Guns in America

[Jrod]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/deerfield/news/ct-dfr-deerfield-assault-weapon-ban-tl-0412-story.html

 

"...However, Deerfield trustees did enact an ordinance defining assault weapons and requiring the safe storage and safe transportation of those weapons within the village. That measure, which was enacted during the permitted time frame, preserved Deerfield's right to amend the ordinance in the future, Street previously said."

"The ordinance to store firearms was only passed for one reason,” Nordal said. “That was to have an amendatory vehicle that could be used in the future for just this purpose so you could banish assorted firearms in the future. First it’s going to be assault rifles. (There will be) new bans in the future. It’s just a matter of time.”


Remember, everyone: No one wants to take your guns.

[Jrod]

3 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

I believe that we will get better candidates when more people participate. 

 

In your video titled "Your 2nd amendment can't protect you from tyranny"

 

This notion that we need the 2nd amendment to protect us from tyranny is chimera when most of our citizenry doesnt even participate. 

 

I'm not sure I see those two things as directly related. A collective people can hypothetically be disillusioned into voting people into power who eventually undertake in actions/policy of a "tyrannical" nature. Sure, you can say the drop-off in political participation is problematic, but the political culture that has evolved - the lack of "return on investment" that people have seen - has cultivated that lack of participation. People feel like, "why bother"? In that frame of thought, those who are participating could just as well demand reform, can't they? But no one does. Everyone has submitted to this culture of duality; this sports team mentality. Too many voters don't care of the actions that are carried out. They only care that it's "their guy" doing it.

[Jamie_B]

Just now, Jrod said:

I'm not sure I see those two things as directly related. A collective people can hypothetically be disillusioned into voting people into power who eventually undertake in actions/policy of a "tyrannical" nature. Sure, you can say the drop-off in political participation is problematic, but the political culture that has evolved - the lack of "return on investment" that people have seen - has cultivated that lack of participation. People feel like, "why bother"? In that frame of thought, those who are participating could just as well demand reform, can't they? But no one does. Everyone has submitted to this culture of duality; this sports team mentality. Too many voters don't care of the actions that are carried out. They only care that it's "their guy" doing it.

I certainly understand the sentiment of people not feeling the ROI, but the "why bother" part of this is what we are dealing with now. 

 

As much as I hate (and I really can't say this enough) Trump he is a result of our lack of participation.

 

The Economist put this on their FB page today, I bought the book and plan to read it as time permits. 

 

http://discovery.economist.com/features/21738862-yascha-mounks-diagnosis-more-convincing-his-cure-how-liberal-democracy-fell-apart-166049481?kw=all&csid=socialpr&ref=features&aid=5650078604

[Jrod]

6 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

I certainly understand the sentiment of people not feeling the ROI, but the "why bother" part of this is what we are dealing with now. 

 

As much as I hate (and I really can't say this enough) Trump he is a result of our lack of participation.

 

The Economist put this on their FB page today, I bought the book and plan to read it as time permits. 

 

http://discovery.economist.com/features/21738862-yascha-mounks-diagnosis-more-convincing-his-cure-how-liberal-democracy-fell-apart-166049481?kw=all&csid=socialpr&ref=features&aid=5650078604

Hmm. Certainly presents an interesting thesis if for nothing else for additional perspective on things.

"As much as I hate (and I really can't say this enough) Trump he is a result of our lack of participation."

I agree to a point. I think a lot of it has to do with how disenfranchised people have felt with politics and the misinformed opinions held in conjunction. People were sick of the "PC" rhetoric and Trump's obnoxious, inarticulate persona was/is the antithesis of that. Admittedly, I laughed at his victory out of spite towards the  pompous arrogance the Democrats showed throughout the whole... ordeal. In the same breath, there was a pit in my stomach. If anything, I had hoped that the disdain so many people had for him would put him under a larger microscope. To have him be held more accountable... but that hasn't really been the case. Not in a relevant manner anyway. More people are worried about some porn star he allegedly fucked (or whatever, who the hell cares?) rather than him back-tracking on his claims about pulling troops out of Syria and how it's a waste of time (it is) and money (that we don't have.. and it is).

I often think and ask myself if all the dysfunction and apparent decline in our society has been a natural (de)evolution - just a line of consequences to every preceding action that has built up to this - or could it possibly be this has all, to some degree or in some fashion, been systematically planned. Is humanity, in its evident nature, doomed to repeat this cyclical struggle of domination and independence?

[oldschooler]

 

[Jamie_B]

14 hours ago, Jrod said:

Hmm. Certainly presents an interesting thesis if for nothing else for additional perspective on things.

"As much as I hate (and I really can't say this enough) Trump he is a result of our lack of participation."

I agree to a point. I think a lot of it has to do with how disenfranchised people have felt with politics and the misinformed opinions held in conjunction. People were sick of the "PC" rhetoric and Trump's obnoxious, inarticulate persona was/is the antithesis of that. Admittedly, I laughed at his victory out of spite towards the  pompous arrogance the Democrats showed throughout the whole... ordeal. In the same breath, there was a pit in my stomach. If anything, I had hoped that the disdain so many people had for him would put him under a larger microscope. To have him be held more accountable... but that hasn't really been the case. Not in a relevant manner anyway. More people are worried about some porn star he allegedly fucked (or whatever, who the hell cares?) rather than him back-tracking on his claims about pulling troops out of Syria and how it's a waste of time (it is) and money (that we don't have.. and it is).

I often think and ask myself if all the dysfunction and apparent decline in our society has been a natural (de)evolution - just a line of consequences to every preceding action that has built up to this - or could it possibly be this has all, to some degree or in some fashion, been systematically planned. Is humanity, in its evident nature, doomed to repeat this cyclical struggle of domination and independence?

 

 

There is a saying that comes to mind with him on this "When someone shows you who they are believe them"

 

I'm truly surprised anyone thought he was going to change. This is who this guy is.

 

And believe me after spending an entire primary trying to get Clinton supporters to understand the issues regarding the rise in Populism and how there is a risk of authoritarianism in that. (on the flip side populism has led to things like the labor movement so I don't think it all bad.) and they were too busy screaming about identity politics to and anyone who wanted to discuss the socioeconomics and how it is a big issue that needs to be addressed, was showing their "white male privilege" (I literally had a Clinton supporter accuse me of this.) ..... I can not say enough how much I loathe the Clinton's and the Liberals who have sold out FDR's New Deal.

 

I think the biggest dysfunction in our system is how our elections are funded. I truly believe that there are many (not all, I do believe there are some that go to Washington to make more money for themselves) who run for office with good intentions (left or right) that end up because of how the system works, being put in a position that they end up putting their more likely to listen to their contributors vs their constituents.

I'd argue that funding the elections though our tax dollars and not allowing candidates to take other funding would help to take the taint out of the system and let the best ideas to rise to the top. Because I'm not convinced the best ideas win anymore, just the best funded ideas.

But that is a very difficult change to make due to the SCOTUS decisions with regard to "Corporations are people".

 

Which is why we have to be involved and vote.

[oldschooler]

 

[oldschooler]

On 4/5/2018 at 4:56 PM, Jrod said:

"I don't know what will happen when change is actually enacted. I don't see how it could make things worse though.

And you cross that bridge if you ever come to it."

That's kind of what I was alluding to though - to not view mere movement as progress. There is consequence to every decision. We can't look at the issues with such short-sight. So yes, while enacting stricter control might limit the current number of people who can (legally) obtain a gun it guarantees nothing. You restrict the legal means for someone to obtain a gun and it may only further enable the option for that someone to infringe upon or harm another to obtain one. Moreover, if we're speaking about taking a look at limiting people who have shown signs of mental illness or questionable personalities - who gets to decide on that stuff? Who legislates and interprets such a thing and how so? Do you want lawmakers, politicians, law enforcement making those calls? Talk about treading on a VERY slippery slope. As I mentioned in my initial post: one thing most people can agree on is the observation of corruption and overreach from people and entities in a position of power. Collectively, police have not shown a positive light on themselves regarding gun violence, especially against minorities. We want to talk about restricting law enforcement too?

 

 

No movement is definitely not progress. It guarantees not as many idiots that shouldn't have guns, don't have guns.

I think every person that buys a gun should have to have multiple references. I mean we make people do

as much when adopting a cat or dog, so why not when buying a gun? So that would help. And obviously Doctors should

be able to red flag some people. And cops that encounter some mentally ill should have a say in red flagging.

Extensive background checks for all gun sales. Even person to person. 

 

As far as law enforcement, there needs to be National training and standards, in my opinion.

 

 

Quote

We're on a Bengals message board here... the NFL. Parallels can be drawn with how they're trying to legislate the physicality of the game to limit injuries, specifically concussions. Each year they're implementing rules at the expense of the game. Refs are more and more making themselves an aspect of the game because they're trying to enforce rules that can't realistically be carried out with consideration to the nature of the game... not without completely changing it. I think we fans can partly agree that it has less to do with the concern for safety (though not to completely discount those intentions) and more so to do with deflecting the lawsuits that have come down on the league in the recent years. It's the largest sports-related business (monetarily speaking) in the country by miles. Protect the shield at all costs. Otherwise, where has this concern been prior? The result of this? The proof is in the pudding. Is the product the same? Is it more enjoyable?

 

 

I don't think the NFL is making the moves to protect themselves as much as they are to protect the game itself.

You have had parent keeping their kids from playing a huge drop offs in overall participation across the country.

Hell, here in rural Wisconsin they are floating around the idea of playing 8 on 8 games because small schools

are having trouble getting enough kids to field a regular team.
 

Quote

You can't legislate physicality and injuries out of a sport predicated on physical contact. You can't legislate violence and bad intent out of a people who have evidently not evolved past their primitive tendencies. Legislation is an attempt to fix problems immediately and it often just creates more - laws to fix laws. Our issue is a cultural one that needs to be fixed "organically"... somehow; not done with "red tape".

 

I do not agree. Laws are to reduce negative impacts, not completely eliminate things.

Other countries have a lot of the same things we do. The difference? They're not saturated with

weapons that turns anyone in to an instant killing machine.
 

Quote

Criminals should not dictate how everyone else gets to live, but we're essentially letting them do just that. In terms of "freedom" - Ok, "no one is advocating for taking your rights away". Maybe not. It doesn't have to be done outright though. It doesn't have to be consciously or intentionally done - that's not what is being said. Freedom is something oppressing power historically, systematically takes away. As I said, I'm not a gun owner, but that doesn't mean I don't see the principle in the matter. One can call it paranoia or irrational fear all they want - NO ONE can call it either way in absolute certainty - but I am aware of the possibility of "death by one thousand paper cuts"; and that possibility is relevant, among with other topics, with this one.

 

I look at it like public safety and the greater good for society is what creates laws and I think that is the case in this instance.
 

Quote

 

The debate on possession of guns is unique. Once a decision is made and we cross that so-called bridge there's no going back... peacefully anyway. So we better make sure its really a bridge worth crossing.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-are-a-bad-way-to-understand-gun-violence/

 

 

 

To me the focus isn't just on mass shootings. Of course that's what gets the most media attention and headlines.

But I'm also thinking of the little kid that was looking for candy on Easter, found and gun and killed his little brother.

And other instances where people are ignorant and neglectful about gun safety. I also think suicide by gun needs

to be a huge part of the conversation. I'm not talking about certain types of gun deaths and certain types of guns.

My focus is on all of the above.

[oldschooler]

 

[T-Dub]

11 hours ago, oldschooler said:

 

 

 

Expect the SC to toss that out.  When the 2nd Amendment was written there was no difference between "military" rifles and what the citizens possessed themselves.  

[oldschooler]

57 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

 

Expect the SC to toss that out.  When the 2nd Amendment was written there was no difference between "military" rifles and what the citizens possessed themselves.  

 

 

 

 

[oldschooler]

 

[T-Dub]

29 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, more flailing about trying to define what an "assault weapon" might be...  AR15/AK47 copy?  No problem I'll just buy an FN.

 

It's fucking theater.   "Ban on Guns We Find Scary-looking" would be a more honest title.

 

& Reagan? Shit... Funny how the Right suddenly found themselves pro-gun control when non-white people started openly carrying.  Odd isn't it, that advocates of an "assault weapons" ban claim they are no protection against tyranny, but it's still very important they are banned because..  remind me? Is it the overwhelming percentage of gun crimes being committed with handguns, or the fact that they weren't used at all in many of the deadliest mass shootings?

 

Of course it's hardly the first time that fear and misinformation have been used to curb Constitutional rights.

[oldschooler]

3 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

 

Yeah, more flailing about trying to define what an "assault weapon" might be...  AR15/AK47 copy?  No problem I'll just buy an FN.

 

It's fucking theater.   "Ban on Guns We Find Scary-looking" would be a more honest title.

 

 

You can look at it that way. I look at it like less guns. It's a good start.

[T-Dub]

1 minute ago, oldschooler said:

 

 

You can look at it that way. I look at it like less guns. It's a good start.

 

Well, at least you can admit that banning all guns is your goal & you don't really care how much sense the individual laws might make so long as it furthers that agenda.

[oldschooler]

Just now, T-Dub said:

 

Well, at least you can admit that banning all guns is your goal & you don't really care how much sense the individual laws might make so long as it furthers that agenda.

 

 

Well, if you truly believe that I want to ban all guns, especially after all I have said here, then you've obviously

not been paying attention and are more worried about definitions of assault rifles, than solutions.

[T-Dub]

6 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

 

 

Well, if you truly believe that I want to ban all guns, especially after all I have said here, then you've obviously

not been paying attention and are more worried about definitions of assault rifles, than solutions.

 

 

How else would you interpret this:

 

Quote

 I look at it like less guns. It's a good start.

 

Sure sounds like that's your end goal to me.

 

 

Quote

more worried about definitions of assault rifles, than solutions.

 

Yeah, when you propose banning something I guess defining what it is you're trying to ban is important.  Some folks might even question why, but who cares so long as politicians get to shake their fingers on the TV.

 

What is it you think this is going to "solve" exactly?  Seems to me you're more worried about being seen to be "doing something" regardless of whether that "something" makes any sense at all.  Let's all jump up and down to promote fire safety!  Will fewer people die in fires?  Probably not, but nobody can say we're not doing something! Look at us jumping!

[oldschooler]

Just now, T-Dub said:

 

 

How else would you interpret this:

 

 

Sure sounds like that's your end goal to me.

 

 

 

Yeah, when you propose banning something I guess defining what it is you're trying to ban is important.

 

What is it you think this is going to "solve" exactly?  Seems to me you're more worried about being seen to be "doing something" regardless of whether that "something" makes any sense at all.  Let's all jump up and down to promote fire safety!

 

 

Yes, less guns. Not all guns. And it's a good start because it was one state.

I've said all along and can't say it enough. Too many guns, too easily obtained by too many idiots.

End that stupid shit. That's my goal.

 

I don't need to know the chemical makeup of cancer cells to know it sucks and kills people.

That's why we have experts and legislators. We the people say enough, they come together 

and act on our behalf. And you're part of the "let's argue about what started the fire and 

wait for it to put itself out." 

 

"Well,  expect the SCOTUS to throw this out!"

 

*shown where a Judge appointed by Reagan uses Scalia's opinion*

 

"B-b-but define assault rife! You just want to ban all guns and repeal the 2nd amendment!!!!111"

 

Don't come at me with your bullshit.

[T-Dub]

22 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

 

 

Yes, less guns. Not all guns. And it's a good start because it was one state.

I've said all along and can't say it enough. Too many guns, too easily obtained by too many idiots.

End that stupid shit. That's my goal.

 

I don't need to know the chemical makeup of cancer cells to know it sucks and kills people.

That's why we have experts and legislators. We the people say enough, they come together 

and act on our behalf. And you're part of the "let's argue about what started the fire and 

wait for it to put itself out." 

 

"Well,  expect the SCOTUS to throw this out!"

 

*shown where a Judge appointed by Reagan uses Scalia's opinion*

 

"B-b-but define assault rife! You just want to ban all guns and repeal the 2nd amendment!!!!111"

 

Don't come at me with your bullshit.

 

The "Assault Weapons Ban" is bullshit.  To use your analogy, it makes as much sense as outlawing cancer, or throwing rocks at a fire.  Does it make any sense? Does it help anything? No, but you get to feel like you've done something.  I think laws, particularly laws limiting Constitutional rights, need to be held to a higher standard than "well at least we're doing something!"  

 

Quote

Too many guns, too easily obtained by too many idiots.

 

I can agree with that, but tell me..  How does banning something you can't even define accomplish anything?

 

"Let's ban walnut stocks!"

 

"Er.. why exactly?"

 

"It's less guns!"

 

Can you see why this gives me pause?

[oldschooler]

6 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

The "Assault Weapons Ban" is bullshit.  To use your analogy, it makes as much sense as outlawing cancer, or throwing rocks at a fire.  Does it make any sense? Does it help anything? No, but you get to feel like you've done something.  I think laws, particularly laws limiting Constitutional rights, need to be held to a higher standard than "well at least we're doing something!"  

 

 

I don't care that you think it's bullshit. I just don't.

 

It makes that much sense to you. But you want to use a tired old tactic that wants 

everyone to define something. I'm telling you that is not our part in this movement.

Experts and legislators handle that. That's not good enough for you. I'm okay with that.

 

I don't feel  like I have done anything.  A fucking Federal Judge made that call.

You're acting like I did it. Get a grip and go splash your face with cold water or something.

 

6 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

 

I can agree with that, but tell me..  How does banning something you can't even define accomplish this?

 

"Let's ban 20-gauge shotguns with walnut stocks!"

 

"Er.. why exactly?"

 

"It's less guns!"

 

 

Hyperbole. You know it, I know it.

Less guns that are used to murder Americans at every day, mundane places. 

Less guns that idiots that shouldn't have guns, can't get. 

 

[T-Dub]

15 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

 

 

I don't care that you think it's bullshit. I just don't.

 

It makes that much sense to you. But you want to use a tired old tactic that wants 

everyone to define something. I'm telling you that is not our part in this movement.

Experts and legislators handle that. That's not good enough for you. I'm okay with that.

 

"Experts and legislators"?   You are a more trusting soul than I, let's put it that way.  Who are these "experts", because what I've read of the "assault weapons" bans seem to have not the first fucking clue as to the functionality or capability of one weapon over another.  They banned bayonet lugs FFS.  What do bayonet lugs have to do with anything?  Was there some banzai charge mass murder recently that I'm not aware of?

 

You want to ban something, and when someone asks what it is exactly you're banning or why, your response is "Well it's less guns!". And you accuse me of hyperbole? You're letting your emotions run riot over logic or common sense.  I'd suggest you soak your head for a minute.  Better ban dish soap first to prevent drowning, though.

[oldschooler]

1 hour ago, T-Dub said:

 

"Experts and legislators"?   You are a more trusting soul than I, let's put it that way.  Who are these "experts", because what I've read of the "assault weapons" bans seem to have not the first fucking clue as to the functionality or capability of one weapon over another.  They banned bayonet lugs FFS.  What do bayonet lugs have to do with anything?  Was there some banzai charge mass murder recently that I'm not aware of?

 

You want to ban something, and when someone asks what it is exactly you're banning or why, your response is "Well it's less guns!". And you accuse me of hyperbole? You're letting your emotions run riot over logic or common sense.  I'd suggest you soak your head for a minute.  Better ban dish soap first to prevent drowning, though.

 

 

 

You want to argue semantics. To you there are no assault weapons, so nothing should be done, ever.

So that's how you keep something from ever happening.

 

I don't need to know everything about climate change. I trust the experts and legislators that know

all the semantics and facts to enact things to reduce the negative impact. No difference here.

 

And again, I'M NOT BANNING ANYTHING. Can you please get that through your thick skull?

The Judge said this "Assault weapons are considered to be military firearms, U.S. District Judge William Young

said in his ruling, therefore disqualifying them from being included in a citizen’s right to “bear arms.”

 The judge pointed out that the design of semi-automatic AR-15's is based on guns "that were first manufactured

for military purposes" and that the AR-15 is "common and well-known in the military."

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/06/massachusetts-ban-on-assault-weapons-doesnt-violate-2nd-amendment-judge-rules.html

 

So there is your fucking definition and reasoning. Not by me, but by a guy we pay to make such decisions.

You don't like that? I do not care. You think it's ridiculous. I do not care. You want to act like I am 

just being emotional and other stupid shit. I couldn't care less. And if I could care less, I would.

 

So yes, less guns that are used to murder Americans. It's not like all guns were banned. It's not like this

was enacted all over. It's not like some know nothing did this. So yes, a start and less guns for idiots to obtain

in one fucking state.

 

I'm not the one acting like some travesty just occurred by someone that knows nothing of which he speaks.

So please spare me your fucking snark and hyperbole. 

 

[T-Dub]

10 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

 

 

 

You want to argue semantics. To you there are no assault weapons, so nothing should be done, ever.

So that's how you keep something from ever happening.

 

 

[oldschooler]

Just now, T-Dub said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[T-Dub]

Right, anyone that disagrees with you is a "gun nut".  Because of your common sense, I assume.

 

You're being insulting because you have nothing else.  Someone questions your stance, respectfully, and as per usual this is your response.

 

Keep posting memes to yourself & trolling if it makes you feel better.  Just recognize that it's all you're doing.  I'll not waste any more of my time on it.