Ongoing Mass Shooting Thread #3... that's right, a third thread. Because 'Murica.

[ImOuttaControl]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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]

Originally Posted by Nick66

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.

[nbelcik]

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.

[Nick66]

Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl

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.

[nbelcik]

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.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl

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]

Originally Posted by Nick66

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.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl

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.

[Wide Awake n AZ]

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).

[Nick66]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

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.

[Wide Awake n AZ]

"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.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Nick66

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.

[Nick66]

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.

Originally Posted by Wide Awake n AZ

"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.

[Irvine511]

TFW you want to start arguing with gun idiots on U2’s Instagram feed.

[Wide Awake n AZ]

But capacity matters, and mass shootings are not just a school thing. Not anymore.

[Nick66]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

TFW you want to start arguing with gun idiots on U2’s Instagram feed.

No idea what this means.

[MrsSpringsteen]

I believe TFW stands for that feeling when

[DaveC]

i thought it was "the face when" because at first it was usually attached to memes of people looking frustrated, angry, rolling eyes etc. but i've never looked into it so that could just be something i assumed.

[LuckyNumber7]

In getting a large sense of old in this thread

[MrsSpringsteen]

Laura Ingraham is such a lowlife. She mentioned on her show, and tweeted about it, that David Hogg was "whining"about not getting into four colleges. And she talked about his GPA.

His sister tweeted at her that it was low even for her, and she said coming from a 14 year old grow up. She's right. It's so unseemly and frankly disgusting-that so called adults are attacking teenagers over this. Even death threats. Under the circumstances , makes me sick.