Just wait and see the new laws set in place because of a crazed Idiot! The antigun politians will use this for there sick antigun/anti second amendment agenda.
[quote]fastwrx05 wrote:
Just wait and see the new laws set in place because of a crazed Idiot! The antigun politians will use this for there sick antigun/anti second amendment agenda.[/quote]
If they didn’t have guns, they’d use bombs (look at Iraq).
If they didn’t have bombs they’d use knives.
Well… isn’t the fact that a young man who had been declared unstable and paranoid by the courts could so easily buy two guns and ammunition in a single week a little fucked up?
I’m all for the second amendment (though saying it applies the same way today is a bite of BS, I still support the basic principal), but COME ON. If you’ve been to prison for a violent crime, been declared unstable, ect… you should NOT be able to buy a weapon that easily. I’m pro gun control. CONTROL, not banishment. People seem to think they’re synonymous.
I think the anti’s are aiming a little low. Clearly in this instance the real driving force for the shooter was his emotional and mental trauma suffered at the hands of rich (and probably white) Americans. He even told us as much.
I think what we really need to work on banning are the hurtful words used by the likes of Don Imus and whoever drove this poor Korean kid to kill.
By working to ban words first rather than guns, we will be able to sneak in the legislation needed to fully undermine the entire Bill of Rights. Once the First Amendment is toppled, the Second can’t be far behind.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Well… isn’t the fact that a young man who had been declared unstable and paranoid by the courts could so easily buy two guns and ammunition in a single week a little fucked up?[/quote]
“The alternatives to involuntary hospitalization and treatment were investigated and deemed suitable.”
-Special Justice Paul M. Barnett
Would you feel better if he had bought the guns first and then was declared unstable?
I wonder why many americans have this “holy” view on the words of long gone men… a constitution is just that, a constitution, it isn’t a religious bible of some kind… 
[quote]beowolf wrote:
Well… isn’t the fact that a young man who had been declared unstable and paranoid by the courts could so easily buy two guns and ammunition in a single week a little fucked up?
I’m all for the second amendment (though saying it applies the same way today is a bite of BS, I still support the basic principal), but COME ON. If you’ve been to prison for a violent crime, been declared unstable, ect… you should NOT be able to buy a weapon that easily. I’m pro gun control. CONTROL, not banishment. People seem to think they’re synonymous. [/quote]
beowolf,
It might surprise you to learn that many Republicans and allied Good Guys agree with your stance.
Let that sink in.
Then why do we oppose most gun legislation?
Answer: We don’t trust your pals and government in general to make appropriate laws.
If we believed that banning uzi’s and ak 47’s would stop there, you’d have no trouble passing that law.
We know that guys like chuck schumer would try to capitalize on successful national gun control legislation.
JeffR
Bullet Control. Keep your guns you just don’t get to shoot them anymore.
[quote]fastwrx05 wrote:
Just wait and see the new laws set in place because of a crazed Idiot! The antigun politians will use this for there sick antigun/anti second amendment agenda.[/quote]
That dude was on paxil or somthing like that. But will the Government ban paxil (which by the way also played a hand in the columbine murders, and huderds of other homicides) nope.they’d insted ban guns.
[quote]fastwrx05 wrote:
Just wait and see the new laws set in place because of a crazed Idiot! The antigun politians will use this for there sick antigun/anti second amendment agenda.[/quote]
I think you give away your ability to talk reasonably when you throw out the term ‘sick’ to describe those against guns.
They may be somewhat deluded in their hope that the world will just play nice if all the big bad weapons were taken away, but that makes them something much different than sick.
Guns are the great equalizer. They allow the scrawniest coward to project as much power as the strongest tough guy. However, we have no easy way of knowing just who will or won’t abuse this power.
I’d be for measures that help reduce accidental discharges, such as children shooting themselves with a parents weapon by accident, and I’d be for measures that targeted criminals or put criminals at a disadvantage with respect to law abiding citizens.
Laws that penalize the law abiding, or make the law abiding unable to stand up the lawless, are bad laws. Hopefully this situation does not lead to bad laws being passed due to the emotion that has been unleashed.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
If we believed that banning uzi’s and ak 47’s would stop there, you’d have no trouble passing that law.[/quote]
That wouldn’t have helped at all in the VT shootings. All the killing was done using 2 handguns.
Unless all you allow are powder and pellet muskets, there isn’t much difference between 1 bullet per second and 100 per second when you’re shooting at unarmed students.
As to what might help such things, a very intriguing post by Randy Barnett:
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_04_15-2007_04_21.shtml#1177011663
[i]A Well Regulated Militia: In light of the discussion between Eugene and Orin, I though I would link to an essay I wrote for National Review Online on September 18th, 2001, Saved by the Militia: Arming an army against terrorism ( http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-barnett091801.shtml ). After noting that it was the members of the general militia that prevented United Flight 93 from reaching its intended target on 9/11, the essay continues (with emphasis in bold I am adding now):
[quote]Ask yourself every time you hear a proposal for increased "security": Would have in any way have averted the disaster that actually happened? Will it avert a future suicide attack on the public by other new and different means? Any realistic response to what happened and is likely to happen in the future must acknowledge that, when the next moment of truth arrives in whatever form, calling 911 will not work. [b]Training our youth to be helpless in the face of an attack, avoiding violence at all costs will not work. There will always be foreign and domestic wolves to prey on the sheep we raise. And the next attack is unlikely to take the same form as the ones we just experienced. We must adopt measures that promise some relief in circumstances we cannot now imagine.[/b]
Here is the cold hard fact of the matter that will be evaded and denied but which must never be forgotten in these discussions: [b]Often - whether on an airplane, subway, cruise ship, or in a high school - only self defense by the "unorganized militia" will be available when domestic or foreign terrorists chose their next moment of murder. And here is the public-policy implication of this fact: It would be better if the militia were more prepared to act when it is needed.[/b]
If the general militia is now "unorganized" and neutered ? if it is not well-regulated ? whose fault is it? Article I of the Constitution gives Congress full power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia." The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights in large part because many feared that Congress would neglect the militia (as it has) and, since Congress could not be forced by any constitutional provision to preserve the militia, the only practical means of ensuring its continued existed was to protect the right of individual militia members to keep and bear their own private arms. Nevertheless, it remains the responsibility of Congress to see to it that the general militia is "well-regulated."[/quote]
And states too, I should now add. The existence of this enumerated power means that Congress can act to organize the militia if it so chooses.
But is it ludicrous to describe those who brought down United 93 as belonging to the militia? As I noted in the essay, Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, “Militia: composition and classes” in its entirety (with emphases added) defines the militia as follows:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are ?
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) [u]the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.[/u]
But there is no reason why the general militia must remain unorganized. I also observed,
[quote]A well-regulated militia does not require a draft or any compulsory training. Nor, as Alexander Hamilton recognized, need training be universal. "To attempt such a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable extent, would be unwise," he wrote in Federalist 29, "and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured." But Congress has the constitutional power to create training programs in effective self-defense including training in small arms ? marksmanship, tactics, and gun safety ? for any American citizen who volunteers. Any guess how many millions would take weapons training at government expense or even for a modest fee if generally offered?[/quote]
Maybe it’s time (again) to think “outside the box” ? or more accurately inside the box provided by the Constitution.[/i]
[quote]JeffR wrote:
beowolf wrote:
Well… isn’t the fact that a young man who had been declared unstable and paranoid by the courts could so easily buy two guns and ammunition in a single week a little fucked up?
I’m all for the second amendment (though saying it applies the same way today is a bite of BS, I still support the basic principal), but COME ON. If you’ve been to prison for a violent crime, been declared unstable, ect… you should NOT be able to buy a weapon that easily. I’m pro gun control. CONTROL, not banishment. People seem to think they’re synonymous.
beowolf,
It might surprise you to learn that many Republicans and allied Good Guys agree with your stance.
Let that sink in.
Then why do we oppose most gun legislation?
Answer: We don’t trust your pals and government in general to make appropriate laws.
If we believed that banning uzi’s and ak 47’s would stop there, you’d have no trouble passing that law.
We know that guys like chuck schumer would try to capitalize on successful national gun control legislation.
JeffR
[/quote]
You do know the “slippery slope” is considered a fallacious argument in debate, right?
I would hope the right would agree with me here. I’d rather have a bit too much gun control then the obvious lack we have now.
How about a licensing system that requires a test? Maybe just a written one about gun safety, like a crappier version of the test you take to get a boating license ect…
I trust government about as far as I can throw the White House. But still, gun control, to me, is a too much is better than too little situation. Too much, and rights are infringed upon a bit, very bad. Too little, and shit like this happens. Still, i’d much rather see the happy medium, the golden mean.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
You do know the “slippery slope” is considered a fallacious argument in debate, right?
[/quote]
I did not know this. I would love to hear your explanation of why.
[quote]shawninjapan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
You do know the “slippery slope” is considered a fallacious argument in debate, right?
I did not know this. I would love to hear your explanation of why.
[/quote]
Yes. Please elaborate.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
shawninjapan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
You do know the “slippery slope” is considered a fallacious argument in debate, right?
I did not know this. I would love to hear your explanation of why.
Yes. Please elaborate.[/quote]
You’ve never taken a course in basic logic, I assume?
Just for clarification, I didn’t mean official debate. But the slippery slope argument is generally not accepted as valid reasoning in a logical “argument” or statement unless it can be empirically proven.
IE: People used to say allowing interracial marriages would lead to polygamy, homosexual marriages, and marriages to animals being legal. Obviously, this hasn’t happened.
Unless a slippery slop can actually be shown empirically (which is very often not the case) it’s usually BS.
Like saying pot is a slippery slope towards heroine. Not true.
Saying gay marriage will lead to polygamist marriage. Not true.
I actually cannot think of a slippery slop argument that really works out. It will eventually stop as the pendulum swings the other way. The Republican Revolution of 1994 didn’t lead to a ultra-conservative America, just like the New Deal didn’t lead to a socialist America.
If you can prove the whole slippery-slope thing to me, I’ll gladly accept it as valid reasoning, but until then, I’ll just call it BS.
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
I wonder why many americans have this “holy” view on the words of long gone men… a constitution is just that, a constitution, it isn’t a religious bible of some kind… :)[/quote]
Because some of us still believe deeply in the sacrifices of those who came before us, so that we may have the freedoms they fought so passionately for. Because what was true then, is still true now. Our fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers fought, and many died to protect “the words of long gone men.” Personally I only hope that there are still men bread of the same character.
[quote]buffballswell wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
I wonder why many americans have this “holy” view on the words of long gone men… a constitution is just that, a constitution, it isn’t a religious bible of some kind…
Because some of us still believe deeply in the sacrifices of those who came before us, so that we may have the freedoms they fought so passionately for. Because what was true then, is still true now. Our fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers fought, and many died to protect “the words of long gone men.” Personally I only hope that there are still men bread of the same character.[/quote]
I agree with this sentiment, and more to the point I have a major problem with Euro citizens indulging the need to pass judgment on the American Constitution, considering it was the primary impetus for the creation of a nation that helped to keep the Norwegians from speaking German. In other words, we don’t care what the fuck you do in Norway, so shut the fuck up about what goes on here.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
You’ve never taken a course in basic logic, I assume?
Just for clarification, I didn’t mean official debate. But the slippery slope argument is generally not accepted as valid reasoning in a logical “argument” or statement unless it can be empirically proven.
IE: People used to say allowing interracial marriages would lead to polygamy, homosexual marriages, and marriages to animals being legal. Obviously, this hasn’t happened. [/quote]
Aside from your thin explanation, when you say “obviously, it hasn’t happened”, that explains nothing. If it has already happened, there is no reason to argue that event X will lead to event Y in making a prediction.
By the way - global warming? Slippery slope.
In a vacuum, yes, in reality, no - since we have imperfect information. Again, see the argument for doing something against global warming.
Fantastic conclusory statement that you can’t know, since those events have yet to play out. Slippery slope arguments have to be supported to be sure, but they are arguments we make to predict the future to make decisions now to avoid things we don’t want then.
Yes you can - to repeat, the argument against global warming. The entire thrust of that is GW may or may not be affected by what we do, but we shouldn’t wait to find out empirically if our industrial emissions cause it and thus melt the ice caps, etc.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
As to what might help such things, a very intriguing post by Randy Barnett:[/quote]
Interesting. And of course, being able to defend oneself is always preferable to depending on others to do it.
Cops seem to prefer camping out around the “security parameter” while dozens of people get executed in a nearby building. If the people hired and equipped to deal with dangerous situations can’t do it, who else can?
The militia thing is interesting. I’ll note that registering for the National Guard (the official militia) might be more popular if your Clown-in-Chief stopped sending them overseas to Iraq. A militia is supposed to be for domestic protection; not overseas foreign action.
Aside from the the official armed militia, what else could be done? Mandatory martial arts training in K12 and high school? Being trained in unarmed combat would still come in handy when facing a gunman.
He can hardly take out 10 or 15 people if they all go for him at the same time. With no training, my guess is that most people freeze like a deer in headlights and stay there while the gunman executes everyone methodically.
An added benefit from martial arts training might be that the increase in self-discipline and the resulting better self-worth that often follows might reduce the bullying and picking on loners that’s pretty pervasive in our classrooms.
You don’t pick on someone as much when he can kick you in the teeth. You might have a better spirit of camaraderie in schools; less outcasts and hence, less of the raw conditions that seems to produce those nutcases.