Arizona Blue Dog Dem shot at public event

[Weird Harold]

How the hell does a thread about an assassination attempt morph into yet another gun-fetish litany?

It all starts with the "OMG, the assassin used a gun, they ought to be banned!" and what does any rational person need a semiautomatic firearm for?" reactions to an assassination or attempt.

Cries of "There ought to be a law" can only be answered properly with "No. There shouldn't!" and/or STFU

 

[sr71plt]

I like being called baby though, say it again.

I highly doubt you'd like the way I can say "baby" to another man.

 

[sr71plt]

You guys are worse at threadjacking than the lesbians flirting with the straight girls.

Or the screamy lesbian on another thread trying to tell men how men do/should fantacize about their cocks.

 

[Weird Harold]

2 Forgive my ignorance but under your constitution is there any constitutional restriction on people who may be insane but have no criminal record.

The founding fathers, framers of the Constitution and authors of the Bill of Rights, would have a problem with depriving a citizen of his arms, but would have no qualms at all about denying citizenship to, or removing citizenship from, someone not capable of handling his own affairs -- which class "insane but no criminal record" would generally fall under.

Getting someone declared incompetent and assigning a guardian for their affairs -- including the decision whether to exercise the right to keep and bear arms -- was much simpler than it is today; and was often abused accordingly, which is presumably why it is more difficult today than it was then.

 

[sr71plt]

The invasion of the gun nuts continues.

 

[DeeZire]

Quoted from Obama's speech:

We recognize our own mortality, and are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame -- but rather, how well we have loved, and what small part we have played in bettering the lives of others.

Oops. He left out "what matters most is how many guns we own." I'm sure Sarah Palin will correct him on her Facebook page.

 

[Weird Harold]

The invasion of the gun nuts continues.

We're just following you Prohibitionists around.

 

[JackLuis]

Quoted from Obama's speech:

We recognize our own mortality, and are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame -- but rather, how well we have loved, and what small part we have played in bettering the lives of others.

Oops. He left out "what matters most is how many guns we own." I'm sure Sarah Palin will correct him on her Facebook page.

So you don't think that he should have ended our excursions in Iraq and Afghanistan out of love for his fellow man? He decries "gun violence" yet he supports killing unknown people as long as they can't vote?

I'd like a President who is consistent in his outlook and his actions. Of course the whole of the Washington establishment took the week off to prance before the cameras. rather that dedicate them selves to the people's business, as Rep Gifford seems to have done before she met the nut that should have been in therapy.

Why is it we can spare a few trillion for war and allow these nuts to wander around loose, because mental health care is too expensive?

 

[colddiesel]

How so?

Are you saying that the authors of the second amendment didn't want the people -- inividually and collectively -- "well-regulated" consistent with the then current standard military of "regulation" according to the contemporary usuage of that word?

Or do you just disagree with the Supreme Court that the right to bear arms is an individual right -- as it declared in overtirning Washington D.C.'s gun ban?

It seems to me that the authors were only considering the peak of technology available at the time.

The Current Supreme Court decisions, particularly if I extrapolated the argument the way you have would appear to allow me at law a right to my own thermo- nuclear bomb.

My view is that the Supreme court's decisions were inadequate in that their considerations were unfortunately limited to a very narrow range of arms. Obviously they cannot consider what is not put in front of them but unfortunately that leads to the impression that what is ok for light portable weapons is ok in law for all weapons.

 

[JackLuis]

It seems to me that the authors were only considering the peak of technology available at the time.

The Current Supreme Court decisions, particularly if I extrapolated the argument the way you have would appear to allow me at law a right to my own thermo- nuclear bomb.

My view is that the Supreme court's decisions were inadequate in that their considerations were unfortunately limited to a very narrow range of arms. Obviously they cannot consider what is not put in front of them but unfortunately that leads to the impression that what is ok for light portable weapons is ok in law for all weapons.

Thermo-nuclear bombs are not defensive weapons.

However the decision you cited had to do with the District's complete ban on ownership. It was not about the size or type of weapon. D.C. was filled with illegal guns, most of which were owned by the criminals. This put the otherwise law abiding at a disadvantage.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

So you don't think that he should have ended our excursions in Iraq and Afghanistan out of love for his fellow man? He decries "gun violence" yet he supports killing unknown people as long as they can't vote?

I'd like a President who is consistent in his outlook and his actions. Of course the whole of the Washington establishment took the week off to prance before the cameras. rather that dedicate them selves to the people's business, as Rep Gifford seems to have done before she met the nut that should have been in therapy.

Why is it we can spare a few trillion for war and allow these nuts to wander around loose, because mental health care is too expensive?

Youre catching-on.

Once you GET how politicians use anything/everything to collect more money and advance themselves, it becomes simple. But there is no solution for it, cuz snakes is snakes. Snakes dont be poodles when they move to Washington.

 

[Weird Harold]

It seems to me that the authors were only considering the peak of technology available at the time.

The Current Supreme Court decisions, particularly if I extrapolated the argument the way you have would appear to allow me at law a right to my own thermo- nuclear bomb.

In abstract theory, there should be no bar to you owning anything at all until such time as you give cause to believe you are not rational and responsible -- that pesky presumption of innocence thing, you now. If I wish to bar you from owning a nuclear weapon, I should have to show that you -- individually and specifically -- are not competent to keep and maintain radioactive materials, toxic chemicals, and the high explosive components of such a device,

OR

I would have to show that you -- individually and specifically -- had demonstrated intent to use such a device in a criminal manner.


"Only a crazy person would want one" isn't sufficient justification to bar a person from owning one.

"A nuclear bomb is a complicated device, which, if not subjected to periodic maintenance, and stored under extraordinary precautions, can be in and of itself a hazard to to genral public. It should be subject to the same limitations and restrictions as possession and/or transport of hazardous materials" is a valid reason for placing restrictions on who may own a nuclear device and how it must be stored and protected," is a vlid reason for restrictions

In the real world and in the context of the general practice at the time the bill of rights was written, the authors likely never intended that every citizen should have more than weapons and equipment consistent with the general issue to the rank and file of a standing army. Anything more than what each individual militiman would be expected to carry to a muster by himself -- eg NOT crew-served weapons like cannon, which would be expected to be "held in common."

IOW, crew-served heavy machine guns, tanks, artillery pieces, fighter planes, and nuclear bombs aren't issued to the rank and file of a standing army and shouldn't be "an individual right," for lack of a better term; reasonable licensing, transfer and transport restrictions -- such as are placed on automatic weapons by the national firearms act of 1934 -- are within the intent of the second amendment.

Note that does NOT mean that such weapons can be flatly banned, only that reasonable restrictions on ownership are permissible.

My view is that the Supreme court's decisions were inadequate in that their considerations were unfortunately limited to a very narrow range of arms. Obviously they cannot consider what is not put in front of them but unfortunately that leads to the impression that what is ok for light portable weapons is ok in law for all weapons.

In principle, it should be OK "in law" for anyone to own anything until such time as negligence, criminal action, or inherent risk to the general welfare -- hazardous materials, fire danger, spontaneous activation, etc -- can be demonstrated in a court of law.

Restrictions to minimize or eliminate inherent risk to the general welfare -- commensurate with those imposed on poisonous chemicals, explosives, and hazardous industrial processes -- are not only reasonable, but necessary.

However, most of those necessary restrictions don't apply to conventional firearms -- if you set a gun aside and don't maintain it for a couple of decades, there is no risk of that weapon dragging itself to a pubic meeting and going off spontaneously. When you do get around to picking it up and trying to shoot something, it either will fire as it was designed to do, or it will not. There is no inherent danger to a conventional firearm because it cannot and will not do anything without some outside agency causing it to.

By conventional firearms, I mean any firearm that is strictly mechanical -- not newfangled "safe guns" with electronic fire control and/or something like an electricaly driven gatling gun.

However, what I object to the most about "gun control" is the concept that the actions of a madman somehow proves that I do not and cannot own a firearm responsibly -- or for that matter that YOU cannot own a firearm responsibly, that something about the firearm itself will corrupt YOU and turn YOU into a a raving lunatic or drooling incompetent.

For me, being opposed to gun-control is as much about YOUR right to be considered a rational and responsible citizen unless and until YOU provide some concrete reason to believe otherwise.

 

[mikey2much]

Everybody wants to take away the guns, but it’s the money

Today we are all upset about this sick boy who got a gun and shot some people. Now we learn that he seldom listened to the news, and was not interested in politics. Why are we obsessed with the gun aspect of this case? Why are we worried about free speech in this case?

The American worker is being pushed back into a third world type of lifestyle; I can see why the people who are on top and pushing the working man down would rather he be unarmed. But I think the real bad guys here are the people who won’t pay taxes enough to run public hospitals to help those with mental problems. I understand closing them was one of the first things Regan did to lower taxes in his first term.

That is now history along with most health care for the poor. There are no school nurses like when I was in school. I once broke my finger at school and the school nurse put it in a splint for me and I never had to seek other medical help for it.

The guy who shot up Virginia Tect was a man whose family had tried to find treatment for him and found that it wasn’t available to them. There was a mother on TV here in Fla a few weeks ago who said she had begged the state to treat her son and they refused. The boy shot some people and now she begs for mercy and understanding for her son. But while we won't spend the cash to treat him we will spend the money to lock him up for the rest of his life.

Why don’t we just pass some sense able laws to tax the rich and give the poor in our country a chance at a good life? Is the money of the rich more precious to us than life itself?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

MIKEY

The existential problem is pols have no idea how to recognize the bad guys unless they herd everyone thru TSA screeners. Turdheads might be in the audience at Rotary or anywhere, and there isnt enough money in the world to protect every pol. So much of America is now the Badlands and the Arizona Territory of the late 1800s.

The money exists to treat whackos but you cant make them take meds or attend day treatment.

Reagan didnt close the mental hospitals. What he did was trade money for community mental health services to get money for the military. The states closed the mental hospitals to comply with federal law requiring least restrictive treatment in the patients community. Over night most communities were awash in money for mental health services. But couldnt make patients accept services, and couldnt get paid when no one showed up! Democrats controlled Congress during Reagan's tenure.

The other thing we do these days is lawyer-up the worst of the turdheads we capture. In the end we'll give Gay Boy a group hug and disability check cuz the jury will be loaded with soccer moms and half-wits.

 

[Weird Harold]

Why don’t we just pass some sense able laws to tax the rich and give the poor in our country a chance at a good life? Is the money of the rich more precious to us than life itself?

No, the money of the rich isn't more precious than life, but the poor have more money.

If you tax EVERYONE an additional one percent specifically for free mental health care, you'd raise far more money than some idealistic Robin Hood plan.

Of course if you believe that any government is going to collect money and spend it on what it was supposed to fund, I've got a nice pair of marched bridges for sale -- one in Brooklyn and one in San Francisco.

 

[Huckleman2000]

No, the money of the rich isn't more precious than life, but the poor have more money.

If you tax EVERYONE an additional one percent specifically for free mental health care, you'd raise far more money than some idealistic Robin Hood plan.

Of course if you believe that any government is going to collect money and spend it on what it was supposed to fund, I've got a nice pair of marched bridges for sale -- one in Brooklyn and one in San Francisco.

Right. Because ALL government is bad, ALL guns are good, YOU know the intent of the Founding Fathers, gun laws are either unconstitutional or inherently ineffective, tax cuts pay for themselves, the Rich are ALL virtuous by virtue of their money...

I'd check the deeds on those bridges you think you can sell me, Einstein.

 

[Weird Harold]

blah blah blah....

Why don't you try actually reading the arguments instead of making stupid assumptions?

 

[Huckleman2000]

Why don't you try actually reading the arguments instead of making stupid assumptions?

I have read your stupid "arguments", and summarized them for you.

You aren't arguing, you're simply espousing ideology. You don't know what the Founding Fathers would think about modern firearms, and neither do I. Your paeans to guns and ammo of various types strike me as a pathetic obsession, but one you share with millions of others who seem to have latched onto guns as a totem of personal power against broader society. You cling to some outdated romantic ideal of the individual railing against the government or any other impingement of personal "Freedoms", ignoring the obvious harms that your absolutist position brings to broader society.

eta: Concealed-carry murderers:

Since May 2007, concealed handgun permit holders have killed at least 282 individuals--including nine law enforcement officers--in 193 incidents in 28 states. In more than two-thirds of the incidents (134) the concealed handgun permit holder has already been convicted, committed suicide, or was killed in the incident. Of the 59 cases still pending, the vast majority (47) of concealed handgun permit holders have been charged with criminal homicide, two were deemed incompetent to stand trial, two incidents were unintentional shootings, and eight incidents are still under investigation. Of the 193 incidents, 17 were mass shootings where concealed handgun permit holders claimed the lives of 73 victims.

 

[Pure]

note on reagan

jbj Democrats controlled Congress during Reagan's tenure.

Not really true, JBJ, but nice try.

Republicans had a majority of the Senate, from the start of Reagan's administration, due to his coattails.

The house was controlled by Democrats, but after Reagan's huge win in 1984, they could be and were 'handled.' For example, one key vote on "contra" support was framed by Reagan as 'freedom v. communism', and over 70 democrats, mostly from the South, voted for it. Southern dems, combined with Republicans were easily a majority, and dems in general were VERY nervous about bucking public support for RR.

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id130.htm

 

[Pure]

more info

on loughner is coming to light. bizarre behavior AND practice with handgun going back a few years.
several articles in WSJ, including,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703889204576078331279621622.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...75851892478080.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories



Loughner studied Nietzsche's _Will to Power_ among other books.

cultivated conscious dreaming.

made remarks to his classmates, such as,

“Maybe they should have tied a bomb to the baby's body and exploded it and made him into a terrorist bomber,”

campus security at Pima suggested 'mental' issues. Pima suspended him after several incidents, e.g.

he argued with his math teacher about his right to call "6", "18".

on the 'net, he started a thread called "Would You Hit a Handy Cap Child/adult?"

and for some reason all job applications were being turned down!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

Youre a hoot. They were handled? I do believe Tom Foley was Speaker of the House, and he was a Democrat. The GOP didnt appoint him.

 

[Pure]

Youre a hoot. They were handled?

handled, yes, meaning,

pressured, persuaded, faced with being called traitors favoring communism, faced with losing office, in view of vast public support for Reagan.

yes, an eminently handle-able majority. and if I recall, besides money for contras, Reagan got most of his 'wish list' through Congress with few problems. all his increases in defense spending--funded by borrowing--including SDI or 'star wars' were approved.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

All for the low-low price of 4 TRILLION in national debt.

Reagan couldnt get Robert Bork approved for the Supreme Court but he got everything else he wanted, right?

 

[Weird Harold]

I have read your stupid "arguments", and summarized them for you.

You aren't arguing, you're simply espousing ideology. You don't know what the Founding Fathers would think about modern firearms, and neither do I. Your paeans to guns and ammo of various types strike me as a pathetic obsession, but one you share with millions of others who seem to have latched onto guns as a totem of personal power against broader society. You cling to some outdated romantic ideal of the individual railing against the government or any other impingement of personal "Freedoms", ignoring the obvious harms that your absolutist position brings to broader society.

eta: Concealed-carry murderers:

Do you have a point with that meaningless statistic about concealed carry murders? What kind of percentage of concealed carry permits does it represent?

I'm not a particular fan of "will issue" concealed carry laws -- how many of those murderers were in "will issue" states? That might be a good argument against "will issue" laws.

As for what the Framers would think about modern weapons, I really have no idea -- I'm simply extrapolating what they intended to accomplish at the time the BoR was written; that is fairly well documented. They did not want a standing army, so they attempted to ensure the militia could stand up to one.

I would expect that basic principle would still apply -- get rid of the standing army and make sure the citizen militia can do the job. I'm not sure that with today's technology that would be the RIGHT principle, but it would be consistent with their preserved discussions of the bill of rights.

As for ideology.... <shrugs>

Isn't the issue of repealing or subverting the second amendment entirely a matter of ideology? At least I know what I believe in, do you -- not what I belive in, but what YOU believe in?

You obviously don't know what I believe in because you think I'm just some crazy gun nut and ignore the places where I've said I didn't buy my guns for home defense, I don't particularly wish to carry any of them concealed, and I'm not planning on climbing any clock tower in the forseeable future -- yet you apparently think I have too many guns and store them in a shrine with incense burners and discreet backlighting to make them sexier while I sacrifice innocent children to them. You'd be wrong if you thought even a tenth of that.

A terrible tragedy happened because a person who should never have had a gun, an extended magazine, or ammunition to fill it with, shot a congresswoman and killed bunch of other people.

I fail to see what that has to do with responsible, sane, law-abiding gun owners. The existing gun laws weren't enforced -- in large part because of non-gun related issues like health care and legal vs medical reporting conditions that should bar someone from possessing a gun -- not owning or buying, having it in his possession, no matter whose name was on the 'title' or registration card.

As long as I obey the law, it is none of the government's business -- or yours -- what weapons I own or why I own them. What other people do or do not do about abiding by the law should have no bearing on what I own.

 

[stephen55]

What was a good idea then, may not be so good today....

The Constitution and it's Amendments were written on paper (or parchment), not chiseled in stone. It was clearly written to be a work in progress. I'm sure the framers were well aware that what is considered good and proper today, may not be so in the future. Slavery was okay back then, but not now. Alcohol was okay, then it wasn't and now it is again. America of the eighteenth century bears little resemblance to America of the twenty-first century. That's why the Constitution was framed to be amendable in the first place.

Today, America doesn't defend itself with piecemeal, scattered militias. North Carolina need not fear being invaded by South Carolina. North Dakota has not fired ICBMs at Pennsylvania.

I do not believe that the intent of the Second Amendment (a well regulated militia)was for civilians to be armed with weapons superior to those of the military. I believe "well regulated" meant co-ordinated, trained, drilled and under the command of experienced officers. The US Supreme Court agrees with me.

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[137] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

I do not believe the intent of the Second Amendment was to make it easy for Jared Loughner to be carrying a handgun with a thirty round magazine.

The Second Amendment was passed on December 15, 1791. At that time, the state of the art firearm was a single shot, muzzle loading rifle. Breech loaders were around, but at the time were inferior to a well made muzzle loader. The same story applies to cannon. While breech loading cannon and exploding projectiles were around, they were unreliable and the standard military gun was a muzzle loading cannon, firing a solid iron ball.

Move ahead to 2011. Things are very different. The world is a very different place.

Should law abiding, responsible, mentally healthy civilian adults be allowed to own firearms? I say yes.

Should there be reasonable limits as to what type of firearms are in the hands of these civilians? Again, I say yes.