Another school shooting

[turok]

Well I am, so feel free to leave that question to someone like... me? You'll stop some. I don't think you fully understand the scope of issues that would have to be addressed. People say "we have to fix mental health to solve the gun issue." Got some magic pills or something lying around? Mental health is a comprehensive, lifelong thing for each person.

Because it's 2018. That's the paranoia that people live on who live through the 2nd amendment. We've evolved enough as a country where our government is not a dictatorship. It will never turn into one, there's too much knowledge today. The government isn't going to collect all of our guns and then turn on us.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-...2017-11#the-uk-took-a-multipronged-approach-4

48 more to go, but didn't feel like giving them all to you.

Stop acting like America is so freaking unique and special compared to other countries. People are people. Those countries just had the foresight to try something. Yeah I get it, they have other crimes (which is always the immediate response).

http://fortune.com/2018/02/15/nra-contributions-politicians-senators/

The amount that the NRA gives for lobbying means dick. The amount that they give to the US Senators who are the ones pulling the strings for the republicans, that's what you need to pay attention to.

Here's the bottom line. People don't need AR-15s. People don't need assault rifles. They are designed for the military and require EXTENSIVE use to handle. And your only argument against that is "Well, the government might rise up in 1000 years and take us down." Share your paranoia with the thousands of families that will be never the same. See how they take it.

This is where I'll leave this conversation. We don't have the guts to try anything, so this stuff will just keep happening. Mental health will keep getting shouted, as though that's the only solution. Life's tough, we can't all have what we want. That's why we have a society; we give up things for the better of the group. There's NO benefit to an AR-15, other than having it around for fun.

Our country is so fixated with guns. And that's how it will always be until we change or eliminate something made in the 1700s to protect people from an uprising.

Posting about the Second Amendment while from a social POV is rather pointless when in reply to someone who posts from a fiscal POV. Gun, ammo, and accessory manufacturers are worthwhile investments, and their continued profits can/should not be crippled by banning assault rifles.

 

[Spartanmack]

Posting about the Second Amendment while from a social POV is rather pointless when in reply to someone who views everything from a fiscal POV. Gun, ammo, and accessory manufacturers are worthwhile investments, and their continued profits can/should not be crippled by banning assault rifles.

Fiscal relates to government revenue and spending, not private sector profits or stock performance. But lets set that aside and assume you were right, wouldn't I likely own a gun myself? Or maybe stock in gun manufacturers? I don't. I have never even owned a defense stock. I don't even know how meaningful small arms manufacturers (Browning, Smith & Wesson, Mossberg, etc) are to our economy. Or what they're total market cap is. Also, all of my arguments have been about the constitutional rights of Americans, not the economics of the firearms industry. Good try though.

 

[turok]

Fiscal relates to government revenue and spending, not private sector profits or stock performance. But lets set that aside and assume you were right, wouldn't I likely own a gun myself? Or maybe stock in gun manufacturers? I don't. I have never even owned a defense stock. I don't even know how meaningful small arms manufacturers (Browning, Smith & Wesson, Mossberg, etc) are to our economy. Or what they're total market cap is. Also, all of my arguments have been about the constitutional rights of Americans, not the economics of the firearms industry. Good try though.

But your line of employment does involve advising investors in the stock market. And you didn't post even one word about the victims, survivors, or their grieving families in this thread. How is advocating for businesses paying no federal tax whatsoever not taking a fiscal POV?

 

[sggatecl]

not Alex Jones, but to correct the record, it was his parents that were registered Democrats - there's little actually known about Roof's politics except that he liked to burn the American flag - not something conservatives are very fond of.

I think he falls into the 'sick fuck' political party and we should never post his picture again. :cheers:

 

[Spartanmack]

But your line of employment does involve advising investors in the stock market. And you didn't post even one word about the victims, survivors, or their grieving families in this thread. How is advocating for businesses paying no federal tax whatsoever not taking a fiscal POV?

My line of employment has nothing to do with my position on gun control. And I guess calling this a horrible tragedy and advocating for what I believe are the types of regulations that will actually have an impact on these shootings is "not one word" since you disagree on which reforms to pursue. This is how the left argues, make absurd allegations that anyone who opposes you could only be motivated by profit, or racist, or immoral so you can falsely claim the moral high ground and dismiss opposition offhand. It's the Saul Alinsky model.

As for your question, making the connection that I'm arguing against gun control from a fiscal point of view because I don't think corporations should pay taxes is beyond stupid. I have never singled out any industry or business in my tax reform proposals and more importantly, whether or not businesses should pay taxes hasn't come up in this thread or any other thread about gun control. That was so dumb, you don't even get a sarcastic "nice try." Advocating for eliminating corporate taxes isn't a pro or anti-gun control position - you have to be pretty desperate to try to say it is one way or the other.

 

[Michchamp]

on NRA spending: the $2MM number is bullshit and you're a bald-faced liar for even pretending you could make claim that in good faith. $2MM doesn't buy shit in DC; if that's all they could spend, we'd have banned assault rifles years ago, and hundreds of Americans would be a alive today, and many more wouldn't have been wounded.

- Open Secrets: the NRA spent over $5MM in direct lobbying in 2017 alone (link)

- Open Secrets: 2016 election cycle NRA spent $3.2MM in direct lobbying, and a whopping $54.4 MM in outside spending (ads and other political activities intended to oppose any and all gun control measures) (link)

- Open Secrets comparison of gun nut spending vs. gun control spending (link):

The NRA has provided the lion's share of the funds, having contributed $22.9 million since 1989. During the 2016 election cycle, it further opened its coffers to make $54.3 million in outside expenditures, up from $27 million during the 2014 cycle.

Gun control interests, by comparison, have been a blip on the radar screen. They've given $4.2 million since 1989; 96 percent of their contributions to parties and candidates have gone to Democrats.
...
In the 2016 cycle, gun control groups accounted for $3 million in outside spending versus $54.9 million from gun rights organizations, including $54.3 million from the NRA.
​

- USA Today (link):

The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights organizations spent nearly $55 million in the 2016 election cycle to oppose or support candidates through independent spending ? nearly 19 times the amount spent by groups promoting gun restrictions, according to a tally be the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Trump was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the NRA's spending in the last election, with the group pumping more than $31 million into advertising to boost his candidacy and to attack his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. The spending was remarkable because the NRA was the largest, well-established outside group to back Trump's unorthodox campaign.
​

- Also from the same USA TOday article:

"So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior," Trump wrote Thursday morning on Twitter. "Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!"

...
What he didn't mention: In one of his early acts as president, Trump signed a measure passed by the Republican-led Congress that repealed an Obama-era regulation designed to block some mentally ill people from buying guns.

The reversal of the Obama regulation ? which would have required the Social Security Administration to report the records of some mentally ill beneficiaries to the FBI's background check system ? was one of just a string recent legislative victories for the powerful National Rifle Association."

​

Fuck you.

 

[Michchamp]

Once and for all:The Second Amendment

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
​

Gee, if they intended this to mean "no laws restricting arms whatsoever," they sure could've worded it differently... maybe move the part about "shall not be infringed" out of the subordinate clause? Or delete the whole part about a "well regulated militia" since according to Republicans that whole clause is more or less a typo and means nothing?

Also, I should be allowed to amass an army, complete with tanks, nuclear bombs, and stealth bombers since the government has all those, and my right to bear arms is the only thing protecting us from tyranny! Never mind that we didn't have "tyranny" from 1789 when the Constitution was ratified until now... if I can't keep an insane arsenal in my home, it's a real threat.

Aren't there any other places we can look to interpret that two lines of text our naive Founding Fathers left us with?

Sure... there are the Federalist Papers, which consist of 85 essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, intended to explain their rationale and reasoning for a constitution. As Hamilton and Madison were two of the primary drafters of the actual US Constitution, the Federalist Papers are widely considered to be an expanded commentary on the meaning and intent of the provisions of the Constitution.

Uh... so what do they say about my being able to buy whatever guns I want, whenever I want, and brag to the Libs about it?

Nothing. There is no single essay about arms, weapons, firearms, etc. There is one (1) essay (#29) out of the 85 about militias, and it serves as an answer to critics at the time who complained state militias would be a threat to liberty. Elsewhere in the Federalist papers, militias are mentioned in passing about a half dozen times, pertaining to the need for training them, or who would have the authority to call them out.

Not much in there for gun humpers to get excited about (if any of them ever actually read either the Constitution or the Federalist Papers... fat chance of that).

By the way, we HAVE well-regulated militias today... they're called the National Guard. You want to play with guns, moron? Join up. They'll take pretty much anyone.

 

[Spartanmack]

on NRA spending: the $2MM number is bullshit and you're a bald-faced liar for even pretending you could make claim that in good faith. $2MM doesn't buy shit in DC; if that's all they could spend, we'd have banned assault rifles years ago, and hundreds of Americans would be a alive today, and many more wouldn't have been wounded.

- Open Secrets: the NRA spent over $5MM in direct lobbying in 2017 alone (link)

- Open Secrets: 2016 election cycle NRA spent $3.2MM in direct lobbying, and a whopping $54.4 MM in outside spending (ads and other political activities intended to oppose any and all gun control measures) (link)

- Open Secrets comparison of gun nut spending vs. gun control spending (link):

The NRA has provided the lion's share of the funds, having contributed $22.9 million since 1989. During the 2016 election cycle, it further opened its coffers to make $54.3 million in outside expenditures, up from $27 million during the 2014 cycle.

Gun control interests, by comparison, have been a blip on the radar screen. They've given $4.2 million since 1989; 96 percent of their contributions to parties and candidates have gone to Democrats.
...
In the 2016 cycle, gun control groups accounted for $3 million in outside spending versus $54.9 million from gun rights organizations, including $54.3 million from the NRA.
​

- USA Today (link):

The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights organizations spent nearly $55 million in the 2016 election cycle to oppose or support candidates through independent spending — nearly 19 times the amount spent by groups promoting gun restrictions, according to a tally be the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Trump was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the NRA's spending in the last election, with the group pumping more than $31 million into advertising to boost his candidacy and to attack his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. The spending was remarkable because the NRA was the largest, well-established outside group to back Trump's unorthodox campaign.
​

- Also from the same USA TOday article:

"So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior," Trump wrote Thursday morning on Twitter. "Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!"

...
What he didn't mention: In one of his early acts as president, Trump signed a measure passed by the Republican-led Congress that repealed an Obama-era regulation designed to block some mentally ill people from buying guns.

The reversal of the Obama regulation — which would have required the Social Security Administration to report the records of some mentally ill beneficiaries to the FBI's background check system — was one of just a string recent legislative victories for the powerful National Rifle Association."

​

Fuck you.

no, we wouldn't because people don't care about gun control. The rest of this is just more bald faced lies from a bald faced liar, starting with a clear lack of understanding what a average annual spending over 20 years means. Still, even if it is $5mm (not accepting you numbers offhand), as you say, that still doesn't mean shit in DC. Have a nice day.

 

[Spartanmack]

Once and for all:The Second Amendment

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
​

Gee, if they intended this to mean "no laws restricting arms whatsoever," they sure could've worded it differently... maybe move the part about "shall not be infringed" out of the subordinate clause? Or delete the whole part about a "well regulated militia" since according to Republicans that whole clause is more or less a typo and means nothing?

Also, I should be allowed to amass an army, complete with tanks, nuclear bombs, and stealth bombers since the government has all those, and my right to bear arms is the only thing protecting us from tyranny! Never mind that we didn't have "tyranny" from 1789 when the Constitution was ratified until now... if I can't keep an insane arsenal in my home, it's a real threat.

Aren't there any other places we can look to interpret that two lines of text our naive Founding Fathers left us with?

Sure... there are the Federalist Papers, which consist of 85 essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, intended to explain their rationale and reasoning for a constitution. As Hamilton and Madison were two of the primary drafters of the actual US Constitution, the Federalist Papers are widely considered to be an expanded commentary on the meaning and intent of the provisions of the Constitution.

Uh... so what do they say about my being able to buy whatever guns I want, whenever I want, and brag to the Libs about it?

Nothing. There is no single essay about arms, weapons, firearms, etc. There is one (1) essay (#29) out of the 85 about militias, and it serves as an answer to critics at the time who complained state militias would be a threat to liberty. Elsewhere in the Federalist papers, militias are mentioned in passing about a half dozen times, pertaining to the need for training them, or who would have the authority to call them out.

Not much in there for gun humpers to get excited about (if any of them ever actually read either the Constitution or the Federalist Papers... fat chance of that).

By the way, we HAVE well-regulated militias today... they're called the National Guard. You want to play with guns, moron? Join up. They'll take pretty much anyone.

nobody here, to my knowledge thinks it meant no restrictions whatsoever. That's why we have restrictions on what private citizens can own - like automatic weapons and no one is arguing to reverse those restrictions. That's also why most of us support and are willing to consider other restrictions that won't infringe on lawful, sane people owning guns. nice try.

 

[Gulo Blue]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Our militias don't mean squat with regard to keeping our states free. How do you interpret an amendment that starts with a premise that is no longer true?

 

[jwlcosu]

So the shooter was a member of a extreme-right, white supremacist hate group the "Republic of Florida." link

they gave him a gun (not the one used in a shooting) and some sort of combat training, according to the group's leader, who didn't really seem all that troubled by this. the group and its leaders should be sued into oblivion like the SPLC did to the KKK after they bombed African American churches.

Cruz wore the Trump hat in a photo on an Instagram account the company said belonged to him. Over his face he wore a red, white, and blue bandana. On that account and another one, Cruz posted photos of guns, knives, anti-Muslim slurs, and a picture of a toad he killed.​

white supremacy...

Fake News:

https://apnews.com/8247010fc41141ce...itter&utm_medium=AP&__twitter_impression=true

 

[biggunsbob]

No civilian needs a Ar-15 or any other semi-automatic weapon and or gun that can be converted to full automatic . There is no way to break through the lobbying arm of the NRA, and get any politicians to do the hard work of crafting legislation to curb gun violence in America. EVERY FUCKING Thing should be on the table to protect American citizens. I am So glad after 30-40 years of NRA membership my dad a former Marine told them to fuck off and tore up that hypocritical organizations card.

Everything should be on the table!!!!

 

[tomdalton22]

By the way, we HAVE well-regulated militias today... they're called the National Guard. You want to play with guns, moron? Join up. They'll take pretty much anyone.

I was in the National Guard for many years...they didn't let us play with guns

 

[sggatecl]

Fake News:
https://apnews.com/8247010fc41141ce...itter&utm_medium=AP&__twitter_impression=true

First line from that article:

A white nationalist appears to have lied to The Associated Press and other news organizations when he claimed that Florida school-shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz was a member of his obscure group.

At the time champ posted it, it was very real because the group had made that claim to the AP. AP since corrected it once a proverbial shit storm came down on that group and they retracted their statement to the AP.

Calling the AP 'fake news' is retarded even by your standards.

 

[sggatecl]

I was in the National Guard for many years...they didn't let us play with guns

What's the difference (is there one?) between the National Guard and the Reserves?

 

[jwlcosu]

First line from that article:



At the time champ posted it, it was very real because the group had made that claim to the AP. AP since corrected it once a proverbial shit storm came down on that group and they retracted their statement to the AP.

Calling the AP 'fake news' is retarded even by your standards.

The AP ran with the lie because it was way too good of a story not to. AP didn't create the lie, that's true, but they failed to adequately vet the story and so by running it, they reported fake news. What they did is in keeping with the way much of "journalism" works these days.

 

[sggatecl]

The AP ran with the lie because it was way too good of a story not to. AP didn't create the lie, that's true, but they failed to adequately vet the story and so by running it, they reported fake news. What they did is in keeping with the way much of "journalism" works these days.

I can't imagine you're typing this with a straight face considering some of the bullshit sources you post. You must be laughing your ass off.

 

[jwlcosu]

I can't imagine you're typing this with a straight face considering some of the bullshit sources you post. You must be laughing your ass off.

Whatever you think of my sources, it doesn?t change the fact that AP totally blew this story and in doing so, created fake news that dupes like Champ and apparently you were eager to consume.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Whatever you think of my sources, it doesn?t change the fact that AP totally blew this story and in doing so, created fake news that dupes like Champ and apparently you were eager to consume.

Do they teach critical thinking at all at Ohio State?

The story you referred to as "fake news" and was linked to in what you quoted in post #71 had nothing to do with the AP - it ran in the Daily Beast.

If the story that appeared in the Daily Beast was ever run by the AP, you haven't provided evidence to substantiate that.

 

[tomdalton22]

What's the difference (is there one?) between the National Guard and the Reserves?

The National Guard is dual service with both state and federal control.
The Reserves is just federal.