Debate about Gun Control

[Odin]

(06-14-2017, 09:13 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I've been considering starting a 'Spiral of Violence' thread.  This thread is beginning to share many of the themes.

We have had another incident.  A gunman opened up on a Republican congressional baseball team.  There were enough capitol cops present to prevent significant casualties.

In watching the spiral of violence, there are two extreme possible reactions.  If the bulk of the people say there was a lone nut, emotionally unstable, acting deplorably, the incident can be diminished in coverage and impact by main street and perhaps both partisan institutions and press.  The establishment has no great desire for a true spiral of violence.  Sure, you will even hear call for arms prohibition.

If one sees the Republican  Congress as champions of the Reagan unraveling memes as deplorable enemies of the country and the world, the baseball team becomes an ideal target for a true patriot willing to sacrifice himself for a critical cause.

Thus far, the 'lone nut' concept continues to dominate over the 'patriot' concept in most media and official outlets.  The spiral of violence might not escalate and go ballistic so long as that mode of coverage dominates.

For me, though, I don't doubt that many of the shooters are thinking of the themselves as patriots.  Of course, at this point in the turnings, at this level of the spiral of violence, the line between 'lone nut' and 'patriot' might seem very contentious and unclear.

I don't delve too deeply in the extreme partisan media outlets.  Is anyone pushing for violence?  Is anyone bypassing the lone nut style of covering violence in favor of pushing it?   "Here is a patriot.  Let us follow his lead.  Let us not ignore our duty."

Thomas Jefferson Wrote:The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

We have become a tinderbox waiting to blow. If a right-winger shoots "libs" in retaliation for yesterday's act this country is going to go up in flames, we will have our Bleeding Kansas.

[Odin]

(06-15-2017, 02:42 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-14-2017, 04:22 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(06-14-2017, 01:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Here's an indication of what the shooter believed about Representative Steve Scalise:

This would be enough to suggest a charge of Attempted First-Degree Murder, as it shows a motive. I've said some nasty things about my district's elected stooge of every imaginable corporate lobbyist. (He is exactly that, and I want to see him defeated in 2018). Even if Rep. Scalise were a KKK fascist he would not deserve to be shot.

Here's hoping for a recovery of Representative Scalise from his wounds, no matter how much I hold his politics in contempt. .

 
I have to lay some blame on Trump and his Duginists. They are such assholes, they are really riling people up, especially the Far Left. They are giving all Republicans and even Independent Conservatives a bad name. And guess what. It's all completely according to plan. A house divided will fall, and the Anti Western fiends want our house to fall.

We had a Bernie bot go off the rails with a knife.  I have always found the left on the whole to be more ready to use violence.  Other than the KKK, which probably has more FBI informants than actual members, and some other fringe groups that are very small.  The conservatives really don't have anything that corresponds to Antifa.

Oh look, more proof you are nothing but a stupid hack, pushing the "Portland terrorist was a leftist" lie.

[Eric the Green]

It was inevitable that the right wing mouthpieces like Michael Savage would blame Sen. Sanders for speaking what we on the left consider the truth, for the attack on Rep. Scalise.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/us/po....html?_r=0

I consider that it is the policies that the right-wing promote and enact, policies represented here by Galen, that are to blame for the hostile atmosphere which Republicans face today. No-one can reasonably expect the rhetoric to be toned down in the face of such horrible attacks on our lives by Republicans today. The truth can be bitter and hard to swallow, and people need to be motivated to act against the right-wing policies-- in legal and democratic ways.

I hold the shooter responsible for his actions. They were an attack on democracy. I pray for Rep. Scalise' recovery. And the Tyson lobbyist too. It's reasonable to say that people need to keep their hostility in check. Respect is due to all persons, although criminals must be stopped. However, to use this shooting as an excuse for people on the left to stop telling the truth, is not going to fly. Nor is it an excuse for people on the right to ignore the violence and threats that have come from their side too.

Nuts come in all political flavors. The Left has its share. Both sides need to restrain their nuts, and be as respectful as we can toward all during this difficult 4T era, which is likely to get more difficult, seeing as we have intractible problems and nothing lasting has been done to address them yet in 9 years and counting of fourth turning crisis.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-15-2017, 06:34 AM)Odin Wrote: We have become a tinderbox waiting to blow. If a right-winger shoots "libs" in retaliation for yesterday's act this country is going to go up in flames, we will have our Bleeding Kansas.

Bleeding Kansas featured organized groups.  We're still closer to the point where it can be blamed on lone nuts.  While I won't lightly dismiss the notion of a spiral of violence going critical, we're far more than one incident away.

[Odin]

(06-15-2017, 09:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It was inevitable that the right wing mouthpieces like Michael Savage would blame Sen. Sanders for speaking what we on the left consider the truth, for the attack on Rep. Scalise.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/us/po....html?_r=0

I consider that it is the policies that the right-wing promote and enact, policies represented here by Galen, that are to blame for the hostile atmosphere which Republicans face today. No-one can reasonably expect the rhetoric to be toned down in the face of such horrible attacks on our lives by Republicans today. The truth can be bitter and hard to swallow, and people need to be motivated to act against the right-wing policies-- in legal and democratic ways.

I hold the shooter responsible for his actions. They were an attack on democracy. I pray for Rep. Scalise' recovery. And the Tyson lobbyist too. It's reasonable to say that people need to keep their hostility in check. Respect is due to all persons, although criminals must be stopped. However, to use this shooting as an excuse for people on the left to stop telling the truth, is not going to fly. Nor is it an excuse for people on the right to ignore the violence and threats that have come from their side too.

Nuts come in all political flavors. The Left has its share. Both sides need to restrain their nuts, and be as respectful as we can toward all during this difficult 4T era, which is likely to get more difficult, seeing as we have intractible problems and nothing lasting has been done to address them yet in 9 years and counting of fourth turning crisis.

Right-wing politics in the US are a cult, people like Galen and Kinser are completely brainwashed.

[Eric the Green]

This IS really the "spiral of violence" thread right now. That's OK

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-16-2017, 10:41 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: This IS really the "spiral of violence" thread right now. That's OK

Looks like one answer is for the sane, quiet, reasonable peace loving moderates to shoot the extremists. 

[Eric the Green]

(06-16-2017, 01:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-16-2017, 10:41 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: This IS really the "spiral of violence" thread right now. That's OK

Looks like one answer is for the sane, quiet, reasonable peace loving moderates to shoot the extremists. 

That sounds like what Mr. X 84 is saying. He's got his weapons ready

[Mikebert]

They are *still* talking about that shooting at the baseball field. What is the big deal? These things happen all the time.

There was another one the same day, another two days after than and then again yesterday:

Saturday: http://www.10tv.com/article/police-ident...-nightclub
Thursday: https://www.abqjournal.com/1018851/death...spree.html
Same day: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lates...s-48036675

We average more than three of these a week,

[David Horn]

(06-18-2017, 11:33 AM)Mikebert Wrote: They are *still* talking about that shooting at the baseball field.  What is the big deal? These things happen all the time.

There was another one the same day, another two days after than and then again yesterday:

Saturday: http://www.10tv.com/article/police-ident...-nightclub
Thursday: https://www.abqjournal.com/1018851/death...spree.html
Same day: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lates...s-48036675

We average more than three of these a week,

I agree, but who are we?  This one gets noticed because it's in one of our media capitals and it involves a celebrity of sorts.  There is also some irony here, and the media loves that.

[The Wonkette]

(06-20-2017, 11:58 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-18-2017, 11:33 AM)Mikebert Wrote: They are *still* talking about that shooting at the baseball field.  What is the big deal? These things happen all the time.

There was another one the same day, another two days after than and then again yesterday:

Saturday: http://www.10tv.com/article/police-ident...-nightclub
Thursday: https://www.abqjournal.com/1018851/death...spree.html
Same day: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lates...s-48036675

We average more than three of these a week,

I agree, but who are we?  This one gets noticed because it's in one of our media capitals and it involves a celebrity of sorts.  There is also some irony here, and the media loves that.

There may also be a difference between an attempted assassination versus a run of the mill deranged shooting.

[Eric the Green]

(06-20-2017, 06:46 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(06-20-2017, 11:58 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-18-2017, 11:33 AM)Mikebert Wrote: They are *still* talking about that shooting at the baseball field.  What is the big deal? These things happen all the time.

There was another one the same day, another two days after than and then again yesterday:

Saturday: http://www.10tv.com/article/police-ident...-nightclub
Thursday: https://www.abqjournal.com/1018851/death...spree.html
Same day: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lates...s-48036675

We average more than three of these a week,

I agree, but who are we?  This one gets noticed because it's in one of our media capitals and it involves a celebrity of sorts.  There is also some irony here, and the media loves that.

There may also be a difference between an attempted assassination versus a run of the mill deranged shooting.

Yes I think that's a huge difference.

[Eric the Green]

One noted pundit or writer was quoted in the media yesterday advocating repeal of the Second Amendment as the ultimate solution to guns. I am glad to see it. Of course, such a move would take care of Bob Butler's objections on constitutional grounds. Of course, however, America is so gun happy that such a move is extremely unlikely in our lifetime or even the lifetimes of our living descendants, despite the slippery slope arguments used by the gun nuts and gun advocates. No proposals being made today in congress come even close to repeal, but merely require what the Supreme Court has allowed, and resemble licensing for such things as cars, which are not even weapons designed solely to kill people, as many guns are.

But suppose the amendment were repealed, and a confiscation program was begun to accompany a buy-back program? Would civil war result? Well, these days, a civil war could result even from the modest gun control programs being proposed today. In the future though, we may not be so divided. Our current Divided States of America dates from our recent Awakening, and has gotten more severe since then, but might disappear in the next 1T or in future saecula. Or we may even be two or more nations by then. A blue nation would have no problem with gun control, or maybe even repeal eventually.

Today according to one poll, 42% of Americans own guns. Probably the majority of them are white Republicans, according to the poll as reported. That's too many to confiscate today. I imagine most gun owners would not be part of a resistance army, though. Under a confiscation program, duly passed by law, most gun owners would comply. However, I imagine that for the foreseeable future, the threat of such an army of resistance among some gun owners would remain. But someday, if the USA becomes a sane and responsible nation, which it is not today, a confiscation program might actually work. So, the slippery slope exists, but the slope can probably be measured in centuries and saecula, well beyond the lifetimes of gun owners and their children today.

[Warren Dew]

(06-18-2017, 11:33 AM)Mikebert Wrote: They are *still* talking about that shooting at the baseball field.  What is the big deal? These things happen all the time.

There was another one the same day, another two days after than and then again yesterday:

Saturday: http://www.10tv.com/article/police-ident...-nightclub
Thursday: https://www.abqjournal.com/1018851/death...spree.html
Same day: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lates...s-48036675

We average more than three of these a week,

The big deal was that the target was of the political elites, not one of us random rabble.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-09-2017, 09:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: One noted pundit or writer was quoted in the media yesterday advocating repeal of the Second Amendment as the ultimate solution to guns. I am glad to see it. Of course, such a move would take care of Bob Butler's objections on constitutional grounds. Of course, however, America is so gun happy that such a move is extremely unlikely in our lifetime or even the lifetimes of our living descendants, despite the slippery slope arguments used by the gun nuts and gun advocates. No proposals being made today in congress come even close to repeal, but merely require what the Supreme Court has allowed, and resemble licensing for such things as cars, which are not even weapons designed solely to kill people, as many guns are.

But suppose the amendment were repealed, and a confiscation program was begun to accompany a buy-back program? Would civil war result? Well, these days, a civil war could result even from the modest gun control programs being proposed today. In the future though, we may not be so divided. Our current Divided States of America dates from our recent Awakening, and has gotten more severe since then, but might disappear in the next 1T or in future saecula. Or we may even be two or more nations by then. A blue nation would have no problem with gun control, or maybe even repeal eventually.

Today according to one poll, 42% of Americans own guns. Probably the majority of them are white Republicans, according to the poll as reported. That's too many to confiscate today. I imagine most gun owners would not be part of a resistance army, though. Under a confiscation program, duly passed by law, most gun owners would comply. However, I imagine that for the foreseeable future, the threat of such an army of resistance among some gun owners would remain. But someday, if the USA becomes a sane and responsible nation, which it is not today, a confiscation program might actually work. So, the slippery slope exists, but the slope can probably be measured in centuries and saecula, well beyond the lifetimes of gun owners and their children today.

Well, yes, we are all free to imagine weird futures.

I'm still willing to close most to all loopholes.  The hard part is enforcing a prohibition style law.

In the Las Vegas case, we perhaps should ban external mods to a firearm the same as an internal mod.  They should not have let that one slip.  Other than that, the shooter's secrecy and lack of joining problematic groups makes solving the problem with enforceable laws hard.  Anyone care to propose anything new?  Even if one accepts that the right to own and carry firearms is protected, how does owning more than a few weapons protect one more???  If the object of the NRA is to sell guns, the latter could go no where.

I would like to see the Constitution worth the paper it is printed on.  What the founding fathers wrote and intended is very clear.  The Constitution should not mean what five people says it means.  There is a well defined mechanism to handle a values change.  Many daydream about using it well ahead of the values change.

[Eric the Green]

It seems like the Constitution says that it does mean that. It has jurisdiction over all cases, in law and equity, arising under the constitution and the laws of the USA, and all that arise in law or in fact, subject to regulations by congress. Article 3, section 2.

What is weird, is certainly the current state of affairs, especially politically; not the future I imagined. Currently, the future I imagined is very improbable, sure! (as I said) But that's because of the weird state of affairs that exists.

After 40 years of needless obstruction and delay, we have our hands full with passing the proposals that have been around that long or longer, and should have been enacted that long ago!

[Eric the Green]

Liberal Democrat and Hillary supporter Roy Rigordaeva says: "There's more than enough guns in this country to supply every man woman and child with one. But it's important to note that 3% of the population owns 50% of those firearms. America is under attack by a crazed gun nut death cult." He might have a point if his numbers are right. Of course the leaders of this cult are the leaders of the NRA, who have throttled our congress from acting in order to preserve their own financial interest.

[Eric the Green]

Interesting point of view. I don't entirely agree that today's proposals are feckless; the AR-15 can be called an assault rifle because it's a rapid fire weapon. Details about differences are meaningless, although many T4T fans have argued otherwise on the forums. 1/5 of gun owners buying without a background check is still a lot. That's about all we can hope for now in today's America, so that's why liberals push it. It's interesting that he points out the guns recovered from a crime are rarely in the hands of their legal owners. That's what I have pointed out as one reason guns in the possession of "law-abiding" gun owners means nothing. Their guns get stolen. And if a "law-abiding" gun owner is tempted by the convenience of the gun to use it to murder his wife or personal enemy, then presto-chango that gun owner is no longer law-abiding.

But, maybe it's time for gun opponents to push harder. Aim high and far, and we might get farther. Just like "single-payer" seems to be going farther nowadays. Conservatives take stands and don't mince words, and that works for them. Liberals are timid in the face of conservative passion, and that's why we lose today. At least, that's possible. Right now, many conservatives seem to do better the more conservative they get, while liberal Democrats have been in retreat. On the other hand, Trump may be too wacky, and this is fueling some Democratic successes at the polls. Tea Party wackos have lost some senate races too. So arguably there's a limit, even among some conservatives, on how wacky radical or reactionary each side can get.

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Repeal the Second Amendment
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/op...gle.com%2F


OCTOBER 5, 2017
Bret Stephens

I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.

From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. “States with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,” noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.

From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 “justifiable homicides” by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 “unintentional firearms deaths” in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.

From a national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.

From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal miners’ rebellion of 1921, the Brink’s robbery of 1981 — does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?

And now we have the relatively new and now ubiquitous “active shooter” phenomenon, something that remains extremely rare in the rest of the world. Conservatives often say that the right response to these horrors is to do more on the mental-health front. Yet by all accounts Stephen Paddock would not have raised an eyebrow with a mental-health professional before he murdered 58 people in Las Vegas last week.

What might have raised a red flag? I’m not the first pundit to point out that if a “Mohammad Paddock” had purchased dozens of firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition and then checked himself into a suite at the Mandalay Bay with direct views to a nearby music festival, somebody at the local F.B.I. field office would have noticed.

Given all of this, why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?

Maybe it’s because they argue their case badly and — let’s face it — in bad faith. Democratic politicians routinely profess their fidelity to the Second Amendment — or rather, “a nuanced reading” of it — with all the conviction of Barack Obama’s support for traditional marriage, circa 2008. People recognize lip service for what it is.

Then there are the endless liberal errors of fact. There is no “gun-show loophole” per se; it’s a private-sale loophole, in other words the right to sell your own stuff. The civilian AR-15 is not a true “assault rifle,” and banning such rifles would have little effect on the overall murder rate, since most homicides are committed with handguns. It’s not true that 40 percent of gun owners buy without a background check; the real number is closer to one-fifth.

The National Rifle Association does not have Republican “balls in a money clip,” as Jimmy Kimmel put it the other night. The N.R.A. has donated a paltry $3,533,294 to all current members of Congress since 1998, according to The Washington Post, equivalent to about three months of Kimmel’s salary. The N.R.A. doesn’t need to buy influence: It’s powerful because it’s popular.

Nor will it do to follow the “Australian model” of a gun buyback program, which has shown poor results in the United States and makes little sense in a country awash with hundreds of millions of weapons. Keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people is a sensible goal, but due process is still owed to the potentially insane. Background checks for private gun sales are another fine idea, though its effects on homicides will be negligible: guns recovered by police are rarely in the hands of their legal owners, a 2016 study found.

In fact, the more closely one looks at what passes for “common sense” gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.


There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.

Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn” is the fate that soon awaits us.

Donald Trump will likely get one more Supreme Court nomination, or two or three, before he leaves office, guaranteeing a pro-gun court for another generation. Expansive interpretations of the right to bear arms will be the law of the land — until the “right” itself ceases to be.

Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” America was supposed to be different, and better.

I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.

[Eric the Green]

[pbrower2a]

(10-11-2017, 04:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Technically, 9/11 was an act of war. Still not close.