This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Right on time! Another school shooting...

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 4]

Floridatexan wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:
Deus X wrote:

I don't recall auto manufacturers lobbying Congress to get a law like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed to protect them from liability suits. ....

I don't recall a series of politically motivated harassment lawsuits against auto companies by leftists who, failing to be able to legislatively ban cars, decided to try & take down the auto industry via the courts.  If they were doing that to the auto industry, Congress might well pass a law.

The passage of mandatory background checks pretty much legally insulates most dealers from being sued for selling to an unauthorized person anyway.

Still waiting to hear what the left proposes to stop school shootings.  I've not heard even one realistic proposal yet that would accomplish anything of consequence.  (by "realistic" .... I mean something that has an actual chance of passage and implementation by the government)

Guns are not cars; that's a stupid analogy.  Guns are also not dead children.  Put a sock in it.

True... cars kill far more kids.

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
Guns are not cars; that's a stupid analogy.  Guns are also not dead children.  Put a sock in it.

Bad/sick/angry people kill other people with guns
Bad/sick/angry people kill other people with cars

It's a perfect analogy. Funny how the anti-gun crowd loves to throw out that analogy when it comes to licensing, registration, and otherwise restricting the 2nd Amendment .... except they forget how owning/driving a car is not actually Constitutionally protected right, whereas owning a gun is.

Were not two children killed by an angry/upset man's car on Woodbine road just last week? (fellow, btw who lived in my neighborhood a few streets over) https://www.pnj.com/story/news/crime/2018/05/09/woodbine-road-dui-crash-suspect-could-stay-jail-until-trial/593861002/

I wonder what make of car he was driving .... should the manufacturer be sued? And OMG! .... it was a gray Ford pickup truck. Well, that's it. I'm fed up. Ban all SCARY GRAY FORD PICKUP TRUCKS !!! That'll solve the problem fer sure Rolling Eyes


What's your solution 'Flo'?


View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Guns are not cars; that's a stupid analogy.  Guns are also not dead children.  Put a sock in it.

Bad/sick/angry people kill other people with guns
Bad/sick/angry people kill other people with cars

It's a perfect analogy.   Funny how the anti-gun crowd loves to throw out that analogy when it comes to licensing, registration, and otherwise restricting the 2nd Amendment .... except they forget how owning/driving a car is not actually Constitutionally protected right, whereas owning a gun is.

Were not two children killed by an angry/upset man's car on Woodbine road just last week?  (fellow, btw who lived in my neighborhood a few streets over)      https://www.pnj.com/story/news/crime/2018/05/09/woodbine-road-dui-crash-suspect-could-stay-jail-until-trial/593861002/

I wonder what make of car he was driving .... should the manufacturer be sued?   And OMG! ....  it was a gray Ford pickup truck.   Well, that's it. I'm fed up.  Ban all SCARY GRAY FORD PICKUP TRUCKS !!!   That'll solve the problem fer sure   Rolling Eyes


What's your solution 'Flo'?



Not my name, but I'll answer you anyway. STFU...that's my advice. You're disgusting.

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:


Not my name, but I'll answer you anyway.  STFU...that's my advice.  You're disgusting.

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the user" --- Socrates

Have a nice day, 'Flo' ... I recommend a nice indica hybrid for whatever it is that's bothering you.  Cool

(I hear Shari Lewis got buzzed before every show Laughing )

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:It's a perfect analogy.   Funny how the anti-gun crowd loves to throw out that analogy when it comes to licensing, registration, and otherwise restricting the 2nd Amendment .... except they forget how owning/driving a car is not actually Constitutionally protected right, whereas owning a gun is.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

DUH!

Gun ownership has long been regulated as to the type of weapons that can be owned, the person or persons who can own them and where they can be carried i.e. certain public spaces.

See: the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.

These have all been upheld by the Supreme Court.

I say again: DUH!

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:It's a perfect analogy.   Funny how the anti-gun crowd loves to throw out that analogy when it comes to licensing, registration, and otherwise restricting the 2nd Amendment .... except they forget how owning/driving a car is not actually Constitutionally protected right, whereas owning a gun is.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

DUH!

Gun ownership has long been regulated as to the type of weapons that can be owned, the person or persons who can own them and where they can be carried i.e. certain public spaces.

See: the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.

These have all been upheld by the Supreme Court.

I say again: DUH!


We are talking about how to prevent school shootings.  So, with that (your post above), do you propose we outlaw shotguns and .38 special revolvers, as carried by the most recent school shooter in Texas?  Yeah, okay  ... I don't think that's gonna happen.  I doubt even Joe Biden would stand with you on that position.   Get real 'Deuce'

As to the 2nd Amend, I suggest you review District of Columbia vs Heller which speaks directly to the "well regulated militia" phrase:

... the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people. Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship. Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290

You might not care much for that decision, and I understand where you might be coming from with that, but whatever .... I don't think it's likely to be overturned any time soon.  As someone once said:  "Elections have consequences" and sometimes those consequences are relatively permanent.  

We can argue/debate how gun laws ought/ought-not be till the cows come home ... but until the anti-gun crowd can come up with a realistic viable solution that can be Constitutionally implemented and have the support of a majority of the American public, it's just so much pissing in the wind.



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 5/21/2018, 5:57 am; edited 5 times in total

View user profile
The Texas Lt Gov says it's all because of violent video games, lack of prayer in school, and abortions anyway.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/20/us/texas-lieutenant-governor-dan-patrick-reasons-for-school-shootings/index.html


(noteto self:  better point this "violent video game" thing out to my son-in-law-to-be who happens to be in the process of developing his third "violent video game."  They live in Texas too ... Waco of all places! )

Ya gotta love Texas though ... I remember living there when my daughter was 12 and Gov Perry directed all young girls in Texas had to receive the Gardasil vaccine ... mandatory.  Never pointing out, of course, his substantial financial interest in the company that produces the vaccine.  Fortunately public outcry got his directive reversed.  Rick Perry  Rolling Eyes ... whenever I see or hear that guy I always think of what Bugs Bunny used to say:  "What a maroon!  What an ignoranimus!" (btw: one can learn a lot from Bugs Bunny ... for example, everything I know about opera I learned from Bugs! Laughing )

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:

I suggest you review District of Columbia vs Heller which states. in pertinent part,:

... the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people. Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship. Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment.


I'm well aware of Heller and you're, typically, cherry-picking the quotes. The decision also includes this:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller



Last edited by Deus X on 5/21/2018, 6:36 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:

I suggest you review District of Columbia vs Heller which states. in pertinent part,:

... the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people. Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship. Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment.


I'm well aware of Heller and you're, typically, cherry-picking the quotes. The decision also include this:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

I "cherry-picked" the quote about the "well-regulated miltia" phrase because that's what you were specifically speaking to in your post to which I was responding ... and also because it so happened to be the Constitutional item of major import of that decision.   I wasn't gonna quote the whole dang thing or go off on some kind of wide-ranging tangent ... that's just annoying.  Note I also provided a link for anyone who wanted to read the whole thing  ... that's just good posting etiquette.

Anyways, how do you think that decision stacks up against the idea of banning shotguns and .38 revolvers in Texas?   I'm telling ya "Deuce" .... that's, frankly, a leftist pipe-dream.  Ain't gonna happen.  And the idea of it is not any kind of credible solution to this current school-shooting craze.  

Leftists are using the issue of school shootings to promote/agitate-for various types of gun bans, not really as any kind of credible/realistic/viable  solution to the problem of school shootings, but rather to promote an ideological agenda.   And there are those on the right who do the same.  It's really kind of sick if you ask me.

Personally, I'm not particularly passionate about the issue of guns ... I grew up in an area awash with guns, but very few people carrying concealed and you would have been hard pressed to find an AR-15 type rifle in the entire county.   I'm not an NRA fanatic, but I do have the few guns I might actually need and I have far more legal & tactical training in their use than the average Joe.  I have no irrational fears Hillary's secret gay police are going to come kicking in my door to take them away.  Not in my lifetime anyway.  Further, by virtue of my previous employment I already have a Federal CCW permit good in all States ... so that's not really an issue for me either ... not that I often carry concealed either. I don't. Frankly ... I think there are a bunch of people running around legally packing with their CCW permit who probably ought not be.  (I know a couple)  But whatever. I digress.  Like I said .... I'm just not overly passionate about it politcally as I am some with other things. But I'm always up for a discussion.

The viable/immediate solution, in my view, is for local school boards to step up and take responsibility for hardening school physical and personnel security against such things ... however they feel is appropriate to do that in their particular locality.  That's who all the recent gun law protests over this issue should be directed at if you ask me.  And that might require property tax increases in some places.  Ya get what ya pay for.  We also have to accept that there is no silver-bullet one-size-fits-all Federal solution to this particular social problem ... and look our elected representatives on school boards who are actually running our schools on a day-to-day, where-the-rubber-meets-the-road basis.   That's just my 2 psi on the issue.



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 5/21/2018, 6:46 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:

Anyways, how do you think that decision stacks up against the idea of banning shotguns and .38 revolvers in Texas?  

Who the hell is saying that? Post a link. This is typical ultra-reactionary hyperbole akin to the "They want to kill babies!" nonsense from the Anti-abortion nuts. There's even a name for it: The Slippery Slope Fallacy. It's intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:

Anyways, how do you think that decision stacks up against the idea of banning shotguns and .38 revolvers in Texas?  

Who the hell is saying that? Post a link. This is typical ultra-reactionary hyperbole akin to the "They want to kill babies!" nonsense from the Anti-abortion nuts. There's even a name for it: The Slippery Slope Fallacy. It's intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.


It's not "intellecutal dishonesty" ... I was responding directly to your post bringing up 2nd Amendment issues and the phrase "well-regulated militia."   I could only but logically presume that meant you would like to ban certain (ir all?) privately held firearms as a solution?   Like the shotgun & .38 special uses by the kid in Texas? ... which, btw, is precisely what this thread is supposed to be about.

Okay .. so you don't want to ban shotguns & .38 revolvers ...  what is your solution then?   Take a stand 'Deuce."    I keep asking this and nobody provides specifics.  It's all yaddayaddayadda ... we need more gun regulations for the law-abiding to abide by.   But the type gun regulations being advocated for will really do little to nothing to prevent school shootings.   That's why I said it's just political opportunism (by the right & left .. all the while yelling past each other and painting each other with the broad brush of being evil uncaring persons.  As someone once said ...   "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. … This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not before. " And in the face of a current real-world social/crime problem like these school shootings, it's really kind of sick if you ask me.



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 5/21/2018, 7:10 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:Okay .. so you don't want to ban shotguns & .38 revolvers ...  what is your solution then?    I keep asking this and nobody provides specifics.  It's all yaddayaddayadda ... we need more gun regulations for the law-abiding to abide by.   But the type gun regulations being advocated for will really do little to nothing to prevent school shootings.   That's why I said it's just political opportunism (by the right & left)  And it's sick.

I don't know what the solution is, all I know is it's a national disgrace--a damn complicated problem and gun control is certainly PART of the solution.

A hundred mass shootings since January! No other developed nation has this problem and it's shameful. Something is wrong with our national psyche that we accept this.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:

I don't know what the solution is, all I know is it's a national disgrace--a damn complicated problem and gun control is certainly PART of the solution.

A hundred mass shootings since January! No other developed nation has this problem and it's shameful. Something is wrong with our national psyche that we accept this.

Well, what kind of "gun control" do you advocate for?   (that will withstand the 2nd Amendment and the court of public opinion of course)

It's not really all that complicated .... mass shootings at many government and corporate facilities are somewhat uncommon.  Because they'd never get past the front door vestibule.  To tell ya the truth ... I've been in meat packing plants with more security than most of our public schools ... and some of the folks that work in those places are actually kind of scary.  (maybe we should contract with Tyson for school security? Joke, joke!  That's more tongue in cheek than any kind of serious proposal)  It's just gonna take a lot of money to harden up our public school facilities.     Ergo my question as to whether people would vote for property tax increases to do so.

(btw ... has anyone noticed this is primarily a problem in "public" schools?   Could just be the demographics of the thing, far more kids in public schools than private in this country, but ya gotta wonder?)



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 5/21/2018, 7:24 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
Deus X wrote: ....  Something is wrong with our national psyche ....

Well, I'll go along with that part of your statement!  Laughing

In Chicago, 890 people have been shot this year. That is 333 fewer than 2017.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/data/ct-shooting-victims-map-charts-htmlstory.html



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 5/21/2018, 7:26 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
I'm not just talking about shootings in schools or government buildings, I'm talking about mass shootings in general, including schools.

Just in the last few years we've had, in no particular order, the two school shooting, Los Vegas, Pulse nightclub, Sutherland Springs, Aurora, the Navy Yard, San Bernadino--and those are just the ones that come quickly to mind.

Something much deeper than just the easy availability of guns is going on and it's a national disgrace.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:  ....

Something much deeper than just the easy availability of guns is going on and it's a national disgrace.

We agree on that.  Except I don't agree stricter gun laws (as such that can be actually accomplished within the confines of the 2nd Amendment and the court of public opinion) are going to do much at all to solve this problem.

There are some social problems that are beyond the help of any pie-in-the-sky, silver-bullet, one-size fits-all solutions that some might offer up to be implemented by a big momma nanny Federal government. Big government has it's place in certain circumstances ... this is just not one of those circumstances.

I'm for real solutions to problems that can actually be implemented and be effective ... not virtue signaling and political posturing.  (not accusing you specifically of that, of course ... but there's a lot of that going on with regard to this issue)

View user profile
Okay ... despite my previous "funnin'" about Lt Gov Daniels about abortion, violent video games, and prayer in school ... as well as Texas politicians in general ... I will go along with him on this comment:

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick blamed Friday's massacre at a high school near Houston in part on "too many entrances and too many exits" on the campus, prompting some to mock his perspective as "door control."

"From what we know, this student walked in ... with a long coat and a shotgun under his coat," said Patrick, a Republican who has an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association. "It's 90 degrees. Had there been one single entrance possibly for every student, maybe he would have been stopped." ....

....  "Now, that will take a lot of work and a lot of money, but we need to do the work and do the money to protect the children the best we can. In other words, we may need to harden our schools and make them safer," he said.

 https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/19/us/texas-school-shooting-exits-trnd/index.html

Yes ... "door control" ... this is what it really comes down to.  Ask any physical security professional.  (I'm not one myself, but I've worked closely with several on some projects)



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 5/21/2018, 8:03 am; edited 3 times in total

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:
There are some social problems that are beyond the help of any pie-in-the-sky, silver-bullet, one-size fits-all solutions that some might offer up to be implemented by a big momma nanny Federal government.

Apparently you're not aware of Social Security or the Civil Rights Act. The Federal government attacks social problems all the time with laws and regulations.

Just look at smoking in the last 20 years. It used to be perfectly accepted and now it's anathema. The Federal government can do a LOT to effect social problems.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:

Apparently you're not aware of Social Security or the Civil Rights Act. ...

No need to be snide, 'Duece'


Deus X wrote:

...  The Federal government attacks social problems all the time with laws and regulations.

Just look at smoking in the last 20 years. It used to be perfectly accepted and now it's anathema. The Federal government can do a LOT to effect social problems.


Well, I have my issues with all of those things.   But I don't want to get off on a tangent.

Also ... please note the caveat I made you left out when quoting my post:
Big government has it's place in certain circumstances ... this is just not one of those circumstances.



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 5/21/2018, 7:43 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


It's a prefatory statement as to the objectives of the authorities granted to and prohibitions placed upon the Federal government by the Constitution ....  not any kind of  authority in and of itself.  

The Constitution in it's entirety is as much or more of a limiting document as it is a document granting the various authorities and outlining scope of the Federal government.

But we're straying pretty far from the immediate topic with this 2nd Amendment stuff .... you have no solution you said yourself.  I do.   What's the problem with my proposal ... which is something actually realistic and can be done right away with no new laws.



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 5/21/2018, 7:52 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
I've said already... but i can go along with stiffer penalties for not securing your guns properly... speedy due process w outside mental verification... and a one strike rule for those prohibited from guns violating the terms.

Everything else should be common sense to protect the innocent in govt facilities. Not safe zone crapola.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:I've said already... but i can go along with stiffer penalties for not securing your guns properly... speedy due process w outside mental verification... and a one strike rule for those prohibited from guns violating the terms.

Everything else should be common sense to protect the innocent in govt facilities. Not safe zone crapola.

Define "securing your guns properly." (Have you checked with the NRA on that?)

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:
PkrBum wrote:I've said already... but i can go along with stiffer penalties for not securing your guns properly... speedy due process w outside mental verification... and a one strike rule for those prohibited from guns violating the terms.

Everything else should be common sense to protect the innocent in govt facilities. Not safe zone crapola.

Define "securing your guns properly."  (Have you checked with the NRA on that?)

I don't give a damn what the NRA "says". A gun safe preferably... but I guess a locked closet at minimum.

The objective should be obvious.

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:   What's the problem with my proposal ... which is something actually realistic and can be done right away with no new laws.

If your solution is hardening the schools, it's ridiculous! Who the hell is going to pay for it? It'd cost $50 to $100 thousand for each entrance and most high schools have more than one building with multiple entrances. What about portables? Thirty percent of the schools in this country have portable classrooms on campus, how're gonna harden them? Shit, you can shoot a BB through most of them!

You're probably looking at more than $1,000,000 for a high school with two buildings, a gym and 6 or 8 portables and there's at least 20,00 high schools in this country. Do the math.

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum