BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 12:50 PM

"Never just assume that "they all think this way", Bill.

I don't....Do I have to put that disclaimer in every post? I try to make clear that 'enough' think that way to make it a very serious problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 12:08 PM

And, two were shot in a college dorm this weekend after which the shooter turned the gun on himself. This time they all survived.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 05:07 PM

Never just assume that "they all think this way", Bill.

Remember, that's the mistake that your political opponents usually make too, only they make it in regards to you. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 04:58 PM

110%....are those like that town in Florida a few years, who not only wanted to allow everyone to have a gun, but wanted to require then to? I don't think it stood up in court, but I have seen remarks from those who think 'most' people should be going about armed.

Interesting argument....that "if everyone HAD a gun, them bad guys would think twice!" They probably would...they'd think once about whether to rob or attack you, and again about the best way, so you didn't have a chance to use that 'defensive weapon'.

Who me? cynical? naaawwww...

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 04:04 PM

Well, LH, that is the point... There is not a black or white manner in which to interpret the 2nd ammendment... As a gun control advocate I can live with that as a starting point of the discussion... I think most pro gun control folks can, as well...

But what we get from the other side is dogmatism... They wnat it 100% their way... Not 99% but 100%... This is where the problem is... The right wing is so used to getting everything they want that this is the only way to play the game... Hey, I'm not making a knee-jerk reaction but an observation... I resent being called a knee-jerker as do most folks who would like to see some sane restrictions on gun ownership...

I just don't buy the both sides scenerio as if there is that much complete stubborness or dogma on our side... I believe that we are reasonable people for the most part... It's the NRA suppporters who are 100% knee jerk and unreasonable... No make that 110% fir good measure...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:31 PM

Kent, you said, "But, please, let's not act as if one side of the debate consists of those who take it "literally" and the other side consists of enlightened souls who do not. That is not the issue. What the amendment says is plain enough. The question is what to do about it."

Good point! There are indeed some lazy minds and superficial thinking, as well as knee-jerk reactions aplenty on both sides of the debate (in society generally, I mean, not pointing the finger necessarily at individuals here).

As you say, the question is what to do about the second amendment and about how it is interpreted. That's a complex question, not a matter of black and white.

And that's why I have at times come down to some extent on both sides of this debate...as I so often do...because I see that it is not a simple matter of black and white. There is prejudice and misunderstanding on both sides of the divide, and that's nearly ALWAYS the case in such matters. There are also intelligent and reasonable people on both sides of the divide, which is also nearly always the case. It will be well if they would respectfully acknowledge each other's legitimate viewpoints rather than falling back on extreme rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:10 PM

It would not be the percentage of bad people no matter what.

After a certain point, 2% is little different than 12%. When the population is large enough, and even ¼ of 1% use guns carelessly or criminally, we will get these sad headlines....well, 'part' of the sad headlines. Today, the major news channels carry only the most shocking, multi-shooting stories...or those with an 'interesting' twist.
You barely hear of the kid in a small town in Iowa who commits suicide with daddy's supposedly hidden 'defensive' gun....or the nervous holdup guy in Alabama who shoots a 7-11 clerk. You can go look up the totals, though....and the number of deaths & serious injuries are pretty shocking, no matter how you spin the percentages! It's a lot to accept, just so a bunch can kid themselves that they & their families are 'safer' with guns in the house.

Yes, there ARE, I say again, a certain % who can be trusted with guns, and whose life or job requires 'some' sort of extra help....but not millions.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:41 PM

That's the problems, Kat... The pro-guns-at-any-cost folks don't thinl there is a problem... They must think that the reason that the US has a monterously high murder rate compared to other developed nations is that we have a greater share of bad people than those countries??? I know... It is completely unfathomable to folks who see the number of guns as the variable here and not the percentage of bad people...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:56 AM

A professor would not have been able to murder his ex-wife and two of her colleagues this weekend if he'd only had a BIC. He is now on the run, "armed and dangerous" as they say, leaving behind two small children now motherless and witness to her murder.

Two cops who answered a domestic disturbance would not be dead if the man who shot them, killed by cops himself after, had only a BIC. The list/killing is endless. I don't give a shit what was meant back when, what I care about is doing something about it NOW. Much of what BillD has suggested is specifics, workable, imo, and at least may offer some solutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:06 AM

And as fir the lighter??? Columbine could not have been carried out with a Bik... And Virginia Teck wouldn't have happened with a Zippo... And bank robbers would get too far with a note passed to the teller that reads, "Fill the bag with cash 'caause I've got a cigarette lighter in my pocket..."

I measn, lets get real here...

Also, while we are getting real, I agree with what BillD has said there... The language of the 2nd Ammmendment when taken in its entirety is not at all plain and/or straight forward... It is ambigious at best...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:50 AM

"What the amendment says is plain enough."

Nonsense! That is the point. It is NOT plain, or the debate about what to do about it would be clearer....maybe not easy to reach a consensus, but if there were 2 or 3 sentences instead of one, defining 'militia' and which 'people', we could amend the amendment easier.

As to: "Stating a rationale for a thing does not imply that there are no other rationales."

Right...like I said above. Certain people, trained and registered, living in certain places, owning a few carefully defined categories of guns and limited to defined types of ammo...etc.

It's not difficult to explain....it's just that there are many, many who flatly don't WANT any controls that might interfere with their 'hobby' and obsession...no matter how much sense it makes to have more controls.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Kent Davis
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:56 AM

I agree that it is "wise to review documents like the Constitution... and see if conditions have changed" and amend them if they have changed. One problem with the gun control debate in the U.S. is that gun control advocates, in general, are not making a real effort to amend the Constitution.

One of the really serious problems in human life, Little Hawk, is that people refuse to deal with what very old documents actually say. Often they treat plain statements as if they were not plain.

The Second Amendment can be rejected. It can be ignored. It can be amended away. It may be outmoded. It may be absurd. It may be obsolete. Anyone who wishes may speak out against it. But, please, let's not act as if one side of the debate consists of those who take it "literally" and the other side consists of enlightened souls who do not. That is not the issue. What the amendment says is plain enough. The question is what to do about it.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:51 AM

Perhaps. I think if Jefferson could see the place now where he spent his days, he'd be stunned and probably horrified by how crowded, polluted, busy, and just plain bizarre it has become.

One of the really serious problems in human life, Kent, is that people tie themselves to very old documents (such as the Constitution or the Bible or the Koran or the Bagavad Gita or anything else that was written long ago) and they decide to give it total and unquestioned authority, and they try to apply it literally to a situation that is radically different from when it was written.

Would you agree that that can lead to problems?

The problem is in the literal approach, which is an approach taken by people who don't like to think. They'd rather just obey, so they get a book and some "leaders" think for them.

In that fashion some very crazy things have been done by successive generations of people.

Now...if you're enough of a thinker to look beyond literal interpretations of old documents to the core of what was meant philosophically, then you can find much of value there.

The Constitution was trying to prevent a system like the British monarchy from running the 13 colonies in an autocratic way. It was well designed for that purpose, and with high ideals. What we need now is similarly high ideals...and a whole new set of literal forms with which to clothe those ideals.

I think it would be wise to review documents like the Constitution about every 20 years and see if conditions have changed...and if they have, amend the darn thing so that it's up to date.

Otherwise you're following a fossilized form of thinking. Rather like a dinosaur. That can lead to problems.

Remember...it was a group of men who wrote the Constitution, and they did the best they could at the time, but men are not perfect. It was not the hand of God that reached down out of the sky and wrote it. It is not ULTIMATE authority...unless you say it is... and then it's only ultimate authority for you...as long as you believe it is. You have no more backup for that than someone from any other country (or religion) who believes in their old documents and rules. It's all stuff that people made up! All of it.

They may have been inspired (in many cases) by God...or they may not have been...not for me to say, but I know this: no one can prove they were, therefore no one can prove that any of it has ultimate authority over anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Kent Davis
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:25 AM

For the sake of discussion, I will assume that the militia is hopelessly and permanently obsolete.

Stating a rationale for a thing does not imply that there are no other rationales. Stating a rationale for a thing also does not imply that the continuation of the rationale is a necessary condition for the thing's existance.

Suppose my wife married me for my youthful good looks. Suppose, in thirty years or so, I lose those good looks. The marriage wouldn't disappear just because the original reason for it disappeared.

Stating a rationale for a constitutional right does not imply that there are no other rationales. Stating a rationale for a constitutional right also does not imply that the continuation of the rationale is a necessary condition for the right's existance.      

Suppose the 1791 constitution of Lower Slobbovia stated, "The circulation of broadsides being beneficial for the transmission of ballads, freedom of the press shall not be infringed."   What would that mean for modern Lower Slobbovia? It would mean that freedom of the press shall not be infringed. The right wouldn't disappear just because, in Lower Slobbovia, ballads are now transmitted by 8-track tape.

A constitutional right doesn't disappear because one of its rationales disappears. It disappears only if the constitution changes or, if Mr. Jefferson was right about that whole "unalienable rights" thing, it never disappears at all.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 11:46 PM

Actually, Kent, I think the Constitution probably should be amended in that regard, because there is simply no way of recreating the militia of the 1770s in our present day society...unless you were to have a total social revolution here comparable to the Russian Revolution in 1917 or the French or American Revolutions in the 1700s....in other words, a complete overthrow of the existing order in the USA and its replacement with something radically different.

We have a largely urban and suburban society now of sedentary people who are devoted to consumer goods and shopping and TV and fast food, most of them have never even handled a gun in any useful survival way, and those people are utterly incapable of forming the sort of civil defense militia alluded to in the Constitution, and they are utterly uninterested in doing so anyway. They want to buy CDs and go to movies, for god's sake, not go out and hunt for their supper or defend their local municipality! They expect the police to do that for them while they watch "American Idol".

That's how unrealistic it is to expect those lines in the US Constitution from the 1770s to apply to our lives now. It's a pipedream. A fantasy. It's sheer nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 11:38 PM

I'm curious, Kent... do you see no ambiguity in the 2nd amendment? Many, many people, including many legal scholars, believe that the 'bearing of arms', was to be connected WITH the need for the citizenry to be part of a Militia in order to 'keep' the State free. In the 1770s, that meant taking your musket and joining a local group, and possibly a larger 'state' organized group.

That concept has very little to do with the way a modern state, after the time of the Civil War, needs to go about defending itself. We don't send riders to call all able-bodied men to grab their muskets (hand made) and powder and hurry to fend of the British. We need trained soldiers, using **standardized weapons**, manufactured and issued BY the state. And we sure do NOT need those soldiers, after their service, to keep those weapons and try to maintain them and keep a supply of high power ammo at home.
You see what I'm getting at? The Founding Fathers saw no need to explain what a militia was, or to worry about what happened to those muskets after the war. They had very little concern with street crime and had very little way to get 'police protection' to your house. It made sense...then... for home owners to have a rifle of sorts to defend againt attack...or bears... or to hunt for food.

(Why am I typing all this?..it should be obvious)

Anyway, during & after the Civil War, the very nature and needs of a 'Militia' changed, even as guns were rapidly changing and becoming more powerful and standardized by manufacturers. By WWI, with automatic weapons and real 'armies', there was little need for the old concept of 'militia'....and a LOT less need for every household, especially in cities, to maintain a personal arsenal.

But....we still had that pesky 2nd amendment that 'seemed' to grant everyone some sort of 'right'...even though the basic reason for having that right had changed radically. But, oh my! Guys who just liked playing with guns sure didn't want to hear ANY ideas that suggested a more modern view of things! And guys who figgered out that a life of crime was lots easier with stuff like Tommy guns to put up against small town banks.

Now, as we see, that almost 300 year old idea of what a "free state" needed for "security" is being interpreted by those who like big toys that go BOOM to mean....whatever they want it to mean. They HAVE a goal, and by god, everything will be interpreted to fit that goal....and you get slogans about ..."when they pry my gun out of my cold, dead hands." And it sure happens that way a lot these days...after they shoot up some innocent folks who never saw 'em coming.

Gee Kent... you ask "... why not amend the Constitution?"
And you KNOW why...because the gun lobby ties KEEPING their guns to getting anyone elected to get everything else done! And the piles of hidden, unregistered guns grows larger....probably larger than all the 'legal' guns.

And folks start remembering old lines about "shutting the barn door after the horse is gone." And politicians, even the ones who understand everything I said above!, shrug and promise not to mess with guns, so they have half a chance of getting other things passed.

Funny thing about guns....they don't even need to be actually pointed at us in order to hold us up.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Kent Davis
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 08:57 PM

Yes sir, Mr. Bobert,

And thank you for explaining so clearly and in such detail why it is reasonable to fight crime by regulating one tool (guns) but not by regulating other tools.

You are right too that the real issue is "our society's ability to regulate who owns what guns". I submit the following for your consideration: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you don't like that part of the Bill of Rights, why not amend the Constitution?

Obediently yours,

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 07:33 PM

This entire "lighter" line is nothing but a feeble attempt to divert attention from the real discussion... I mean, lets get real here... Ain't no comparison...

So now back to the subject at hand which is our society's ability to regulate who owns what guns...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 04:58 PM

Now yer talkin'! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 04:40 PM

Ok... I give up... I'll toss out all my lighters...and even matches. (Not that I use them 3-4 times a year, anyway)

I will go buy Smith & Wesson .38....

Then, when I want to start the BBQ grill, I'll go thru the neighborhood till I find someone who smokes, stick my gun under their nose, and force them to come light my charcoal.




makes as much sense as some of the ideas I hear...


Oh, and I think you need to specify that it is *Canadian* people that you are so much smarter than. Being smarter than Americans is no challenge....well, except for....ahem...

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 02:08 PM

Lighters are DANGEROUS, Bill! Hell, I wouldn't handle them at all if I wasn't totally clear on the fact that I am far more capable and brilliant and mature than 92% of the people out there. Or is it 98%? ;-D

There's only one disadvantage to being so great. It's sooooo lonely at the top! There's barely anyone left whom I can call a true peer except for William Shatner and, let's see....Marlon Brando? Woody Allen? And, um...hmmmm...

Hang on for a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 01:59 PM

mmm-hmmm... doesn't seem like that pesky constitutional amendment 'stands in the way' of much of anything right now. But mebbe I'll write Sen. Barbara Mikulski and see if she'll sponsor an amendment against ALL fire-starting materials... I suppose we'll hear from the BBQ crowd pretty fast.

(Oh, I AM impressed with how you CLC guys can ignore categories, too.. ☺ ..

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 01:51 PM

The statement "Can someone explain why a terrorist has a greater set of rights than a law-abiding citizen?" is a statement based on a popular myth of really outrageous proportions.

But it sounds great if you want to upset people and drive up their paranoia! ;-)

Try actually being an officially designated "terrorist" and find out what your set of rights are as you get zapped by a skyhawk missile, bombed by a smart bomb, held without charges or trial, invaded in force by the Israeli army, and waterboarded, attacked by German shepherds, and otherwise tortured by the CIA in hellholes like Guantanamo and some even worse (secret) places overseas.

Yeah, sure terrorists have "a greater set of rights" (rolling eyes)

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

(Gotta disagree with you strenuously on this one, GfS.) ;-D

The fact is, everyone's rights are suddenly and permanently abrogated when the $ySStem decides they're seriously in its way. Pray God that they never label YOU as a "terrorist".

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Kent Davis
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 01:12 PM

Bill D.,

If Citizens for Gun Control can worry about guns and ignore ropes, axes, box-cutters, and cars, then Citizens for Lighter Control can worry about lighters and ignore matches, magnifying glasses, and rubbing sticks. Besides, WE don't have any pesky constitutional amendments standing in OUR way.

Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho!
Lighter control is the way to go!

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 12:06 PM

posted by Bruce...'Can someone explain why a terrorist has a greater set of rights than a law-abiding citizen?'

Or why Vets, Constitutionalists, certain Christian church groups, are on the 'potential terror' lists??

Sounds like Germany 1937!

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 10:08 AM

Categories, Kent...categories! *grin* Did you ever study Venn diagrams? A little realistic labeling will show that the class of "stuff that can be used to start fires" has multiple entries that include several types of 'matches', as well as flints, magnifying glasses, camera batteries (ever watch Les Stroud on "Survivor Man"?), and rubbing sticks together.

You CLC members don't wish, I'll bet, to be doing luggage checks for tiny little bows & shredded tinder at airports. I thought not!

Well, at least you provide a few of the 'lighter' moments in this excessively serious discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Kent Davis
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 09:18 AM

Little Hawk,

Enough of the inflammatory (heh)language! You are nothing but a shill for the N.L.A. (or, even worse, the C.L.A., its brother to the north). We at Citizens for Lighter Control would never even dream of a blanket ban on lighters. We just want sensible lighter control and that's all we want. That and instant background checks for lighter purchases and that's all we want. That and lighter registration and making flints traceable by law enforcement and that's ALL we want! That and banning lighters that are too cheap and banning lighters that are too big and banning lighters that re-light too quickly and that's ALL WE want!! That and banning lighters in public buildings and limiting concealed carry permits for lighters and requiring that flints and lighters be stored separately and banning disposable lighters in D.C. and that's ALL WE WANT!!! No slippery slope there, you extremist lighter nut!

Your friend,

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:44 PM

Hell, Kent, I solved that problem years ago...or so I thought! I don't smoke. Problem solved. No lighters.

Then I discovered that a lighter was handy in building plastic models, because you can use it to burn hardened crazy glue off the applicator. The applicater is an ordinary sewing needle with part of the eye cut off. This provides a little thingie at the end that is open-ended and it holds a teeny drop of crazy glue and voila! Part is neatly glued with no excess glue.

But then you use a lighter to burn off the congealed glue after the applicator gets plugged from repeated uses.

And that's just the beginning of the slide down the slippery slope! I live in fear of what may happen now that I am using lighters. My God, the worries I suffer!

Still, it has never occurred to me to call for a blanket ban on lighters...I would not want to put Bic out of business, after all.

Do you follow me? If you do, I have a loyalty oath you can sign and a coded ring for you, and I will send you instructions on a weekly basis as to just what your duties are. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Kent Davis
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 11:36 PM

Bill D.,

I am puzzled that you aren't joining me on the lighter control bandwagon. I tried to apply, as closely as possible, the principles of gun control to this hot (heh)issue. If there are errors in my application of these principles, please point them out.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 05:16 PM

LOLOL.. details........yeah, there are still illegal walkings being done against the signals, but at least at the corners, and not by the hundreds, and so far, I have not seen anyone climb the fence. It is progress.
Making many types of ammo VERY hard to get would be a type of progress also.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 05:11 PM

re fence-

please not the walkers in the picture, and the green light- so they do not have a "walk" signal, nor are they in the cross-walk, and are not legal...


So, tell me how well the law is working with the fence??

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 05:08 PM

(Now I suppose Bruce will point out that the fence is not really quite 7 ft. high... *grin*)

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 05:06 PM

Just so other readers don't just say... "huh?..What's he babbling about... here's the anti-jaywalking fence, and the anti-left turn barriers.

It really does take some work to show that you MEAN the laws.... would that gun laws were that easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 04:39 PM

Oh...BTW..

"...why I keep pointing out when someone makes false statements regarding guns or gun laws."

It's nice to keep the details straight, but let's not pretend that strict adherence to precise legal definitions are a defense against the argument that there are guns being sold that are WAY more than 'sportsmen'...etc. need, and that modifying 'legal' guns to illegal configurations is way to easy.

Telling us for the 37th time that we 'have' laws against doing certain things is not nearly enough.

You, Bruce, certainly know there are laws against jaywalking. And you certainly know the area on Viers Mill between Wheaton Plaza and the Metro station...right under the pedestrian bridge. The jaywalking laws were consistently ignored, with people crossing 6 lanes of high volume traffic...even in rush hour. The solution? That 7 ft. high steel fence that runs for a block. On Connecticut Ave. at Howard, just North of Knowles, right in front of the Safeway, it has been illegal for years to make a left turn or go straight across from either direction. Leaving the Safeway, there were 6 signs saying "RIGHT TURN ONLY"... they were ignored by folks who considered it just 'inconvenient'. They finally put up those plastic posts making ONLY left turns into Howard possible.

Sometimes it takes extraordinary measures to get people to pay any attention at all to the 'law'.

Now, when *I* am in charge, the gun 'laws' will not only be designed to be fair, but will have 7 ft. high barriers to supplement the "right turn only" sighs.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 04:35 PM

Just what our founders intended certain "rights" to encompass is exactly the question. The world has changed in some respects, but not so much in others. Seems to me that the right to free assembly meant the same thing in the 18th century as it does today. Same with the right to face an accuser, and the right to know the charges. However, when the founders penned "the right to keep and bear arms", the 18th century firepower, firing rate, and concealability were quite different from today's. So, I see no hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 04:15 PM

You are confusing one "set of rights" with another.

What has to right to a fair trial..etc...to do with the supposed 'right' to carry or buy weapons?


"...already stated that the gun laws proposed do not reduce gun deaths..."

We will probably never know, will we?

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Apr 09 - 02:45 PM

"I wouldn't be upset to have a nice guy rethink his position...."

Neither would I. Perhaps that is why I keep pointing out when someone makes false statements regarding guns or gun laws.


I do not see why it is OK to remove rights to "save lives" ( debateable point: already stated that the gun laws proposed do not reduce gun deaths) from gun violence, but wrong to remove rights to "save lives" from terrorist attacks.

Can someone explain why a terrorist has a greater set of rights than a law-abiding citizen?

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 11:09 PM

Indeed, Joe... many of us know beardedbruce as a good & thoughtful & generous fellow. I try to be clear that I debate a position, not a person. Still, I wouldn't be upset to have a nice guy rethink his position....


oh...and 100

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 10:40 PM

Well, I have to say that I personally know beardedbruce to be a man of respect and good will......he just gets carried away a bit when he's in online discussions.

But about those concealed weapons permits....I think that very few people should need one. Yeah, I think police employment or experience might be a good requirement.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 10:35 PM

ummm.. Kent... Would you like to clarify whether you are just doing a cute parody, or using some of beardedbruce's logic about how banning guns can lead to banning of kitchen knives or ropes or baseball bats...or whatever.
(gee - I think I remember a story about a guy being attacked with a knackwurst...)

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Kent Davis
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 10:07 PM

Another lighter arson today! When will the madness end?

We must stand up to the extremists of the N.L.A. with their divisive slogan "Lighters don't burn things. People burn things." They claim, "When lighters are outlawed, only outlaws will have lighters". That's a straw man set up to scare the poor rural white men who cling bitterly to their Bibles and their lighters. No one wants to ban all lighters.

We just want sensible lighter control. We must license lighters, require an instant background check before lighter purchases, ban heavy-duty "fire-man killer" flints, and outlaw semi-automatic arson lighters and the cheap "Friday Night Lights" favored by arsonists.

How many children must die before we require flic-locks on all bics?!

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:44 PM

Bingo, LH...

Actually I knew the answer to my rhetorical question...

Goldwater can be gigven credit for planting the seed... Yeah it took a while to grow but grow it did and with the help of OPEC the times werr ripe for Reagan...

I really don't count Nixon as part of the story... Nixon was, ahhhhh, Nixon... Not the kinda guy that would egt the Southern Stategist's all lathered up but seein' as the Dems had done the done the Southern whites folks wrong with the Civil Rights Act they voted for him anyway...

But, yeah, the 60's was all ther NRA needed to see... That's when they shifted... Too bad that they are so right winged because they weren't they would be in prime position to be the leading organization for gun safety, which BTW, is the future... Not gun ownership at all costs...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 08:06 PM

Here's my guess as to when it happened, Bobert. I think it happened when the Republican Party decided that it could permanently secure a certain bloc of votes (disaffected and angry mostly rural working class Whites deeply afraid of social change) by using the politics of division and fear to manipulate them.

And when did that happen? Very shortly after Barry Goldwater's huge defeat in the 1964 election. That was when the Republican Party got hijacked by a bunch of neocon idealogues who decided to appeal to the most reactionary and fear-driven elements in American society, paint the Democrats as an un-American, northern, intellectual elite of composed of pansies who are soft on Communism and probably are socialists (gasp!) to boot, and thereby gained themselves the presidency by playing on those themes in a completely unscrupulous and divisive manner.

And it worked! (most of the time) The Democrats did not understand how the heck to deal with political opponents who played the role of "Super Patriot", because if you oppose that role, they call you "unpatriotic" and "elite", and that's the kiss of death in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 07:49 PM

And let's also keep in mind that many of the semi-automatic weapons that can be purchesed at Virginia's gun shows from "private* (haha) sellers without backround checks can be made to fire automatically without a lot of complications...

Which brings us back to this question: When was it that the NRA changed from an organization with a mission to gun safety to one that is only concerned about propagating right wing propaganda and about gun sales??? This is not the NRA that I once knew...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 06:55 PM

WHOOOSH!!!!!!

(the sound of Chongo rushing out the door to attend the Chantilly, Virginia Gun Show)

And they've got "knifes" too! Oh, boy!

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 04:26 PM

For an interesting read, see the website of the Chantilly, VA. gun show

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 02:05 PM

LH that does happen a lot.

A phrase some use to excuse potentially rude off handed remarks is
"I'm just sayin. "

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 02:02 PM

Lemme just say this. I like what I am hearin' here about Virginia! If I did not already have enough firepower at my disposal here ta re-encact the battle of Iwo Jima if the need should arose...I would be pullin' up stakes and movin' straight to Virginia right quick. Yes siree.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 01:52 PM

Oh, and one other caution which all here might heed from time to time:

If you always assume the worst of intentions behind whatever someone else is saying to you, you may quite likely misconstrue what they're saying. Your own negative expectations of them thus become a self-fulfilling prophecy, one which rapidly leads you to conclusions such as:

He's a bigot!

He's a racist!

He's an idiot!

Etc....

(and then you may tell him that he (or she) is one of those things... and I guarantee he or she will be very offended when you do, and will probably counterattack immediately)

In any case, it does not lead to any kind of useful discussion, but it's great for starting a war or a personal vendetta, if that's what you want, and it seems to be exactly what some people want.

Subject: RE: BS: Yet Another Mass Shooting (fill in the blanks)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 09 - 01:36 PM

Let me put it this way, Bruce. In the complete absence of goodwill or respect toward those you are debating with, it is impossible to have a useful debate, because an absence of goodwill precludes the chance of any real communication occurring.

It just becomes a case of people shaking their finger and yelling in somebody else's face and (to quote one of Amos's favorite expressions) "waving their arms around". ;-D

I say this not to single you out particularly, BB, but merely as a cautionary remark regarding the entire discussion and whoever is presently engaging in it.