Godlessness To Blame For Sandy Hook

Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Godlessness To Blame For Sandy Hook

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
WBC

In a similar vein of shamelessness, The Westboro Baptists are planning on picketing the vigil for the children.  


 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mike Fuckabee did the same

Mike Fuckabee did the same thing, blamed the shooting on godlessness.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Mintyfell
Theist
Mintyfell's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2012-11-15
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:In a

zarathustra wrote:

In a similar vein of shamelessness, The Westboro Baptists are planning on picketing the vigil for the children.  


 

I saw this earlier today. I cannot believe that this is happening. Anonymous released a video declaring a war of attrition on westboro.

There is so much hate in the world... On the flip side there is so much love. My heart and thoughts go to the families and all of the people involved. All of the helping hands outstretched doing what they can to help. Helpers that help people in times of loss. Let us celebrate the heroes and the helpers.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Victoria Jackson is

Victoria Jackson is worthless. She is nothing more than used shell of a human.

As for Westboro church followers they can do what they want. When they go to picket the vigil I suspect they will piss off some people, then the mob being tired of the bullshit, will slaughter them like hogs on market day.

As for Fuckabee, well, I'm glad he isn't President. What a douche.

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Stupid god shirt corrected

 Stupid god shirt corrected and fixed by shirt on the right...

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Stupid god

Sapient wrote:

 Stupid god shirt corrected and fixed by shirt on the right...

So powerful he couldn't stop you from posting this correction. Maybe because Thor never made lightening, the sun was never a god, and gods are products of human imagination and do nothing to solve human problems.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Mike Huckabee

Brian37 wrote:

Mike Huckabee did the same thing, blamed the shooting on godlessness.

 

Which is exactly what it was. Pure evil!!

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Brian37

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Mike Huckabee did the same thing, blamed the shooting on godlessness.

 

Which is exactly what it was. Pure evil!!

Why did you correct my spelling? I called him Fuckabee in my quote and I damned sure meant it. Fuck anyone who would use a tragedy and little kids being turned into Swiss cheese as a form of emotional blackmail.

Quote me in context or don't quote me at all.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Brian37

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Mike Huckabee did the same thing, blamed the shooting on godlessness.

 

Which is exactly what it was. Pure evil!!

 

If you want to crow about your god, could you maybe try not using a tragedy like that ?

I mean, you know, try a little decency every once in a while. It may grow on you.


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Which is

Lee2216 wrote:

Which is exactly what it was. Pure evil!!

And yet, the God you worship is far more evil...

Wait, are you saying atheists are pure evil?

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Pure evil

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Mike Huckabee did the same thing, blamed the shooting on godlessness.

Which is exactly what it was. Pure evil!!

 

What is evil, Lee? Just regulation evil. What are you talking about? And given 'pure' evil is an objective truth claim relating to a characteristic of a label of an as yet undefined group of antisocial human behaviours, how do you measure evil's purity? 

And of course, on judgement day, when all those young kids and spotty innocent teenagers who didn't go to sunday school - and there will be tens of billions of them, Lee - are being pitch-forked into the fire, where will your moral consistency be then? 

Perfect justice you say? Oh, yes. I see. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Well of course. Blame the

Well of course. Blame the lack of religion, lack of morals, single parent families, guns, video games, music, the NRA, DNC, GOP, lousy parenting etc. It is much easier to blame everything else and ignore that it was an act committed by a very mentally disturbed person who either didn't get the help he needed or was perhaps beyond help. Especially since now that person is dead and there is nothing you can do to punish him. But everyone wants to be seen doing something, so they target things that have no relation whatsoever to the incident and happen to align with their political agenda. Because no one wants to admit that we can't control every variable in the world and we probably shouldn't try.   

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
This is a quote from another

This is a quote from another atheist website I thought was quite apt for this thread.

Quote:
I'm always amazed that morons like that can conceive of a "god" who is so fucking inept that he can be kicked out of anything. What kind of schmuck do they worship?

My response:

Quote:
The kind of schmuck who cant or wont prevent kids from having their brains blown out.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-16144-post-375729.html#pid375729

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Well of

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well of course. Blame the lack of religion, lack of morals, single parent families, guns, video games, music, the NRA, DNC, GOP, lousy parenting etc. It is much easier to blame everything else and ignore that it was an act committed by a very mentally disturbed person who either didn't get the help he needed or was perhaps beyond help. Especially since now that person is dead and there is nothing you can do to punish him. But everyone wants to be seen doing something, so they target things that have no relation whatsoever to the incident and happen to align with their political agenda. Because no one wants to admit that we can't control every variable in the world and we probably shouldn't try.   

 

So your solution is simple, "Bad things happen so why bother trying to stop them"?. Nice.

And what the hell do you mean "no relation". If a gun is used to illegally murder someone IT MATTERS, otherwise we wouldn't use that gun or the bullets in murder cases in court.

You are totally deluded in thinking that ALL KINDS of gun death be it mentally disturbed, gang violence, domestic murder and suicide are not a collective epidemic in this country. No other country, not even the other westernized countries that allow gun ownership like us, have anywhere close the amount of gun death we do.

Why bother trying? They are already dead? Those are your arguments not to do anything at all? Pathetic and flat out delusional.

So lets review the typical gun nuttery talking points.

"Guns don't kill people"

"Second amendment"

"People can kill with other things too"

But your statement here is the best nuttery I've seen so far.

"Bad things happen so we shouldn't try to prevent them".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Well of

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well of course. Blame the lack of religion, lack of morals, single parent families, guns, video games, music, the NRA, DNC, GOP, lousy parenting etc. It is much easier to blame everything else and ignore that it was an act committed by a very mentally disturbed person who either didn't get the help he needed or was perhaps beyond help. Especially since now that person is dead and there is nothing you can do to punish him. But everyone wants to be seen doing something, so they target things that have no relation whatsoever to the incident and happen to align with their political agenda. Because no one wants to admit that we can't control every variable in the world and we probably shouldn't try.   

 

So your solution is simple, "Bad things happen so why bother trying to stop them"?. Nice.

And what the hell do you mean "no relation". If a gun is used to illegally murder someone IT MATTERS, otherwise we wouldn't use that gun or the bullets in murder cases in court.

You are totally deluded in thinking that ALL KINDS of gun death be it mentally disturbed, gang violence, domestic murder and suicide are not a collective epidemic in this country. No other country, not even the other westernized countries that allow gun ownership like us, have anywhere close the amount of gun death we do.

Why bother trying? They are already dead? Those are your arguments not to do anything at all? Pathetic and flat out delusional.

So lets review the typical gun nuttery talking points.

"Guns don't kill people"

"Second amendment"

"People can kill with other things too"

But your statement here is the best nuttery I've seen so far.

"Bad things happen so we shouldn't try to prevent them".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You are

Brian37 wrote:

You are totally deluded in thinking that ALL KINDS of gun death be it mentally disturbed, gang violence, domestic murder and suicide are not a collective epidemic in this country. No other country, not even the other westernized countries that allow gun ownership like us, have anywhere close the amount of gun death we do.

And yet you persist in blaming the guns. The cause of most violence in our country is not a mystery, the vast majority of violence in our country is gang related in a handful of cities. We know where it happens, and for the most part we know who is doing it and we know that the largest cause of it is the drug war. Legalize drugs, cut the knees out from under the gangs. Banning things creates violence, you think we would have learned that after organized crime grew so large (and violent) from prohibition.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

But your statement here is the best nuttery I've seen so far.

"Bad things happen so we shouldn't try to prevent them".

Across three threads you have yet to offer a single solution. My solution? Let teachers have guns. Or since you will flip out over that, if you really want to have an armed cop in every school I don't give a shit. Probably a waste of money but it would be nothing compared to what we waste on our education system already. The reality is that these attacks are rare and the reality is that gun violence in the US has been declining, not increasing, even though states have much looser gun regulations than they had in the 80's and 90's. Being shot by a gun is among the least likely ways for you to die.  

But ultimately, the reality is there is  nothing government can do to 100% eliminate violence, the world is not a utopia and you wishing all guns would disappear doesn't make them disappear nor would it make violence and death disappear. But please, tell me your ideas. You are full of blame and have suggested zero solutions. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Mintyfell
Theist
Mintyfell's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2012-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Well of

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well of course. Blame the lack of religion, lack of morals, single parent families, guns, video games, music, the NRA, DNC, GOP, lousy parenting etc. It is much easier to blame everything else and ignore that it was an act committed by a very mentally disturbed person who either didn't get the help he needed or was perhaps beyond help. Especially since now that person is dead and there is nothing you can do to punish him. But everyone wants to be seen doing something, so they target things that have no relation whatsoever to the incident and happen to align with their political agenda. Because no one wants to admit that we can't control every variable in the world and we probably shouldn't try.   

 

Agree, mostly. Maybe if we had thought police, they would stop these things from happening.... when they were just a thought. As for a solution: teachers must now go through combat training and wear body armor and be locked and cocked all day. 

 

On a serious note, I think that there is no solution to things like this. I think that America has long lived in a bubble in a delusion of "safety". No where is safe. In life there is but one certainty, death is certain, life is not. 

 

Beyond you are right in that everyone is quick to place blame. There is only one to blame and he is dead by his own hand. The solution, I'm afraid, is more complicated. Living in a community and being part of a group of people that love and care for one another. Where open and honest communication is the norm. I don't know...

 

This country is taking a individualistic turn. One is too many and a million is never enough, an eternal quest for more, that leads to the only place that it can: death. But that is the place that every path leads. We all long to be free, but free from what? Maybe when I get a couple million in the bank then everything will be okay I say.  I digress...

 

My heart and thoughts go to the families and everyone involved. May you match calamity with serenity, and may you have the strength to move forward and realize that everything will be okay.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:But

Beyond Saving wrote:
But please, tell me your ideas. You are full of blame and have suggested zero solutions. 

 

   Me, too.  I'm waiting with baited breath...

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Brian37

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Mike Huckabee did the same thing, blamed the shooting on godlessness.

 

Which is exactly what it was. Pure evil!!

Evil is an opinion and is often used to lay blame on a mythical creature created by man because they were too ignorant to understand or to accept the real cause and effects of reality.

One persons evil can be another persons good. Bombers blow up civilians and say it was an act of god. They do it at abortion clinics too. Murder is murder.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Mike Huckabee did the same thing, blamed the shooting on godlessness.

 

Which is exactly what it was. Pure evil!!

Evil is an opinion and is often used to lay blame on a mythical creature created by man because they were too ignorant to understand or to accept the real cause and effects of reality.

One persons evil can be another persons good. Bombers blow up civilians and say it was an act of god. They do it at abortion clinics too. Murder is murder.

 

Well, this is still a denial that we are tribal. I think you are right that when you kill another human dies. But at the same time I am not going to lose sleep that Bin Laden is dead or that we arrest abortion doctor's murder.

No matter our labels we have never been above or separated from evolution.

If the entire world were all atheist you will still have to deal with resource issues and boarder issues and there would still be fighting over power over those boarders and resources.

By no means am I saying don't do anything. And I am most certainly for challenge of tribalism and superstition. But this cannot be used as an excuse to say we should never challenge social norms.

If we as atheists hate utopias, be they religious or state type utopias, while fighting those attitudes we cannot afford to fall into the same tribal trap politics and religion does.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Evil is an opinion and is often used to lay blame on a mythical creature created by man because they were too ignorant to understand or to accept the real cause and effects of reality.

One persons evil can be another persons good. Bombers blow up civilians and say it was an act of god. They do it at abortion clinics too. Murder is murder.

Well, this is still a denial that we are tribal. I think you are right that when you kill another human dies. But at the same time I am not going to lose sleep that Bin Laden is dead or that we arrest abortion doctor's murder.

No matter our labels we have never been above or separated from evolution.

If the entire world were all atheist you will still have to deal with resource issues and boarder issues and there would still be fighting over power over those boarders and resources.

By no means am I saying don't do anything. And I am most certainly for challenge of tribalism and superstition. But this cannot be used as an excuse to say we should never challenge social norms.

If we as atheists hate utopias, be they religious or state type utopias, while fighting those attitudes we cannot afford to fall into the same tribal trap politics and religion does.

I agree. We like to call ourselves civilized but we aren't, our society is tribal to the core.

If the entire world was atheist we would still kill each other and fight about some stupid shit.

I don't lose any sleep over the loss of those assholes either, but I have grief over the lose of 26 civilians who died at the hands of a very sick person; whom I believe could have been stopped if our government, the lobbyists and big corporations would stop putting the dollar ahead of human life.

I am an atheist but I would like to think a limited form of utopia would be possible.

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I am

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I am an atheist but I would like to think a limited form of utopia would be possible.

 

   Then some form of fascism would speed things along, right ?    On a previous thread you even volunteered to put your self on a government leash to prove your loyalty to the Nanny State.  I am still not sure if you are a "Poe" or not.

   To wit:  "Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian."   Henry Ford.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
   Check out what"utopia"

 

  Check out what"utopia" looks like.   Even after the Tianimin Square massacre in 1989 that effectively squashed the Chinese pro-democracy movement both Bush and Clinton renewed Most Favored Nation status to this giant gun free zone. 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

  Check out what"utopia" looks like.   Even after the Tianimin Square massacre in 1989 that effectively squashed the Chinese pro-democracy movement both Bush and Clinton renewed Most Favored Nation status to this giant gun free zone. 

Non Sequitor and slipperry slope argument. It assumes that if laws are improved or reduce gun death, that fascism is sure to follow, a blind assumption. Japan has very strict gun laws and Canada which allows gun ownership, has nowhere near the gun death we do, and they are not fascist states.

 

Gun nutters "If you suggest a 25mph speed limit in a school zone eventually you will ban all cars". Same stupid logic gun nutters use to maintain the status quo and just as vile a tactic as pro lifers use in showing aborted fetus's.

 

But that woman being executed in that picture, look at what she is being murdered with. Humun, funny that, 26 people of which 20 were 6 year olds died by the same method of weapon, but who cares right?

Fascism is a mindset, and with or without guns people will either seek to be fascists or seek to avoid fascism.

If Republicans had their way they would look exactly like that picture above and the victims would be women valuing reproductive rights.

Someone already posted a pick describing the absurdity of gun nutter logic, and the caption read "If women took up arms to defend reproductive rights republicans would ban guns yesterday".

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Non Sequitor

Brian37 wrote:

Non Sequitor and slipperry slope argument. It assumes that if laws are improved or reduce gun death, that fascism is sure to follow, a blind assumption. Japan has very strict gun laws and Canada which allows gun ownership, has nowhere near the gun death we do, and they are not fascist states.

Exactly which law does Canada have that you think is directly responsible for them having a lower homicide rate? Do you believe that if we copied their laws exactly that our homicide rate would be the same as theirs?

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Gun nutters "If you suggest a 25mph speed limit in a school zone eventually you will ban all cars". Same stupid logic gun nutters use to maintain the status quo and just as vile a tactic as pro lifers use in showing aborted fetus's.

You have already banned guns from schools, look how well that worked. Now some on your side are suggesting that most guns should be banned. You have yet to take a concrete position yourself. You have told me that you do not support a total ban, but have not told me what you do support.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

But that woman being executed in that picture, look at what she is being murdered with. Humun, funny that, 26 people of which 20 were 6 year olds died by the same method of weapon, but who cares right?

She is being murdered with a government gun. Governments definitely hold the record for holding the largest mass murders in history. Unfortunately, when governments ban guns they tend to still keep them for themselves.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Fascism is a mindset, and with or without guns people will either seek to be fascists or seek to avoid fascism.

And you are clearly one of those who seeks to be fascist. 

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

If Republicans had their way they would look exactly like that picture above and the victims would be women valuing reproductive rights.

If gun nuts had our way the woman would be carrying a gun and would be shooting back at the government thug. She might die anyway, but at least should would have the ability to fight. 

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Someone already posted a pick describing the absurdity of gun nutter logic, and the caption read "If women took up arms to defend reproductive rights republicans would ban guns yesterday".

What does reproductive rights or republicans have to do with the argument for guns? The issues are completely unrelated. I don't know a single gun nut who would argue government should take guns away from anyone based solely on political views. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

  Check out what"utopia" looks like.   Even after the Tianimin Square massacre in 1989 that effectively squashed the Chinese pro-democracy movement both Bush and Clinton renewed Most Favored Nation status to this giant gun free zone. 

Is it just me or does that look like the stupidest way to execute. Two guys leaning way over holding her and her up a stone wall at close range. That bullet looks like it could have take more out than her. 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Beyond, Just as a thought

Beyond,

 

Just as a thought experiment:

In the hypothetical situation that if, all else being equal, all guns (apart from armed forces, rangers, and other professionals) were removed from the US, would you concede there would be fewer intentional killings taking place?

Would you also concede that this reduction in killings is more important than the benefits of gun usage (I can only think of sport only now really - self-protection is less a factor in a country without guns, and can be managed with non-lethal means in general)?

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:In

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

In the hypothetical situation that if, all else being equal, all guns (apart from armed forces, rangers, and other professionals) were removed from the US, would you concede there would be fewer intentional killings taking place?

Perhaps, I doubt the decline would be significant. As I pointed out in an earlier post the murder rate in the US was substantially higher before the modern gun. Certainly the number of gun killings would be lower, but killing a human isn't that difficult, if you desire to murder someone you can probably find a way to do it. If you could somehow magically make all gangs not have guns, they might be a little less efficient- although some gangs like MS-13 prefer to use weapons like machetes for their executions because it is more splashy despite having access to plenty of guns. However, practically that is absolutely impossible to eliminate guns.  

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Would you also concede that this reduction in killings is more important than the benefits of gun usage (I can only think of sport only now really - self-protection is less a factor in a country without guns, and can be managed with non-lethal means in general)?

Not in the slightest. Even if you could somehow guarantee that eliminating all guns would completely eliminate every murder (ie you can guarantee that those people won't find other ways to kill) I would still be opposed to it. The primary purpose of protecting citizen ownership of arms is for the eventuality that when the government fails or becomes tyrannical the regular citizens have a method to fight. I don't think it is even a question of if, it is a question of when. Every government in human history has failed and the democracies we have now that we pretend are the protectors of our freedom are extremely young in the big picture. It is utter foolishness to imagine they will last forever. Whether it happens 50 years from now, 100 years or 1000 years, the citizens of a country being able to arm themselves is far more important than protecting a handful of people from homicides every year. The rich and the politically powerful will always have access to guns, excuse me if I don't trust them. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister

ex-minister wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

  Check out what"utopia" looks like.   Even after the Tianimin Square massacre in 1989 that effectively squashed the Chinese pro-democracy movement both Bush and Clinton renewed Most Favored Nation status to this giant gun free zone. 

Is it just me or does that look like the stupidest way to execute. Two guys leaning way over holding her and her up a stone wall at close range. That bullet looks like it could have take more out than her. 

It is a dirt bank so there is little risk of ricochet, the biggest risk to the soldiers holding her is probably to their hearing. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
The second amendment does

The second amendment does not, despite many claims to the contrary, confer the rights of individuals to carry and own weapons for personal use.  The federal courts have consistently ruled this for the last 60 years (look up Hickman v. City of Los Angeles for a recent example).  The amendment actually confers the right of each STATE to maintain an organised militia, which for over a century has been the national guard.  

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

The second amendment does not, despite many claims to the contrary, confer the rights of individuals to carry and own weapons for personal use.  The federal courts have consistently ruled this for the last 60 years (look up Hickman v. City of Los Angeles for a recent example).  The amendment actually confers the right of each STATE to maintain an organised militia, which for over a century has been the national guard.  

The entire question of "militia" is a relatively modern one and the Supreme Court (the only court that matters when it comes to interpreting the Constitution) has solidly come down on the side of interpreting the 2nd Amendment under the individual rights model.

This was initially touched upon in United States vs. Miller in 1939, however it is generally regarded that the Court waffled on the issue and did not give a clear cut victory to either side. Justice McReynolds wrote,

Quote:
 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The Court then remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings but that never happened because Miller died. Miller has been used as precedent for both sides in the argument in lower courts. There have been seven Supreme Court cases that have mentioned Miller since.

However, none of them directly addressed the question of whether the right was an individual right or a collective right until District of Columbia vs. Heller where the Court made it extremely clear that the right to bear arms is an individual right. 

Justice Scalia wrote:

 From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that "bear arms" had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to "bear arms in defense of themselves and the state" or "bear arms in defense of himself and the state." 8 It is clear from those formulations that "bear arms" did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution's arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense "of one's person or house"--what he called the law of "self preservation." 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) ("Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution&quotEye-wink; see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate--again, in the most analogous linguistic context--that "bear arms" was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

You can read the rest for yourself Scalia goes on for over 50 pages on the topic. 

 

Even Justice Breyer in his dissenting opinion agreed that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right.

 

Justice Breyer wrote:

I shall, as I said, assume with the majority that the Amendment, in addition to furthering a militia-related purpose, also furthers an interest in possessing guns for purposes of self-defense, at least to some degree. And I shall then ask whether the Amendment nevertheless permits the District handgun restriction at issue here.

 

     Although I adopt for present purposes the majority's position that the Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense, I shall not assume that the Amendment contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars. The majority, which presents evidence in favor of the former proposition, does not, because it cannot, convincingly show that the Second Amendment seeks to maintain the latter in pristine, unregulated form.

 

     To the contrary, colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the "right to keep and bear arms," whether embodied in Federal or State Constitutions, or the background common law. And those examples include substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, including regulations that imposed obstacles to the use of firearms for the protection of the home.

In both opinions, the Justices submitted the law to the "strict scrutiny" test which means that a fundamental individual right is being infringed and the government has the obligation to demonstrate it has a compelling government interest to do so, that the law is narrowly tailored and that the law is the least restrictive means to do so. This is the same test used whenever a law infringes on free speech for example. The justices disagreed on whether or not the law passed the test, they did not disagree on whether or not the right to bear arms is an individual right. 

This interpretation was then upheld by McDonald vs. Chicago. It is accurate to say that through the 20th century the legal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was questionable as no Supreme Court Case directly addressed the issue leading to lower courts having a variety of disagreeing decisions. However, as of now the interpretation of the right to bear arms as an individual right is crystal clear legally. The only issue that remains to be decided legally is exactly how far the government can use regulations to infringe on that right.

(Note, it isn't uncommon for large issues like this to take half a century to be decided by the Supreme Court, our court system moves intentionally slow and other major rights issues have taken similar lengths of time. It is extremely rare for the Court to flat out overturn a ruling as explicit as Heller, and unheard of to overturn it on a basis that the majority and minority agreed upon. Like it or not, the 2nd Amendment as an individual right is now the law of the land until a constitutional amendment is passed)  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

The second amendment does not, despite many claims to the contrary, confer the rights of individuals to carry and own weapons for personal use.  The federal courts have consistently ruled this for the last 60 years (look up Hickman v. City of Los Angeles for a recent example).  The amendment actually confers the right of each STATE to maintain an organised militia, which for over a century has been the national guard.  

The entire question of "militia" is a relatively modern one and the Supreme Court (the only court that matters when it comes to interpreting the Constitution) has solidly come down on the side of interpreting the 2nd Amendment under the individual rights model.

This was initially touched upon in United States vs. Miller in 1939, however it is generally regarded that the Court waffled on the issue and did not give a clear cut victory to either side. Justice McReynolds wrote,

Quote:
 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The Court then remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings but that never happened because Miller died. Miller has been used as precedent for both sides in the argument in lower courts. There have been seven Supreme Court cases that have mentioned Miller since.

However, none of them directly addressed the question of whether the right was an individual right or a collective right until District of Columbia vs. Heller where the Court made it extremely clear that the right to bear arms is an individual right. 

Justice Scalia wrote:

 From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that "bear arms" had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to "bear arms in defense of themselves and the state" or "bear arms in defense of himself and the state." 8 It is clear from those formulations that "bear arms" did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution's arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense "of one's person or house"--what he called the law of "self preservation." 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) ("Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution&quotEye-wink; see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate--again, in the most analogous linguistic context--that "bear arms" was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

You can read the rest for yourself Scalia goes on for over 50 pages on the topic. 

 

Even Justice Breyer in his dissenting opinion agreed that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right.

 

Justice Breyer wrote:

 

I shall, as I said, assume with the majority that the Amendment, in addition to furthering a militia-related purpose, also furthers an interest in possessing guns for purposes of self-defense, at least to some degree. And I shall then ask whether the Amendment nevertheless permits the District handgun restriction at issue here.

 

     Although I adopt for present purposes the majority's position that the Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense, I shall not assume that the Amendment contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars. The majority, which presents evidence in favor of the former proposition, does not, because it cannot, convincingly show that the Second Amendment seeks to maintain the latter in pristine, unregulated form.

 

     To the contrary, colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the "right to keep and bear arms," whether embodied in Federal or State Constitutions, or the background common law. And those examples include substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, including regulations that imposed obstacles to the use of firearms for the protection of the home.

 

In both opinions, the Justices submitted the law to the "strict scrutiny" test which means that a fundamental individual right is being infringed and the government has the obligation to demonstrate it has a compelling government interest to do so, that the law is narrowly tailored and that the law is the least restrictive means to do so. This is the same test used whenever a law infringes on free speech for example. The justices disagreed on whether or not the law passed the test, they did not disagree on whether or not the right to bear arms is an individual right. 

This interpretation was then upheld by McDonald vs. Chicago. It is accurate to say that through the 20th century the legal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was questionable as no Supreme Court Case directly addressed the issue leading to lower courts having a variety of disagreeing decisions. However, as of now the interpretation of the right to bear arms as an individual right is crystal clear legally. The only issue that remains to be decided legally is exactly how far the government can use regulations to infringe on that right.

(Note, it isn't uncommon for large issues like this to take half a century to be decided by the Supreme Court, our court system moves intentionally slow and other major rights issues have taken similar lengths of time. It is extremely rare for the Court to flat out overturn a ruling as explicit as Heller, and unheard of to overturn it on a basis that the majority and minority agreed upon. Like it or not, the 2nd Amendment as an individual right is now the law of the land until a constitutional amendment is passed)  

In the mean time 32 more people will die from all sorts of gun death in the next 24 hours. But hey, this is Merka where John Wayne and Dirty Harry rule. I am sure because of your court quotes, the victims of Sandy Hook would go "Gotcha, the status quo is fine with us".

This is how the Gun manufacture's and NRA and gun nutters look and sound to me. Unfortunately the people who die from all forms of gun death are not cartoons. And Although Weird Al is a comedian, I do NOT find feeling to have to use this funny. I am using it as a mirror to the nutters who do not see how absurd their obsession is, and it does have real deadly consequences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MV-a4LZLcuY

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Ah, the "one picture is

Ah, the "one picture is worth a million words"...

Yeah.. what correct word is it worth? The picture looks old, grainy... are we even sure that is China and not 1969 N. Korea?

 

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

  Check out what"utopia" looks like.   Even after the Tianimin Square massacre in 1989 that effectively squashed the Chinese pro-democracy movement both Bush and Clinton renewed Most Favored Nation status to this giant gun free zone. 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I find it hypocritical that

I find it hypocritical that a person can carry weapons which are obviously used for warfare tactics on a massive scale, kill a person, claim self-defense and go home free.

Then a person who booby traps their home with a simple electrical shock device, kills a person in their home, calls the police, is arrested, charged, convicted and then sent to prison.

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Ah,

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

Yeah.. what correct word is it worth? The picture looks old, grainy... are we even sure that is China and not 1969 N. Korea?

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

     Images can be found at this web-site:       http://theaustralianheroindiaries.blogspot.com/2009/06/mass-executions-how-china-celebrates.html      or just do a Google search, "Chinese execution, drug dealers"

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:In the mean

Brian37 wrote:

In the mean time 32 more people will die from all sorts of gun death in the next 24 hours. But hey, this is Merka where John Wayne and Dirty Harry rule. I am sure because of your court quotes, the victims of Sandy Hook would go "Gotcha, the status quo is fine with us".

This is how the Gun manufacture's and NRA and gun nutters look and sound to me. Unfortunately the people who die from all forms of gun death are not cartoons. And Although Weird Al is a comedian, I do NOT find feeling to have to use this funny. I am using it as a mirror to the nutters who do not see how absurd their obsession is, and it does have real deadly consequences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MV-a4LZLcuY

 

And in the meantime 109 people will die in car accidents, 87 people will die from poisoning, 188 people will die from diabetes. We should ban cars, household cleaning products and sugar. And if you don't agree you are an evil, uncaring sob.

So Brian, I have to ask, do you have any policy ideas that would have prevented Sandy Hook? Because I'm pretty sure you have said you are one of the crazy nutters against a complete ban. So exactly what should we ban?   

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Againd dumbass, "car deaths

Againd dumbass, "car deaths happen so lets not do anything about guns". First, who says we shouldn't work on car accidents too? You are just using this as a bullshit distraction.

 

Meanwhile 2 teens are dead because a 74 year old man didn't like where they parked.

http://www.wxow.com/story/20468960/maine-man-74-held-in-deaths-of-teenage-tenants
 

Thats ok John Wayne, your data convinced me, lets give up so you can keep your penis extention.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Againd

Brian37 wrote:

Againd dumbass, "car deaths happen so lets not do anything about guns". First, who says we shouldn't work on car accidents too? You are just using this as a bullshit distraction.

 

Meanwhile 2 teens are dead because a 74 year old man didn't like where they parked.

http://www.wxow.com/story/20468960/maine-man-74-held-in-deaths-of-teenage-tenants
 

Thats ok John Wayne, your data convinced me, lets give up so you can keep your penis extention. 

I will ask again, what is your solution? People die, yes. People murder other people, yes. People suck. So exactly what are you proposing we do to stop people from killing each other? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Againd dumbass, "car deaths happen so lets not do anything about guns". First, who says we shouldn't work on car accidents too? You are just using this as a bullshit distraction.

 

Meanwhile 2 teens are dead because a 74 year old man didn't like where they parked.

http://www.wxow.com/story/20468960/maine-man-74-held-in-deaths-of-teenage-tenants
 

Thats ok John Wayne, your data convinced me, lets give up so you can keep your penis extention. 

I will ask again, what is your solution? People die, yes. People murder other people, yes. People suck. So exactly what are you proposing we do to stop people from killing each other? 

 

My solution is to take away the monopoly of all types of lobbiests, which whould take away the power of the gun manufaturing's monopoly on the NRA and the gun climate, and actually allow the voters to decide.

And this ties into your economic freeforall you advocate. I'd put more money in the pockets of the middle class and working poor, make education and health care affordable, reduce the pay gap(NOTICE I DID NOT SAY ELIMINATE ALL ENEQUITY). The ability to pay your bills on one job and have a life outside of it, at home(especially when one has kids) reduces stress and creates more stability. Less crime, less crime, people won't feel the need to buy more guns.

 

AND stricter licencing laws, psychological evaluations, physical training. (Most people who own guns would fail military and poiice training simulators and shoot the wrong characters in those training simulators).

End all gun sales that have loopholes arround tracking. Make ammo stamps on the head of the bullets that correspond to the gun and gun owner, just like your car has a license plate on it and vin number. Ban all internet weapons and ammo sales.

Ban all military style weapons, and high volume clips.

Your turn now, but I already know. What would YOU DO you are the one, not me, that wants to keep your penis extention. I am already doing my part, I don't own one because I am not trained already know the stats favoring the gun owner hurting themselves or someone they know as being more likely than defending themselves.

So other than more of the same John Wayne, what would you do since you think you need your penis extention? Remember, I am not the one who feels the need for one, so the burdon of proof is on you. I find our current rate of gun death totally unacceptable.

And also, notice nowhere did I say "ban all guns", so don't even go there.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:My solution is

Brian37 wrote:

My solution is to take away the monopoly of all types of lobbiests, which whould take away the power of the gun manufaturing's monopoly on the NRA and the gun climate, and actually allow the voters to decide.

What monopoly? Are you saying that the gun control lobby is somehow blocked out of the political system? Or are you just upset when your side loses? So voters only get to decide when they agree with you?

 

Brian37 wrote:

And this ties into your economic freeforall you advocate. I'd put more money in the pockets of the middle class and working poor, make education and health care affordable, reduce the pay gap(NOTICE I DID NOT SAY ELIMINATE ALL ENEQUITY). The ability to pay your bills on one job and have a life outside of it, at home(especially when one has kids) reduces stress and creates more stability. Less crime, less crime, people won't feel the need to buy more guns.

Legalize drugs and you eliminate a large portion of crime (by it no longer being criminal) and also substantially reduce the power of gangs and gang violence. That is something I have advocated for a long time. There is no evidence that welfare reduces crime at all. In fact a quick look at where crime happens, it would appear that welfare, section 8 housing, and food stamp use correlate with increased crime. Personally, I think that correlation is more of a symptom rather than the cause. There is a direct correlation and I would argue causation with illegal sales activity and violence. When you ban something, be it drugs, alcohol, prostitution or gambling the selling of those things is taken over by violence because the victims cannot get police protection out of fear of being jailed themselves. This gives a competitive advantage to those willing to murder. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

AND stricter licencing laws, psychological evaluations, physical training. (Most people who own guns would fail military and poiice training simulators and shoot the wrong characters in those training simulators).

Wouldn't it be better if someone setting out to commit murder was bad shot? Why would we want to train them and make them into more lethal killers?

Training can prevent accidents and it has- the NRA as an organization has put substantial resources into providing training and thanks to them the number of accidental shootings is substantially lower today than it was in the early 90's despite a much larger number of total gun owners. Also, anyone who gets a concealed carry license in most states must pass a shooting test and get safety training. The problem with licensing laws is that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people who don't have a license. Responsible gun owners, who purchase legal weapons and go through the process to get a carry license have an extremely low crime rate. I've already linked to studies on this, of course who am I to bother you with facts?

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

End all gun sales that have loopholes arround tracking. Make ammo stamps on the head of the bullets that correspond to the gun and gun owner, just like your car has a license plate on it and vin number. Ban all internet weapons and ammo sales.

How do you prevent a private seller from selling to another private seller without reporting it? How do you prevent straw man purchasers? In many states, it is already required to report private gun transfers to the government and all guns already have a serial number on them, exactly like a car vin number. Internet sales are already illegal. You can order a gun over the internet, but it must be transferred to a local firearm dealer with an FFL and picked up in person. You are suggesting laws that already exist.

Even using hidden GPS trackers the government failed to track illegal firearm sales- perhaps you have heard of Fast & Furious? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Ban all military style weapons, and high volume clips.

Define "military style" and "high volume" clips. Do you have any evidence that a significant portion of gun crimes use those weapons? (spoiler alert: most gun crimes involve regular handguns that are not even remotely similar to what the modern military uses and use standard clips that hold 8-14 rounds) Oops, I'm sorry I am bothering your pretend world with facts again. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Your turn now, but I already know. What would YOU DO you are the one, not me, that wants to keep your penis extention. I am already doing my part, I don't own one because I am not trained already know the stats favoring the gun owner hurting themselves or someone they know as being more likely than defending themselves.

I have already described in great detail what I would do. Work on reducing gang activity (my preferable way is to legalize drugs), make people wealthier by spreading capitalism and removing government regulations that make it more difficult for the poor to enter the business world so they have more opportunities to make money beyond dealing drugs, increase private education and make it more accessible to the poor through voucher programs to force public schools to compete with the private sector etc. Although I should point out that the violent crime rate is less correlated with poverty than property crimes. Violent crime mostly falls into two categories: violence from people close to you and gang/drug related.     

 

Brian37 wrote:

And also, notice nowhere did I say "ban all guns", so don't even go there.

You also did nothing but suggest laws that already exist and therefore would not prevent even a single shooting. The only real change you have suggested is banning "military style" and "high capacity" magazines. Is a 9mm handgun military style? How big can a clip be before it is "too big"?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
http://www.digitaljournal.com


http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/340430
 

Here is more of your penis extention above.

 

Reduce gang violence? HA. Bullshit. That would require you to spend money on intervention programs. Paying parents livible wages so they can monotor their kids. Invest in urban education. Invesment in urban businesses in minority communities. And legalizing drugs? Which ones? Pot, sure. But not cocane or meth or bath salts, you can go fuck yourself if you think I want that legal.

What you mean by reduce gang violence you mean privitize prisons which would give the oporators more insentive to violate the rights of the poor to fill the prisons with even non violent offenders.

You care about one thing, you. You don't give one shit about reducing gun death or the conditions of the poor otherwise you wouldn't be spewing this vile crap.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
http://www.digitaljournal.com

double post

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:


http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/340430
 

Here is more of your penis extention above.

Do you have anything other than emotional appeals?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Reduce gang violence? HA. Bullshit. That would require you to spend money on intervention programs.

How does an intervention program prevent gang violence?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Paying parents livible wages so they can monotor their kids.

Most kids are into their late teens before they join gangs, you are a big fan of solutions that won't solve the problem aren't you?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Invest in urban education. 

As I said, take our current money we waste and put it into voucher programs to allow parents to choose the school. The problem with our education is not how much we spend, we spend more per pupil than any country in the world, the problem is how we spend it. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Invesment in urban businesses in minority communities.

I am a big fan of investment, that is why I want to eliminate regulations and change the tax code to encourage investment. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

And legalizing drugs? Which ones? Pot, sure. But not cocane or meth or bath salts, you can go fuck yourself if you think I want that legal.

I don't care what you want. It is extremely obvious that the drug war has failed, it has increased gang violence, increased poverty and has done nothing to help people who are addicted to those drugs. Our prison system has become a recruiting ground for gangs as people go to jail for stupid shit like drug possession and forced with joining a gang for protection, a disruption of their personal life and difficulty getting jobs afterward that lead them to live a life of lawbreaking. President Obama has admitted to using cocaine in his youth, would it have been better for him if he had been thrown in jail?

 

Brian37 wrote:

What you mean by reduce gang violence you mean privitize prisons which would give the oporators more insentive to violate the rights of the poor to fill the prisons with even non violent offenders.

I never said anything about privatizing prisons. In fact I have argued on this site against privatizing prisons. Try to address my actual arguments rather than make them up. YOU are the one that supports jailing non violent offenders, you just said a sentence ago you oppose legalizing drugs, which means you support throwing drug users in jail. I consider drug users non violent offenders. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You care about one thing, you. You don't give one shit about reducing gun death or the conditions of the poor otherwise you wouldn't be spewing this vile crap.

Why because I pointed out that none of your suggestions would reduce gun violence? Care to tell me how you define a "military style" weapon? Or how big a clip is before it gets too large? And how you imagine that will somehow reduce gun deaths? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I work in real estate

I work in real estate management and I can honestly say that the people I meet on welfare, section 8, food stamps, etc are 9 out of 10 times a lower life form of human. They type of people I meet are always trying to beat the system. If they aren't working, they are working and then claiming they don't work. Some of them live with all the latest electronics, big screen televisions, big fancy cars and yet, suck off society for section 8 and food stamps.

Are they violent? Some of them are because they are involved with drugs or other illegal forms of activity, which is why I refuse section 8 applications. It acts as a filter. Whom do I worry about when it comes to guns?

Not the drug dealers. Not the pimps. They don't come in to my neighborhoods nor do they seek me out. The people I worry about are the drug users and the demented. It's the crazed gun owners who have a grudge against society. It's the ex-military who never should have been in the military in the first place. It's the hate groups (terrorists) who want to push their agenda through fear and intimidation.

I don't worry about the government except for the corruption. I see lobbyists who aren't doing for the good of the whole, but rather the good of a few. They promote the agenda of their employer who seeks to make a profit at all costs. They don't give a fuck about the by-stander unless maybe they were part of their demographic.

Do I want to take away all the guns from owners? No. I don't think it is practical. Do I think that all people should be allowed to have guns? No. That isn't practical either. Do I think their should be stricter laws governing gun ownership. Yes. It should be more difficult to get a gun that it is to run for president.

What could have been done to protect the students of Sandy Hook? Stricter laws governing the gun owners. I blame the mother and the father for their stupidity. They are to blame for the deaths of those children and teachers. Their son should not have had access to the guns. I would go as far to say that people who own guns and have disturbed family members should be required to have further training and more requirements to own guns.

And in relation to the tragedies in Colorado. Mail order guns and ammo directly to an individual home should cease. Materials used for bombs should have a tighter control. Military personnel should be held more responsible for lost or stolen materials on the black market.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Do I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Do I want to take away all the guns from owners? No. I don't think it is practical. Do I think that all people should be allowed to have guns? No. That isn't practical either. Do I think their should be stricter laws governing gun ownership. Yes. It should be more difficult to get a gun that it is to run for president.

That doesn't gel with what you said earlier about people should only be allowed to own one revolver and one bolt action rifle. That would be taking a significant number of guns away from law abiding citizens like me. 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

What could have been done to protect the students of Sandy Hook? Stricter laws governing the gun owners. I blame the mother and the father for their stupidity. They are to blame for the deaths of those children and teachers. Their son should not have had access to the guns. I would go as far to say that people who own guns and have disturbed family members should be required to have further training and more requirements to own guns.

Define "stricter" that can mean a lot of different things. What kind of training would you require? Has the news media even reported on how the guns were obtained yet? because I have been looking and can't find it. The problem is that however much training you require, you could have a four year college degree in gun safety, and some idiots are still not going to do the right thing. You were in the military, you should know that even people with military training do stupid things with guns. I fully support holding gun owners liable if their negligence leads to their gun being used for criminal purposes, the problem is that such charges can't be brought until after the fact and in the case of Sandy Hook the mother already paid the death penalty for her mistake, we can't exactly punish her more. 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

And in relation to the tragedies in Colorado. Mail order guns and ammo directly to an individual home should cease. Materials used for bombs should have a tighter control. Military personnel should be held more responsible for lost or stolen materials on the black market.

All you do here is display your ignorance. You cannot legally have a gun mailed to your home, it has to be mailed to a registered gun dealer and picked up in person. For the ammo, what difference does it make if you have it mailed to your home or you simply pick some up at Walmart or your local gun store?

Exactly which bomb materials would you control and how? Thousands of regular, everyday materials can be used to make a bomb. Acetone, hairspray, pool cleaner, hydrogen peroxide, ammonium nitrate (found in fertilizer), fuel oil, sugar, aluminum powder, gasoline, propane and the list goes on and on. All you need is a fuel, a container that allows the pressure to build and a detonator. Like the fuels, containers are really easy to find around your house the most popular being PVC piping (according to the FBI 90% of bombs are pipe bombs) and setting up a detonator is a piece of cake for anyone with basic electrical knowledge- all you need is a spark. I guarantee I could walk through your house right now and find all the materials needed to make a bomb. So how are you going to control bomb making equipment? Ban grilling, cars, household cleaners, batteries, lawn chemicals, fire starters, matches, cigarette lighters, gasoline, hair spray, nail polish remover etc? Anyone with a little bit of chemistry or access to google can make a basic but rather deadly bomb. Perhaps we ought to ban chemistry classes and the internet.

And when stolen military materials are sold on the black market the soldiers responsible, the person who sells them and the person who purchases them all go to jail... what more are you going to do? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:That

Beyond Saving wrote:
That doesn't gel with what you said earlier about people should only be allowed to own one revolver and one bolt action rifle. That would be taking a significant number of guns away from law abiding citizens like me.

I was serious about limiting the weapons used at home. I still think if you have an automatic weapon that you should not be allowed to keep it at home. There needs to be limits. I also think you are definitely one of those people falling under "should have guns until they have their brains scanned" <snicker>.

One other item, you posted some stuff about th 2nd Amendment and the rulling on militia. I think it's bullshit even if the Supreme Court has its whacked out opinions. One more reason why the NRA and their lobbyists should be eliminated from politics. They don't give a shit about the public unless they are gun owners.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Define "stricter" that can mean a lot of different things. What kind of training would you require? Has the news media even reported on how the guns were obtained yet? because I have been looking and can't find it. The problem is that however much training you require, you could have a four year college degree in gun safety, and some idiots are still not going to do the right thing. You were in the military, you should know that even people with military training do stupid things with guns. I fully support holding gun owners liable if their negligence leads to their gun being used for criminal purposes, the problem is that such charges can't be brought until after the fact and in the case of Sandy Hook the mother already paid the death penalty for her mistake, we can't exactly punish her more.

The father is responsible too. Also by "stricter" it means testing of people to see where they stand mentally. Hell, I had to take a shrink test to get a job at a gas station and another job I had to take a fucking lie detector test. Today getting a weapon of serious mass killing potential is as easy as clicking on "purchase".

Beyond Saving wrote:
All you do here is display your ignorance. You cannot legally have a gun mailed to your home, it has to be mailed to a registered gun dealer and picked up in person. For the ammo, what difference does it make if you have it mailed to your home or you simply pick some up at Walmart or your local gun store?

You obviously are the ignorant one. You expect people to abide with the current laws?

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46316454/ns/today-today_rossen_reports/t/rossen-reports-anyone-can-buy-guns-no-questions-asked/#.UOm...

I can also have parts mailed to my house through the Internet, illegally, from black market dealers. Yeah, I know the law, but people break the law every day for many different reasons.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Exactly which bomb materials would you control and how? Thousands of regular, everyday materials can be used to make a bomb. Acetone, hairspray, pool cleaner, hydrogen peroxide, ammonium nitrate (found in fertilizer), fuel oil, sugar, aluminum powder, gasoline, propane and the list goes on and on. All you need is a fuel, a container that allows the pressure to build and a detonator. Like the fuels, containers are really easy to find around your house the most popular being PVC piping (according to the FBI 90% of bombs are pipe bombs) and setting up a detonator is a piece of cake for anyone with basic electrical knowledge- all you need is a spark. I guarantee I could walk through your house right now and find all the materials needed to make a bomb. So how are you going to control bomb making equipment? Ban grilling, cars, household cleaners, batteries, lawn chemicals, fire starters, matches, cigarette lighters, gasoline, hair spray, nail polish remover etc? Anyone with a little bit of chemistry or access to google can make a basic but rather deadly bomb. Perhaps we ought to ban chemistry classes and the internet.

Things have changed since the Oklahoma City bombing, but again, through the underground, you can still get stolen military tech via delivery service. Shit, I know of things like weed across country in FEDx boxes and never got caught. I damn well know that other shit is shipped and not caught.

Beyond Saving wrote:
And when stolen military materials are sold on the black market the soldiers responsible, the person who sells them and the person who purchases them all go to jail... what more are you going to do? 

In the military the accounting of those materials are needing oversight. I recall a day at the shooting range when we had a shit load of ammo for a variety of weapons. We were their from sun up to sun down and still did not use all the ammo. The Lt. who signed it all out said he didn't want to bring it all back to the armory, guess he was too busy, so a bunch of the Sgt, Staff Sgt, etc all took extra ammo and loaded it up in a truck and that was the last I saw of it. I know it didn't go back to the armory.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:One

digitalbeachbum wrote:

One other item, you posted some stuff about th 2nd Amendment and the rulling on militia. I think it's bullshit even if the Supreme Court has its whacked out opinions. One more reason why the NRA and their lobbyists should be eliminated from politics. They don't give a shit about the public unless they are gun owners.

What you think doesn't matter, the court has spoken and they are the official interpreters of such things. If you don't like it, you need to pass an amendment to the Constitution. 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

You obviously are the ignorant one. You expect people to abide with the current laws?

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46316454/ns/today-today_rossen_reports/t/rossen-reports-anyone-can-buy-guns-no-questions-asked/#.UOm...

I can also have parts mailed to my house through the Internet, illegally, from black market dealers. Yeah, I know the law, but people break the law every day for many different reasons.

Yeah, people break the law, what a shock. So how exactly is passing more laws going to prevent people from breaking the law? I can also order heroine, cocaine, meth or any other illegal item. All regulation and banning does is make it harder for those of us who obey laws to get what we want, people who are criminals will continue breaking laws no matter how many you pass.  

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Things have changed since the Oklahoma City bombing, but again, through the underground, you can still get stolen military tech via delivery service. Shit, I know of things like weed across country in FEDx boxes and never got caught. I damn well know that other shit is shipped and not caught.

Again, yes people break the law. How is passing more laws going to prevent that? In the real world, perfect enforcement of laws is impossible. You can have 100 laws that all say the same thing, if people break the first one, they will break the next 99 too. At most all you have done is make yourself feel better. I have an idea, why don't we pass a law making it illegal to break the law, that will fix everything.   

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

In the military the accounting of those materials are needing oversight. I recall a day at the shooting range when we had a shit load of ammo for a variety of weapons. We were their from sun up to sun down and still did not use all the ammo. The Lt. who signed it all out said he didn't want to bring it all back to the armory, guess he was too busy, so a bunch of the Sgt, Staff Sgt, etc all took extra ammo and loaded it up in a truck and that was the last I saw of it. I know it didn't go back to the armory.

So? Obviously you had oversight and it failed. Probably because the Lt didn't think it was a big deal and he was right, it wasn't. Stealing ammo is pretty easy since it is impossible to determine exactly how much of it was used. Stealing a gun is a little different (and something the ATF take much more seriously). 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:What you

Beyond Saving wrote:
What you think doesn't matter, the court has spoken and they are the official interpreters of such things. If you don't like it, you need to pass an amendment to the Constitution. 

 

Geee, I guess less laws are better. Maybe we should clone a bunch of Judge Dredd's and let them roam the streets eliminating people as they commit the crimes.


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: The

Beyond Saving wrote:

 The primary purpose of protecting citizen ownership of arms is for the eventuality that when the government fails or becomes tyrannical the regular citizens have a method to fight.

Really? Is this valid? 

1) who decides when to rise up against the government? When is that armed militia created? Who decides they are not a bunch of nut-jobs posing a direct danger to the general public? If all the Rapturists decided to take up arms to hasten the second coming, because some preacher said the current government was stopping it from happening (crazy example admittedly), would this be a valid uprising? What's tyrannical to some is standard operations to others.  Do guns really help this, or just cause more problems?

 

2) In any situation of a tyrannical government where the public feel the need to rise up against it, this presupposes that the military would still be under the control of the government (otherwise, who are the rebels fighting?). Frankly, the US military against a bunch of individuals with peashooters (even the biggest privately owned guns are peashooters compared to helicopter gunships and fighter jets) would be a complete massacre. I fail to see how guns would help here. The only way to succeed in such a situation is to get the military on your side, which means swaying public opinion to the extent that a significant section of the military would desert and join the side of the rebels (Like what's happened in Egypt, Libya, Syria), or have international support and proper weaponry from other nations with vested interests.

 

Regarding your point about Heller, I agree that this is a grey area in current US law, and the supreme court has come down on the side of individual rights to bear arms in recent times. However, I do not believe this was the intention of those who wrote the second amendment originally- in my opinion this has happened because of the increased lobbying power of the NRA and associated groups who have managed to twist the intentions of the authors to suit their purposes. The original intention was the point I was trying to get at in my previous post.