muh gunz

2/23/2018 8:50:34 AM

Quote :

"So. For the crowd calling for armed guards/retired vets/more police officers/armed teachers (basically, those calling for MORE guns in schools), what do you think about the fun fact that the armed police officer stationed at the school waited for up to four minutes while kids were being shot?"

From the previous page

2/23/2018 8:53:29 AM

that was a dumb argument before we found out about the deputy. anyone taking that idea seriously has brain damage.

2/23/2018 8:55:56 AM

At the very least, I think one concession that can be made is a limitation on magazine capacity.

Nobody NEEDS a 30 round magazine. How about 10 rnds? Like someone else said, there's precedent for 10 rounds. If the pro-gun crowd can't meet there, then there's just no compromising with those folks at all.

2/23/2018 9:02:44 AM

I've only watched the "Opposition with Jordan Klepper" on Comedy Central a few times, but I thought the special he did "Jordan Klepper Solves Guns" was pretty good. I caught it last night. Check it out.

2/23/2018 9:26:39 AM

If you go to cnn.com right now you'll see Trump using the Florida shooting to scare voters by saying dems will repeal the 2nd amendment.

I support gun rights but that is fucking low.

2/23/2018 10:37:39 AM

JHC is in here advocating hard for a repeal of the 2nd amendment. Trying to claim that Dems wouldn't do just that if given the chance is just as low.

2/23/2018 12:25:16 PM

yeah, passing a constitutional amendment is so easy that it's a real concern

2/23/2018 12:29:24 PM

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xw57zz/businesses-are-bailing-on-the-nra-after-the-parkland-shooting

2/23/2018 12:35:38 PM

^^literally what I've been trying to tell people

2/23/2018 1:02:48 PM

Quote :

"JHC is in here advocating hard for a repeal of the 2nd amendment"

Your position on this issue is as extreme as his.

2/23/2018 1:07:56 PM

my stance is literally written into the Bill of Rights. There's nothing extreme about my stance.

2/23/2018 1:58:03 PM

What is written in the Bill of Rights is left to much interpretation, and it is the competing interpretations on the extreme - yours and JHC's, that have us in this predicament of two sides willing to budge to meet in the middle somewhere.

2/23/2018 2:00:00 PM

^^ So that means you're back aboard the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED train?

2/23/2018 2:00:46 PM

m60's and grenades for all!

2/23/2018 2:07:22 PM

We're all just part of one big well-regulated militia!

Quote :

""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.""

That "sentence" doesn't even make sense.

2/23/2018 2:15:45 PM

It makes perfect sense to me, as long as you frame it within the time that it was written.

2/23/2018 2:22:03 PM

This is off-topic, but to me, it seems like a grammatically incorrect run-on sentence that could be interpreted several different ways.

2/23/2018 2:29:07 PM

^not off topic. It's a poorly written amendment.

2/23/2018 2:47:07 PM

so, why not only allow single shot peashooters?

arms is arms, b. allow people to keep and bear as many as they please to get around that infringement part.

2/23/2018 3:11:32 PM

because anything less than however many I want of whatever kind of "arms" I want is considered infringement.

2/23/2018 3:21:32 PM

...according to people like eleusis

2/23/2018 3:27:09 PM

The pea-shooter comment seems to make a comparison to the type of arms that people carried when the amendment was written.

Sure, it took up to a minute to fire a shot.

2nd Amendment proponents argue that it was designed so that citizens, or militia if you will, could be armed well enough to prevent a tyrannical government from usurping too much power. I tend to agree with this. For the most part, especially since the US didn't really have a standing army then, it made sense, and it was perfectly viable to have a citizenry who could defend against a government they didn't like.

Then the Civil War happened. It changed everything. After the Civil War, it was obvious that no amount of arms in the hands of citizens could overthrow a government. They tried, and failed. If the 2nd Amendment could have been changed, it should have happened then. Perhaps with language more to the tune of protecting oneself and his property, rather than insinuate that one could defend themselves against their own government.

Fast forward to today. To think that a gun-nut quoting the 2nd Amendment as having the ability to defend himself against his government is ludicrous. We've long been past that point. But hey, smarter minds than mine have discussed this ad-nauseum and can't agree.

So let's just meet in the middle, k? Let's restrict magazines to 10 rounds, ensure that in no way do people have the ability to turn semi-automatic rifles into autos, enhance background checks. It won't stop mass shootings, but it will help curb the number of victims, which is a start.

2/23/2018 3:32:04 PM

It's kinda dumb kinder eggs and magnetic balls are restricted or banned but almost anyone can walk into a store to buy a gun.

If we're not going to have age requirements and universal background checks, we should unban fireworks and kinder eggs and basically unban anything less dangerous than guns.

2/23/2018 4:09:19 PM

I think they lifted the ban on the magnetic balls

2/23/2018 4:34:34 PM

Reports saying 3 more officers were outside the school and afraid to go in. Would they have had the same reaction if the shooter was using a shotgun or pistol?

2/23/2018 5:01:34 PM

Way late on this...

Quote :

"What I'm saying is that there are intractable people on both sides. The reason I'm saying that the left shouldn't come to the table and demand "gun ban gun ban gun ban gun ban" and at the same time not addressing the intractable people on the right is because, at least what I've seen so far, there are no intractable right wingers on this board."

Those intractable people aren't equal and opposite. One side is perhaps the single most powerful group in American politics and the other side is...JHC.

The NRA completely controls the political processes surrounding gun control. No gun legislation can pass without their consent, and the little public debate that occurs is framed by the NRA. Despite the NRA's political control, they've failed to pass any measures that address gun violence. Mental health--a major contributor to gun violence, the NRA says--is continuously undermined by the Republican Party (along with health care in general). Expanded background checks go nowhere, even with bipartisan public support. On the other hand, the NRA has successfully used their political power to legislatively prohibit public research into gun violence. I'm sure you're aware of the NRA's massive campaign contributions (though, according to Rubio, those contributions are because the NRA likes what he has to say and not because Rubio likes the money) and prodigious spending on attacks against anyone with gun control views more restrictive than more people with more guns in more places.

I don't how you can look at gun control politics--who has the money, who has the power, who controls the action--and reach the conclusion that compromise is possible if only the JHCs of the world would soften their stance.

2/23/2018 5:05:52 PM

^^^
I mainly want real fireworks to be legal again

^^The “good guy with a gun” concept has been thoroughly disproven at this point, it’s a zombie at this point kept alive by right wing whackos aligned with the nra. It’s the same vein of idiocy as blaming video games and movies for violent behavior.

[Edited on February 23, 2018 at 5:59 PM. Reason : ]

2/23/2018 5:58:39 PM

Before everyone goes crazy criticizing "good guy with a gun" arguments and things like that, should probably first find out what official protocol is for situations like this. My guess is every one of those officers, including the school resource officer, was following protocol.

Specifically to avoid being sued by parents for making a mistake or doing the wrong thing.

In fact, these protocols along with the four or five other failure points should be receiving the bulk of attention right now, not this completely implausible "revoke a constitutional right" argument that a) will not happen for at least a generation or two if it ever does and b) would require the actual amendment process to be followed.

Congress passes a law now? It gets struck down instantly by the Supreme Court. Only option is to revoke the amendment which requires following the entire ratification process including the successful ratification by 2/3rds of our states. Not going to happen people.

So let's instead focus on the breakdown that occurred with tips to cops, tips to the FBI, school officers doing nothing and responding officers following what likely was protocol. Things that actually have a realistic chance of being changed to improve the situation.

To be clear, the "good guy with a gun" argument is nonsense to me as well because of situations just like this. Shit's too complex for a statement like that to be valid. Good guy with a gun, with proper training, with experience, with support and with the authority and freedom to act - that would be a more reasonable statement and even then you can't just blanket that "solution" to all of these shooting problems.

[Edited on February 23, 2018 at 6:31 PM. Reason : a]

2/23/2018 6:24:59 PM

Quote :

"JHC is in here advocating hard for a repeal of the 2nd amendment"

I'm advocating that you either use the bill as "intended" and take up arms against the state and start an armed workers uprising in solidarity with those oppressed by the state...or shut the fuck up and stop using that as a rationale for your gun fixation and admit that you really just want it so that you can legally get away with murdering a minority for whistling at a white girl or whatever.

Quote :

"Trying to claim that Dems wouldn't do just that if given the chance is just as low"

Pfff.....if the Democrats were half as courageous as you think they are, maybe I'd actually support them. See my next point

Quote :

"The NRA completely controls the political processes surrounding gun control. No gun legislation can pass without their consent, and the little public debate that occurs is framed by the NRA."

This is completely true. And to add to this point, the NRA is not in support of the 2nd amendment for "constitutional reasons." During the 1960s, during the peak of the Black Panther movement, the panthers marched on the California State Capitol with guns in hand and openly supported armed militias to follow police officers to prevent police brutality of black citizens. The state's response? Then Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prevented citizens from carrying in public. The NRA was in support of this bill. By the time the 80s rolled around, and the Panthers were effectively crushed, both Reagan and the NRA reversed their stance on this issue. Why? Because they don't actually give a shit about tyrannical governments and just operate in dog-whistle politics to get herp-derp imbeciles like euleusis to vote for them because 'murica.

When you take all of this into account, it becomes painfully clear that those who fervently support gun ownership like eleusis don't actually intend to support an armed uprising against the state to protect their freedoms (I'm sure we can all guess where he would stand if asked about his support for the black panthers). And neither do the right-wing politicians who pander to them. OF COURSE THEY DON'T. THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE STATE. They have no intention of ceding their power or privilege to the fucking dopes who vote for them. And, ironically, the only way we would ever actually see any meaningful gun reform would be if black radicals or muslim americans, or scary hispanics with tattoos started getting season passes to republican softball leagues

2/23/2018 6:33:08 PM

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3830&context=lcp

Some additional education.

You can disagree all you want about whether we SHOULD have the right. But you cannot dispute what the right means.

Read this if you are going to continue claiming to know the "intent" of the law.

[Edited on February 23, 2018 at 6:38 PM. Reason : a]

2/23/2018 6:36:13 PM

gun prices, especially ARs and AR-related stuff, have been very low for the past couple years. i think the NRA is playing both sides to help get some panic buying going on for the gun manufacturers.

2/23/2018 7:39:21 PM

Quote :

"^^The “good guy with a gun” concept has been thoroughly disproven at this point"

good guy with a gun doesn't apply to police. Police are too worried with saving their own asses, as demonstrated here, Columbine, Vegas, and numerous other situations. The Texas church shooter got run off by a neighbor with an AR. At least an armed teacher caught inside the building wouldn't have had the luxury of sitting outside and hoping the shooter runs out of bullets before dealing with the situation.

Quote :

"Before everyone goes crazy criticizing "good guy with a gun" arguments and things like that, should probably first find out what official protocol is for situations like this. My guess is every one of those officers, including the school resource officer, was following protocol."

The sheriff indicated that their protocol for a school shooting was to go in immediately, as has been the recommendation of law enforcement nationwide since Columbine.

2/23/2018 8:12:36 PM

Quote :

"The sheriff indicated that their protocol for a school shooting was to go in immediately, as has been the recommendation of law enforcement nationwide since Columbine."

Thanks, I didn't know that.

Are there further directives? I.e., go in immediately applies to any officer/sheriff or does a superior need to make that call while on site?

2/23/2018 9:32:32 PM

Quote :

"admit that you really just want it so that you can legally get away with murdering a minority for whistling at a white girl or whatever. "

dude get the fuck outa here. that is some salisburyboy-level silly bullshit.

2/23/2018 9:54:20 PM

Oh word? That's crossing the line? That's what draws your ire?

Not the close to 1,000 people shot and killed dead in 2015 by police, with similar numbers for other years? Not the 12 per 100,000 rate of gun deaths a year? Not the whole defense of a hobby that allows mass murder to happen every couple of weeks or so at schools across the country? The 34 mass shootings this year? Not the 22,000 suicides a year?

But insinuating that the lack of gun control legislation might actually not be motivated by ideological reasons, but rather by racial tensions and a desire to preserve class inequalities.....that's what brings about your "oh dearisms"?





[Edited on February 23, 2018 at 10:16 PM. Reason : ]

2/23/2018 10:15:16 PM

You do realize minorities can own guns too right?

2/23/2018 10:25:32 PM

Well that would make sense since they are disproportionately killed, harassed, and incarcerated on suspicion of practicing this so-called constitutional right.

What was the NRA response to Philando Castille being executed for his open carry interaction with a cop?


Oh that's right, they didn't say shit for like a year

2/23/2018 10:38:36 PM

The issue there has little to do with the gun and more to do with racism/prejudice/training/competency/job screening.

Take the gun away and they just tase him to death.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/police-killed-1000-people-tasers-since-2000

Take the taser away and they just club him to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King

Take the club away and they choke him to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner

You're focusing on the tool rather than the real problem.

[Edited on February 23, 2018 at 10:57 PM. Reason : a]

2/23/2018 10:56:05 PM

You wanna go ahead and compare choking homicides with gun homicides, smart guy with good opinion?

2/23/2018 11:01:35 PM

cops only choke out minorities who try to date white women, or something

2/23/2018 11:29:04 PM

Quote :

"You wanna go ahead and compare choking homicides with gun homicides, smart guy with good opinion?"

You wanna go ahead and work on linear thought?

Quote :

"Well that would make sense since they are disproportionately killed, harassed, and incarcerated on suspicion of practicing this so-called constitutional right. What was the NRA response to Philando Castille being executed for his open carry interaction with a cop? Oh that's right, they didn't say shit for like a year"

Every aspect of this post of yours references law enforcement. Hence my response to it. You want to go back to "gun homicides" in general? Fine. Just make sure you get your numbers right, compare them to every other death by category in this country and come up with a solution that doesn't involve some alt-left elimination of constitutional rights.

Again I say - you're focusing on the tool by which things happen rather than the underlying cause. You're playing whack-a-mole with that strategy. Focus on the problems. Americans have had guns since before we were America. Every single generation. Gun ownership has been ubiquitous.

Find out what's changed between then and now, something that correlates with the increase in any given problem, and fix THAT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/3631/20120808/cliodynamics-uses-math-predict-mass-shootings-social.htm

There's a parallel here between conservatives not following science on climate change and liberals not following science on gun crimes. Blows my mind.

[Edited on February 24, 2018 at 2:16 AM. Reason : a]

2/24/2018 2:02:51 AM

Quote :

" But insinuating that the lack of gun control legislation might actually not be motivated by ideological reasons, but rather by racial tensions and a desire to preserve class inequalities.....that's what brings about your "oh dearisms"? "

except it's the opposite. many gun restrictions date back to the Jim Crow and civil rights eras and were designed to keep guns away from minorities. NC pistol permits were intended to allow sheriffs to prevent blacks from owning guns. California started enacting gun restrictions in response to legal gun-carrying actions by the black panthers.

Frederick Douglass railed against gun restrictions after the end of the civil war, insisting that reconstruction would never be completed unless freed blacks were allowed to own guns. Instead, the South continued to ban gun ownership by freed blacks, and groups like the Southern Democrats and the KKK were able to suppress freed blacks and ultimately force the North to lose support for continued reconstruction efforts in the South.

Dr. King and Malcolm X wouldn't have had the success they had during the civil rights movement if it wasn't for the firearms that surrounded them.

2/24/2018 7:47:43 AM

^ I agree with you that gun control has been applied unequally with regards to minorities and the underclass. This is why I don't believe gun advocates when they say they are protecting their freedoms, because they have failed time and time again to stand in solidarity with the very people who are most oppressed and victimized by their shared government.

2/24/2018 1:30:08 PM

the possibility of the white Christian majority losing power is the only “tyranny” they care about.

2/24/2018 1:37:38 PM

Quote :

"Not the close to 1,000 people shot and killed dead in 2015 by police, with similar numbers for other years? Not the 12 per 100,000 rate of gun deaths a year? "

Get that shit outta here--if you'll recall, I'm the one who said that if we want to save lives and actually solve problems, we need to focus effort on drug and criminal justice reform. The connection between gun control and police shootings is pretty tenuous. The rate of 12 per 100k (or whatever it is) is not driven by AR15s, or "assault weapons", or long guns in general. "Assault weapons" are damn near a rounding error.

Quote :

"But insinuating that the lack of gun control legislation might actually not be motivated by ideological reasons, but rather by racial tensions and a desire to preserve class inequalities.....that's what brings about your "oh dearisms"?"

No, it's brought out by laughably horseshit arguments.

I thought you were maybe just trolling, but goddamn, I think you're not only serious, but doubling-down.

2/24/2018 4:12:04 PM

Quote :

"The rate of 12 per 100k (or whatever it is) is not driven by AR15s, or "assault weapons", or long guns in general. "Assault weapons" are damn near a rounding error. "

Which is why I'm not limiting my scope to assault weapons or Big bad scary guns.

Quote :

"if you'll recall, I'm the one who said that if we want to save lives and actually solve problems, we need to focus effort on drug and criminal justice reform."

If you want to have a separate discussion about drug laws and how those are also disproportionately used to incarcerate minorities and poor and working class individuals, then pull up and have a sip of green tea and lets have a friendly chat. But we're talking about guns in this thread because that's the topic at hand.

Quote :

"I thought you were maybe just trolling, but goddamn, I think you're not only serious, but doubling-down."

Care to refute anything? Even eleusis just admitted that gun regulation is historically applied unevenly across racial and class boundaries. What, do you disagree with that?

2/24/2018 4:48:06 PM

Quote :

"Even eleusis just admitted that gun regulation is historically applied unevenly across racial and class boundaries."

do you think the further gun restrictions you are championing wouldn't also be applied unevenly across racial and socioeconomic boundaries?

2/24/2018 9:49:42 PM

Are minorities the predominate consumers of AR-15s with high capacity magazines?

2/24/2018 9:59:17 PM

What would make banning AR-15s and extended mags any different than the 1994 ban?

2/24/2018 10:26:27 PM