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

[Eric the Green]

Rights do not prevent the state from regulation of those rights.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-18-2018, 07:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Rights do not prevent the state from regulation of those rights.

That depends very much on the regulation.  Certainly, the Bill of Rights applies to the states.  Certainly, the principle should stand that exercising a right does not provide a justification for taking away the rights of others, or of doing another harm. Other limitations without those excuses are generally rejected, often by the US Supreme Court.

[pbrower2a]

(02-15-2018, 09:44 PM)rEric the Green Wrote: Conceal carry advocates live in a dreamworld.

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

I would have expecte4d to do better as I consider myself much smarter and rational than the usual crook. The one fellow got his concealed weapon caught in his shirt -- and would have been killed.

Concealed weapon -- concealed doom, and not for the criminal.

[David Horn]

(02-18-2018, 11:00 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-18-2018, 07:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Rights do not prevent the state from regulation of those rights.

That depends very much on the regulation.  Certainly, the Bill of Rights applies to the states.  Certainly, the principle should stand that exercising a right does not provide a justification for taking away the rights of others, or of doing another harm. Other limitations without those excuses are generally rejected, often by the US Supreme Court.

No rights are absolute.  There have been cases where this has been argued and even affirmed, but the concept is highly questionable.  Robert Jackson, the last Justice of the Supreme Court to achieve that position without attending law school, wrote a long dissent to a 1949 free-speech case where he stated that the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.  His dissent has been cited successfully since then.  After all, no one has the right to slander someone or shout FIRE in a crowded theater.  If that applies to the First Amendment, it surely should to those that follow it.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-19-2018, 02:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-18-2018, 11:00 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-18-2018, 07:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Rights do not prevent the state from regulation of those rights.

That depends very much on the regulation.  Certainly, the Bill of Rights applies to the states.  Certainly, the principle should stand that exercising a right does not provide a justification for taking away the rights of others, or of doing another harm. Other limitations without those excuses are generally rejected, often by the US Supreme Court.

No rights are absolute.  There have been cases where this has been argued and even affirmed, but the concept is highly questionable.  Robert Jackson, the last Justice of the Supreme Court to achieve that position without attending law school, wrote a long dissent to a 1949 free-speech case where he stated that the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.  His dissent has been cited successfully since then.  After all, no one has the right to slander someone or shout FIRE in a crowded theater.  If that applies to the First Amendment, it surely should to those that follow it.

Again, a right can be regulated if a perpetrator is harming others or removing another's rights.  The Second grants a right to have and carry a firearm.  It does not protect citizens who murder. 

Some blues seem to think a right means nothing if it gets in the way of their personal opinion.  This is simply not the case.  

Yet.

[Bob Butler 54]

Hmmm. In the recent case, one who tortures animals could become a felon. Felons lose the right to keep and bear arms. There is presumably due process involved in making the perp a felon.

It would be a problem in principle if a state were to make someone a felon who had not done harm or infringed the rights of another.

[pbrower2a]

(02-20-2018, 07:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hmmm.  In the recent case, one who tortures animals could become a felon.  Felons lose the right to keep and bear arms.  There is presumably due process involved in making the perp a felon.

It would be a problem in principle if a state were to make someone a felon who had not done harm or infringed the rights of another.

But a cruelty-to-animals conviction for a juvenile is likely to be sealed at 18 or 21. There's cruelty in the form of neglect (leave for a day-trip that becomes a week-long excursion, and you leave the pooch behind with no ready supply of water or food) and active cruelty (like taking a neighbor's pet cat and throwing it to alligators). One is a goof; the other is  unmitigated evil.

Maybe the records should not be sealed for purposes of gun permits, especially for cruelty to animals and fire-setting, two parts of the MacDonald Triad (bed-wetting is not a crime) that has a high correlation to criminal sociopathy.

[David Horn]

(02-20-2018, 01:18 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-19-2018, 02:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-18-2018, 11:00 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-18-2018, 07:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Rights do not prevent the state from regulation of those rights.

That depends very much on the regulation.  Certainly, the Bill of Rights applies to the states.  Certainly, the principle should stand that exercising a right does not provide a justification for taking away the rights of others, or of doing another harm. Other limitations without those excuses are generally rejected, often by the US Supreme Court.

No rights are absolute.  There have been cases where this has been argued and even affirmed, but the concept is highly questionable.  Robert Jackson, the last Justice of the Supreme Court to achieve that position without attending law school, wrote a long dissent to a 1949 free-speech case where he stated that the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.  His dissent has been cited successfully since then.  After all, no one has the right to slander someone or shout FIRE in a crowded theater.  If that applies to the First Amendment, it surely should to those that follow it.

Again, a right can be regulated if a perpetrator is harming others or removing another's rights.  The Second grants a right to have and carry a firearm.  It does not protect citizens who murder. 

Some blues seem to think a right means nothing if it gets in the way of their personal opinion.  This is simply not the case.  

Yet.

The point of Jackson's argument is societal not individual.  Banning or regulating rights-based practices that degrade the society can be justified if the damage is severe enough to threaten society in general.  That's obviously a subjective call, but we should be able to know it when we see it.  Shouting FIRE is not an individual threat.  It threatens the public ... at least that portion of the public in attendance.  If the guy who sent the nuclear attack message in Hawaii had done so on purpose, that may be another example.

I believe Heller was wrongly decided.  Another court may decide that as well.  Short of that, however, we may find some limitations using Jackson's measuring stick.

[Eric the Green]

Yes. Many believe the 2nd granted a right for a well-regulated militia member to carry a firearm. Bob says it should be interpreted according to state constitutions of the 18th century. Since times have changed, and guns have become such a danger to society, it is valid to interpret the justification clause as a qualifications clause, as was done for many decades before Heller. This danger to society is not a personal opinion, but a fact.

If the current conservative, right-wing majority on the Bush/Trump Court is updated in the future, this view may return. This might make it possible for certain localities to ban certain weapons, unless their bearers are part of a well-regulated militia, which in updated terms means the national guard and the police. Meanwhile, the Court in Heller says gun control is permitted, and that likely includes a ban on military weapons (semi-automatics).

I think that society has the right to judge someone unfit to own and carry a weapon, just as they judge someone unfit to drive a vehicle or obtain other kinds of licenses. Whether (s)he has actually been convicted of a felony or not, may not matter. If someone is behaving dangerously, including making threats, a restraining order is appropriate, and this includes restraint on the right to bear arms. Guns are for killing life; those not qualified to kill, should not have access to them.

Our unique American obsession with the unnecessary, ammosexual "right" to own and carry weapons is just one way in which the USA is backward, self-destructive and regressive today. I hope the USA can recover its bearings as the 4T reaches its climax and moves us into a new saeculum and the next 2 turnings, with the USA embracing a higher purpose and consciousness than it has had in the Reagan/Bush/Trump era. I look forward to this. Since I am a blue/green, idealistic, awakened core Boomer, I continue to nourish hope and expectation for progress, creativity and enlightenment. In this lifetime, or the next. May it be so

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-20-2018, 12:43 PM)David Horn Wrote: The point of Jackson's argument is societal not individual.  Banning or regulating rights-based practices that degrade the society can be justified if the damage is severe enough to threaten society in general.  That's obviously a subjective call, but we should be able to know it when we see it.  Shouting FIRE is not an individual threat.  It threatens the public ... at least that portion of the public in attendance.  If the guy who sent the nuclear attack message in Hawaii had done so on purpose, that may be another example.

I believe Heller was wrongly decided.  Another court may decide that as well.  Short of that, however, we may find some limitations using Jackson's measuring stick.

And I believe Heller was correctly decided, that the intent of the authors of the constitution were honored, that the blues do not have the supermajority required to make the changes you are weaseling for.  You can hand wave around the fact that you cannot make said changes, and try to confuse rule of law with opinion, but you are apt to fail.  Values lock is engaged.  Many will reject your opinion, sure of their opinions, which are as firm as yours.  There are not enough people who agree with you to succeed legally.

Values change when truly complete and spread should change legal standards and law, but what is happening is that you want to change the law before your new values have spread enough.  To change the law, you are willing to disrespect the law.  I reject that.

[David Horn]

(02-20-2018, 03:55 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-20-2018, 12:43 PM)David Horn Wrote: The point of Jackson's argument is societal not individual.  Banning or regulating rights-based practices that degrade the society can be justified if the damage is severe enough to threaten society in general.  That's obviously a subjective call, but we should be able to know it when we see it.  Shouting FIRE is not an individual threat.  It threatens the public ... at least that portion of the public in attendance.  If the guy who sent the nuclear attack message in Hawaii had done so on purpose, that may be another example.

I believe Heller was wrongly decided.  Another court may decide that as well.  Short of that, however, we may find some limitations using Jackson's measuring stick.

And I believe Heller was correctly decided, that the intent of the authors of the constitution were honored, that the blues do not have the supermajority required to make the changes you are weaseling for.  You can hand wave around the fact that you cannot make said changes, and try to confuse rule of law with opinion, but you are apt to fail.  Values lock is engaged.  Many will reject your opinion, sure of their opinions, which are as firm as yours.  There are not enough people who agree with you to succeed legally.

Values change when truly complete and spread should change legal standards and law, but what is happening is that you want to change the law before your new values have spread enough.  To change the law, you are willing to disrespect the law.  I reject that.

After the little trick McConnell played to get yet another conservative on the court, don't be surprised to see the same in reverse.  More to the point, Merrick Garland would have tilted the court to the left for the first time in decades.  That won't be forgotten.  With the electorate trending left (especially now that the Millies are finally acting rather than just talking), I suspect several reversals ... Citizens United being one and Heller being another.  

The Millies have been on the receiving end of conservative policies for their entire lives.  They're tired of shootings, over-priced schooling and crappy jobs.  They are a huge generation, so they'll make policy for a long time.  To be honest, I'm surprised that they finally woke up.  They've been sleepwalking through life up to this point.

[pbrower2a]

(02-20-2018, 05:17 PM)David Horn Wrote: After the little trick McConnell played to get yet another conservative on the court, don't be surprised to see the same in reverse.  More to the point, Merrick Garland would have tilted the court to the left for the first time in decades.  That won't be forgotten.  With the electorate trending left (especially now that the Millies are finally acting rather than just talking), I suspect several reversals ... Citizens United being one and Heller being another.  

The Millies have been on the receiving end of conservative policies for their entire lives.  They're tired of shootings, over-priced schooling and crappy jobs.  They are a huge generation, so they'll make policy for a long time.  To be honest, I'm surprised that they finally woke up.  They've been sleepwalking through life up to this point.

The Millennial Generation shows most characteristics of a Civic generation, but even it has limits on what can be done to it, especially should the purpose be suspect. It has gotten the shaft from older adults in power -- the sorts of adults who tell people "Give us everything we want, don't complain, and wonderful things will happen." Well, the wonderful things have happened for people of unrestrained selfishness and lust for indulgence.  Everyone else? No. We now have the severest inequality in American economic life in nearly a century (and that may be an understatement).

Millennial values are for greater equity than is now offered. I expect them to be highly active in politics once they get a start. Pols who believe that profit and what it buys (power and privilege) will be voted out at the first opportunity. I expect Millennial adults to look at the institutions that we have and cast off the accretions of class privilege and the sleazy arrangements.

These young adults are nearly irreligious; they will put an emphasis on good works as the acid test of faith. They are also rational enough to see any superstition as baroque excess.

I can see them at their potential worst much like the revolutionaries of 1789 in France... and there is much to cast off. Government by lobbyist must die. The danger is that these young adults will fall in love with the 2020-era "Madame Guillotine" as did the Jacobin revolutionaries; they might prefer to 'retire' people in the way in the sense that troublesome androids get 'retired' in Blade Runner. That means killed. The method will probably be nitrogen asphyxiation, as such will be 'scientifically' painless.

(Yes, you know me for my tendency toward apocalypse. But this is a Crisis Era, and things get decided definitively in such a time near the end. As in "there will be no British presence in the former colonies", "slavery shall be permanently outlawed without compensation to slave owners", or "Nazism shall be blasted from the world." Count on talk of extirpation of intolerable evil and injustice as the main theme of the later stages of the Crisis.

[Eric the Green]

(02-20-2018, 03:55 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-20-2018, 12:43 PM)David Horn Wrote: The point of Jackson's argument is societal not individual.  Banning or regulating rights-based practices that degrade the society can be justified if the damage is severe enough to threaten society in general.  That's obviously a subjective call, but we should be able to know it when we see it.  Shouting FIRE is not an individual threat.  It threatens the public ... at least that portion of the public in attendance.  If the guy who sent the nuclear attack message in Hawaii had done so on purpose, that may be another example.

I believe Heller was wrongly decided.  Another court may decide that as well.  Short of that, however, we may find some limitations using Jackson's measuring stick.

And I believe Heller was correctly decided, that the intent of the authors of the constitution were honored, that the blues do not have the supermajority required to make the changes you are weaseling for.  You can hand wave around the fact that you cannot make said changes, and try to confuse rule of law with opinion, but you are apt to fail.  Values lock is engaged.  Many will reject your opinion, sure of their opinions, which are as firm as yours.  There are not enough people who agree with you to succeed legally.

Values change when truly complete and spread should change legal standards and law, but what is happening is that you want to change the law before your new values have spread enough.  To change the law, you are willing to disrespect the law.  I reject that.

I don't see how David, I or other blues are disrespecting the law. It's the law we are calling upon. We personally can't steal guns from people and melt them down. If the Supreme Court throws out a law that we propose and pass, that's the law for now. As David said though, the tides may be changing. It will take more than a couple of years, for sure. And since you are right that values-lock is involved, some gun nuts (e.g. bobc) may try to wage civil war over this, and gun advocates will fight back legally. So we'll see.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-19-2018, 12:18 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(02-15-2018, 09:44 PM)rEric the Green Wrote: Conceal carry advocates live in a dreamworld.

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

I would have expecte4d to do better as I consider myself much smarter and rational than the usual crook. The one fellow got his concealed weapon caught in his shirt -- and would have been killed.

Concealed weapon -- concealed doom, and not for the criminal.

The dumb crook would have the advantage over your so-called superior intelligence. I'd fair much better than you or them. My first instinct would be to take cover and then arm myself and then wait for an opportunity to take out the shooter.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-20-2018, 03:55 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-20-2018, 12:43 PM)David Horn Wrote: The point of Jackson's argument is societal not individual.  Banning or regulating rights-based practices that degrade the society can be justified if the damage is severe enough to threaten society in general.  That's obviously a subjective call, but we should be able to know it when we see it.  Shouting FIRE is not an individual threat.  It threatens the public ... at least that portion of the public in attendance.  If the guy who sent the nuclear attack message in Hawaii had done so on purpose, that may be another example.

I believe Heller was wrongly decided.  Another court may decide that as well.  Short of that, however, we may find some limitations using Jackson's measuring stick.

And I believe Heller was correctly decided, that the intent of the authors of the constitution were honored, that the blues do not have the supermajority required to make the changes you are weaseling for.  You can hand wave around the fact that you cannot make said changes, and try to confuse rule of law with opinion, but you are apt to fail.  Values lock is engaged.  Many will reject your opinion, sure of their opinions, which are as firm as yours.  There are not enough people who agree with you to succeed legally.

Values change when truly complete and spread should change legal standards and law, but what is happening is that you want to change the law before your new values have spread enough.  To change the law, you are willing to disrespect the law.  I reject that.

We don't live in heaven. Heaven is about the only place that you'll find where blue values reign supreme.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-20-2018, 01:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes. Many believe the 2nd granted a right for a well-regulated militia member to carry a firearm. Bob says it should be interpreted according to state constitutions of the 18th century. Since times have changed, and guns have become such a danger to society, it is valid to interpret the justification clause as a qualifications clause, as was done for many decades before Heller. This danger to society is not a personal opinion, but a fact.

If the current conservative, right-wing majority on the Bush/Trump Court is updated in the future, this view may return. This might make it possible for certain localities to ban certain weapons, unless their bearers are part of a well-regulated militia, which in updated terms means the national guard and the police. Meanwhile, the Court in Heller says gun control is permitted, and that likely includes a ban on military weapons (semi-automatics).

I think that society has the right to judge someone unfit to own and carry a weapon, just as they judge someone unfit to drive a vehicle or obtain other kinds of licenses. Whether (s)he has actually been convicted of a felony or not, may not matter. If someone is behaving dangerously, including making threats, a restraining order is appropriate, and this includes restraint on the right to bear arms. Guns are for killing life; those not qualified to kill, should not have access to them.

Our unique American obsession with the unnecessary, ammosexual "right" to own and carry weapons is just one way in which the USA is backward, self-destructive and regressive today. I hope the USA can recover its bearings as the 4T reaches its climax and moves us into a new saeculum and the next 2 turnings, with the USA embracing a higher purpose and consciousness than it has had in the Reagan/Bush/Trump era. I look forward to this. Since I am a blue/green, idealistic, awakened core Boomer, I continue to nourish hope and expectation for progress, creativity and enlightenment. In this lifetime, or the next. May it be so

So, you wouldn't have a problem if I or a group of politicians were to declare you and others like you as unfit to own or carry a weapon and speak freely and so forth. Guns are for killing people as you say. Guns are also for protecting people. You'd be wise to focus on those who are killing people with guns and focus on ways of protecting unarmed people. The issue with blues is that blues seem more unable to differentiate between good gun owners and bad gun owners, people and groups in general. The blues are used to speaking to blues and seem unable to speak to the masses. Don't take it personal, Obama was no better at speaking/appealing to the masses than you.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-21-2018, 12:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-20-2018, 03:55 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-20-2018, 12:43 PM)David Horn Wrote: The point of Jackson's argument is societal not individual.  Banning or regulating rights-based practices that degrade the society can be justified if the damage is severe enough to threaten society in general.  That's obviously a subjective call, but we should be able to know it when we see it.  Shouting FIRE is not an individual threat.  It threatens the public ... at least that portion of the public in attendance.  If the guy who sent the nuclear attack message in Hawaii had done so on purpose, that may be another example.

I believe Heller was wrongly decided.  Another court may decide that as well.  Short of that, however, we may find some limitations using Jackson's measuring stick.

And I believe Heller was correctly decided, that the intent of the authors of the constitution were honored, that the blues do not have the supermajority required to make the changes you are weaseling for.  You can hand wave around the fact that you cannot make said changes, and try to confuse rule of law with opinion, but you are apt to fail.  Values lock is engaged.  Many will reject your opinion, sure of their opinions, which are as firm as yours.  There are not enough people who agree with you to succeed legally.

Values change when truly complete and spread should change legal standards and law, but what is happening is that you want to change the law before your new values have spread enough.  To change the law, you are willing to disrespect the law.  I reject that.

I don't see how David, I or other blues are disrespecting the law. It's the law we are calling upon. We personally can't steal guns from people and melt them down. If the Supreme Court throws out a law that we propose and pass, that's the law for now. As David said though, the tides may be changing. It will take more than a couple of years, for sure. And since you are right that values-lock is involved, some gun nuts (e.g. bobc) may try to wage civil war over this, and gun advocates will fight back legally. So we'll see.

True, you can't confiscate guns and melt them down on your own. You'll need to elect a more tyrranical government like the blue governments of old (the Bolshevik's and Nazi's) and give it similar power as those. What do you think would happen to a totalitarian who started a fight with a bunch of authoritarians?

[Eric the Green]

(02-21-2018, 08:18 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-21-2018, 12:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-20-2018, 03:55 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-20-2018, 12:43 PM)David Horn Wrote: The point of Jackson's argument is societal not individual.  Banning or regulating rights-based practices that degrade the society can be justified if the damage is severe enough to threaten society in general.  That's obviously a subjective call, but we should be able to know it when we see it.  Shouting FIRE is not an individual threat.  It threatens the public ... at least that portion of the public in attendance.  If the guy who sent the nuclear attack message in Hawaii had done so on purpose, that may be another example.

I believe Heller was wrongly decided.  Another court may decide that as well.  Short of that, however, we may find some limitations using Jackson's measuring stick.

And I believe Heller was correctly decided, that the intent of the authors of the constitution were honored, that the blues do not have the supermajority required to make the changes you are weaseling for.  You can hand wave around the fact that you cannot make said changes, and try to confuse rule of law with opinion, but you are apt to fail.  Values lock is engaged.  Many will reject your opinion, sure of their opinions, which are as firm as yours.  There are not enough people who agree with you to succeed legally.

Values change when truly complete and spread should change legal standards and law, but what is happening is that you want to change the law before your new values have spread enough.  To change the law, you are willing to disrespect the law.  I reject that.

I don't see how David, I or other blues are disrespecting the law. It's the law we are calling upon. We personally can't steal guns from people and melt them down. If the Supreme Court throws out a law that we propose and pass, that's the law for now. As David said though, the tides may be changing. It will take more than a couple of years, for sure. And since you are right that values-lock is involved, some gun nuts (e.g. bobc) may try to wage civil war over this, and gun advocates will fight back legally. So we'll see.

True, you can't confiscate guns and melt them down on your own. You'll need to elect a more tyrranical government like the blue governments of old (the Bolshevik's and Nazi's) and give it similar power as those. What do you think would happen to a totalitarian who started a fight with a bunch of authoritarians?

I don't know. I just know that the "real" Americans are fed up with a government that permits assault weapons in the hands of children shooting up schools, theaters, concert halls, dance halls, shopping centers, offices, etc. What we have now is the tyranny of the NRA, a greedy lobby that makes killing machines, and insists that everyone should have them. We will need to elect a government that liberals have wanted for decades, but which has been perpetually blocked by the ignorant and the powerful in our society; a government that's willing to act for the people and restrain the powerful.

[Eric the Green]

(02-21-2018, 07:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-20-2018, 01:44 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes. Many believe the 2nd granted a right for a well-regulated militia member to carry a firearm. Bob says it should be interpreted according to state constitutions of the 18th century. Since times have changed, and guns have become such a danger to society, it is valid to interpret the justification clause as a qualifications clause, as was done for many decades before Heller. This danger to society is not a personal opinion, but a fact.

If the current conservative, right-wing majority on the Bush/Trump Court is updated in the future, this view may return. This might make it possible for certain localities to ban certain weapons, unless their bearers are part of a well-regulated militia, which in updated terms means the national guard and the police. Meanwhile, the Court in Heller says gun control is permitted, and that likely includes a ban on military weapons (semi-automatics).

I think that society has the right to judge someone unfit to own and carry a weapon, just as they judge someone unfit to drive a vehicle or obtain other kinds of licenses. Whether (s)he has actually been convicted of a felony or not, may not matter. If someone is behaving dangerously, including making threats, a restraining order is appropriate, and this includes restraint on the right to bear arms. Guns are for killing life; those not qualified to kill, should not have access to them.

Our unique American obsession with the unnecessary, ammosexual "right" to own and carry weapons is just one way in which the USA is backward, self-destructive and regressive today. I hope the USA can recover its bearings as the 4T reaches its climax and moves us into a new saeculum and the next 2 turnings, with the USA embracing a higher purpose and consciousness than it has had in the Reagan/Bush/Trump era. I look forward to this. Since I am a blue/green, idealistic, awakened core Boomer, I continue to nourish hope and expectation for progress, creativity and enlightenment. In this lifetime, or the next. May it be so

So, you wouldn't have a problem if I or a group of politicians were to declare you and others like you as unfit to own or carry a weapon and speak freely and so forth. Guns are for killing people as you say. Guns are also for protecting people. You'd be wise to focus on those who are killing people with guns and focus on ways of protecting unarmed people. The issue with blues is that blues seem more unable to differentiate between good gun owners and bad gun owners, people and groups in general. The blues are used to speaking to blues and seem unable to speak to the masses. Don't take it personal, Obama was no better at speaking/appealing to the masses than you.

It's fine for you to write your opinions and speak your mind. I speak mine as well, and my knowledge and my heart tells me different things than what yours does. I would have no problem if someone says I am unfit to own or carry a weapon, because I don't want one. Guns do not protect people, they only kill. There are better ways of self defense. We have laid them out before for this forum. They include:

move to a safe neighborhood
locks
dogs
mace
tasers
alarms
9-1-1

There are also better ways to manage wildlife that may invade farms or become overgrown. Restoring the full range of wildlife including top predators. Hiring rangers to shoot dart tranquilizers, and bullets if necessary. Fences and dogs. etc. No-one needs a gun.

Guns, on the other hand, are only good protection for people who are expert with them, against criminals who might invade your space. You can only defend yourself against another gun in a shootout in which you probably lose your life. Other methods might work better against knives, baseball bats, choking, etc. In fact, as long as guns are safe, they are useless, because it takes too much time to unlock and load them in an emergency when you are being attacked. And if they are NOT locked and unloaded, then a child or a criminal might get them and use them. Or the owner or other resident might get drunk or angry and shoot someone in a fit of rage. Then, who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?

It is also wise to focus on people killing with guns, but that is what I was talking about. Certain people are not qualified to own or carry them, and should be prevented from doing so, and should get help for their problems. Penalties for using a gun are fine, but it won't do much to solve the problem. Anyone who has a gun might become a bad guy; that's what you guys fail to realize.

Americans are obsessed with guns. It is the only country so obsessed. We have 10 to 100 times more gun violence, and many times more murders and suicides, just because we also have many times more guns than any other society. I don't know why blues have so much trouble getting you guys to understand these facts. You tell me.

The children are speaking out now. It may dawn on some people that having a gun to kill people with is less important than our childrens' lives.

Obama was pretty good. His horoscope score is 19-2. Very few candidates or presidents are better communicators than Obama. Bill Clinton, 21-3. FDR, 21-4. Reagan, 21-6. Truman, 14-0. Even George W Bush had 17-2. Hillary was not as good: 9-11. Kerry, 8-12. McCain 15-13. Romney 4-10. The horoscope score is a good index of the communication skill of candidates for president. http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

The fact is, Obama was as good a communicator as you're likely to find. If he can't communicate with you guys, the fault is yours and yours alone for not being able to hear him.

[Eric the Green]

The vast right-wing conspiracy will go to any length to protect their guns, their money and their privileges. Even Some Republican lawmakers have disavowed this latest attempt to mislead and fool the people. David Hogg is so articulate and so smart in discussing the gun issue on CNN and NBC's Meet the Press that the conspiracy theorists are calling him an actor. My point is that they are doing this because he is smart and articulate. Dumb fucks like Alex Jones can't beat him in the debate, so they resort to trying to discredit him and making him a target of their fakery.

http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics...pokenness/

Florida lawmaker’s aide fired after saying outspoken Parkland students are actors
Ben Kelly emailed a reporter with the stunning assertion.
By Alex Leary and Kirby Wilson 1 day ago


Emma Gonzalez and David Hogg, students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, appear on CNN.





Editor's note: This story has been updated to reflect the full version of events that occurred Tuesday since the original post about how Parkland students were coming under attack for their outspokenness. Hours later, an aide to a state representative sent an unsolicited email to a reporter that played on a conspiracy theory.

It bubbled up from the darkest online corners then began to take off: conspiracy theories about Parkland students who've spent the past week on TV demanding action on the gun violence that killed 17 and reawakened a national debate.

By late Tuesday afternoon, the conspiracy climbed to a new level when an aide to state Rep. Shawn Harrison, R-Tampa, was fired after emailing a Tampa Bay Times reporter with a stunning assertion: "Both kids in the picture are not students here but actors that travel to various crisis when they happen."

Benjamin Kelly referred to a picture attached to a Times story, posted online hours earlier, about how Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students were drawing attacks for their outspokenness. The picture showed David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez speaking on CNN.

Asked for backup to his claim, Kelly sent another email — again from his official myfloridahouse.gov account — that included a link to a conspiracy video on YouTube. The video showed Hogg in a news clip from California over a dispute with a lifeguard involving a boogie board. Hogg had posted a video of the confrontation with the lifeguard on YouTube and it "went viral," a news reporter said. Now, conspiracy theorists have questioned what Hogg was doing in another state, some branding him a "crisis actor."

Wrote Kelly to the Times: "There is a clip on you tube that shows Mr. Hogg out in California. (I guess he transferred?)"

Reaction on social media was strident.

Jaclyn Corin, the school's 11th-grade class president, wrote: "We are KIDS — not actors. We are KIDS that have grown up in Parkland all of our lives. We are KIDS who feared for our lives while someone shot up our school. We are KIDS working to prevent this from happening again. WE ARE KIDS."

PBS report on the conspiracy theory
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/for-ki...-theorists

Here's David Hogg on Meet the Press: (he's good, no wonder they want to stop him)




Student journalist David Hogg on Fox News:




He seems to be a go-to person on the shooting and the issue; CBS:
https://youtu.be/_bbVO4rmHFg
https://youtu.be/C3grouDLNt0