How is 20 going to get through my door at the same time? Believe me the big turkey number is going to be massive in a tight packed group.
58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
How is 20 going to get through my door at the same time? Believe me the big turkey number is going to be massive in a tight packed group.
Speaking of hypotheticals, say you've accidentally locked yourself in a cinder-block constructed building, with a steel reinforced door, and your youngsters are outside, very near a 70 MPH speed limit highway. You either have a machine gun (and at least 20 db hearing protection), or you don't. Which one do you choose?
'How about: A small gang of violent criminals wrongly have implicated you in some crime committed against them, and show up in your driveway, all armed and angry. Your youngsters leave out your front door, and you're on the second floor looking out a front window. You either have a machine gun or you don't. Which one do you choose?
I'm not saying you use it. I'm saying, you can either have one, or not. Which one do you choose?
Irrelevant unless you're talking about either repealing or amending the Second Amendment. And if you're doing that, we're not in agreement on this matter, fyi.
Then it is mighty convenient that this is exactly what the Supreme Court has said is meant when the Second Amendment reads "the right to keep and bear arms." The right is to own (keep), and to carry (bear), assault rifles. That is what the Second Amendment says, according to the Supreme Court.
jzeidler
New member
Shots rang out. People shouted. Victim's cried. #America was left asking the question, "how has our country come to this?" Today on your Political review Nathan and Jon talk through the act of evil that occurred Sunday night Oct/1/2017 in Las Vegas. They give you the details of what transpired and delve into the universal truth of how our country has gotten to this point.
#LasVegasShooting
https://youtu.be/RqNNeOK96_0
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#LasVegasShooting
https://youtu.be/RqNNeOK96_0
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you know something about how you get a psychopath? Back in the early 1900s, Germans and Russians got some; maybe you've heard of them.
Until we know how to prevent them, we have to deal with the fact that psychos are out there, among us. We can't strip ourselves of freedoms and liberties, just so that psychopaths don't have the same freedoms; that's psychotic. That's cutting off your nose to spite your face, writ large.
Give me two, please.Speaking of hypotheticals, say you've accidentally locked yourself in a cinder-block constructed building, with a steel reinforced door, and your youngsters are outside, very near a 70 MPH speed limit highway. You either have a machine gun (and at least 20 db hearing protection), or you don't. Which one do you choose?
'How about: A small gang of violent criminals wrongly have implicated you in some crime committed against them, and show up in your driveway, all armed and angry. Your youngsters leave out your front door, and you're on the second floor looking out a front window. You either have a machine gun or you don't. Which one do you choose?
I'm not saying you use it. I'm saying, you can either have one, or not. Which one do you choose?
One for each hand.
It's a tool! And if you have a use for this versatile tool, a machine gun is a really nifty tool. Yes yes yes, it can also kill people, in the wrong hands, but it puts small dense objects on a target from a distance with massive force, reliably and continually, and if that's what you happen to need, then that's just a great tool, a perfect tool, for certain jobs. And this is what the Supreme Court says that the Second Amendment means by "to keep and bear arms;" it means by "arms," that remarkable, and unique tool, called a machine gun. It's what the founders and framers meant. We have a right to own and to carry machine guns.
They're tools!
No. Why would you confuse someone who at one time needed help with someone who is mentally ill?
Except that auto makes almost anyone less safe and less effective, which is why our military moved to the three shot burst and away from it. And almost no civilian ever finds themselves being pursued by several people.
So there's rarely a situation where that works and few outside of the military who are sufficiently trained to respond to it in a way that doesn't make inadvertent carnage more probable.
everready
New member
Remember when..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMbmdFOvTs
Not long after he made this speech he was assassinated by a man named Lee Harvey Oswald at least that's what we were told..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7EJw7PxuhU
everready
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMbmdFOvTs
Not long after he made this speech he was assassinated by a man named Lee Harvey Oswald at least that's what we were told..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7EJw7PxuhU
everready
Barbarian observes:
I've heard that they even sometimes didn't reveal that a shooter was a Methodist, or a Baptist, or a Catholic. Either they were covering something up, or they didn't find it to be a factor in the crime.
One of those.
(sarcasm goes right over Stipe's head)
Sorry, forgot my Warning For The Humor-Impaired. Actually, Stipe, police never include the religion of a shooter, unless they think it's a key to the shooting itself. I'll try to warn you when I use humor in the future.lain:
I've heard that they even sometimes didn't reveal that a shooter was a Methodist, or a Baptist, or a Catholic. Either they were covering something up, or they didn't find it to be a factor in the crime.
One of those.
(sarcasm goes right over Stipe's head)
Sorry, forgot my Warning For The Humor-Impaired. Actually, Stipe, police never include the religion of a shooter, unless they think it's a key to the shooting itself. I'll try to warn you when I use humor in the future.
lain:
Really. Saying "disagreed" in the face of flamboyant silliness is acceptable discourse.
When you say yes, and I say no, there's really not much more that can be said.
Disagreed.
Disagreed.
Of course. And they created the Supreme Court to hash out what those laws continue to mean as time progressed.
And the Supreme Court has hashed out what those laws mean today.
Yes.
Terrific.
Yes, there is no right to commit crimes.
The militia clause has been made irrelevant to the right to keep and bear arms, correct. It doesn't matter that we no longer have militias. It's one of the ways in which the Supreme Court has done their job, in hashing out for us what those laws mean today.
As I said, nobody's mentioned RPGs, not the courts, and not the NRA.
Thank you for bringing some meat to the table finally. We've all been choking down rice and beans until now.
That was a very good decision. The care that the court took in setting out the scope of their decision was apparent. It instills confidence in our Constitution; things aren't as bad as they sometimes appear.
On felons possessing firearms, I'm of the opinion (which is not supported by the courts) that once they're released into society, then all of their rights are restored. If we can't trust these people with a gun, then we can't trust these people, is my admittedly facile view on the matter; but, there it is.
My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the court's job is to interpret the laws independent of changes. That would be the job of the legislature, to address those changes.
I'm working on it.
Which is, how do we balance our right to defend ourselves, with the necessity of avoiding inherently dangerous situations, correct?
Technological progress is a different animal. Apples and oranges. But again, the Supreme Court has clarified these otherwise muddy waters by tying the word "arms" in the Second Amendment to what is "in common use." Today, that is machine guns. More specifically, select-fire assault rifles, at minimum.
For the record, you're now the one who's brought nuclear weapons, and the Nazis into this conversation. Just for the record.
Denying people our rights is not reasonable.
And now you've brought up armed rebellion, which is just as way off course here as nuclear weapons and Nazis.
It's not really my problem that so many people on TOL see leftism in your words and thoughts Town.
In the main, yes, and thankfully so.
And "the rule" is irrelevant to what the Second Amendment means, according to the Supreme Court.
Then why did you mention it?
I know of no such notion promulgated by the NRA, that, "In most cases the brandishing of a weapon will be the difference maker." You made that up.
Rights are not subject to abridgement. We have no right to commit a crime. Yelling fire in a crowded theater (of non-deaf people anyway) is a crime, in and of itself. There is no abridgement of the right to free speech, which is another thing all together, but it is a good example of how the Supreme Court helps us to understand what is meant by the Bill of Rights; of what rights exactly the Bill recognizes (as pre-existing and independently existing) and protects.
Who? I'm not reading that any good guys had any rifles there. A lot of alcohol, but no rifles.
No rifles.
Countries like Australia that do not recognize the RKBA, sure.
I thought it was closer to double that.
"in common use at the time." The court's words.
A distraction from what?
Definitely less than 10%, maybe less than 5%. Maybe less than that.
Correct.
I think it's even more, but there's also shotguns in the mix.
Oh.
Sigh. "Intelligent restrictions" are what the Second Amendment calls "infringements," and they are specifically forbidden. If you want to infringe, then you need to amend the Constitution. So says the Supreme Court.
Unless and until we can identify evil people before they commit evil, the challenge is to prevent them from doing evil, without infringing the right of the vast majority of the rest of us.
Apples to apples: Seat belts protect people when they wreck a car, which is an accident. So protect people by making guns less likely to have accidents, while maintaining the right to defend ourselves. That's a good idea. And it wouldn't have done a thing to prevent the LVNV mass murderer.
This is where your leftism seeps in. You think of people as machines, that sometimes malfunction. That's not at all how the framers, nor thankfully the Supreme Court, characterizes people. We are free, we make choices.
Yes, everybody agrees that denying people their pre-existing right to defend themselves with weapons "in common use" prevents evil people from using those weapons to commit serious crimes. No argument from me on that point either.
We have different values and goals than those other countries. I have no problem with that. They're simply wrong.
You show poor judgment.
Nobody is considering that, as I've mentioned now thrice.The other guy (by which I mean you) is considering whether or not people should be allowed to carry RPGs to the grocery.
Meanwhile, "nuclear weapons," "Nazis," and "armed rebellion" is what's on your mind.
The problem with permanently disarming the mentally ill, is that the vast majority of mentally ill people never harm anyone. I expect that, if you tally up homicides by the mentally ill and by people who would test out as normal, the normals kill at a higher rate than the mentally ill.
I realize that no right is absolute, and that public safety is a worthy concern, but if we abrogate someone's right, we should at least have some evidence that there's a benefit to doing so.
I'll see what's available in the literature, but I'd put money that I'm right on this one. I'll let you know.
I realize that no right is absolute, and that public safety is a worthy concern, but if we abrogate someone's right, we should at least have some evidence that there's a benefit to doing so.
I'll see what's available in the literature, but I'd put money that I'm right on this one. I'll let you know.
I think you're right (Adam Lanza notwithstanding), but I see the problem more as getting such a diagnosis unambiguously correct, because abrogating a right is a very serious thing to do to an innocent person; it is evil. Cases where there is no doubt, we are not talking about those. It's where we draw the line, that's the issue.
This is one of the questions we need to answer wrt the line, mentioned above. Is a psychopath mentally ill? I would say yes, although I'm not sure we can diagnose someone with the kind of certainty that a trial by jury of your peers can produce, before they act out antisocially. Until they do that, it's more like "Minority Report" kind of stuff; intractable.
Every true right is absolute. We don't have a right to shoot people, we don't have a right to yell fire in a non-burning crowded theater, and some mentally incapacitated people incapacitated in some ways do not have a right to defend themselves, not in the same way that the rest of us do. Children have the right to defend themselves, but really it's their parents' job to defend their kids, and that's similar to what as a society have to assume about those among us who are mentally incapacitated in some ways. You can absolutely fight for your life in any time of need, but the social harm risked in permitting you to keep and bear arms, precludes us from recognizing a right to do so. You simply don't have the right to keep and bear arms, if you're a child.
It brings up another point that the NRA might want to consider, which is to impose a higher age limit for owning handguns. Maybe 25, or even 35, like how we restrict who can become president.
No argument here, it absolutely is. And related, is that we really aren't a society that is familiar enough with guns, to be one that imposes good discipline upon ourselves without any law forcing us to do so. I mean things like misguided politeness. We should be very strict with ourselves about obeying good gun safety measures, for instance, and holler openly at anybody violating these principles.
And what are those principles? Go to the NRA website to see. They've thought the whole thing out already. It was their first mission, and it remains so today, that the NRA promotes gun safety.
I'd argue that if it's the right thing to do, based on an analysis like the one you're proposing, then it's not an abrogation at all. We'd have concluded that the right never existed in the first place.
I appreciate the research.
I'm guessing you get to decide when that happens. A neat and convenient trick.
It's such a silly, dangerous position to advance no one who believed they should be able to would advance it around people with a bit more sense. But when you say, as you have and will, that the right as you understands it allows for the possession of machine guns "at a minimum" it invites the reasonable inquiry into what exceeds your minimum threshold that you might find defensible if against your interests to admit, given the unreasonableness you have to know will attach.
To put a point on it: do you believe you should be or are entitled to own and carry an RPG? If not, why not?
That's encouraging. Then you shouldn't have a hard time considering another issue apart from what the Court tells you. Especially when it's a sharply divided, 5-4 decision that might not withstand time. And when that Court might well recognize that your notion of "at a minimum" is anything but.
We have to eventually let many felons out, but it doesn't follow that some of the penalty won't follow them perpetually, like their record.
The Court reviews the Constitutionality of a law and its application, to be sure. But not infrequently that interpretation can undo or alter a given point. So there is within the Court's exercise a thing not too different from legislation, if only in response. Some have argued the Court should only accept or reject and let the legislature reinvent. I tend to be sympathetic to that position.
I'd say how do we balance our right to possess arms with other rights and the responsibility of the state to protect its interest in protecting and balancing all.
Since it's in the record it doesn't need to be clarified, does it. To be equally clear, neither were used gratuitously. You'll do this again, so I'll speak with more particularity then.
Arguing that any right is without restriction is neither reasonable nor true.
I'll come back to this when you do it the last time.
It's yours if you advance it. The crowd be damned at that point. Own your words.
I expect it out of a certain set of people. I don't accept it from the rational because I have reason to expect them to know better. I expect you to be better. I've also been called an apologist for the religious right. The fellow who wrote that was as blinkered as some of the less honest or rational to my right. If you want that company it's your call, but I'm putting you on notice on the point.
Again, we've restricted the right somewhat. And a 5-4 decision isn't necessarily one that will stand in perpetuity. And you've been willing to poke around outside and contrary to the Court when it suited you.
No, I didn't. It's the principle I then explained that you just asked me about. Feel free to ignore that for whatever reason.
They absolutely are. You noted one earlier in relation to convicted felons. You excuse it by saying we don't have a right to commit a crime. But who decided what the crime was and what abridgement was then permissible? And once you agree you've lost the absolute. We're just arguing about the threshold.
We limit rights all the time from necessity. Your right to speak your mind is subject to my agreement to listen. You don't have a right to follow me down the street yelling out your political doctrines. Rights among men are always a balancing act that requires intelligent application of principle and reasoned abridgement where conflicts are inherent.
Yet Australians own guns. I believe all the countries I noted have citizens who own guns within the law. They don't have the right to any and every gun a soldier would carry, of course. Because they aren't soldiers. They won't be called to be soldiers as civilians. Neither will we. That day passed with the creation of our standing armed forces. And with it that necessity, while the lethality and danger increased exponentially. And so the disparity between us and our cousins in the West. We have been taught to love the thing that harms us and to fear the thing that would make us safer.
And the industry that sells that narrative to us prospers on our blood in the guise of embracing principle.
It's no more sacrosanct than any other right and should be as subject.
Which is why you can walk down the street with an RPG. Wait...
Safety courses protect people from accidental discharge and injury or death.
Hush, fascist. See how easy and silly that is?
You think cheese is a vegetable. Silly business.
I don't. I know the body is a mechanism and that sometimes things go horribly, biologically awry in a way that endangers others. I also believe that some people choose to be or do evil for other reasons.
I'm pretty sure the Court and even the framers in their day also understood that people can be mentally ill and make choices driven by the distortion that comes with it.
Than every other Western industrial nation?
lain: That way lies xenophobia. That's nonsense. We simply have an industry that continues to tell Americans the solution to their personal safety is the largely unfettered possession of guns. Even as countries that reject that notion do an objectively, demonstrably better job of actually protecting their citizens.Your status quo defense is part of the reason we have 29 deaths per million while Australia manages 1.4... Which begs the question, do you mean to be ironic?
No. I used nuclear weapons because it's a sure way to recognize that no reasonable mind believes in the unfettered possession of lethal weapons. Even if soldiers were given portable, launchable nuclear devices. You have to attempt to make it seem an unreasonable advance because otherwise you must agree on the point, which begins to unravel an absolute stance and opens the door to reasonable restraint on a thing you largely seek to keep unrestrained. I noted armed rebellion because many in the unabridged right camp advocate the possession of weapons as a means to oppose tyranny in government if it comes to that, stupid as that notion remains. And I used the Nazis because someone mistakenly advanced the notion of them confiscating weapons as a means of taking control of a government. It wasn't true. It is a good way to address how registration really isn't a good means to the ends of confiscation where there are sufficient weapons afoot.
I checked out for a moment at, "selling guns to Americans who want to defend themselves AND THEIR COUNTRY..."
lain: Does he think he's in the army? On the plus side, it took him all of nearly four minutes before he declared that he knows "a lot more about it than Jimmy Kimmel does." Apparently he "made his bones" on the issue. It mostly seems that he enjoys making videos and bones on the backs of the famous.
He goes on to say that Kimmel is making a lot of money off a lot of leftists who think he's the "bee's knees" because he does "this kind of stuff." Kimmel mostly doesn't do "this kind of stuff". If you watch him at all you know that it's a fairly recent development and that he's already a reasonably wealthy guy who wasn't making money off his son's condition or attempting to cash in on the Vegas tragedy.
I wonder if Kimmel knows who he is...
Shapiro, complaining about a one sided slathering of people who disagree with a simplistic and negative brush moves on to Chuck Todd. As a still of Todd is shown a clip of his acknowledging the 2nd Amendment and, without attacking Shapiro or anyone, asking at what point the 2nd right to bear arms might infringe on his neighbor's right to live safely and freely. The sort of beginning of serious discourse Shapiro opened his bit by lamenting the lack of...Ben takes a second to issue a farting noise.
lain:
Kimmel is the bees knees to lefties