DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on December 02, 2015, 05:40:56 PM
-
Let's clock how fast folks like xo & Obama politicize the deaths to push more anti-2nd amendment garbage. I'm betting Xo before the day is out, and Obama no later than morning
-
I was wrong.....Obama's already jumped in.....BEFORE any facts or motive have been established of course
-
Lets be fair, he was asked .
-
How is the desire to end these regular shootings NOT a political issue?
There seems to be a lack of the proverbial "good guys with guns", Too many "useless guys with guns", or just too many guns.
-
How is the desire to end these regular shootings NOT a political issue?
It would be political if there was anyone opposed to the idea.
There seems to be a lack of the proverbial "good guys with guns", Too many "useless guys with guns", or just too many guns.
Far too few good guys with guns.
After this shooting , just minutes later , police were all over the scene.
But it was over.
There is a simple way to make sure that t a good guy with a gun will be there when needed , but we are just unwilling to take the step.
-
How is the desire to end these regular shootings NOT a political issue?
The blood hasn't even been cleaned up, and Obama is pushing politics WITHOUT ANY FACTS...be it motive, who did this, how they obtained their weapons...nothing. An act that would have you going apesnot if some Republican were pushing some Conservative agenda using the emotion of a tragedy. Obama's simply using the emotion of the situation. What if all these murdering thugs all used illegally obtained firearms. What "loophole" would Obama be referring to in trying to keep thse shooings from occuring??
I can't help but wonder if this facility was also designated "gun free zone", in which case there legally could be no good guys with guns around
-
I was wrong.....Obama's already jumped in.....BEFORE any facts or motive have been established of course
I have been in meetings the last 3 hours....was the shooter a Muzzy?
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting.html?_r=0
Where is their Baby?
Mr. Farook and his wife were equipped so well that they either had help or else months to prepare.
They mention that they had a baby, but do not mention where this child is.
-
The only solution gun nuts have is to remove all bans on guns and have everyone packing heat.
This would cause even MORE shootings. Tombstone was not noted for being an orderly, polite society.
-
That's neither a solution, nor being proposed, Dr Deflection
-
Aren't you saying that we should do away with gun free zones?
-
Grammar xo.....supporting that gun free zones be absolved does NOT equate to "remove all bans"
-
I have been in meetings the last 3 hours....was the shooter a Muzzy?
I guess the New York Post answered my question!
(http://s23.postimg.org/5dq9rfxvv/CVTDk_ULUEAAGwf_J.jpg)
-
We're still missing a motive. Obviously there was some pre-planning that was involved, and the fact he was able to get the wife to go along is a serious concern. He was at this "party" before hand, from what I understand, but left for whatever reason. Was this a "set-up"? So much of this doesn't make any sense, even as a terrorist act
-
Perhaps they punked him into eating ham at the party.
They told him it was beef pastrami, but it really was salami.
-
Let us know when you plan to return to the adults' table, regarding this subject
-
The only solution gun nuts have is to remove all bans on guns and have everyone packing heat.
This would cause even MORE shootings.
Where is the logic?
Why would there be anything but another decrease in violence ?
If you see more sharks , you know that there are fish being eaten by sharks.
But a shark must eat, a gun has no need to shoot.
Every murderer in the US that needs a gun for his business has one already, making him travel further for his next one or shell out more money for it will cause no reduction now or in the future.
There must be more than thirty percent of us that have no gun at all, and well over sixty percent of us that spend time in gun free zones. This is a vulnerable population that could easily be less vulnerable.
Perhaps arming everyone would require training everyone , which might take so much time and resources as to be problematic, lets call arming everyone a long term aspiration.
But Congress could very quickly enact law to the effect that anyone wishing to maintain a "gun free" zone should be required to keep a bond to repay damages to the injured in shooting sprees.
-
Arming everyone? That is insane.
A law requiring a bond posted for all gun free zones? You, of course, realize that this would include schools and churches? This has zero chance of passage. Imagine the government demanding that the Roman Catholic Church pay for insurance for declaring their church a gun free zone.
There are a lot of people with bad tempers who get frustrated for no good reason. Parking lots and freeways would become scenes of anger based shootings.
There are too many guns to confiscate them. There are too many gun nuts to spy on them all. There is no solution that passing a law could remedy. We will just have to accept that we will lose a person a day or so as a sort of blood sacrifice to maintain an outdated and pernicious decision of those idiot judges who have misinterpreted the Second Amendment. The general population is NOT any sort of "organized militia".
We have learned how to put up with dangerous bathtubs and automobiles. This nonsense will continue for the forseeable future.
-
We will just have to accept that we will lose a person a day or so as a sort of blood sacrifice to maintain an outdated and pernicious decision of those idiot judges who have misinterpreted the Second Amendment. The general population is NOT any sort of "organized militia".
Wrong again. Consistent with the rest of the Bill of Rights, and with clear verbage, the general population is precisely part of our "militia". It's not required to be "organized". It simply exists in the form of......wait for it......"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It doesn't get much clearer than that
-
Isnt this a rare occurance? We've getting a giant wave of attack and this maybe the second muslim involve attack I recall.
-
Rare occurence for a possible "Jihadist attack", vs other attacks which had different motives? Hard to say at the moment, since we still don't have a clear motive for this Muslim husband & wife couple. Hasan's attack on an Army Base was obviously Jihadist motivated. I think there were other failed attacks that were Jihadist driven
What we do know, is that 2 very devout Muslims (possibly to the point of being radicalized), for whatever reason, left a Christmas party, only to return, to kill as many as they could within that Christmas party. Now we just need to find all the rest of the puzzle pieces
-
Why do you suppose they put the words "organized militia" into the second amendment?
Ornamentation?
-
Because, lingustics professor, when you note the commas, the wording is clear....the security of this nation does include the need for regulated (not organized) militia. But on top of that need, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That's completely consistent with the rest of the Bill of Rights, that are specific to .... wait for it....INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS of this country. As in the general population. The wording makes it clear that SCOTUS ruled properly
-
We should pass an amendment to erase that stupid comma.
It is possibly a bit of fly shit.
-
Regardless of your feelings, the text remains consistent with the rest of the Bill of Rights.....that of an individual's right to;
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Religion
Freedom to own/carry firearms
Freedom from unlawful searches/seizures
Freedom from incriminating oneself
etc, etc, etc, etc....ALL of which are individual freedoms, i.e. "the general population"
-
Why do you suppose they put the words "organized militia" into the second amendment?
Ornamentation?
That is the justification of the whole amendment, the shall not be infringed is the active part.
Do you think it is true that a well regulated militia is a good idea?
-
I was a perhaps good idea in 1790 with the weapons that were available in 1790.
It is not a good idea now, with the weapons that are available now.
-
Why? It's the same concept. In fact, as Plane pointed out, back in the 1790's we had the SAME firearms as the military. Not the case now is it. So.....are you supporting Plane's idea that we be allowed to have the same military firearms as the military?
Bottom line is that the amendment itself is specific to "the general population", just as every other Bill of Rights' amendment is specific to. A well regulated militia is simply the needed cherry on top, towards maintaining the freedoms we hold and have died for
-
As a government employee the word well regulated gives me pause. I support and critisize it. Potential backfire may occur
-
Boy, ain't that the truth, when you consider the exponential examples of just how "regulated" the Government demonstrates itself to be
-
I hardly think that permitting civilians to own bazookas, grenades and grenade launchers would be in any way advantageous. If they were readily available, we would have nuts going around saying "When bazookas are outlawed, only outlaws will have bazookas." The same with grenades and all the rest.
There is little chance that firearms will be confiscated by the government, but many fewer people would die if they were, and it would not make us less free, just less violent and less likely to shot.
-
Why? It's the same concept. In fact, as Plane pointed out, back in the 1790's we had the SAME firearms as the military. Not the case now is it. So.....are you supporting Plane's idea that we be allowed to have the same military firearms as the military?
Bottom line is that the amendment itself is specific to "the general population", just as every other Bill of Rights' amendment is specific to. A well regulated militia is simply the needed cherry on top, towards maintaining the freedoms we hold and have died for
The more complex weapons require more training.
The Militia of Switzerland is a lot like what I want , and the indoctrination of discipline would be good for most of us.
Especially those of us that would maintain a weapon, discipline is part and parcel of keeping that thing harmless most of the time.
-
The Swiss do not send members of the militia home with bazookas. All anyone gets is a rifle. Everything else says in an armory, of which there are many.
-
The Swiss do not send members of the militia home with bazookas. All anyone gets is a rifle. Everything else says in an armory, of which there are many.
This is only true of recently.
They used to trust their people with heavy machineguns and mortars, this worked fine and didn't cause crime.
IN the last few years they seem to have elected some less trustworthy people .
You can tell they are not trustworthy , when they don't trust you.
-
I've been to switzerland an in no way can we follow them anytime soon. They are very different people. i just dont see americans doing anything like them. Am i insulting americans. Hell yes. Tough. I'll also say the adult should learn to pull up thier pants and prove me wrong.
-
Switzerland is certainly not the United States. The Swiss are far more orderly than Americans.
I liked this book a lot.
https://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Personal/Books/McPhee-Place-Concorde-Suisse/
-
The keyword that pops to me is refreshers. I work with armed people and i know some of these guys would be highly offended to the very notion of updating thier skills. I woukd have a hard time believing americans can handle this also. I know several people who barely if not outright fail to maintain thier permits to work or drive.
-
I've been to switzerland an in no way can we follow them anytime soon. They are very different people. i just dont see americans doing anything like them. Am i insulting americans. Hell yes. Tough. I'll also say the adult should learn to pull up thier pants and prove me wrong.
Well , what do you think the authors of the Bill of Rights intended by calling for a well ordered militia?
Is this a chicken or egg argument?
Can the Swiss manage a militia because they are disciplined , or are they disciplined because they have militia training?
-
Obviously they are disciplined to use arms because of the training. They are probably disciplined at home to follow the directions of their parents as well.
The Swiss do not have their rifles at home to defend themselves from burglars or terrorists. It is for national defense against foreign invaders. The percentage of gun nuts in Switzerland is surely lower than in the US.
-
it's not just guns switzerland has a greater political participation from its citizens than america. We keep making gun a singular topic. Thier are numerous overlapping issues that are involved. Culture,politic, finance,health,childcare,education.
Gun control singular is a sloppy way to deal with it.
I felt like i was in a adavanced civilization when i was there. Due to the fact it's the only place i can get serious good wifi compared to anywhere else in europe. Everything everything was orderly there. Everything was clean . Ok alittle less comfort than us yanks are used to but clean
-
According to the CDC, over 30,000 people have died from falling.
We need to have more "common sense" regulations and licensing for standing, walking, and running!
(http://s16.postimg.org/lz5iqag1x/12311234_10153407052283577_242728275448248435_n.jpg)
-
(http://s4.postimg.org/6brod588d/11227939_975463145834453_7742066268553881979_n_j.jpg)
-
What part of that Swiss experience is impossible for us?
And I won't accept that they are all one sort , they have three official languages , from groups that have had a lot of fights. They could be divided if they wanted to be.
-
There are FOUR official languages, the least spoken one is called Romansch. The main conflict was about religion, Catholics vs Calvinists. But these four groups have shared the same country since the 1500's and before. Gun nut mass shootings are very rare in Switzerland.
-
All the better to show that community is better prevention for violence than is making people harmless by force.
-
I hardly think that permitting civilians to own bazookas, grenades and grenade launchers would be in any way advantageous.
I agree.....which is why it's not even a subject of debate. Just because we did have the same weaponry as the military did back when the country was founded, doesn't negate the Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees the right for all legal Americans to possess.....not bazookas, or grenades, or RPG's, ...... but firearms
And yes, when you try to absolve that right, it makes us that much less free, since the Government becames that much more powerful, if it no longer has to fear its citizenry
And before you even start the tangent of how "we the people" wouldn't be able to fight off our military and their superior weapons, the fact that the country is so deeply armed, is precisely why our Government would never even try to confiscate our firearms to begin with. What they would try to do however is to "pass common sense gun laws" that would do nothing but make it harder for legal Americans to purchase/own firearms, and with such withering effort, over time, ..... only the Government, law enforcement, and the bad guys would have them
But that's not going to happen, because there far too many of us who our politically savvy, and care enough to not allow our rights be taken away from us.
In other words, there is NO CHANCE that the Government will confiscate our firearms. NONE
-
I do not think the government fears the citizens.
There is no chance that any armed civilian group will even try to overthrow the government.
-
I do not think the government fears the citizens.
Of course not....we're too fully armed
There is no chance that any armed civilian group will even try to overthrow the government.
Nor is there any need to or anyone supporting such an act, since we're not at that stage of the Government trying to confiscate and absolve our 2nd amendment rights, outside of a Constitutional Convention ::) The 2nd amendment is all about the defense against such tyranny, not something pro-active
-
No, it isn't.
Originally it was because of the need of a rural populace to hunt game, the slaveholding population to prevent slave uprisings and the fact that the government had no power to confiscate weapons. They knew how hard it would be because the British tried it and failed.
-
Yes, it absolutely is. Regardless of what people did with the firearms they had a right to, the specifics of the Bill of Rights, as espoused by those who put our Constitution together, couldn't have been made any clearer. The Bill of Rights were specific LIMITATIONS applied to the Federal Government. They are RIGHTS to help prevent what the Colonists had just fought a revolution for, to keep from reappearing in this new found country
What newly founded Americans did with their firearms, such as hunt, was not anywhere referenced in the Bill of Rights, or even the Constitution, for that matter. What IS referenced is that a free country, is to guarantee these rights here in America, so as to prevent a NEW England from emerging
Hunting wasn't even in the top 10 reasons for the 2nd amendment
-
You do not have any clue whatever what the motives were.
-
Actually I do.......they wrote them down, for all to see, in both the Federalist papers, and in the Constitution itself. You seem to be the one trying to read something in to what's not there. And failing miserably at it, I might add
-
They were politicians and of course they did not mention anything about slavery or the inability of the government to confiscate weapons.
The most significant reason for the Second Amendment, and keep in mind this was in a time when all firearms were complicated single shot things was because they knew they had no means of confiscating them even if they wanted to.
-
What they were, were the founders of this country. What motiovated them was the tyranny of England. What they hoped to prevent in this country, was waged with the Revolutionary war. And the mechanisms to help prevent that tyranny from ever recurring here in America was clearly articulated and written down in 1st, the Federalist papers, and then made as the foundation via the Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights.
The reason for the 2nd amendment had squat to do with hunting or slaves.....period. The reason AND MOTIVES were specifically articulated in their own words themselves. No need to try and "read between the lines", and make up garbage that wasn't there. We just need to read what IS there
-
I seriously doubt any of them would have been in favor of assault weapons with 50 round clips.
The Second Amendment, like slavery and the Electoral College is something we should have sentm to the garbage heap years ago. Now we will have a massacre victim for every day of the year.
-
What you think/believe, and what is current reality are, ususally seperated by an ocean of facts. I can just as easily opine that all of them would absolutely be in favor of legal law abiding Americans owning assault rifles with 50rd MAGAZINES (they're not called "clips" ::) )....when its a Government that the 2nd amendment was designed help defend the people against a growing out of control, unconstitutional regime
Sorry to disappoint your medevil mob majority madness, but neither the 2nd amendment nor the Electoral College is going anywhere.
-
Hmm
Assault weapon for home defense might be unwise. Isnt their greater collateral damage? Bazzoka definately out of the question.
What insurance company will cover it. You may have the right but so does a company have the right to not lose money
-
xo likes to use hyperbole, such as grenades & bazookas. We could even throw in an MI Abrams, to entertain the hyperbole. Assaut weapons, such as a fully automatic M-16, are not even in the debate. Xo was trying to opine some notion that our Founders wouldn't have been supportive of such a hyperbolic hypothetical. I opined that they would, considering what the 2nd amendment was all about. Currently however, the Supreme court has not absolved the current law making ownership of such weapons, illegal, without special licensing by the ATF
So, I don't think we have to delve into the speculation of what insurance company would cover such weaponry, since no one is actually advocating that as a solution. I'm merely countering xo's hyperbolic speculation
-
The difference between a 1790 musket and an AK-47 is quite comparable to the difference between an AK-47 and a bazooka.
And the Second Amendment was about muskets, flintlocks and other primitive single shot weapons and you know this. Everyone knows this.
-
And the Second Amendment was about muskets, flintlocks and other primitive single shot weapons and you know this. Everyone knows this.
The 2nd Amendment was about rejecting over-reaching control.
The outrageous government has grown, and thus the firepower has grown.
What would be the constitutional point if citizens had the right to only bear ineffective firearms?
The 2nd Amendment is above all the others because it is a line of protection for the others.
The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting and hunting is not mentioned anywhere.
Declaration of Independence:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
-
Nor was the 2nd amendment about muskets....otherwise it would have said the right to bear muskets shall not be infringed. And everyone with a 4th grade reading comprehension knows this
-
The four guns used in the San Bernardino massacre were all purchased legally from federally licensed firearms dealers which means the buyers passed background checks. As usual President Obama's and the Left's knee-jerk response to mass shootings"universal background checks" makes no sense.
Federal officials say Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the massacre's perpetrators, bought the two 9mm pistols used in the attack from gun shops in San Diego and Corona. That means he passed background checks, which indicates he did not have a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record. An acquaintance of Farook's bought the two AR-15-style rifles used in the attack, a DPMS A-15 and a Smith & Wesson M&P15, also at gun shops in San Diego and Corona.
The fact that the rifles were legally purchased in California exposes the fatuousness of another gun policy that Obama favors: a federal ban on so-called assault weapons. California has one of the country's strictest "assault weapon" bans, but somehow it did not forbid the sale of rifles that have been widely described in the press as "assault weapons" (or even "assault rifles," which falsely suggests they were capable of automatic fire).
Targeting so-called assault weapons was always about emphasizing "menacing looks" in the hope of confusing the public, and to this day leading supporters of laws like California's misrepresent the firearms they want to ban. That includes Obama, who describes these semiautomatic rifles as "fully automatic...weapons of war," and Hillary Clinton, who conflates them with "machine guns."
[e-mail]
-
100% spot on
The current manifestation of the liberal Democrat is no longer one that stays cloaked in intentions. They have no problems just lying outright to push a political agenda. And if it takes a tragedy, all the more reason to try and use that emotion to their cause. No longer is that apparently "inappropriate". I suppose you could say that it started at the Wellstone memorial, when a service, that the President was attending, turned into an overt political pep rally.
In any case, despite the rhetoric that supposedly is prompted by the actions taken or being proposed, the transparent efforts to push their political agenda, is bare for all to see. Obamination Care has done everything precisely opposite of what was "pledged". Race card is played is played every time the right races are involved. And here, we have more "common sense gun laws" being proposed that would have done nothing to have prevented this terrorist attack
-
They did not need to say it was about muskets, flintlocks and blunderbusses. Those were all the firearms that were available.
Just like your auto license says nothing about having four wheels.
-
And now there are more modern firearms available. The Constitution doesn't mandate a specific time period to anything. ::)
-
I do not think the government fears the citizens.
This is badThere is no chance that any armed civilian group will even try to overthrow the government.
The chances may be small in any given year, but this is not a zero chance.
How many governments in existence now were formed in revolution?
How many in all historical time?
In the choice between having people and government love each other, having people fear their government or having the government fear the people , the least harm is in choosing to have the government need to worry about the people.
-
The least harm is when no one fears anyone.
This is a false dichotomy.
Is it preferable that the Mall owners fear that the shoppers are going to burn down the Mall or that the Mall security is going to hold the shoppers for ransom?
-
The least harm is when no one fears anyone.
Is this choice available?
If we can get there, why forbid any weapon?
-
Because there will always be nut cases. Sanity will never be 100%.
-
And until you can make a legal classification of what makes a nut case, outside of your opinion, or some act after the fact, the right to carry and possess firearms, in this country, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
-
Notice how there's no rational response to the irrational rhetoric regarding "nut cases"
-
Because there will always be nut cases. Sanity will never be 100%.
The people who commit mass shootings are not always insane, but they are rarer than one in a million in any particular year.
Gun round ups aren't 100% either, the guy that is willing to toss his life away this way will be able to get one if any exist at all, it is a matter of motivation.
The guy that shot all those socialist children in Norway was willing to scour all of Europe to get the gun he wanted, if it had been twice as difficult then he may have spent another week in searching.
Note the Australian experience, after a truly sweeping gun buyback program , spree killings happen at about the same rate as usual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
The Australians count arsonists as mass killers , I think this is fair but it complicates the point about the value of gun regulation.
-
When Japan has mass mass murdering with guns at the same rate as the US, I will believe you have a point.
Until then, nope, not going even to unhook the screen door.
-
japan and switzerland has more in common with each other than the U.S.
I have very little doubt the swiss has lootting problems.
the california I used to know was very similiar to these two countries but now I`m not so sure
-
Americans, Japanese, Swiss all have this in common: if you shoot them, they die.
If deprived of a gun, no Japanese, Swiss, or American will shoot anyone.
-
...and we wouldn't have the Constitution or the freedoms it reinforces in this country. Sorry, we don't live in a vacuum, where if you disarm the good people, that somehow bad people won't still arm themselves, nor stop finding ways to kill good people
-
Americans, Japanese, Swiss all have this in common: if you shoot them, they die.
If deprived of a gun, no Japanese, Swiss, or American will shoot anyone.
When Japan has mass mass murdering with guns at the same rate as the US, I will believe you have a point.
Until then, nope, not going even to unhook the screen door.
So you think that if Japan were just as blessed with weapons as we are , that they would fall to shooting each other at the same rates we do?
How frustrated are these theoretical Japanese murderers?
-
(http://www.lucianne.com/images/lucianne/DailyPhoto/2015-12-13.jpg)
-
So now, somehow President Obama is guilty of the San Bernardino shootings.
It does not matter what he calls these terrorists, because anything they tell him will be in English, and they do not speak English. What they and all Arabic speakers hear will be in Arabic. It bight be translated to mean something like "stalwart defenders of that Old Time Religion".
I fail to understand what is hard for monolingual ignorami to understand.
Explaining language to monolinguals is like explaining magenta to a blind man.
-
So now, somehow President Obama is guilty of the San Bernardino shootings.
And who the hell claimed that??
That said, I'm going use this as a nice tangent for a new thread...... (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=19470.0)
-
So now, somehow President Obama is guilty of the San Bernardino shootings.
More than Condoleezza Rice is responsible for the 9-11 attacks.
Perhaps it is OK to have two standards , but please be aware that you do.
-
More than Condoleezza Rice is responsible for the 9-11 attacks.
No, LESS. Rice and Obama's National Security officer is guilty of 2/3000ths of what Rice is guilty of not protecting against.
-
And yet......STILL UNABLE to provide any specifics as to what she could/should have done to have prevented this attack. You realize she's neither Hermione nor Professor X
-
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/941039_561445340679545_5510805315391308021_n.jpg?oh=faa694deb78c1e711329f26f67de95e0&oe=570737C2)
-
She should have dona a better job of finding out what those Arabs were up to and she should have arrested them.
She was piss-poor at National Security.
And then she got a promotion.
Tenet got a Medal of Freedom.
-
And what could she have done better?? Still waiting for examples of this supposed piss poor job. We've already provided concrete examples of Clinton's piss poor record. Time to provide that same laundry list for Rice......or even 1 item, on the list