Ongoing Mass Shooting Thread #3... that's right, a third thread. Because 'Murica. - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-26-2018, 10:57 AM   #121
Refugee
 
ImOuttaControl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes
Posts: 1,450
Local Time: 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post


there are three branches of government.
No kidding? Maybe I'll share your awesome insight with my students where I've taught US government for the last 12 years. All this time I've been teaching about the 2 branches of government...Thank you for that insight.

And people on here complain that Nick is condescending.
__________________

ImOuttaControl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2018, 11:03 AM   #122
Refugee
 
ImOuttaControl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes
Posts: 1,450
Local Time: 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
I'm not sure this is true. I think conservatives pretty much want to leave the Constitution alone. To the extent Conservatives are comfortable with the amendment process, I think it's because it's so incredibly difficult (as close to impossible as it comes in politics) to do.

Changing the gun laws via the legislative and political process, as incredibly difficult as it is, is still much, much more doable than amending the Constitution. It was trying to change the politics ("vote them out!") that those 200,000 people in DC were trying to do on Saturday.
I would agree to a point, that they want to leave it alone. But, there is a process in place for changing one of our most basic rights and I find conservatives to be much more open to that process rather than the legislative process or through judicial activism. I've seen conservatives push the idea of a "Convention of the States" in recent years, not so much from the left which is the point I am trying to make.

Yes, they were trying to "vote them out!" and change the politics of the gun control debate, but it's not as simple as just passing laws when constitutional rights are involved.
__________________

ImOuttaControl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2018, 11:09 AM   #123
Refugee
 
nbelcik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,571
Local Time: 12:20 PM
The right loves judicial activism: Lochner, US v. Lopez, Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, etc.

Conservatives complain about judicial activism when the court system is used to expand the rights of marginalized people.
nbelcik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2018, 11:10 AM   #124
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl View Post
Yes, they were trying to "vote them out!" and change the politics of the gun control debate, but it's not as simple as just passing laws when constitutional rights are involved.
Very true.

Though a lot of the things they're pushing for (e.g. expanded background checks, raising the age to buy a gun, even banning the sale of the AR-15) probably wouldn't run afoul of the Constitution, even post-Heller.

The problem, of course, is that things like banning "assault weapons" won't make much of dent in overall gun violence, given that the vast majority of it is done with handguns.
Nick66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2018, 11:42 AM   #125
Refugee
 
nbelcik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,571
Local Time: 12:20 PM
At this point I'm in favor of a movement calling for the repeal of the 2nd amendment simply to shift the Overton window. The right has been very successful in shifting the Overton window to the point that policies that would've been unthinkable just 50 years ago (concealed carry, Stand Your Ground) are now law in many states. The left needs to shift the discourse.
nbelcik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2018, 02:48 PM   #126
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl View Post
No kidding? Maybe I'll share your awesome insight with my students where I've taught US government for the last 12 years. All this time I've been teaching about the 2 branches of government...Thank you for that insight.

And people on here complain that Nick is condescending.
The point Irvine is making is that the right is eager to dump the judicial branch any time something doesn't go their way. Just look at what is happening in Pennsylvania, where they're impeaching the judges who declared their grossly gerrymandered maps unconstitutional.
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2018, 02:49 PM   #127
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
The problem, of course, is that things like banning "assault weapons" won't make much of dent in overall gun violence, given that the vast majority of it is done with handguns.
This is very true. Access to handguns also needs to be greatly curtailed.
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2018, 04:43 PM   #128
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 31,512
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl View Post
No kidding? Maybe I'll share your awesome insight with my students where I've taught US government for the last 12 years. All this time I've been teaching about the 2 branches of government...Thank you for that insight.



And people on here complain that Nick is condescending.


The fact that you’re a government teacher and even use that phrase.
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2018, 04:57 PM   #129
The Fly
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 296
Local Time: 12:20 PM
2A isn't going to get amended. 3/4 of the states means Idaho = California.

What cracks me up is the vast majority of people asking/begging for some form of gun control are asking for limits that have all been ruled to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. Like, the group that determines constitutional muster?

Capacity limits, waiting periods, background checks (universal)...none of this is infringing on a single "right".

Unless people want to claim "wants" are the same as constitutional rights.

Short of that, GTFO with "I have my rights" bullshit. Because...if 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the states actually get to the point of changing 2A? That IS democracy AND representative government in action.

Either way, no one is abridging your rights as a citizen of this nation. Either they are voting for limits that are within the protections of 2A, or they are using an extremely majority-based process to change/eliminate 2A. But the latter is never going to happen, so quit using that red herring as the basis for braindead "slippery slope"* arguments.

(* Slippery Slope (R) is a registered trademark of the National Rifle Association and the NRA must be mentioned in all uses).
Wide Awake n AZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2018, 04:58 PM   #130
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
This is very true. Access to handguns also needs to be greatly curtailed.
To make a dent in gun violence, yes. That's what you have to do.

As tragic as each death from an "assault weapon" is, those numbers are statistically insignificant. And if you're a student you're more likely to catch a deadly virus in school or get killed in the parking lot, or seriously injured via intermural sports...or struck by lightning...than you are to be injured or killed in a school shooting.

I don't say this to minimize the tragedy of school shootings. They sting particularly hard because some of the most vulnerable among us are the victims. But getting rid of just "assault" weapons really won't even solve a problem that isn't anywhere near an epidemic anyway. If you want to really save lives, you have to get pretty much all the guns...something no one talks about because it's not politically palpable.
Nick66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2018, 05:05 PM   #131
The Fly
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 296
Local Time: 12:20 PM
"Statistically insignificant" is never a relevant term to use when speaking of the deaths of children at their place of learning when not committing a crime or associating with criminal activity, where the vast majority of gun deaths occur. And I hear your personal caveat, and am not aiming this directly at you, but at people like Santorum who treat this like a war numbers game.


While the chance is still like being struck by lightning, there is nothing insignificant about it, and it is a warning sign for things like the Vegas shooting. Or the Gabby Giffords shooting in Tucson, except that was largely thwarted because Jared Loughner had a...handgun. And got tackled on reload. Saving double digits in lives.

So, yeah...capacity matters. Reloads allow for heroism. Handguns are not easy to shoot at distance, but an AR-15 is surprisingly easy. An AR-15 does insane amounts of damage. People survive handgun shootings...


Capacity and firepower matters. (editing to add...I get this is a sick situation. But short of the magical elimination of guns, this kind of thing has to be considered).


Now...if we can stop fucking pathetic men from shooting their girlfriends/boyfriends/wives/husbands/objects of their affection, we might be onto something. But that starts much deeper. Waiting periods do help here, though. Crimes of passion are not always committed by someone with access to a gun, or knowledge of black market acquisition. Cooling off is a good idea.

That's no reason not to pursue capacity/firepower limits.
Wide Awake n AZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2018, 05:06 PM   #132
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 31,512
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
To make a dent in gun violence, yes.

As tragic as each death from an "assault weapon" is, those numbers are statistically insignificant. And if you're a student you're more likely to catch a deadly virus in school or get killed in the parking lot, or seriously injured via intermural sports...or struck by lightning...than you are to be injured or killed in a school shooting.

I don't say this to minimize the tragedy of school shootings. But getting rid of just "assault" weapons really won't even solve a problem that isn't anywhere near an epidemic anyway. If you want to really save lives, you have to get pretty much all the guns...something no one talks about because it's not politically palpable.



You’re right in that aggregate death isn’t much affected by mass shootings. 17 kids murdered in Parkland aren’t any better or worse than 17 kids in Chicago over the 4th of July.

But mass shootings terrorize and traumatize in a way that individualized violence simply doesn’t.

I see nothing wrong with banning assault weapons that make these kinds of mass death events easier to pull off while at the same time regulating handguns more closely.
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2018, 05:13 PM   #133
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 08:20 PM
I don't think there's anything wrong with banning assault weapons...I'm for it. I'm just not under any illusions it will solve the problem. The deadliest school shooting in history was done with handguns, and the effectiveness of banning "assault weapons" hasn't really be established definitively. The countries like OZ & the UK which are often held up as examples banned most firearms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wide Awake n AZ View Post
"Statistically insignificant" is never a relevant term to use when speaking of the deaths of children at their place of learning when not committing a crime or associating with criminal activity, where the vast majority of gun deaths occur. And I hear your personal caveat, and am not aiming this directly at you, but at people like Santorum who treat this like a war numbers game.
Well, as I've said, even one death is too many. But if we're actually talking about solving problems, we have to understand the scope of them, and statistics do matter. Obviously, no life is insignificant.
Nick66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2018, 05:18 PM   #134
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 31,512
Local Time: 03:20 PM
TFW you want to start arguing with gun idiots on U2’s Instagram feed.
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2018, 05:19 PM   #135
The Fly
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 296
Local Time: 12:20 PM
But capacity matters, and mass shootings are not just a school thing. Not anymore.
__________________

Wide Awake n AZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com