• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

imaplanner said:
Hi Mike. I wonder what media you are watching where you got the idea that the media is not mentioning Haspel as the potential first woman to lead CIA? I heard that mentioned on NPR, and NBC, and read it mentioned on WaPo and some others I can’t remember. I’m wondering why you think they haven’t mentioned it.
Click to expand...

The only media that I follow is the local stations. None of them mentioned it that I recall. I don't trust any of the national news groups as they are all biased in some way.
 
michaelskis said:
The only media that I follow is the local stations. None of them mentioned it that I recall. I don't trust any of the national news groups as they are all biased in some way.
Click to expand...

Bias is in the eye of the beholder. You can watch national news and realize what they are saying, then look at other news to get more informed. Not looking is much worse than pretending like NBC is so bad that you can't watch it.

Fox News or MSNBC are pretty clear in their bias. Just watch it knowing that.

NBC / ABC / CBS is certainly left leaning, but not so much so that you can't watch it to get the news.

NPR is left leaning, but generally focuses on actual issues (although they certainly focus on left leaning issues and ask pretty softball questions to D's and much more directed questions at R's).

Consuming "fake news" is easy to do, but being vigilent about the sources and looking at lots of different angles, allows you to have a truer picture.

Putting your head in the sand (or using local stations with much less expertise in much of anything), is not the solution IMO.
 
My problem isn't so much the bias of media, but I do hate that, I hate the selected coverage. The Pres did something right! You know MSNBC ain't covering that. The Pres just got subpoenaed! Fox is covering a story about a dog that found its way home.
 
Sorry, but your comments deserve an answer.

5 bombings most likely created by legally obtained everyday items have killed 2 people.

1 shooting done with a legally obtained item killed 17 kids.

No one can outlaw the materials needed to make bombs since they are common household cleaners or other everyday items.

We can put limits on the other legally obtained item to reduce its ability to kill so many so fast, but I think you already agree there should be some limits.
 
Another HS shooting in Maryland, however this time the SRO returned fire and killed the shooter..unfortunately after 2 students were shot (one in critical condition).

I fear that the NRA & tRump will again call for armed school teachers because "SEE IT WORKED" when actuality it didn't; but it did thankfully minimalized the shooting. This was a SRO too and not a teacher. Understand that if a shooter wants to get in a building, they can and they'll start shooting regardless if there are other guns in the building.
 
Thus far this seems to be more of a targeted shooting, not a shooter intent on taking everybody out. Not saying that's necessarily better, just that his motives may have been a little different. It just seems like so many kids can't deal with being told "no" or any type of rejection.

Cue Mskis telling us that schools in Maryland are gun free zones in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
 
michaelskis said:
Yet another explosion. (Link to CNN because no one will trust anything else. :r:)

Here is a great idea, how about Texas pass a law saying that exploding packages are illegal! That should fix the problem. 8-!:r::not:
Click to expand...

I can't begin to tell you how much someone like me that lives in the Austin area does not appreciate this comment.

If you are truly interested, KXAN out of Austin has the best coverage right now.

The good news is that the jackass doing this had one that didn't go off as intended inside a FedEx distribution center, and they have traced it to the FedEx location where it was mailed. That means they're probably close to identifying the person that dropped it off.

The one that worried me the most was the trip-wire. That is only a few design iterations from a true IED.
 
dvdneal said:
Sorry, but your comments deserve an answer.

5 bombings most likely created by legally obtained everyday items have killed 2 people.

1 shooting done with a legally obtained item killed 17 kids.

No one can outlaw the materials needed to make bombs since they are common household cleaners or other everyday items.

We can put limits on the other legally obtained item to reduce its ability to kill so many so fast, but I think you already agree there should be some limits.
Click to expand...

My point is you can't legislate out evil. They will find a way and all it does is take weapons out of the hands of people who should have them. If a person is going to break the law to this extent, they don't care about breaking other laws too.


Planit said:
Another HS shooting in Maryland, however this time the SRO returned fire and killed the shooter..unfortunately after 2 students were shot (one in critical condition).

I fear that the NRA & tRump will again call for armed school teachers because "SEE IT WORKED" when actuality it didn't; but it did thankfully minimalized the shooting. This was a SRO too and not a teacher. Understand that if a shooter wants to get in a building, they can and they'll start shooting regardless if there are other guns in the building.
Click to expand...

I am all for SRO being armed in the schools. Not only do they protect the students, I believe that the program can go a long way towards improving relations between students and local law enforcement. I don't think that every teacher should have a gun, but I still believe that with additional and extensive training on their dime along with extensive background checks, teachers should be given the option to concealed carry if they so choose.

MD Planner said:
Thus far this seems to be more of a targeted shooting, not a shooter intent on taking everybody out. Not saying that's necessarily better, just that his motives may have been a little different. It just seems like so many kids can't deal with being told "no" or any type of rejection.

Cue Mskis telling us that schools in Maryland are gun free zones in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
Click to expand...

Yep... (LINK)
 
Suburb Repairman said:
If you are truly interested, KXAN out of Austin has the best coverage right now.
Click to expand...

I can't believe the lack of coverage on this. There's no difference between this and the anthrax attacks, yet this one gets no publicity. There is a single buried headline on CNN.com right now, right next to "Facebook's Stock Tumbles Again" and "This Is the most tweeted about movie ever". It's not even getting coverage on the NY Times or HuffPo.
 
AG74683 said:
I can't believe the lack of coverage on this. There's no difference between this and the anthrax attacks, yet this one gets no publicity. There is a single buried headline on CNN.com right now, right next to "Facebook's Stock Tumbles Again" and "This Is the most tweeted about movie ever". It's not even getting coverage on the NY Times or HuffPo.
Click to expand...

Err...google new york times austin bombing. They're covering it.
 
michaelskis said:
My point is you can't legislate out evil. They will find a way and all it does is take weapons out of the hands of people who should have them. If a person is going to break the law to this extent, they don't care about breaking other laws too.
Click to expand...

You might not legislate evil, but we can legislate stupid or at least make evil harder to accomplish. I personally hate this attitude because it's the attitude of a quiter. Oh we can't do anything so why bother trying to fix it. Which is not really what your saying, I just hear this way to often around my town. That along with, "It's the price we pay for the second amendment." You pay the price with your kids, not mine. I can fix it real easy. No more things that can kill large amounts of people. Before you start talking about knives and cars and other things that kill people realize that I've had to show my ID for cough medicine more than I do for voting just because some idiot can make a drug out of it.

What's worse is our stupid elected officials who react to a dead dog in an overhead bin, but don't react to a bunch of dead kids in a school and this is considered okay.
 
dvdneal said:
You might not legislate evil, but we can legislate stupid or at least make evil harder to accomplish. I personally hate this attitude because it's the attitude of a quiter. Oh we can't do anything so why bother trying to fix it. Which is not really what your saying, I just hear this way to often around my town. That along with, "It's the price we pay for the second amendment." You pay the price with your kids, not mine. I can fix it real easy. No more things that can kill large amounts of people. Before you start talking about knives and cars and other things that kill people realize that I've had to show my ID for cough medicine more than I do for voting just because some idiot can make a drug out of it.

What's worse is our stupid elected officials who react to a dead dog in an overhead bin, but don't react to a bunch of dead kids in a school and this is considered okay.
Click to expand...

How about we start by taking guns away from criminals. Do you think that politicians would be willing to give up all of their security detail? Pull the metal detectors out of federal buildings maybe? After all if we say people can own things that could kill large amounts of people, there should not be any worry, especially being that criminals and sociopaths are so good at following the law.

I agree that the elected officials are not helping because you have to extreme polar opposites trying to out stupid each other. I think that 21 to buy a semiautomatic firearm is not an issue for most people and I think most people would welcome the idea of background checks. But if you take the idea of 'that can kill large amounts of people, that is a very long list of things that people might not want to give up... like cars, air planes, alcohol, cigarettes, and many other things that are not constitutionally protected. As for showing your ID to buy cough medicine, I have to show my ID just to bring any of my weapons to a public shooting range. To buy the weapon, it was substantially more extensive. To get a concealed carry permit, it was profoundly more extensive. Until my beard turned grey, I had to show my licence to buy beer too.

The other option, which people seem to want avoid is if you intend schools to be truly gun free, then put metal detectors in the entryways and treat it like you would a federal building, courthouse, or an airport. Armed security guards with check points and secured class rooms. But there is more effort that goes into protecting our politicians than there is our children.
 
Facebook stock tanked another 4.5% today. It needs to drop 45% more.

I hope everyone here who has a FB account appreciates the magnitude of this breach of private data. And there needs to be severe punishment and huge fines if these allegations (that FB allowed private companies to manipulate data) prove true.
 
Now that they caught the bastard in Austin we have a betting pool on how long and which agency politicizes this thing first. So far everyone just reports that it's a 24 yo white man. Fox made sure to post the president's tweet. All normal so far and not overly political, yet.
 
imaplanner said:
It’s being covered but not like other terrorist attacks usually are. I don’t understand why.
Click to expand...

Location plays a role. Austin is a nice-sized city, but it doesn't register on the American radar the way something in other higher profile cities does. Also, it didn't target school children, which is what tends to drive headlines regarding incidents like this. Likewise, there just isn't a lot of information to report, or at least not information that the police could share with the public.

Finally, the Austin bomber did not have a recognized motive & target profile developed. Contrast that with the Unabomber, who had a published manifesto & targeted people related to modern technology. The Unabomber also targeted institutions--universities & airlines--which made the story a bit more intriguing. The Austin Bomber had only been at this for a few weeks, so there wasn't a lot of narrative. A reporter will tell you that crafting a story around apparently random acts is pretty difficult. Profilers were only just beginning to make public descriptions in Austin.

Thankfully, the guy decided to blow himself up in his car this morning as SWAT closed in on him.

24 year old white male. Once again.
 
I'm kind of ambivalent about this sort of thing, but here's an article where a former director of the CIA suggests Putin may have something bad on Trump.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/us/politics/trump-mueller-russia.html?partner=msft_msn
I say ambivalent because on the one hand a former Director of our nation's intelligence agency is making claims that appear to be operating on the level of conspiracy theory. People that hold or that have held in the past positions of great public responsibility should know that it's incredibly irresponsible to make pronouncements like this without compelling evidence. He should know better. On the other hand, there is a sort of delicious schadenfreude in seeing Trump served up with the very same tools he wields so regularly in his own stock and trade. Unsubstantiated claims seem to resonate powerfully with his base and I can't help wonder if it doesn't shake their faith in Trump any when someone else comes out making plausible-sounding yet unsubstantiated (or at any rate as unsubstantiated as those regularly made by Trump) claims against their hero?
 
McMaster is out.

Another hardliner is in.

I guess the only good news is that it will bring more turmoil to the White House and hopefully more intense and unrelenting misery for Trump down the road.
 
Watching people around Trump drop like flies, I'm reminded of my earlier thoughts about Trump. I never understood why he got even an ounce of credit as a businessperson. If he was really to great of a leader & manager in business, he would likely have been actively sought for joint ventures in private equity takeovers of businesses, had a robust management/business consulting business, and been involved in corporate merger activity. Good leaders in business tend to have relatively stable orbits of talented, well-qualified people around them and when they do leave, they go on to greater positions (that stellar COO becomes CEO at another company, etc.). You don't see that with Trump at all. He doesn't have a "coaching tree" of people that worked for him going on to great business success elsewhere. Even conservative business-related publications have described his business as more akin to a 19th Century model.
 
He just seems to be the kind of boss that needs yes men surrounding him. If you're a good employee and give him winning ideas he loves you, but takes the credit for it. If you screw up one time you suck and you're fired.
 
Risch, who was holding up the spending bill because a provision renamed the White Clouds Wilderness preserve in Idaho to the "Cecil D. Andrus-White Clouds Wilderness" preserve, after the former Democratic Idaho governor. First approached by what one source described as an "angry" Risch Thursday morning, Senate staff spent an entire day trying to figure out not just how to satisfy Risch's concerns -- which were made clear to be serious from an early stage -- but also exactly why they existed. Aides soon realized stemmed back to a home-state political rivalry with Andrus, the sources said.
Click to expand...

Why the hell do people like this keep getting voted in, ugh. So ridiculous. That's it, the whole reason why he wanted to hold up an entire bill, a freaking grudge. What a POS. He ultimately allowed the vote to proceed, but voted against the final bill just because they didn't axe the stupid name change. :-@
 
AG74683 said:
Why the hell do people like this keep getting voted in, ugh. So ridiculous. That's it, the whole reason why he wanted to hold up an entire bill, a freaking grudge. What a POS. He ultimately allowed the vote to proceed, but voted against the final bill just because they didn't axe the stupid name change. :-@
Click to expand...

The bigger question to me is why is there a name change provision in a spending bill?
 
I know some of you attended the protests this weekend and I have a question for you. Was is gun violence, gun violence in schools, violence in schools, violence in general, or was it guns in general that were being protested? Seeing some of the clips on FB and other places make me think that people were protesting guns more than anything else.

I am 100% in support of preventing all violence in schools, especially gun violence. But I have yet to hear one rational suggestion from those who were protesting in how to prevent it. And no, taking away guns from law abiding citizens who have completed background checks is not rational. That is just stupid and per the second amendment unconstitutional. I am fortunate that that the vast majority of people in here are rational.

Thus, I am going to ask the question. What can we do to keep our kids safe?
 
michaelskis said:
I know some of you attended the protests this weekend and I have a question for you. Was is gun violence, gun violence in schools, violence in schools, violence in general, or was it guns in general that were being protested? Seeing some of the clips on FB and other places make me think that people were protesting guns more than anything else.

I am 100% in support of preventing all violence in schools, especially gun violence. But I have yet to hear one rational suggestion from those who were protesting in how to prevent it. And no, taking away guns from law abiding citizens who have completed background checks is not rational. That is just stupid and per the second amendment unconstitutional. I am fortunate that that the vast majority of people in here are rational.

Thus, I am going to ask the question. What can we do to keep our kids safe?
Click to expand...

I think at some point you will have to realize that your point of view is not shared by most of the next generation. Mainly the idea that guns are objects that MUST be protected. These kids are tired of being scared. They aren't as interested in the fear mongering and false protectionist arguments that the last couple generations have proliferated. I think your definition of rational is probably pretty different from theirs. And they are the biggest generation yet. Once / if they start voting their views are going to shape our country. That is the big question. Will they follow through on their promise?

---

In terms of the March, I have no issue with these kids marching. It doesn't scare me, like it seems to many on the right. I think these kids are opening their eyes and hopefully it will lead to a more engaged youth. We like to demonize the millennials and the younger generation for playing too many games (we even want to pretend like that is what is causing these mass shootings), and then we are mad when they are active and have their own thoughts? I just don't see it that way. I am pleased that they are engaged and interested in the future of our country. More minds and more engaged people means that we have more people thinking about the problem and hopefully finding a solution.
 
michaelskis said:
I know some of you attended the protests this weekend and I have a question for you. Was is gun violence, gun violence in schools, violence in schools, violence in general, or was it guns in general that were being protested? Seeing some of the clips on FB and other places make me think that people were protesting guns more than anything else.

I am 100% in support of preventing all violence in schools, especially gun violence. But I have yet to hear one rational suggestion from those who were protesting in how to prevent it. And no, taking away guns from law abiding citizens who have completed background checks is not rational. That is just stupid and per the second amendment unconstitutional. I am fortunate that that the vast majority of people in here are rational.

Thus, I am going to ask the question. What can we do to keep our kids safe?
Click to expand...

I think one of the issues is that we maybe need to consider more universal gun control laws, rather than simply letting the states determine their own measures of appropriate gun control (to some extent at least). I understand that argument that criminals don't follow the laws, but most (all?) of the guns that are used are purchased legally by someone at some point before falling into someone else's possession. Or are purchased legally by someone that has never violated any laws but snaps and purchases a gun specifically to do serious harm. If states all have different laws, someone intent on doing harm can legally acquire guns from a nearby state with less strict laws.

And by supporting common sense gun control measures that limit everyone's ability to acquire certain types of firearms, we also limit the overall supply available that those intent on doing harm have access to. (If your parents/siblings/best friend/first cousin twice removed/neighbor don't have the gun/accessory piece you need to commit whatever atrocity, it's harder for you to get your hands on it yourself.)

To me, this is the argument that seems to be missed overall - supporting better gun control legislation reduces the overall supply which reduces the ability of criminals or those intent on doing harm to have access.
 
How bad is this ?

Mnuchin
Watch Fox’s Chris Wallace School Mnuchin on Unconstitutionality of Line-Item Veto
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...on-unconstitutionality-of-line-item-veto.html

Santorum
‘Mr. Santorum. CPR doesn’t work if all the blood is on the ground’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mass-shooting-victims/?utm_term=.59be7094ffa4

The Superintendent of the Blue Mountain School District
Superintendent Says Students Are Armed with Rocks In Case of a School Shooting
http://wnep.com/2018/03/22/superint...rmed-with-rocks-in-case-of-a-school-shooting/
 
What can we do to protect our kids? First stop the BS rhetoric that people are coming to take your guns. If you don't this next generation might be the ones that gets into office and actually does that. Stop trying to divide or deflect the issue. The issue is that people are getting killed by gun fire. Stop with stupid ideas like - the kids have rocks in the classroom to throw at gunmen - the kids should learn CPR to help their now dead classmates. WTF is wrong with politicians? So what can be done:

Background checks - real background checks, not the quick things they do today.
Register gun owners - makes background checks easier and helps law enforcement do their job when a crime happens. They're all legal gun owners so what are they afraid of? They support law enforcement don't they?
Limit the capacity of magazines to reasonable sizes. You don't need 150 rounds for your AR-15. You can actually reload at the range.
Limit equipment that would turn a semi into a fully auto weapon.
Hold the parents of kids who do the shooting accountable for not properly securing their weapons behind a locker. - That means don't give your kids the combo to the safe.
Up the age to 21 and make sure kids are supervised in handling weapons. Maybe allow it at 18 with extensive training.
Ban guns from those that have psychological problems. You might actually have to extend that to the place that person is living.
I don't know exactly how to do it, but if someone is showing warning signs of going from law abiding citizen to pulling the trigger, stop him, get him some help, do something.
Go back to the 1994 ban on assault weapons. It grandfathers the ones we have so we aren't taking anyone's guns. It just stops new ones.

Definition of an assault weapon: (I pulled it from wikipedia, but it's the 1994 ban)
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
  • Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
  • Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  • Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
  • Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
  • A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Detachable magazine.
Notice I did not mention arming the school, or turning the school into Fort Knox. It's not about the school. Crazy people will just pick a new target. It's about stopping the mass gun fire epidemic. Since I can't predict crazy without violating your rights I'll regulate what can reduce the problem. I'm not against putting a little more federal money toward psychiatric help either. I'd also be happy to see just one of the things in the list above start to happen. Maybe we start by allowing guns in places our politicians work. It seems to be the only place they want to keep guns away from. Why is that?
 
michaelskis said:
I know some of you attended the protests this weekend and I have a question for you. Was is gun violence, gun violence in schools, violence in schools, violence in general, or was it guns in general that were being protested? Seeing some of the clips on FB and other places make me think that people were protesting guns more than anything else.

I am 100% in support of preventing all violence in schools, especially gun violence. But I have yet to hear one rational suggestion from those who were protesting in how to prevent it. And no, taking away guns from law abiding citizens who have completed background checks is not rational. That is just stupid and per the second amendment unconstitutional. I am fortunate that that the vast majority of people in here are rational.

Thus, I am going to ask the question. What can we do to keep our kids safe?
Click to expand...

It may seem unrelated, but step 1 may be eliminating special interest money from politics. This is fundamentally why nothing has happened since Columbine 20 years ago. There has either been no change, or we have actually regressed as a country, on the following since Columbine:
  • Gun access (the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire)
  • Mental health access
  • Access to school counseling (you want to be depressed, look at trends in student-to-counselor ratios)
  • Underlying cultural issues of toxic masculinity
There's several elements within those topics that should have been addressed & reformed regardless of political perspective, but never were. The lack of progress has much to do with special interest financial influence.

School Resource Officers are inconsistent at best. Law enforcement agencies vary wildly on how those positions are treated & trained. For every Blaine Gaskill in Maryland, there is another agency that treats the SRO position like a lazy gig.

The generation of kids protesting is probably the first generation that spent their entire educational life with the shadow of school mass-casualty gun violence looming over them, and they've found a voice. It might not be perfectly articulate. They may not have the answers. They are rightfully angry. But they do have a clear message of accountability for the grownups that failed them.

And how is the NRA spending their time? Bashing on the students. Yep... that'll really advance your cause... smug grownups bashing young people for finding their voice, when we've heard a narrative for years that the youth are entitled, coddled & disinterested. They are acting like the villain from a dystopian novel. They should have been leading the conversation as "representing the interests of responsible gun owners." Part of that mission should include the creation of a regulatory environment that advocates for responsible gun ownership. Now they face a threat to strip them of any ability to shape the scope & depth of future regulations. What I find fascinating is Wayne LaPierre's about-face on many of these issues compared to his early career. And the other smoke surrounding the NRA involving Russia has me far closer to labeling them a treasonous organization.
 
Hink said:
I think at some point you will have to realize that your point of view is not shared by most of the next generation. Mainly the idea that guns are objects that MUST be protected. These kids are tired of being scared. They aren't as interested in the fear mongering and false protectionist arguments that the last couple generations have proliferated. I think your definition of rational is probably pretty different from theirs. And they are the biggest generation yet. Once / if they start voting their views are going to shape our country. That is the big question. Will they follow through on their promise?

---

In terms of the March, I have no issue with these kids marching. It doesn't scare me, like it seems to many on the right. I think these kids are opening their eyes and hopefully it will lead to a more engaged youth. We like to demonize the millennials and the younger generation for playing too many games (we even want to pretend like that is what is causing these mass shootings), and then we are mad when they are active and have their own thoughts? I just don't see it that way. I am pleased that they are engaged and interested in the future of our country. More minds and more engaged people means that we have more people thinking about the problem and hopefully finding a solution.
Click to expand...

I agree that there is a significant portion of the next generation that does not agree with me, however I also know that there is also an active portion that do. I completely agree with the idea that kids are scared in their classrooms because with the current structures, they cannot be protected and thus far, the majority of the political pundits have not provided a rational solution. I support part of the foundation of why they are marching and I agree that they should feel safe in their class rooms and I am all for taking steps to make that happen. But thus far the solutions that have been proposed will not have the end result that they are demanding. Outside of the guns vs no guns thing that I would like to see in place is having door blockers installed for all classroom doors, better attention dedicated towards mental wellness of kids in school, and if we are not going to allow teachers to concealed carry with additional training, then have armed School Resource Officers similar to the one in Maryland. His job is to improve police-student relations and to keep the kids safe.

gtpeach said:
I think one of the issues is that we maybe need to consider more universal gun control laws, rather than simply letting the states determine their own measures of appropriate gun control (to some extent at least). I understand that argument that criminals don't follow the laws, but most (all?) of the guns that are used are purchased legally by someone at some point before falling into someone else's possession. Or are purchased legally by someone that has never violated any laws but snaps and purchases a gun specifically to do serious harm. If states all have different laws, someone intent on doing harm can legally acquire guns from a nearby state with less strict laws.

And by supporting common sense gun control measures that limit everyone's ability to acquire certain types of firearms, we also limit the overall supply available that those intent on doing harm have access to. (If your parents/siblings/best friend/first cousin twice removed/neighbor don't have the gun/accessory piece you need to commit whatever atrocity, it's harder for you to get your hands on it yourself.)

To me, this is the argument that seems to be missed overall - supporting better gun control legislation reduces the overall supply which reduces the ability of criminals or those intent on doing harm to have access.
Click to expand...

I have zero issue with improved gun laws. The only variable is what is improved? Take the shooter in Vegas for example. I agree that the bump stocks should be illegal. Besides that, what laws could have been put into place to prevent him from having weapons? What about the shooter in FL or Maryland?

dvdneal said:
What can we do to protect our kids? First stop the BS rhetoric that people are coming to take your guns. If you don't this next generation might be the ones that gets into office and actually does that. Stop trying to divide or deflect the issue. The issue is that people are getting killed by gun fire. Stop with stupid ideas like - the kids have rocks in the classroom to throw at gunmen - the kids should learn CPR to help their now dead classmates. WTF is wrong with politicians? So what can be done:

Background checks - real background checks, not the quick things they do today.
Register gun owners - makes background checks easier and helps law enforcement do their job when a crime happens. They're all legal gun owners so what are they afraid of? They support law enforcement don't they?
Limit the capacity of magazines to reasonable sizes. You don't need 150 rounds for your AR-15. You can actually reload at the range.
Limit equipment that would turn a semi into a fully auto weapon.
Hold the parents of kids who do the shooting accountable for not properly securing their weapons behind a locker. - That means don't give your kids the combo to the safe.
Up the age to 21 and make sure kids are supervised in handling weapons. Maybe allow it at 18 with extensive training.
Ban guns from those that have psychological problems. You might actually have to extend that to the place that person is living.
I don't know exactly how to do it, but if someone is showing warning signs of going from law abiding citizen to pulling the trigger, stop him, get him some help, do something.
Go back to the 1994 ban on assault weapons. It grandfathers the ones we have so we aren't taking anyone's guns. It just stops new ones.

Definition of an assault weapon: (I pulled it from wikipedia, but it's the 1994 ban)
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
  • Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
  • Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  • Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
  • Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
  • A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Detachable magazine.
Notice I did not mention arming the school, or turning the school into Fort Knox. It's not about the school. Crazy people will just pick a new target. It's about stopping the mass gun fire epidemic. Since I can't predict crazy without violating your rights I'll regulate what can reduce the problem. I'm not against putting a little more federal money toward psychiatric help either. I'd also be happy to see just one of the things in the list above start to happen. Maybe we start by allowing guns in places our politicians work. It seems to be the only place they want to keep guns away from. Why is that?
Click to expand...

I don't think that I mentioned taking my guns, but I did mention people calling for banning guns. So, yea, I agree with stopping the BS rhetoric that people are coming to take your guns, since you brought it up and all.

Here is the question that I have for you, is a semiautomatic .308 deer hunting rifle an "assault" rifle? I ask because operationally, it is the exact same operation and intensity of a AR style .308 but it looks like your traditional wood deer hunting rifle. I do applaud the absolute definition though, but I don't think it will have the end result that you are trying to achieve.

I am all for treating schools like federal buildings. I believe that I have said that a few times now.

One thing that I think that should be a requirement is that people who have weapons should include a statement of how they are to be secured in a safe or other device that will prevent unauthorized access. A few weeks ago a student at Central Michigan University killed his parents. He took the gun from his dad who was a cop. The shooter in FL had his gun locked in a safe and his adoptive guardians where not aware that he had a key. The shooter in Maryland took the gun from his dad's gun safe.

I also think that there needs to be a profoundly better effort when it comes to mental health. According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, 44,965 Americans die from suicide every year, and for each one of those, there is 25 attempts. Half of all suicides are by gun, 25% are by suffocation, and almost 15% are by poisoning. Whereas 1,300 kids are killed by guns each year, which includes both self inflected, accidental, and others doing the shooting. Guns are the tool whereas mental illness is the epidemic. I am all for keeping the guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, but thus far the argument of making guns harder to get is not going to make the differences that you all seem to think. Part of the problem is health privacy needs to be amended to allow for doctors to access the National Instant Criminal Background Check System used by many states when determining if a person can purchase different types of weapons. I also think that there needs to be improved effort and training for people purchasing weapons to be sure that the weapons are properly secured and are not accessible to unauthorized people. Finally, we need to stop avoiding mental health discussions at the political level. No one in their right mind would do something like what these people have done. But society has a failed them.
 
michaelskis said:
I don't think that I mentioned taking my guns, but I did mention people calling for banning guns. So, yea, I agree with stopping the BS rhetoric that people are coming to take your guns, since you brought it up and all.

Here is the question that I have for you, is a semiautomatic .308 deer hunting rifle an "assault" rifle? I ask because operationally, it is the exact same operation and intensity of a AR style .308 but it looks like your traditional wood deer hunting rifle. I do applaud the absolute definition though, but I don't think it will have the end result that you are trying to achieve.
Click to expand...

No you didn't mention taking guns and I didn't mean to imply it. It's just the first reaction of any proud gun owner in my community. You know Obama was going to take all their guns so it's a good thing we've got us a real president now. :r: You mean the only president I know of who actually made a statement about taking your guns without due process. It's fun arguing with people in my town. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

When you look at a .308, and I'm no expert, it meets the rules of not being an assault rifle back in 1994. How do I know, you could buy one back in '94. Where the AR-15 gets in trouble - at least my inexpert opinion - it already has a pistol grip and it's easily adaptable - what makes it highly desirable in the first place - it takes nothing to add a folding stock or any of the other items on the list I mentioned. We should probably add bump stocks and a couple other things to that list. I don't believe a normal .308 can adapt as fast, but aftermarket parts can do amazing things. So maybe ban those aftermarket modifications?

You have to add some definition because people either play semantics with the words even though they know what the other side is trying to imply. It's more of the BS we have to get away from in general discussions, but we need to be clear about when we right laws. We need to stop trying to invalidate the other party and start hearing what the other person is trying to say even if they don't use the right words.

I'm all for improving mental health in our country. I just don't think it's a one and only solution to the problem. It's definitely part of the puzzle though. I believe the whole thing goes back to the definition of a wicked problem.

I do agree with SR. Taking money out of politics would be great and let our country move forward with real solutions to problems and not people talking out their...well, places a boot should be inserted.
 
michaelskis said:
I know some of you attended the protests this weekend and I have a question for you. Was is gun violence, gun violence in schools, violence in schools, violence in general, or was it guns in general that were being protested? Seeing some of the clips on FB and other places make me think that people were protesting guns more than anything else.

I am 100% in support of preventing all violence in schools, especially gun violence. But I have yet to hear one rational suggestion from those who were protesting in how to prevent it. And no, taking away guns from law abiding citizens who have completed background checks is not rational. That is just stupid and per the second amendment unconstitutional. I am fortunate that that the vast majority of people in here are rational.

Thus, I am going to ask the question. What can we do to keep our kids safe?
Click to expand...

Ending gun violence and protecting children from gun violence. I went because my GF is very passionate about the issue. She is all for outright ban. I myself, can't phasom that, but what I can agree with is sensible regulation of guns. Granted, a lot of people were holding up anti-NRA and other signage which i found amusing, but ultimately the 5 young high school students that spoke at our local rally were very eloquent, rationale, and really spoke about change and ending gun violence at our schools. It has been really disheartening to read comments on the book of faces of many, and let me say this, and be blunt about this, many white, middle, age, to white baby boomers, both male and female, completely discrediting what the Parkland kids, and these teenagers are doing. They are taking a stand.

I was a High School senior when Columbine occurred. I remember being interviewed by a local TV station because our high school demographics matched that for Columbine. Honestly, I could have given two shits about gun control and politics. My only concern was what fraternity I wanted to rush at fall and how quickly I was going to leave home and start anew. Activism, wasn't even in my view. What these young adults are doing is something that, as american, we should all be proud of, regardless of our political beliefs.

So what can be done with it?

1. Well, start with universal background checks and an assault style weapons ban. Sorry, but this needs to happen. No citizen, that is not a part of a "well regulated militia" , i.e. a member of united states armed services, should be able to legally purchase such as firearm.

2. Taking that 1.6 billion dollars for a "border wall" and reinvest that money into mental health care and preventative early intervention to students that may be at risk or show signs of potential mental illness in our public and private school system.

3. Reallocate a few billion dollars from defense spending and improve public school security, re-investment, and redevelopment of dilapidated schools. Invest in our children, versus investing in defense.

4. Reallocate some CDBG funding to target outreach and socio-economic changes through public / private partnerships in our most impoverished areas of the country, including the california central valley, appalachia, and other areas where poverty runs wild.


The problem is, while we, as a group can get behind common sense ideas, our nation is being bitterly divided. Social media has made it easy to hide behind a keyboard and convey your deepest thought that in a public setting, would never be conveyed. We camp with like minded ideology to reinforce what we believe, rather than listen and find common ground. I am sure this started with the beginning of the 24 hour news cycle and hyperinflated by the internet. Instead of voting for people that will do what is best for us, or with the intention of what is best for our community, we have let our "parties" get in the way. This was never intended by our founding fathers. We really have failed as community of voters to look past the "R" and the "D" and do what's best for us as a whole.
 
Raf said:
Ending gun violence and protecting children from gun violence. I went because my GF is very passionate about the issue. She is all for outright ban. I myself, can't phasom that, but what I can agree with is sensible regulation of guns. Granted, a lot of people were holding up anti-NRA and other signage which i found amusing, but ultimately the 5 young high school students that spoke at our local rally were very eloquent, rationale, and really spoke about change and ending gun violence at our schools. It has been really disheartening to read comments on the book of faces of many, and let me say this, and be blunt about this, many white, middle, age, to white baby boomers, both male and female, completely discrediting what the Parkland kids, and these teenagers are doing. They are taking a stand.

I was a High School senior when Columbine occurred. I remember being interviewed by a local TV station because our high school demographics matched that for Columbine. Honestly, I could have given two shits about gun control and politics. My only concern was what fraternity I wanted to rush at fall and how quickly I was going to leave home and start anew. Activism, wasn't even in my view. What these young adults are doing is something that, as american, we should all be proud of, regardless of our political beliefs.

So what can be done with it?

1. Well, start with universal background checks and an assault style weapons ban. Sorry, but this needs to happen. No citizen, that is not a part of a "well regulated militia" , i.e. a member of united states armed services, should be able to legally purchase such as firearm.

2. Taking that 1.6 billion dollars for a "border wall" and reinvest that money into mental health care and preventative early intervention to students that may be at risk or show signs of potential mental illness in our public and private school system.

3. Reallocate a few billion dollars from defense spending and improve public school security, re-investment, and redevelopment of dilapidated schools. Invest in our children, versus investing in defense.

4. Reallocate some CDBG funding to target outreach and socio-economic changes through public / private partnerships in our most impoverished areas of the country, including the california central valley, appalachia, and other areas where poverty runs wild.


The problem is, while we, as a group can get behind common sense ideas, our nation is being bitterly divided. Social media has made it easy to hide behind a keyboard and convey your deepest thought that in a public setting, would never be conveyed. We camp with like minded ideology to reinforce what we believe, rather than listen and find common ground. I am sure this started with the beginning of the 24 hour news cycle and hyperinflated by the internet. Instead of voting for people that will do what is best for us, or with the intention of what is best for our community, we have let our "parties" get in the way. This was never intended by our founding fathers. We really have failed as community of voters to look past the "R" and the "D" and do what's best for us as a whole.
Click to expand...

With the exception of the ban on assault rifles, I agree with everything you posted, especially the last paragraph.

Personally, I don't think the ban of assault rifles will do what people think it will. I do think banning any modification that allows the weapon to fire rounds faster than the manufacturer intended should be put in place, but otherwise I think that these semiautomatic rifles are just a scapegoat to appease the politics and social demand to blame someone. I see it much like banning box trucks because they have been used to conceal bombs and they have been used to run down people in Paris. I don't think that everyone should have one and I know some people who own other guns who should not have one. So perhaps an additional level of background checks and required training similar to what you need for a concealed pistol licence would be appropriate. It is kind of like a CDL to drive a large truck...
 
Rick Santorum has, once again, proved himself to be a complete ass.

I had honestly - and blessedly - forgotten all about the guy until I was painfully reminded of him after his comments yesterday.

Yeah Rick, CPR is really going to help a kid lying on the floor with 12 bullet holes in his back.

You can't make this stuff up.

Hink said:
I think at some point you will have to realize that your point of view is not shared by most of the next generation. Mainly the idea that guns are objects that MUST be protected. These kids are tired of being scared. They aren't as interested in the fear mongering and false protectionist arguments that the last couple generations have proliferated. I think your definition of rational is probably pretty different from theirs. And they are the biggest generation yet. Once / if they start voting their views are going to shape our country. That is the big question. Will they follow through on their promise?

---

In terms of the March, I have no issue with these kids marching. It doesn't scare me, like it seems to many on the right. I think these kids are opening their eyes and hopefully it will lead to a more engaged youth. We like to demonize the millennials and the younger generation for playing too many games (we even want to pretend like that is what is causing these mass shootings), and then we are mad when they are active and have their own thoughts? I just don't see it that way. I am pleased that they are engaged and interested in the future of our country. More minds and more engaged people means that we have more people thinking about the problem and hopefully finding a solution.
Click to expand...

Wow Hink, you just summed up in two paragraphs what a lot of people would take two or three pages to convey, including myself. I was never one for articulation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
michaelskis said:
With the exception of the ban on assault rifles, I agree with everything you posted, especially the last paragraph.

Personally, I don't think the ban of assault rifles will do what people think it will. I do think banning any modification that allows the weapon to fire rounds faster than the manufacturer intended should be put in place, but otherwise I think that these semiautomatic rifles are just a scapegoat to appease the politics and social demand to blame someone. I see it much like banning box trucks because they have been used to conceal bombs and they have been used to run down people in Paris. I don't think that everyone should have one and I know some people who own other guns who should not have one. So perhaps an additional level of background checks and required training similar to what you need for a concealed pistol licence would be appropriate. It is kind of like a CDL to drive a large truck...
Click to expand...

These are the kinds of things that go into defining assault rifle for a ban. It's not about a specific weapon, although AR-15s are a poster child, you take away the ability to add assault weapon modifications like rapid fire, bayonet mounts, silencers, large capacity magazines, etc. All the things not needed for hunting or sport shooting or defending yourself or whatever argument people have for keeping these things.
 
dvdneal said:
These are the kinds of things that go into defining assault rifle for a ban. It's not about a specific weapon, although AR-15s are a poster child, you take away the ability to add assault weapon modifications like rapid fire, bayonet mounts, silencers, large capacity magazines, etc. All the things not needed for hunting or sport shooting or defending yourself or whatever argument people have for keeping these things.
Click to expand...

I think the simple solution is to just to require ALL guns to be registered and make that registry public. If someone is using / carrying a weapon that isn't registered to them, then they can be fined / arrested / etc.

This does two things:

1. It shows who is stockpiling weapons and what weapons are being stockpiled. This does not impede on someone's "right" to own any gun they want.
2. It allows police enforcement to have an idea what they are looking for if / when a person is determined to be a threat to others.

If you hunt, collect guns for fun, or otherwise, you will be listed. No gun can then be sold without it be registered to a new owner, lest that owner gets fined, arrested, etc. for not registering.

We then have a list of all the guns in the US and where they are located. We can then trace the origins of "bad" guns that do bad things, and can rightfully go after those who carelessly sold them, if that is the case.

My solution doesn't take guns out of the hands of people, it makes the people who are very interested in owning guns an open book though. Which I am certain will make people uncomfortable who own lots of guns. But that is too bad. That is the price that they pay for potentially having their gun used for something other than what they intended it for.

Data is what we need in my opinion. Lots and lots of data.
 
Hink said:
I think the simple solution is to just to require ALL guns to be registered and make that registry public. If someone is using / carrying a weapon that isn't registered to them, then they can be fined / arrested / etc.

This does two things:

1. It shows who is stockpiling weapons and what weapons are being stockpiled. This does not impede on someone's "right" to own any gun they want.
2. It allows police enforcement to have an idea what they are looking for if / when a person is determined to be a threat to others.

If you hunt, collect guns for fun, or otherwise, you will be listed. No gun can then be sold without it be registered to a new owner, lest that owner gets fined, arrested, etc. for not registering.

We then have a list of all the guns in the US and where they are located. We can then trace the origins of "bad" guns that do bad things, and can rightfully go after those who carelessly sold them, if that is the case.

My solution doesn't take guns out of the hands of people, it makes the people who are very interested in owning guns an open book though. Which I am certain will make people uncomfortable who own lots of guns. But that is too bad. That is the price that they pay for potentially having their gun used for something other than what they intended it for.

Data is what we need in my opinion. Lots and lots of data.
Click to expand...

Personally, I would not support this for 2 reasons:

1) I don't want the public knowing what I own. It is much the same that you don't leave the box from your big screen TV next to your garbage can, if these registries are public, it also informs those who wish to seal guns of which houses to hit in hopes that they are not in a locked safe that can't be cracked or moved.

2) With law enforcement, not everyone is a good person. The majority of people are, however I personally know of cops that would pull over a vehicle if the plate reading came back that the car was registered to someone with a CPL. There were also sheriff departments in MI that would drag their feet as long as legally possible, and often illegally, before issuing CPL based on that particular sheriff's political view point.


Finally, how many of these situations were the result of someone having large stockpiles of weapons? Yes, the guy in Vegas, but there are so many questions about this situation being that there was zero rhyme or reason or any indication of why he did what he did or any prior indicators that he would do such a thing. However, the college kid in MI who shot his parents in the dorm room and the shooter in Maryland both used one hand gun that they took from their parents. The guys from Columbine each had 2 guns which is hardly a red flag. The shooter from Sandyhook had a shot gun, 1 semiautomatic rifle, and 2 hand guns with him, but left 3 others at home and all the weapons were his mother's guns that he took. Does 7 guns raise questions, especially being that only one of them would fit the definition of assault rifle? There is a couple from TX who are being question in Boston who had a large stockpile of weapons... however they were the ones who called the cops because someone was trying to break into their hotel room... and they gave some super off the wall answer that they were on a secret mission when asked about the number of weapons. My thought is they would not have called the cops if they wished to do harm, but then again it does not sound like this couple is playing with a full deck.

Would what you are suggesting realistically stopped any of these events?
 
I'm a fan of requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance for each individual gun and a Federal gun registry (that would not need to be publicly searchable). The gun registry would be cross-referenced to criminal database. If convicted of a violent crime or felony, your licensing is revoked. You have 30 days to surrender weapons for destruction or transfer them (and that person would have to be registered). If a gun is stolen, it must be immediately reported so it can be flagged. If you don't report the theft, then you receive an aiding/abetting charge if the gun is used in a crime. If you sell and forget to transfer, you have a 10 day grace period to correct or face a daily fine.

IN ADDITION, provide a reward program for reporting or turning-in unregistered guns.

This helps create a culture of responsibility & accountability with law-abiding gun owners, and incentivizes the removal of illegal guns from the market.

You won't get all of the bad guns, but it is a start that would make law-abiding gun owners part of the solution.
 
Cranky old NRA intimidated by 'March For Our Lives' kids

3-27kidsmarchnrajpg-ae7f9413f1aa5982.jpg


http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/03/cranky_old_nra_march_for_our_l.html
 
michaelskis said:
1) I don't want the public knowing what I own. It is much the same that you don't leave the box from your big screen TV next to your garbage can, if these registries are public, it also informs those who wish to seal guns of which houses to hit in hopes that they are not in a locked safe that can't be cracked or moved.
Click to expand...

My tv can't kill anyone. I want the public to know exactly what you own. That is the point. And if you are uncomfortable with that knowledge being out there, then you can sell them or get rid of them. Stealing is illegal. I am sure that we can deal with that problem the same way we deal with people registering their cars and buying houses. Both of those could get stolen. But we have police to help with that issue.

michaelskis said:
2) With law enforcement, not everyone is a good person. The majority of people are, however I personally know of cops that would pull over a vehicle if the plate reading came back that the car was registered to someone with a CPL. There were also sheriff departments in MI that would drag their feet as long as legally possible, and often illegally, before issuing CPL based on that particular sheriff's political view point.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why this matters. There are good people and bad people in all jobs. If your argument is that since there are potentially bad cops, we can't have regulations, then I am pretty sure we couldn't do anything. This is not a valid point when looking at this in context.

michaelskis said:
Finally, how many of these situations were the result of someone having large stockpiles of weapons? Yes, the guy in Vegas, but there are so many questions about this situation being that there was zero rhyme or reason or any indication of why he did what he did or any prior indicators that he would do such a thing. However, the college kid in MI who shot his parents in the dorm room and the shooter in Maryland both used one hand gun that they took from their parents. The guys from Columbine each had 2 guns which is hardly a red flag. The shooter from Sandyhook had a shot gun, 1 semiautomatic rifle, and 2 hand guns with him, but left 3 others at home and all the weapons were his mother's guns that he took. Does 7 guns raise questions, especially being that only one of them would fit the definition of assault rifle? There is a couple from TX who are being question in Boston who had a large stockpile of weapons... however they were the ones who called the cops because someone was trying to break into their hotel room... and they gave some super off the wall answer that they were on a secret mission when asked about the number of weapons. My thought is they would not have called the cops if they wished to do harm, but then again it does not sound like this couple is playing with a full deck.

Would what you are suggesting realistically stopped any of these events?
Click to expand...

I am not looking for solutions to stop these events. I am looking for solutions to change our culture. These events, unfortunately, will happen. They will be awful and they will hurt us, but we cannot stop them all. What we can do is try and document (with data) the location of the risk, and try and make it more difficult for guns to be purchased legally. We can also make it very clear to people what their neighbors are doing. People, politicians, etc. will make decisions with all the data, not just some made up stuff. We need data. Lots of it.

---

Suburb Repairman said:
I'm a fan of requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance for each individual gun and a Federal gun registry (that would not need to be publicly searchable). The gun registry would be cross-referenced to criminal database. If convicted of a violent crime or felony, your licensing is revoked. You have 30 days to surrender weapons for destruction or transfer them (and that person would have to be registered). If a gun is stolen, it must be immediately reported so it can be flagged. If you don't report the theft, then you receive an aiding/abetting charge if the gun is used in a crime. If you sell and forget to transfer, you have a 10 day grace period to correct or face a daily fine.

IN ADDITION, provide a reward program for reporting or turning-in unregistered guns.

This helps create a culture of responsibility & accountability with law-abiding gun owners, and incentivizes the removal of illegal guns from the market.

You won't get all of the bad guns, but it is a start that would make law-abiding gun owners part of the solution.
Click to expand...

Yep. Exactly.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I'm a fan of requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance for each individual gun and a Federal gun registry (that would not need to be publicly searchable). The gun registry would be cross-referenced to criminal database. If convicted of a violent crime or felony, your licensing is revoked. You have 30 days to surrender weapons for destruction or transfer them (and that person would have to be registered). If a gun is stolen, it must be immediately reported so it can be flagged. If you don't report the theft, then you receive an aiding/abetting charge if the gun is used in a crime. If you sell and forget to transfer, you have a 10 day grace period to correct or face a daily fine.

IN ADDITION, provide a reward program for reporting or turning-in unregistered guns.

This helps create a culture of responsibility & accountability with law-abiding gun owners, and incentivizes the removal of illegal guns from the market.

You won't get all of the bad guns, but it is a start that would make law-abiding gun owners part of the solution.
Click to expand...

I'd go a step further and require evidence of complete proficiency with every firearm a person owns, as demonstrated to a highly competent neutral third party. (Looky there, I just created a whole new industry!;)) This would include everything from safely transporting the firearm, all aspects of handling the firearm, maintenance, storage at your home/auto/office/wherever, and et cetera. These certifications would be required to be updated on a regular basis (say every 2-3 years, but that would be negotiable).

Too many people get scared and go out to buy a gun and never get any serious safety training with it. Those folks are a danger to us all.
 
Hink said:
My tv can't kill anyone. I want the public to know exactly what you own. That is the point. And if you are uncomfortable with that knowledge being out there, then you can sell them or get rid of them. Stealing is illegal. I am sure that we can deal with that problem the same way we deal with people registering their cars and buying houses. Both of those could get stolen. But we have police to help with that issue.
Click to expand...

I would hope that your TV can't kill anyone... but it is an advertisement that you have something that people want to take. Let's talk about prescription medication. Perhaps we should put a sign on the front lawn of every person who was prescribed pain killers or similar medication that is aiding the drug epidemic. You seem to think that privacy is irrelevant, so why not. Yes, but if a person is willing to shoot another person with a gun, something tells me that they are going to think twice about breaking into your house because it is illegal. I just further proves the point that people are going to do bad things regardless of what the law says.

In regards to cars, can you show me where the constitution says that you have a right to a a form of transportation? Go ahead, do a search, I will wait.


Hink said:
I am not sure why this matters. There are good people and bad people in all jobs. If your argument is that since there are potentially bad cops, we can't have regulations, then I am pretty sure we couldn't do anything. This is not a valid point when looking at this in context.
Click to expand...

It matters because some level of privacy matters, even when it comes to law enforcement. That is why the 4th amendment exists.


Hink said:
I am not looking for solutions to stop these events. I am looking for solutions to change our culture. These events, unfortunately, will happen. They will be awful and they will hurt us, but we cannot stop them all. What we can do is try and document (with data) the location of the risk, and try and make it more difficult for guns to be purchased legally. We can also make it very clear to people what their neighbors are doing. People, politicians, etc. will make decisions with all the data, not just some made up stuff. We need data. Lots of it.
Click to expand...

We have data...

I see that you are not looking for solutions to stop these events but you are looking for solutions that are a total disregard for constitutional rights. The culture that you want to change is not the problem. Depending on which statistic you look at, there are approximately 357 million firearms in the US. Think about that number for a moment... 357 Million. Depending on what set of numbers you look at, more than a third of the households in the US have guns. If gun owners were the problem, don't you think it would be closer to the Wild West.

In 2015, 10,265 people died from drunk driving. Maybe we should make drunk driving illegal. Oh wait, maybe we should make alcohol illegal. Oh wait we tried that.... maybe we should make cars illegal then.

If you want to change a cultural issue, let's look at mental health in the US. Of gun related deaths in the US between 1999 and 2015, 58.7% of the were suicide. Perhaps if people focused this hard on preventing suicide those people would still be alive... totally independent of people who died because they were shot by someone else... who also likely needed mental health help. But people can't push a political agenda on that, so no one cares.
 
michaelskis said:
In regards to cars, can you show me where the constitution says that you have a right to a a form of transportation? Go ahead, do a search, I will wait.
Click to expand...
Seriously mskis? That's funny and reminds me of the conversations I frequently have with righteously angry recipients of my happy-grams.....where in the Constitution does it say someone can't store an old '71 Ford pickup they need for parts on their front lawn? Property that THEY OWN. Huh? Tell me that Mr. Knowitall!! :lmao:

Similarly, if the Constitution says "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" where does it say an owner registry constitutes an "infringement" of that right? Go ahead do a search, I will wait. :r:
 
Maister said:
Seriously mskis? That's funny and reminds me of the conversations I frequently have with righteously angry recipients of my happy-grams.....where in the Constitution does it say someone can't store an old '71 Ford pickup they need for parts on their front lawn? Property that THEY OWN. Huh? Tell me that Mr. Knowitall!! :lmao:

Similarly, if the Constitution says "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" where does it say an owner registry constitutes an "infringement" of that right? Go ahead do a search, I will wait. :r:
Click to expand...

4th Amendment... information, such as number and types of guns, can be kept private. That is why a wiretap without a warrant is illegal. Being that the 2nd amendment protects gun ownership, it has been susscully argued in some courts that this too applies. Same with medical conditions, it is protected info. That's why you can't make locations of people who have medical MJ public.

As for your code enforcement case, I can point to the local ordinance that says he can't and the contituionaland state provisions that say you can regulate those.
 
michaelskis said:
4th Amendment... information, such as number and types of guns, can be kept private. That is why a wiretap without a warrant is illegal.
Click to expand...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...
Sorry. Not seeing it.

If a car is registered with the state does that in any way expose one to unreasonable search and seizure? I thought not.
 
All I see are red herrings and straw men in this argument. I fully expect to see written: "Well tornados kill people so we should outlaw them too." in the next few posts.

This is a great tactic of killing something by what-if arguments and you can what-if anything to death so you just don't have to deal with it.
 
Maister said:
Sorry. Not seeing it.

If a car is registered with the state does that in any way expose one to unreasonable search and seizure? I thought not.
Click to expand...

I am not concerned if you see it or not.Cars are not constitutionally protected either.

But regardless if you think it is constitutional or not, it is still not a good idea for the reasons I cited above.
 
michaelskis said:
4th Amendment... information, such as number and types of guns, can be kept private. That is why a wiretap without a warrant is illegal. Being that the 2nd amendment protects gun ownership, it has been susscully argued in some courts that this too applies. Same with medical conditions, it is protected info. That's why you can't make locations of people who have medical MJ public.

As for your code enforcement case, I can point to the local ordinance that says he can't and the contituionaland state provisions that say you can regulate those.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd have a much easier time following this train of thought if all of those who spent copious amounts of time defending the 2nd Amendment spent as much time defending the 4th Amendment. But far too often I see that particular amendment ignored by those same folks. "I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I care?". All I look for is consistency. And it's not there.
 
Back
Top