BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 02:50 AM

"Just in case" the tanks come rumbling down our streets, the helicopters swoop over our hills and soldiers fan out into our residential areas.

Multiply that scenario over 50 states, a million cities and towns and rural areas and one must be aware that they can't possibly cover us all.

And so, you see, 12 handguns and 10 rifles can hold off all the government's men. They surely won't use tanks against us! Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 04:31 AM

It looks to me that the high school massacre has become a 'meme' (I think that's what its called) - an idea which is out there and with a life of its own. Now any disaffected, mentally disturbed youth has the 'option' of murdering his class mates and teachers. Tighter gun control is an obvious answer to this problem but the admirable American founding principle of 'freedom' has become confounded with greed and selfishness - including the selfish 'right' to carry a gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 07:53 AM

probably looks an easier option than settling down to maths homework...

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 07:55 AM

if i could have got my hands on a gun - it might have been me. i hated maths homework.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 08:32 AM

Now any disaffected, mentally disturbed youth has the 'option' of murdering his class mates and teachers

This one is a bit different from that, and very similar to the Sandy Hook one - autistic thug brought up to believe the sun shines out of his arse and given enough weapons for a small army by a far-right NRA fanatic mother.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 09:57 AM

Keeping score:

http://www.shootingtracker.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 11:15 AM

What do you mean, aggressive marketing of guns?

I don't see guns advertised in magazines I read, I don't see them on TV (tho I don't watch much), I don't see them on billboards.

Sometimes I see an ad for a gun show in the newspaper. But I fear that in a society dominated by fear, guns pretty well sell themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 11:31 AM

This time it was Christians singled out for death.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 11:40 AM

I don't see guns advertised in magazines I read,

You're just not reading the right magazines. Or looking at the right billboards.


Aggresive marketing is out there, sure enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 11:43 AM

Bill, you make light of a few points, not least that all the members of Congress who vex Obama so much were elected. Maybe after a few dozen more Sandy Hooks, and when America's infants are going to school in body armour (which won't be long in coming if you accept Shimrod's analysis), some of the NRA stooges might be voted out.

In the meantime, what about your cops (and Navy Seals for that matter) taking priosners alive occasionally? And just generally shooting a few less people? Hysterical episodes like the Boston marathon aftermath, and the rate at which innocent civilians are shot dead by trigger-happy police, can only fuel the each-man-for-himself mentality that seems to prevail.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 12:05 PM

Hospitals in Afghanistan, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 02:03 PM

I think I may have the solution, one that makes America much safer and still obeys the Second Amendment to the letter.

Let people have all the guns they want for whatever reason(s) they give. Simply make it impossible to have ammunition.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 02:39 PM

"What do you mean, aggressive marketing of guns?"

How about gun-shows, where firearms are sold to anyone who wants one, with no questions asked?

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 03:07 PM

How did we ever get by without 4chan? From one of my local papers (sorry their website is such a pile of dogshit):

http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/online-troll-threat-of-gun-massacre-at-edinburgh-uni-1-3905277

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 03:07 PM

How did we ever get by without 4chan? From one of my local papers (sorry their website is such a pile of dogshit):

http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/online-troll-threat-of-gun-massacre-at-edinburgh-uni-1-3905277

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 04:42 PM

This time it was Christians singled out for death.

Eyewitnesses in newspaper report contradict this.

"The shooter would call a person: 'You, stand up,'" Salas said. "And then he would ask them if they were a Christian, knew God, or had religion. And it wasn't like it was stated on TV. It wasn't about that he was just trying to pinpoint Christians, no."

See here

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 06:32 PM

This time it was Christians singled out for death.

Ah, gee - "Christian Persecution?" - - looks like the Profesor is wrong. Again.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 07:13 PM

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34424713

That BBC news article is where the Christian angle comes from I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 07:40 PM

the trouble is i suppose that some americans really love guns.

i have a good friend who loves guns. he goes to gun fairs. deals in them. loves their beauty, in much the same way that i love guitars.

i am not sure you will ever dispel that passion. the guy in question is a sincere and devoted Christian - a wonderful chap, who when he lived in England was loved, and is remembered by everybody with great affection. a sensitive and caring loving human being.

i don't think you will change people by just abusing them. perhaps the sort of re-education that made the big change in attitudes to smoking.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 08:16 PM

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/deaths-from-gun-violence-vs-terrorism-in-one-chart-20151002

That's the last I'll post about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 15 - 08:21 PM

What puzzles me is there seems to be no effort to test out what the Second Amendment actually means.

The interpretation that means it guarantees the individual right to have all kinds of weapons in their homes and about their persons seems to be accepted, even by those who wish it didn't. Hence an assumption that really nothing can be done, even if most people would want it.

But the actual amendment with its talk about "a well regulated militia" is in fact open to very different interpretatations. So why isn't the Supreme Court backed into a corner and required to explore all those interpretations, and make a ruling?

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 12:03 AM

Because money talks. The NRA and the arms manufacturers/traders have lots of money, so they talk very loudly.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 12:21 AM

Precisely, BWM. But surely that means that, for all the well-meaning but helpless-sounding saying of such as Bill that it is a hopeless situation and nothing can be done about it, with sufficient goodwill and enough people bold and dedicated and determined enough to speak out against such as the unspeakable NRA, something could be done about it. Someone, somewhere over there, please, initiate some action that will get the Supreme Court on to the case in a meaningful way, before another uncountable # gets added to that depressing statistic we had a couple of posts back. And I only take the trouble to post yet another such desperate plea because I love the USA, have passed many happy times there, have much family and many dear friends living there; and really do have its interests at ❤!

≈Michael≈≈

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 12:32 AM

And an amendment to the Constitution can be amended, as we know from what happened after the failure of Prohibition. Why should not that bloody Second Amendment be likewise nullified by another Amendment?

≈M≈≈

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 03:38 AM

My post didn't take so here it is again:

The Supreme Court did rule on the 2nd Amendment deciding in a 5 to 4 vote that Americans have the right to have guns to protect themselves. They didn't address the fact that the 2nd Amendment specifically says that the right to bear arms is in behalf of the community, not to individuals. They didn't mention the discrepancy.

This was in 2008, which is recent history. Unless and until there is a preponderance of liberal versus conservative members on the Court it is not likely to be brought up again any time soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 03:45 AM

Yep, I repeat - money talks.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 04:06 AM

Washington Post, 2 days ago,

"Witnesses (Anastasia Boyla and Autumn Vicari,) also said he seemed to seek specific revenge against Christians,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/02/oregon-shooter-said-to-have-singled-out-christians-for-killing-in-horrific-act-of-cowardice/

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 04:14 AM

yes but what i was trying to explain was - the reason why it attracts all this money is that people , quite civilised intelligent people, love guns.

its going to be a bit like legislating against The Beatles. Guns are genuinely popular over there. people have a real enthusiasm for them.

i don't think its just an evil citadel of capitalism you are fighting.

its people. people see a good gun a bit like we see a Tag Heuer watch. its like personal jewelry.

its not really just money - its a whole mindset.

perhaps American mudcatters can correct me if i am misunderstanding the situation - but that's how it seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 07:42 AM

"The Supreme Court did rule on the 2nd Amendment deciding in a 5 to 4 vote that Americans have the right to have guns to protect themselves."

Note that the rights of individuals to have guns was clarified by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment was addressed to states, not individuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: BanjoRay
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 07:50 AM

Jim Jeffries sums it up beautifully

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 01:59 PM

I can't see how the 14th amendment has any relevance to the meaning of the 2nd amendment, or to what the right to bear arms actually means.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 05:01 PM

Guest #, I agree with McGrath. I don't find anything applicable to gun rights in the Fourteenth Amendment. What am I missing?

14th Amendment deals with:
1."anchor babies" and due process of law
2. How Representatives are to be apportioned.
3. Rules on Representatives
4. Public debt

Text 2 is interesting. It asserts that a population of citizens shall consist of "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. " That qualifier is certainly as much to the point as the 2nd Amendment's "well-regulated militia being necessary to the state". Indians (Native Americans) do vote today presumably because they are taxed.

It goes on to mention that voters shall be 21 years of age. And yet, no one insists upon that today.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 05:18 PM

26th amendment changed the voting age limit, making votes at 18 legal.

Whatever the 2nd amendment means, if Americans wanted to change it, they could. And if they wanted, no matter how rich the NRA is, they could make it as toxic an organisation as the Klan.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 05:51 PM

"Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation."

from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 06:33 PM

Can't see it myself, nameless Guest. Deciding that the Second Amendment applies to states doesn't in any way address what it actually is that the Second Amendment means.

It is pretty clear the Supreme Court often decides stuff according to the political balance of the members at any time, with only the most tenuous connection with the text of he Constitution. And of course it can then go on to find ways to reverse what it previously determined, when that balance has changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 06:37 PM

While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation."

Unfortunately, Justice Alito is an idiot, whilst Justice [sic] Thomas is arguably the LEAST qualified justice ever to sit on the Supreme Court.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 06:56 PM

Thanks, Bruce.

The problem with bias in the USA Supreme Court is that they tend to be human. Maybe in the future we'll have a robotic Court which will go by logical interpretations of the USA Constitution.

And then - finally - we'll all take a logical view of the Second Amendment.

But can we wait another 100 years? Not likely. If we go on killing the young, the helpless and the innocent we'll have a bloody revolution on our shores. I realize that could apply to capital punishment as well as to legal abortion. This is a complicated world.

And frankly, I am not just concerned with the "young, helpless and innocent". We need to protect and isolate the criminal elements within us, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 08:18 PM

The problem with bias in the USA Supreme Court is that they tend to be human.

Human? No, the problem is that against all reason, precedent, and law, they tend to be partisan.

Particularly the Republican idiot justices who piss and moan about "activist" justices and then proceed to be just that.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 04 Oct 15 - 09:14 PM

Hi, Ebbie. I have no problem with the Second as written; the problem comes from interpretations of that amendment (such as the Fourteenth for example). A well-regulated militia may or may not be necessary these days, but there's nothing well-defined about militia if people on the street take that to mean them personally. And when the SCOTUS extends the meaning of militia to also mean the individual, the door sure opens wide to all kinds of people who want to keep up with the Joneses. The NRA is a private interest and it is running a political agenda and spending big money to coerce politicians across the board. It has 1200 lobbyists in Washington. There must be lotsa money to be made convincing folks they need a weapon. Sooner or later there will be a confluence of fear, need and exasperation resulting in a reinterpretation of the Second, but until that time whatcha see is whatcha get. I don't envy you folks in the present situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 06:24 AM

it all comes down to the same thing. in a democracy - the law is not set in stone - it reflects the will of the people as much as is possible.

would you be having these debates about the niceties of constitutional law, if the people WANTED gun control.

if you WANTED it, you would have it.

however a lot of people love their guns.

when we wanted to get rid of smoking, we showed people what a forty a day habit did to peoples lungs.

maybe you need to do some videos showing what a bullet does to human body. i think n Europe we had a generation that saw up close what weapons of war did. they couldn't really avoid it, when bombs fell from the sky on them. it was a severe education, but at least we learned that guns and bombs were to be avoided.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: wysiwyg
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 08:21 AM

A major motivation behind the adoption of the second amendment was white landowners' fears of insurrection by enslaved Africans, and of a Federal government action to end slavery altogether.

Educate yourselves on this point of history:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 08:55 AM

That was certainly part of it, W y s i w y G !. However, slavery today in North America and elsewhere is economic. That is enforced by police and well-regulated militias. And I'd guess that is part of the reason people are so reluctant to give up their guns. I wish y'all luck with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 09:40 AM

Might it be that, in a country where gun ownership is allowed it is only a small step from the right to own a gun to the right to use a gun. From there how great a step is it to the right to shoot someone?
The USA has made its position clear. People have the right to own guns. The direct result of that is the death of tens of thousands of people every year. Americans are not stupid, they know what the price of gun ownership is and are prepared to pay it.
People from other countries may deplore that state of affairs but it's not really their business. Just be grateful that the likelihood of a mass shooting is much reduced in your nation because of your national gun control laws and stop preaching to the USA, it just gets on their tits.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 10:32 AM

I've said this before on earlier threads, but for the sake of adding broader perspective, objectivity, and honest disclosure.

I'm a Brit, a lefty liberal progressive regarding politics & social issues..

I despair of the extent of gun killings afflicting the USA.
I even lost a close relative to suicide by legally owned shotgun..

Yet... I would own and collect guns if I was allowed to.

For reasons Big Al has already described...

To enjoy & appreciate guns as objects of fine engineering and design,
like classic cameras and guitars.

To enjoy firing them at safe and secure target shooting ranges a few times a year.

Would I trust myself as a responsible intelligent gun owner - yes.
Would I need to keep bullets at home - no, that's not very sensible.
Would my wife be happy If I owned guns - certainly not.
I already squander too much money on guitars, fuzz boxes and amps.

Ok.. so Brit Law does not allow me to own guns - too bad.. no big deal.. not a problem..
I can get over it.

There's plenty of entertainingly idiotic gun worship culture TV series on Discovery / History Channel etc...

The folks making these documentary reality shows may be hilarious redneck stereotypes,
but at least we get to see a few minutes of interesting factual expert workshop material
of guns being engineered & repaired.

Plus regular thrilling big bangs and exploding water melons..... 😐

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 11:20 AM

What I find a bit baffling is that one of the reasons Americans put forward for owning guns is to defend themselves against their own government. This is a country which loudly proclaims that its version of democracy is the best in the world, to the extent of trying to impose it on other countries at gunpoint, and yet it apparently results in governments which are so distrusted that people feel the need to arm themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 01:46 PM

I despair of the extent of gun killings afflicting the USA.

What, a mere 35K per annum? Small potatoes. Nothing to concern yourself about.

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 01:59 PM

"People from other countries may deplore that state of affairs but it's not really their business. Just be grateful that the likelihood of a mass shooting is much reduced in your nation because of your national gun control laws and stop preaching to the USA, it just gets on their tits.

Yes, I bet it gets on citizens tits in other countries when the US not only preaches to them, but marches into their countries, guns blazing, brings about 'regime-change' on a pretext built on lies and fabrication, and causes a million of those foreign citizens to be killed.

People in glass-houses.......

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 02:26 PM

"I despair of the extent of gun killings afflicting the USA.

What, a mere 35K per annum? Small potatoes. Nothing to concern yourself about."

Yeah but more than half are suicides.. so that's kinda alright...

No half arsed attempts with paracetamol or bleach,
no repeated distressing attention seeking cries for help..

.. leaving families in fear of the next botched attempt.

No just a decisive bullet, and bang.. job done....

My relative carefully planned sawing off a shotgun to enable taking out the heart
rather than the face and head.. that was considerate.

Another relative kept the family in anxiety and emotional blackmail for years
with minor paracetomol overdoses...

Just saying.. another element of gun misuse to throw up for consideration...??? 😢

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 04:32 PM

" However, slavery today in North America and elsewhere is economic. That is enforced by police and well-regulated militias. And I'd guess that is part of the reason people are so reluctant to give up their guns. I wish y'all luck with it."

One of the best lines on this thread #

Subject: RE: BS: Umpqua: the gun was innocent...
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Oct 15 - 08:25 PM

On Facebook today I watched Jim Jeffries, (I think) an Australian (? I no longer remember) comedian do a show asking questions of Americans who have guns and "need" them for the protection of themselves and their family.

He said (paraphrased) So you have your gun in your bedside table? So your kid is going to take it out, thinking it's a toy, and shoot his brother or sister!

Gun Owner: No. I am a responsible gun owner. I keep my guns locked in a safe.

Jeffries (paraphrased): Then you don't have them available for protection! Are you going to tell the intruder to wait a minute while "I get my gun. You chose the wrong house, mister- you'll see... Just a minute here."