, heavy machine guns, explosives, grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft weapons, towed artillery....

                      A meaningful militia would need to have at least these weapons. Where and how do you constitutionally draw the line?

                      The SCOTUS seems to have drawn the line at self defense. (See the Heller and MacDonald decisions).
                      Explosives and heavy weapons are not reasonably or historically used for personal self defense. Rifles and handguns are.
                      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                        Obamaís mental health rule was inherently unconstitutional.
                        You donít get to automatically take rights away from people without a hearing.
                        Despite this obvious fact, Obama tried to do it anyway.

                        People who are adjudicated incompetent lose their rights to own firearms. But that requires a hearing. The same as any other attempt to limit the rights of an individual.
                        We do not have the right to presume that people are incompetent in the way that BOís rules provided.
                        I absolutely agree. As Michelle Obama said she didn't respect the country until her husband was elected. You can interpret that in a number of ways but practical consequence of such an attitude is that power is vested in individuals not the constitution. It also reflects the progressive attitude that laws are just words on paper. Like many progressive attitudes it reflects a sort of reality in so far as the morality of the people not the laws make civilization possible. As the old saying goes you cannot legislate morality. The problem is that progressives are inherently simple minded because they ignore the fact that society is a series of games where the rules must be agreed on.

                        The Obama's have a strange elitist attitude perhaps vested in the idea of the moral superiority of victims. It is a fatal feminine flaw that associates weakness with innocence. The consequences can be seen in his foreign policy disasters best summed up by the nick name the Chinese gave his twin in Canada of "little potato" while Trump has become "Uncle".

                        The elitist attitude of Obama made it easy for him to believe he knew better what should be law than the corrupt writings of some eighteenth century slave owners.
                        We hunt the hunters

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                          The SCOTUS seems to have drawn the line at self defense. (See the Heller and MacDonald decisions).
                          Explosives and heavy weapons are not reasonably or historically used for personal self defense. Rifles and handguns are.
                          The progressive attitude of practical necessity out weighing the literal wording of the constitution is nothing new. After all who can argue against progress and it's consequences :-)
                          We hunt the hunters

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            I completely disagree. The problem won't be solved by more security. That puts a band aid on an amputation. The problem to address is why we have kids, almost always boys, who would do this sort of thing. This Florida case isn't some insane kid. It's a boy who has serious issues. Issues brought on him by family and society. That is what we need to fix.
                            It certainly won't be solved by trying to turn boys into girls and giving them ritalin. We have some very mentally ill people running our educational systems with sick ideas about masculinity and how to destroy it.
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
                              I'm willing to have a few people die for my right to bear arms. Sorry, but NO I enjoy my freedom and God-given rights! When the government comes to confiscate firearms, they will be creating a war they are not prepared to handle.
                              As long as you count yourself as one of the potential acceptable victims then I'm cool with that.
                              One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions - Admiral Grace Hopper

                              "The eunuch should not take pride in his chastity."
                              Wu Cheng'en Monkey

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Chukka View Post
                                As long as you count yourself as one of the potential acceptable victims then I'm cool with that.
                                Yeah, what he really meant to say was this...


                                "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
                                Ernest Hemingway.

                                In english "silence" means yelling louder than everyone else.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X