Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Bob Butler 54]

In the awareness of sexual harassment and rejection of both the Republican and Democratic establishment parties I see the beginnings of a cultural shift, but neither is a major issue that I would expect to drive a crisis. We'll see. Could we have a return to federalism, recognition that you can not drive the country from Washington DC?

[Eric the Green]

(02-13-2018, 06:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: In the awareness of sexual harassment and rejection of both the Republican and Democratic establishment parties I see the beginnings of a cultural shift, but neither is a major issue that I would expect to drive a crisis.  We'll see.  Could we have a return to federalism, recognition that you can not drive the country from Washington DC?

I would think the lesson is that the DC federal establishment needs a competent driver.

[Eric the Green]

(02-09-2018, 08:56 PM)bobc Wrote: You can quote all of the statistics you want. You can find a magic comma in the 2nd Ammendment that shows that the right to keep and bear arms Shall be infringed.
What you won't be able to do is succeed in disarming America.
You also assume that you won't have to do it, but the same police and military that you despise, will do it for you.

The right to keep and bear arms, is the foundation of American freedom and exceptionalism. You might want to destroy both, but don't assume it will be an unopposed conflict.

The question for bobc and others of his ilk, is whether you want to risk life and limb attacking those who just want to enact some legal controls on access to weapons, without repealing the right to bear arms or disarming people qualified to bear them, and without destroying American freedom. You start the conflict, however, and it will be YOUR freedom that is lost, not America's.

There is no such thing as American exceptionalism. The only thing that can be destroyed is the illusion held by folks like you bobc that there's such a thing.

[Eric the Green]

(02-13-2018, 02:16 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-13-2018, 01:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: We are maybe entering the Information Age / a post scarcity culture.  I would not assume that patterns that worked in the Industrial Age will work now.  I am not seeing the spiral of violence that usually proceeds a revolution, civil war or crisis war.  Both Bobc and you may be making a mistake in assuming an immediate violent confrontation.  The cycle has worked less well anyway outside of the Anglo American civilization.  Either of you using crisis theory to assume triumph of your values may well be disappointed.

I'm sure Eric has a different POV, but, for me, I see us moving past the Information Age into something undefined. We seem to be entering a period (the Post-modern Age?) that assumes that information and connectivity are ubiquitous, but one that is creating disconnection between actual humans IRL. I'm poorly configured to fit in well, but Millies and, I assume, Homies will see this as normal. What that means for society is an open question. Add to this, the PTB will soon be able to know almost everything about everyone. Are we still free agents in that environment?

My POV is not too different, except that I think there will be awareness and a correction to the disconnection and the threats to freedom. I expect this will be a main feature of the next 2T, and have written so in my books sometime ago.

Quote:

Bob Butler 54 Wrote:Usually, the crisis leads to the culture shift.   In the 1960s era, the awakening led to a culture shift.  I am sort of expecting that the see saw between the cultures will end in an era that smells more like an awakening than a crisis.  It isn't supposed to be, but I am not seeing the expected spiral of violence domestically, yet some problems (division of wealth, global warming, productivity increase) are building up.  We are stuck calling those using violence lone nuts rather than see them organizing into large culture altering groups.

The culture shift is well under way, but it seems fragmented and unfocused. I have a hard time seeing a 1T emerging if society is tribal rather than more or less unified. I agree with your list of mounting issues, but don't see any indication that they are accepted as such by more than a fraction of the population. That points more toward anarchy than communitarianism, so this may be a failed 4T in the sense of creating a new paradigm.

In our decade and the start of the next, we are seeing 1850s redux. Then too, the violence only spiralled up in the parallel period (late 1850s) that we will enter only in the early 2020s. Do not expect a quick end to this 4T, as some expect. It will run the full course now predicted by Mr. Howe. Crises don't lead to or create culture shifts; they shift institutions, usually in accord with the ideals spawned in the previous Awakening. I expect that to happen in the 2020s. On some identity issues like homosexual rights, this has already happened.

Things may seem not to be going as S&H predict, but that's probably only because they inserted an anomaly that wasn't, and thus confused many to think that our 4T would be only like the 1860s. But since it is actually like the 1850s and 60s, as well as like the 1930s/40s, the peak of the crisis is correctly seen as yet to come (but now fast approaching!). All 4Ts are assumed to be failures while the crisis climax is yet to come; how the crisis climax is handled will determine the success or failure of the 4T, and success will consist, if it happens, only in a victory by the progressive side and the defeat of the regressives like Galen and bobc. "The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast." 4Ts have never been resolved through compromise. You can't cite me one that did. Compromise is how the issue is put off and kicked down the road, not only during 2Ts and 3Ts but well into the 4T too to a large extent.

The 1T in the 1870s and 80s was scarcely unified. The USA was still two nations and two tribes, although militarily it had been unified. The two tribes were more unified in the 1950s, but that's because in the double rhythm, the foreign crisis was more severe than the domestic, and so the nation unified in the face of the foreign foe. In the 1870s and 80s, the nation was only nominally unified, with the defeated side trying to get around the new order with local ways and local laws (e.g. Jim Crow). Perhaps that's what we'll see in the 2030s and 40s too. But this new gilded age will still be recognizably a 1T, because the tribal conflict will be muted and localized.

This may also mean that the tribes will have split, and the two or three remaining nations will have plenty of unity within themselves thanks very much. In any case, the violence will be much less and the wars less severe in the next 1T. Whether the two tribes in what is now the United States are ever unified will depend on when the red tribe (formerly the gray tribe) gradually gives up its ways and adjusts to the progress that is our destiny to unfold. And yes, the blue side DOES know better, regardless of what the best means of persuasion may be that anyone on the red side can ever understand. In the best case scenario, the red side is embraced by the blue, and thus persuaded to adjust to progress. That does seem utopian, although a partial shift is all that a 4T ever brings; not total utopian resolution.

[pbrower2a]

(02-13-2018, 01:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: We are maybe entering the Information Age / a post scarcity culture.  I would not assume that patterns that worked in the Industrial Age will work now.  I am not seeing the spiral of violence that usually proceeds a revolution, civil war or crisis war.  Both Bobc and you may be making a mistake in assuming an immediate violent confrontation.  The cycle has worked less well anyway outside of the Anglo American civilization.  Either of you using crisis theory to assume triumph of your values may well be disappointed.

Every great transformation of economic norms has its winners and losers. One warning that Howe and Strauss gave was of the "Great Devaluation" of assets and earning capacity. Inflation gutted the value of Continental currency; Confederate currency felt severe deflation before becoming worthless. The great stock market crash of 1929 and ensuing three-year meltdown of the value of common stock ensured that people would be unable to get the nominal value of stock purchased (if one goes with value indexes)at the peak of the bubble until the 1950s, by which time a dollar was not worth as much.

But this said -- the potential for economic gain from commercial and farming activities did not disappear.  Tangible stores of income-generating wealth, whether farmland, manufacturing, and shipping did not disappear.There was no confiscation of property, unless one wishes to discuss the abolition of slavery. Even in the wreckage of the Confederate cities, people made fortunes by rebuilding what the war had destroyed.


Real harm comes from either the destruction of human capital, especially in entrepreneurial talent and blue-collar skilled trades (think of the extermination of Jewish populations under Nazi rule or of the Polish intelligentsia) or if those whose contributions are necessary enough to be rewarded well before the Great Devaluation are rendered much less valuable without viable alternatives. A neo-Marxist analysis could suggest that if the capitalist classes saved themselves from proletarian revolutions and thus Marxist-Leninist Socialism by transforming the proletariat into participants in a consumer economy, then things could be really bad for working people if their toil is greatly devalued and the ruling classes of the post-Crisis time can get away with treating industrial workers as badly as they do in Marx' depiction of the capitalism that he knew. That is one horrid world.


The reality remains; the industrial worker or the potential industrial worker has nothing to sell but his toil, whether in the early capitalism of the sweat shop with industrial workers working seventy-hour weeks and having forty-years of life expectancy or in the more modern capitalism in which workers do forty-hour workweeks and have seventy-years of life expectancy. The economic realities for white coal miners in Appalachia as the coal seams are worked out have their analogy in the decline of manufacturing as a share of the4 economy in the 1960s and 1970s that made millions of black men superfluous in the economies of such citie4s as Detroit, Gary, and Cleveland. Such manifested itself in drug epidemics and crime waves.

So what do we do? Good question.  The economic elite of shareholders, executives, landlords in cities that still have vibrant economies, and political bosses have never had thing so good. This elite (and Donald Trump is a stereotype of the worst) isn't going to change its ways until it starts to feel economic distress or is dislodged in war or revolution. This elite so far has the means of ensuring that others will feel any economic distress without recourse or relief.

Quote:Usually, the crisis leads to the culture shift.   In the 1960s era, the awakening led to a culture shift.  I am sort of expecting that the see saw between the cultures will end in an era that smells more like an awakening than a crisis.  It isn't supposed to be, but I am not seeing the expected spiral of violence domestically, yet some problems (division of wealth, global warming, productivity increase) are building up.  We are stuck calling those using violence lone nuts rather than see them organizing into large culture altering groups.

In an awakening, ideals lead to changes of values and to a cultural shift. In a Crisis, the harsh reality of war, revolution, and coups forces changes of values and of the culture. This Crisis Era can still end with a more complete consolidation of elite power, with the economic elites having more brutal means than they now have. Such would be the achievement of an inhuman economic and political order in which this sort of image



is possible again, and with the excuse 'at least he was spared execution'.

Sorry folks, this is part of the political heritage of America, and no time can so bring out the demons of the discredited past as can a Crisis Era. There are many ways in which a Crisis can end, and this one offers even the chance of the destruction of our civilization in a nuclear exchange.

[Bob Butler 54]

I don't see red America as violent enough as a whole. The 2nd Amendment is only one element of a glorification of war and violence that has faded. We are no longer happy with war, with Sousa marches a major part of the pop culture. An example is the rejection of the post war soviet government, but not the people.

The US conservatives may be selfish and not look into the future very well, but they are not as evil as you seem to paint them. You have an extreme partisan's ability to misrepresent and misunderstand those who disagree with you. In the real world, half the country is not as evil as you claim. Think how the extreme reds misrepresent the blues. They are little worse in their perception than you.

[pbrower2a]

(02-14-2018, 05:15 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't see red America as violent enough as a whole.  The 2nd Amendment is only one element of a glorification of war and violence that has faded.  We are no longer happy with war, with Sousa marches a major part of the pop culture.  An example is the rejection of the post war soviet government, but not the people.

 

But "Red" America is much more authoritarian than "Blue" America. It has suckered far more toward a President with autocratic tendencies that no prior President has shown. We have checks and balances to constrain the President, Congress, and the courts... and Congressional Republicans seem to be doing little to constrain the President from his autocratic tendencies. This happens when politicians put power and personal gain above service to the People, many of whom did not vote for them. I look at the tax 'reform' as an example of legislation intended to punish people for belonging to demographic groups that voted against Trump (even if the primary effort was simply to cut taxes for the super-rich).

"Red" America is no more violent once one adjusts for education and poverty. Nebraska has a low rate of violent crime even even if it is one of the strongest Republican states, and New Mexico has a high rate of violent crime despite being about as Democratic as Massachusetts. The difference is poverty and low levels of education. Take away poverty and low education as an ethnic marker, and that is the difference.

But that is not to say that Republicans would foster street crime or family violence; quite to the contrary, they would intensify the punishments for such. The issue might be with American law enforcement being dragooned into the service of the partisan ends of an increasingly authoritarian regime as Republicans marginalize liberalism. I can imagine some journalist being killed with the aid of polonium-210 or ricin, and some partisan hack making a smarmy comment such as "Curiosity killed the cat".

That will not happen soon, but I see Donald Trump degrading democratic process and the rule of law even faster than did  Mussolini in Italy. I don't see him changing his ways; his behavior is rigid and so are his values. I can also imagine the System stopping him if he goes too far for its traditions.

Quote:The US conservatives may be selfish and not look into the future very well, but they are not as evil as you seem to paint them.  You have an extreme partisan's ability to misrepresent and misunderstand those who disagree with you.  In the real world, half the country is not as evil as you claim.  Think how the extreme reds misrepresent the blues.  They are little worse in their perception than you.

I am projecting a potential trend, one still reversible. This Crisis Era may have as its defining factor whether it can reverse a tendency toward a pure plutocracy and toward a despotic President. I know what conservatism used to be, and that would be an improvement -- more of a reliance upon thrift, self-restraint, looking to the long term, and entrepreneurialism. Crony capitalism, the trend of the current GOP, implies that conservatism will simply be compliance with the will of elites that they acquiesce with sever inequality and that they believe the propaganda that the Leadership promotes -- and even speak the Newspeak of a dictatorial regime that enforces monopolistic gouging and low wages.

Conservatism will revive after the Crisis, but it will promote saving to ensure that people have a stake in "sound money", entrepreneurialism so that people have more choices in ways of life and in consumer choice, and a rejection of personal debt. It may acquiesce with a Welfare State more generous than what we now have so that people not-so-well-off have something to lose in the event that someone offers a socialism that depends upon collectivization of ownership.

 I have noticed a basic pattern of history: debtors tend to be on the Left (think of debt-bonded peasants) and creditors tend to be on the Right (think of the Lords of the Manor).  The more that one feels the talon-like grip of debt the more one wants an overheated economy to inflate the currency and create upward pressure on wages. On the other side, think of the planter who holds farm laborers in their grip, compelling workers to assume debt to get the means of survival. As I recall, the usual pattern was for the farm workers to await 'settlement time', and usually fall short... and have the same needs as after the last 'settlement'. The French Revolution followed a series of bad harvests (paradoxically the result of a natural phenomenon, the eruption of a volcano in Iceland) that aggravated the usual inequities of peasant life, including debt to landlords.

Small-scale creditors -- people who have a savings account and insurance policies, maybe a small portfolio of stocks and bonds -- have a stake in preventing inflation that guts the value of their investments. But they need solid incomes to keep from having to dig into savings. Small-scale creditors, a big part of the economy in the 1950s, voted heavily for Eisenhower. Slightly less a share in the 1970s and 1980s, they ended up voting for Reagan.

So what about small-scale debtors? People with student loans are not in quite the same plight as farm laborers in the American South as late as the early 1960s, but they need a vibrant economy and would gladly endure inflation to relieve them of debt. They would love to have the government assume their debts, especially if they have big loans that have allowed them to take jobs with low remuneration. They are not so bad off as people who can't shake off payday loans or pay off a 'buy here/pay here' auto loan on a jalopy likely to die before the car is paid for. So maybe it is not so simple. Donald Trump has never promised to offer debt relief; if anything he would like more people to be in hock to loan-shark lenders. He has appealed to mass superstition and ignorance -- but for this people like Rush Limbaugh and numerous televangelists have prepared much of the public for such.

But this Crisis will be nothing like the hardening forge of the Great Depression and World War II; the bankers know how to stop a meltdown similar to the 1929-1932 before people begin to starve and strike. A war waged with the fervor of the apocalyptic rhetoric between the Allies and the Axis powers has the deterrent of nuclear weapons. The Japanese leadership of the summer of 1945 had no idea of what was coming. We do. A Civil War similar to that of the early 1860s is unlikely now because the generational cycle suggests a time closer to the end of a window for the Crisis than at its start. American Revolution? Do you see a distant king clutching his fists tighter on America and trying to micromanage the economy?

Do I see what is coming? No. I can imagine the worst, including a nuclear exchange. I can also imagine a pervasive change in American institutions to achieve peace, prosperity, and freedom that we have never quite experienced. I see positive signs in the legalization of same-sex marriage and the crackdown on abusive sexuality. I see a debate on whether cops need to be so trigger-happy when they see young black males acting unlike the young white males that they associate with -- while having something that somehow reminds the cops of a weapon.

The Trump Presidency is a reactionary response to economic and cultural trends, and as is usually so with reactionary movements it lacks subtlety and conscience. We have yet to answer how life changes when productivity is so high that it requires much less toil to achieve. We may also be approaching the ominous Singularity in which machine power to create information outstrips human ability. How can we make life decent for people whose toil is no longer needed? Do we rely upon the harshness of markets to drive wages to starvation levels, or do we subsidize life?

Heck, we don't even know what the questions are. We are finding out what some of the wrong answers are, including the old vices of corruption, superstition, male chauvinism, white supremacy, religious bigotry, dishonesty, bureaucratic elitism, and despotism.

[Eric the Green]

(02-14-2018, 05:15 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't see red America as violent enough as a whole.  The 2nd Amendment is only one element of a glorification of war and violence that has faded.  We are no longer happy with war, with Sousa marches a major part of the pop culture.  An example is the rejection of the post war soviet government, but not the people.  

The US conservatives may be selfish and not look into the future very well, but they are not as evil as you seem to paint them.  You have an extreme partisan's ability to misrepresent and misunderstand those who disagree with you.  In the real world, half the country is not as evil as you claim.  Think how the extreme reds misrepresent the blues.  They are little worse in their perception than you.

The spiral of violence you have written about is happening. There are far more mass shootings of innocent people than in the past. Just this year there have already been 19 school shootings, including today's deadly rampage in Florida, where guns are fully allowed to own and use by anyone. Gun violence remains unabated, and has gone up in some places overall. And then we hear, oh boy!, that so-called President Trump and Gov. Scott have been informed and are following the situation. Well, whooopdi do! What the fuck can HE do about it? He and all the rest of the gun supporters are responsible for this madness. How would you like to have the Drump pray and console you? Wouldn't that make you feel better? How about a snake offering a cure for a snakebite.

And calls for gun control will not abate either. It is the only answer to this problem that makes any difference, unless you want a society in which everyone is examined to see if they might shoot somebody, and most of the time we don't even know even then. Proliferation of AR-15s and AK-47s is deliberately allowed by the red side so that more school shootings of innocent children can occur. If you don't care about a problem, if you ignore a problem, it's as good as causing it, and wanting it. And that is no misrepresentation.

So, gun control is proposed by the blue side, because they DON'T want mass shootings. And the reds then threaten civil war if any gun control is passed. This is an almost inevitable spiral. As long as guns proliferate, there will be more shootings, more calls for gun control, and more threats of civil war and rebellion by the red side if any gun control is passed.

Maybe half the country is more evil than we claim. Words cannot encompass the evil that exists on the red side. They don't give a damn about the fact that thousands of innocent people are being gunned down. All they want is their guns. I know that these people are fine people in many other ways; I am no better as a person overall. But their politics and their religion are toxic, and dangerous to the country, and they must be defeated. And that is no misrepresentation of anything.

As long as you assume that the two sides are equal in their point of view, and equal in their lies, and that the answer lies in the middle, the longer you shrink from facing the Crisis that is our 4T. I know in politics that compromise has to happen, and I hope some things will and can get done. There are ways to do this on this and other issues. But when they don't get done, the blame for this is not distributed equally. The red side is more at fault these days, and the truth is on the blue side. It doesn't matter if it doesn't sound nice to say so, because that doesn't change the fact.

[Eric the Green]

It's worse than we thought. But red Americans refuse to learn.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/florid...index.html

(CNN)At least 17 people were killed Wednesday in a high school shooting in Parkland, Florida, the Broward County Sheriff's office said.

The suspect, 19-year-old former student Nikolas Cruz, is in custody. Cruz was expelled for unspecified disciplinary reasons, and police are investigating his digital footprint, Sheriff Scott Israel said. So far, what they've found is "very, very disturbing," he said.
"It's a horrific, horrific day," Israel said. "Just pray for this city. Pray for this school, the parents, the folks that lost their lives."

Investigators believe the suspect pulled the fire alarm to draw people out of classrooms and increase the number of casualties, a law enforcement source told CNN. But the school already had performed a fire drill earlier in the day, leading some to think it was a false alarm.

As some left the building, others sought cover in classrooms as the school went into lockdown. Students used their phones to text loved ones and share videos and pictures on social media. One teacher, Melissa Falkowski, said she hid in a closet with 19 students from her newspaper class.

[Eric the Green]

Conceal carry advocates live in a dreamworld.

Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world, Part One

[pbrower2a]

In view of his record of threats, cruelty to animals, sexual harassment (peeking  into neighbors' windows at night), and biting another person's ear -- he had problems. He did not have any reason for having a firearm.

He should also have been on a no-fly list.

[Eric the Green]

Mental illness is not the sign of potential gun violence. It is dangerous behavior and public statements that should be heeded and acted on. In CA we passed a law to confiscate weapons from people who gave these warning signs.




"The fact that so many mass shooters displayed warning signs prior to the shootings indicates the value of providing a mechanism to law enforcement or family members that would allow them to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from an individual they believe to be at risk to themselves or others.

This is what policymakers refer to as a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO), or in some cases an Emergency Risk Protection Order (ERPO). Currently, four states—California, Connecticut, Indiana, and Washington—have such restraining order processes in place. These provide a crucial tool for intervention when a person exhibits dangerous behaviors."

https://everytownresearch.org/reports/ma...-analysis/

[Eric the Green]

Most mass shootings do not occur in gun-free zones
https://everytownresearch.org/reports/ma...-analysis/

The gun lobby frequently claims that so-called “gun-free zones”—areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms and there is no regular armed law enforcement present—attract mass shooters. This does not seem to be the case. In fact, only 10 percent of mass shootings (16) took place in so-called “gun-free zones”. The vast majority of mass shootings—63 percent—took place entirely in private homes.

Additionally, there is not a single mass shooting in Everytown’s database in which the shooter was stopped by an armed civilian—even in cases where there were armed civilians present.

Take, for example, the October 1, 2015 mass shooting in which Christopher Harper-Mercer fatally shot nine people in an attack at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, OR. At the time of the shooting, there were several students carrying concealed handguns on campus. But they recognized that an attempt to provide help may have confused law enforcement and decided not to intervene. As one student, a military veteran who was carrying a concealed gun at the time, explained: “Luckily, we made the choice not to get involved…not knowing where SWAT was on their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were, and if we had our guns ready to shoot, they’d think we were the bad guys.”

What we know about mass shootings:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...shootings/

[pbrower2a]

(02-16-2018, 01:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Mental illness is not the sign of potential gun violence. It is dangerous behavior and public statements that should be heeded and acted on. In CA we passed a law to confiscate weapons from people who gave these warning signs.




"The fact that so many mass shooters displayed warning signs prior to the shootings indicates the value of providing a mechanism to law enforcement or family members that would allow them to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from an individual they believe to be at risk to themselves or others.

This is what policymakers refer to as a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO), or in some cases an Emergency Risk Protection Order (ERPO). Currently, four states—California, Connecticut, Indiana, and Washington—have such restraining order processes in place. These provide a crucial tool for intervention when a person exhibits dangerous behaviors."

https://everytownresearch.org/reports/ma...-analysis/

Having been treated for depression (it was situational in cause -- financial ruin, a futile situation as a caretaker of a parent undergoing dementia, and much grief), I probably should not have any right to a gun. OK, maybe I might get a waiver (were such available for long guns) if it were associated with a hinting license, but I'm not a sport hunter.

I got a visit from the Michigan State Police after I said that I said a few things suggesting a suicide risk. i was not in any legal trouble for that... but I would not be surprised to find that I am on a blacklist for purchasing firearms in Michigan.

The only person that I could be seen likely to shoot if I had a handgun is myself.

[Bob Butler 54]

It seems like a lot of blue folks believe their opinion should override the Constitution. Rule of Law is being dumped in favor of prohibition.

It seems like the shooter exposed symptoms that might well count as mental disability. If some form of due process is met, an individual could have an enumerated right stripped, assuming some way around the problematic "shall not be infringed" wording.

Yet the blue are trying to impose their values on the red. They are not meeting a properly democratic procedure for changing what amounts to government imposed and enforced values. As such, they should expect opposition from a group that has the numbers and beliefs to block. The founding fathers intent is clear. No amount of following the money trail will change the basic fact that the red and the founding authors of the Constitution agree.

What sort of due process would have caught the shooter without being too political? Would people be willing to pay the emotional and financial cost of said due process? Other that stating one loves life over freedom, is there a specific proposal? I assume a mental health specialist and a judge would be willing to put their careers on the line?

[Eric the Green]

I think blues and purples are coming to the conclusion that prohibition and confiscation applies to people with guns who are adjudged to be dangerous on the basis of their public statements combined with violence, especially violence against women and animals, and racist/religous fanaticism, illegal activities, gun obsessions and fetishes, etc. Nikolas Cruz was certainly well-known to be someone who on that basis should not have been allowed to have any weapons, let alone a weapon of war. In California, people had not voted for a gun control initiative before, even though CA has become the strictest state for gun control. But it voted for this, proposed by Lt. Gov. Newsom (former SF mayor known for promoting same sex marriage).

The question it seems to me is whether we should have to pay the emotional, financial and moral costs of allowing these mass shootings to continue, instead of doing something about them. The red side should be imposed upon, because the red side today is not your grandfather's Republicans. They have devolved tremendously, beyond the bounds of reason and decency. They are not rational. They are the worst USA political grouping since the grays on the eve of the US civil war. They must be reined in before it's too late for us. It may already be.

Young people are getting really fed up with this.
A loud, new voice after the latest school shooting: Kids wanting to know why adults hadn’t done more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...bb373b590e

[pbrower2a]

(02-17-2018, 06:34 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It seems like a lot of blue folks believe their opinion should override the Constitution. Rule of Law is being dumped in favor of prohibition.

It seems like the shooter exposed symptoms that might well count as mental disability. If some form of due process is met, an individual could have an enumerated right stripped, assuming some way around the problematic "shall not be infringed" wording.

Yet the blue are trying to impose their values on the red. They are not meeting a properly democratic procedure for changing what amounts to government imposed and enforced values. As such, they should expect opposition from a group that has the numbers and beliefs to block. The founding fathers intent is clear. No amount of following the money trail will change the basic fact that the red and the founding authors of the Constitution agree.

What sort of due process would have caught the shooter without being too political? Would people be willing to pay the emotional and financial cost of said due process? Other that stating one loves life over freedom, is there a specific proposal? I assume a mental health specialist and a judge would be willing to put their careers on the line?

In the case of Nikolas Cruz, a terrorist threat should itself have been treated as a cause for keeping him from getting or keeping any firearm. Yes, he had other signs of trouble, beginning with cruelty to animals (part of the McDonald Triad that predicts sociopathy -- the other two are bed-wetting and fire-starting, of which I have heard nothing in his instance). Cruelty to animals is a likely precursor to cruelty toward humans because the ethical line is so close.

But sociopathy is not recognized as a mental illness as are such mental conditions as low intelligence, schizophrenia, and autism. (In the case  of autism it is not a mitigating factor in criminal sentencing, and I do not advocate that it be a mitigating factor).

[Bob Butler 54]

But who is responsible for stripping constitutional rights?  To some extent we are talking nanny state.  A psychiatrist has to face a judge.  Some subset of the staff with contact with the students has to have enough training to call in the psychiatrist.  What signs of trouble will put things in motion?  Are there due process rights, like the right to face an accuser, to have representation, to prove beyond reasonable doubt, etc...  

A right of the people is supposed to prevent the state from regulation.  Some blue folk want to end that.  Some red folk are stubborn on the subject of human rights.  What exactly are you looking for?  Be specific.

[pbrower2a]

(02-18-2018, 04:14 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: But who is responsible for stripping constitutional rights?  To some extent we are talking nanny state.  A psychiatrist has to face a judge.  Some subset of the staff with contact with the students has to have enough training to call in the psychiatrist.  What signs of trouble will put things in motion?  Are there due process rights, like the right to face an accuser, to have representation, to prove beyond reasonable doubt, etc...

It is easier to impose the loss of a professional license or a driver's license with cause, or to impose  a new or raised tax, than to send someone to prison. The assumption about a driver's license is that driving is a privilege and not a right. So drive as if drunk (a diabetic coma will do that), get stopped by the cops, and fail the field sobriety tests -- you will be busted, you will be booked, and you will be separated from your car which will be towed away.

Gun  'rights' should be seen as privileges, and those who conduct themselves in a way that suggest that they will commit a crime with a gun should be separated from their guns. Nikolas Cruz made terrorist threats, and he could have been stopped from owning or buying guns. 

Quote:A right of the people is supposed to prevent the state from regulation.  Some blue folk want to end that.  Some red folk are stubborn on the subject of human rights.  What exactly are you looking for?  Be specific.

You do not have a right

to keep stolen property
to own products of endangered species unless those are ;old' enough to cause no troubles (thus practically no elephant ivory or tiger-skin rugs)
to possess devices intended to facilitate fraud
to protect property from foreclosure except by paying the mortgage
to not pay property taxes
to possess illicit drugs
to possess certain weapons

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-18-2018, 02:58 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(02-18-2018, 04:14 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: But who is responsible for stripping constitutional rights?  To some extent we are talking nanny state.  A psychiatrist has to face a judge.  Some subset of the staff with contact with the students has to have enough training to call in the psychiatrist.  What signs of trouble will put things in motion?  Are there due process rights, like the right to face an accuser, to have representation, to prove beyond reasonable doubt, etc...

It is easier to impose the loss of a professional license or a driver's license with cause, or to impose  a new or raised tax, than to send someone to prison. The assumption about a driver's license is that driving is a privilege and not a right. So drive as if drunk (a diabetic coma will do that), get stopped by the cops, and fail the field sobriety tests -- you will be busted, you will be booked, and you will be separated from your car which will be towed away.

Gun  'rights' should be seen as privileges, and those who conduct themselves in a way that suggest that they will commit a crime with a gun should be separated from their guns. Nikolas Cruz made terrorist threats, and he could have been stopped from owning or buying guns. 

Quote:A right of the people is supposed to prevent the state from regulation.  Some blue folk want to end that.  Some red folk are stubborn on the subject of human rights.  What exactly are you looking for?  Be specific.

You do not have a right

to keep stolen property
to own products of endangered species unless those are ;old' enough to cause no troubles (thus practically  no elephant ivory or tiger-skin rugs)
to possess devices intended to facilitate fraud
to protect property from foreclosure except by paying the mortgage
to not pay property taxes
to possess illicit drugs
to possess certain weapons

Yes. None of the above rights, including driving, are mentioned in the Bill of Rights. You are comparing what many consider applies and oranges. Many blues advocate abandoning rule of law and the Constitution, as you would have many reds disregard traditional and deeply cherished beliefs. If you do these things, you should not be surprised if others think you wrong. Your opinions should not override what they consider holy writ.

The point is that values are sacrosanct. You could be deep set global warming - evolution - prejudiced and be wrong. That is the apparent human condition.