Multiple Deaths in San Bernardino, Calif., Mass Shooting
12-04-2015, 02:35 PM
#47
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In Mother Russia...
Posts: 4,024
Car Info: ...zeh car drives you!
Completely agree!
I think the problem is there is a big divide between extreme positions on either side. Extreme liberals call for NO GUNS EVER and extreme conservatives call for ALL GUNS RIGHT NOW.
As is usually the case, the answer is in the middle. Allow legal purchase of most guns out there, but put in place strict background checks, strict registration, mandatory mental health evaluations, and advanced safety and use training and licensing/testing systems (most important). Also close stupid loopholes like gun shows and online sales that completely get around the systems in place.
Its simple... you want to own a piece of very deadly equipment, go through the steps to prove you are mentally healthy, go through real training on how to safely use and keep your firearm, and prove your training via regular testing. We require most of this to be able to drive a car for ****s sake!
Put a real system in place like this and it makes it hard for either extreme to logically argue against it.
-- Ed
I think the problem is there is a big divide between extreme positions on either side. Extreme liberals call for NO GUNS EVER and extreme conservatives call for ALL GUNS RIGHT NOW.
As is usually the case, the answer is in the middle. Allow legal purchase of most guns out there, but put in place strict background checks, strict registration, mandatory mental health evaluations, and advanced safety and use training and licensing/testing systems (most important). Also close stupid loopholes like gun shows and online sales that completely get around the systems in place.
Its simple... you want to own a piece of very deadly equipment, go through the steps to prove you are mentally healthy, go through real training on how to safely use and keep your firearm, and prove your training via regular testing. We require most of this to be able to drive a car for ****s sake!
Put a real system in place like this and it makes it hard for either extreme to logically argue against it.
-- Ed
If you want to talk about ownership of deadly weapons...what about those cars? You got 3,500-8,000 lbs of shrapnel sitting on top of a 20-50 gallons of readily accessible high explosive capable of reaching nearly unstoppable velocities. I believe in the Middle East calls it an IED? Should we not regulate those at well? Especially since car accidents already account for 100x lives?
As I have said, whether one agrees or not, firearm ownership is a Constitutional and Citizenship right not just for individual protection but against overreaching government as well. Driving is a convenient luxury and privilege.
The point is if someone WANTS to do harm, they WILL do harm. Regardless of the strict regulations or mental checks in place. Hell, maximum security prisoners don't have issues killing other inmates even though they are segregated in a fully militarized controlled microcosm.
Better yet, not much personal privacy and liberty are you willing to give up for this "security"? Ed, aren't you Ukrainian or Russian? WTH man!?!? You seriously forgot what Communism was already?!?!
I unfortunately this is true.
Last edited by LxJLthr; 12-04-2015 at 02:48 PM.
12-04-2015, 03:20 PM
#49
To continue playing devil's advocate...
If you want to talk about ownership of deadly weapons...what about those cars? You got 3,500-8,000 lbs of shrapnel sitting on top of a 20-50 gallons of readily accessible high explosive capable of reaching nearly unstoppable velocities. I believe in the Middle East calls it an IED? Should we not regulate those at well? Especially since car accidents already account for 100x lives?
If you want to talk about ownership of deadly weapons...what about those cars? You got 3,500-8,000 lbs of shrapnel sitting on top of a 20-50 gallons of readily accessible high explosive capable of reaching nearly unstoppable velocities. I believe in the Middle East calls it an IED? Should we not regulate those at well? Especially since car accidents already account for 100x lives?
As I have said, whether one agrees or not, firearm ownership is a Constitutional and Citizenship right not just for individual protection but against overreaching government as well. Driving is a convenient luxury and privilege.
The point is if someone WANTS to do harm, they WILL do harm. Regardless of the strict regulations or mental checks in place. Hell, maximum security prisoners don't have issues killing other inmates even though they are segregated in a fully militarized controlled microcosm.
The point is if someone WANTS to do harm, they WILL do harm. Regardless of the strict regulations or mental checks in place. Hell, maximum security prisoners don't have issues killing other inmates even though they are segregated in a fully militarized controlled microcosm.
Again, how, where and who determines what is reasonable, rational, sufficient, common sense, etc? Who gets to access this highly sensitive and private data? The government could not even build a basic health exchange website. Plus our current education system is crammed with standardized test as to not any children behind and yet we are still at the bottom of every conceivable educational/intellectual world ranking. More draconian tests, laws, regulations, and other privacy intrusions won't solve these issues.
Better yet, not much personal privacy and liberty are you willing to give up for this "security"? Ed, aren't you Ukrainian or Russian? WTH man!?!? You seriously forgot what Communism was already?!?!
Better yet, not much personal privacy and liberty are you willing to give up for this "security"? Ed, aren't you Ukrainian or Russian? WTH man!?!? You seriously forgot what Communism was already?!?!
I am Ukrainian/Russian and I do remember communism and that is a large part of why my family came to the US... in hopes of a government that worked better... not the absence of government altogether. Its a long road to taking back the government from the corrupt entities in power currently, but that should be everyone's ultimate goal... not just saying "the government sucks at stuff so **** the government and gimme my guns!".
We are finally in an age where open and free information exchange is really possible and doesn't rely solely on big media. That is the first building block to building a more efficient, less corrupt government. Look at how quickly government **** ups and even the slightest issues get into the view of the public eye these days. Look at how much everyone *****es about the president and everything else without getting locked up or shot... this isn't the Russian Communism of our past
. Ignoring those developments in our society and squandering the opportunity to use them to better it is a crime. Also, the whole argument of protecting yourself against the government with your private arsenal is laughable for obvious reasons.
-- Ed
12-04-2015, 04:07 PM
#51
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Leandro, CA
Posts: 3,856
Car Info: Forester XTi
As I said, some of you have NO ****ING CLUE why the 2A is there. You might want to educate yourself lib, or, would it be ok with you if we say, outlaw your freedom of speech because you could insight riot? perhaps we say, ban whatever religion you happen to believe in because it may cause murders?
12-04-2015, 04:37 PM
#52
Ed. You got the second amendment wrong... It is as follows:
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.
It is not just about a militia. It is about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
If you read the federalist papers which is the defining written mindset of the writers of the constitution, they clearly wanted citizens to have the ability to self arm at the same level as their government.
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.
It is not just about a militia. It is about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
If you read the federalist papers which is the defining written mindset of the writers of the constitution, they clearly wanted citizens to have the ability to self arm at the same level as their government.
12-04-2015, 05:43 PM
#54
Ed. You got the second amendment wrong... It is as follows:
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.
It is not just about a militia. It is about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
If you read the federalist papers which is the defining written mindset of the writers of the constitution, they clearly wanted citizens to have the ability to self arm at the same level as their government.
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.
It is not just about a militia. It is about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
If you read the federalist papers which is the defining written mindset of the writers of the constitution, they clearly wanted citizens to have the ability to self arm at the same level as their government.
Then...
In 1876, the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.
In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".
It wasn't until 2008 that the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right to possess and carry firearms.
Let's not forget that the original text was written over 200 years... a long time before automatic rifles, missiles, fighter jets, etc, etc, etc. So even if you think they did "want citizens to have the ability to self arm at the same level as their government", that is completely not applicable to our current time. That argument just makes no sense either way you look at it.
-- Ed
12-04-2015, 07:50 PM
#55
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In Mother Russia...
Posts: 4,024
Car Info: ...zeh car drives you!
IMHO I think Benjamin Franklin said it best "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
What would make a criminal think thrice; another law they probably will never know or shop window sigh saying "CCW Holders Get 25% Off"?
This is always the crux of the problem and debate. "The government sucks at doing things." Yes the government does suck at a lot of things and can be very inefficient and is corrupt. So is the answer to get rid of government entirely, hand out guns to every man, woman, and child, and hope for the best? Or do we continue to try to improve the government and lessen the corruption?
I am Ukrainian/Russian and I do remember communism and that is a large part of why my family came to the US... in hopes of a government that worked better... not the absence of government altogether. Its a long road to taking back the government from the corrupt entities in power currently, but that should be everyone's ultimate goal... not just saying "the government sucks at stuff so **** the government and gimme my guns!".
We are finally in an age where open and free information exchange is really possible and doesn't rely solely on big media. That is the first building block to building a more efficient, less corrupt government. Look at how quickly government **** ups and even the slightest issues get into the view of the public eye these days. Look at how much everyone *****es about the president and everything else without getting locked up or shot... this isn't the Russian Communism of our past. Ignoring those developments in our society and squandering the opportunity to use them to better it is a crime.
Also, the whole argument of protecting yourself against the government with your private arsenal is laughable for obvious reasons.
-- Ed
I am Ukrainian/Russian and I do remember communism and that is a large part of why my family came to the US... in hopes of a government that worked better... not the absence of government altogether. Its a long road to taking back the government from the corrupt entities in power currently, but that should be everyone's ultimate goal... not just saying "the government sucks at stuff so **** the government and gimme my guns!".
We are finally in an age where open and free information exchange is really possible and doesn't rely solely on big media. That is the first building block to building a more efficient, less corrupt government. Look at how quickly government **** ups and even the slightest issues get into the view of the public eye these days. Look at how much everyone *****es about the president and everything else without getting locked up or shot... this isn't the Russian Communism of our past
. Ignoring those developments in our society and squandering the opportunity to use them to better it is a crime. Also, the whole argument of protecting yourself against the government with your private arsenal is laughable for obvious reasons.
-- Ed
I am from Belarus myself and don't have fond memories especially with Lukashenko still in power. Obviously our underlying ideals are different.Let's not forget that the original text was written over 200 years... a long time before automatic rifles, missiles, fighter jets, etc, etc, etc. So even if you think they did "want citizens to have the ability to self arm at the same level as their government", that is completely not applicable to our current time. That argument just makes no sense either way you look at it.
-- Ed
-- Ed
And 200 year old? Fine. How old is Christianity? 2,000 year old? All based on book with collection of fairy tales written by bunch of bigoted crusty old men around a fire during times when women did not have rights? Which historically has been responsible for the start of how many wars, percussion and deaths? And no one complains that stuff is out of date.
Last edited by LxJLthr; 12-04-2015 at 08:15 PM.
12-04-2015, 08:07 PM
#56
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In Mother Russia...
Posts: 4,024
Car Info: ...zeh car drives you!
And since we quoting Supreme Court cases now...
In 2005 Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...t-someone.html
I think this is the most recent ruling, but definitely not the first. There are about 4 or 5 of these over the past 3 decades that reinforces that police have no duty to protect the general public. So, yes, I very much oppose any infringement on my ability as a law abiding citizen to protect the well being of my friend and family from whatever the source may be by whatever means necessary.
In 2005 Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...t-someone.html
I think this is the most recent ruling, but definitely not the first. There are about 4 or 5 of these over the past 3 decades that reinforces that police have no duty to protect the general public. So, yes, I very much oppose any infringement on my ability as a law abiding citizen to protect the well being of my friend and family from whatever the source may be by whatever means necessary.
Last edited by LxJLthr; 12-04-2015 at 08:20 PM.
12-04-2015, 08:23 PM
#57
When you say "it's really saying" it becomes your opinion. Go read the federalist papers of you want to know what "it's really saying".
It really says that the citizens can form citizen militia's on top of the federal militia (those had already been invented before the constitution was written) and
To ensure this freedom, the citizens have the right to possess and bear arms.
That's what it really says...
And 200 years ago, the frigate and the mounted militia were the f-16's, tanks etc...and the cannon...well...that was the artillery...go figure.
It really says that the citizens can form citizen militia's on top of the federal militia (those had already been invented before the constitution was written) and
To ensure this freedom, the citizens have the right to possess and bear arms.
That's what it really says...
And 200 years ago, the frigate and the mounted militia were the f-16's, tanks etc...and the cannon...well...that was the artillery...go figure.
Right... let's break it down. Its really talking about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in order to be able to maintain "A well regulated Militia" which is "necessary to the security of a free State". Not sure what part I'm missing here?
Then...
In 1876, the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.
In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".
It wasn't until 2008 that the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right to possess and carry firearms.
Let's not forget that the original text was written over 200 years... a long time before automatic rifles, missiles, fighter jets, etc, etc, etc. So even if you think they did "want citizens to have the ability to self arm at the same level as their government", that is completely not applicable to our current time. That argument just makes no sense either way you look at it.
-- Ed
Then...
In 1876, the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.
In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".
It wasn't until 2008 that the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right to possess and carry firearms.
Let's not forget that the original text was written over 200 years... a long time before automatic rifles, missiles, fighter jets, etc, etc, etc. So even if you think they did "want citizens to have the ability to self arm at the same level as their government", that is completely not applicable to our current time. That argument just makes no sense either way you look at it.
-- Ed
12-04-2015, 08:35 PM
#58
Let's not forget that the original text was written over 200 years... a long time before automatic rifles, missiles, fighter jets, etc, etc, etc. So even if you think they did "want citizens to have the ability to self arm at the same level as their government", that is completely not applicable to our current time. That argument just makes no sense either way you look at it.
-- Ed
-- Ed
12-05-2015, 12:41 AM
#59
You guys are all entitled to your opinions... No problem there. But so far I haven't heard of any suggested solutions to any problems.
So what is it? No government and all the guns, missiles, bombs, etc for anyone who can get their hands on them? You really don't see a problem with that thinking?
-- Ed
So what is it? No government and all the guns, missiles, bombs, etc for anyone who can get their hands on them? You really don't see a problem with that thinking?
-- Ed
12-05-2015, 12:46 AM
#60
And since we quoting Supreme Court cases now...
In 2005 Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...t-someone.html
I think this is the most recent ruling, but definitely not the first. There are about 4 or 5 of these over the past 3 decades that reinforces that police have no duty to protect the general public. So, yes, I very much oppose any infringement on my ability as a law abiding citizen to protect the well being of my friend and family from whatever the source may be by whatever means necessary.
In 2005 Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...t-someone.html
I think this is the most recent ruling, but definitely not the first. There are about 4 or 5 of these over the past 3 decades that reinforces that police have no duty to protect the general public. So, yes, I very much oppose any infringement on my ability as a law abiding citizen to protect the well being of my friend and family from whatever the source may be by whatever means necessary.
-- Ed