(08-16-2019 04:13 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 11:35 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  Although I am a conservative and a 2nd Amendment supporter (for now -- more on that below), I do have to say that IMO, arguments that "people need guns as a check on government power" and "people need guns to make sure they keep all their other rights" etc. just don't strike me as likely to be very persuasive to today's moderates, independents, overall masses, or even the smart & thoughtful liberals that post here and are willing to entertain good arguments.
I mean, don't get me wrong, it's historically accurate and definitely one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment in the first place (hence the prefatory clause), but that was then and this is now. We are hardly any longer a new nation just out from under a long experience with tyranny (and with that tyrant still having troops on our doorstep, in Canada) and composed of disparate states who weren't all sure what the other states might want to do going forward. We're a completely mature, stable democracy now. Those arguments are so theoretical and there would have to be such a dystopian devolution for them to become relevant again that they're just going to be tuned out.
I think a -- perhaps the only -- winning modern argument for why regular people need access to guns is, frankly, for self-defense against other people with guns. Even people that don't own guns (that includes me) can understand that self-defense is a fundamental right. And also, I think that people intuitively understand that there is probably some connection, at least, between the general -- and substantial -- drop in crime rates over the past few decades (notwithstanding the rise in mass shootings, although those are simply insignificant as a statistical matter) and the general rise in guns in circulation. There has to be some deterrent effect at work.
But I think it's also time to admit that we don't need the absolutist "shall not be infringed" 2nd Amendment in order to preserve that fundamental right of self-defense. I'm for the Second Amendment being followed as long as it is in place -- I have only contempt for the progressive tactic of ludicrously redefining or outright ignoring democratically enacted words they don't like (see also: not enforcing immigration laws, abortion "rights"), because heaven forbid it should take time and effort to build consensus in a democracy -- but I'm definitely persuadable on the issue of repealing it. I don't think that repealing the 2nd Amendment would result, in our mature democracy, in banning and confiscation of all private guns or anything even close to that. Sure, some people would like to see that happen, but their crazy, emotion-laden appeals are also completely unpersuasive and will never appeal to anything close to a majority. I don't see our country ever coming to a consensus that acquiring a gun should be impossible or even close to it because, again, the right to self-defense is so fundamental. As a practical matter anyway, repeal of the 2nd Amendment would probably be politically possible only if it was coupled with a new amendment that still had robust (just not absolutist) language.
Bottom line, though, it just makes sense to me and obviously lots of other people that in the modern world one should have to take a class, pass a test, register, or whatever else, in order to have a firearm. So, I'm for doing that -- but only the right, honest way.

Generally agree with this. The argument that guns will protect us from a "tyrannical government" nowadays is hilarious. The US government/military has the might and weapons to wipe countries off the map; no nutjob anarchists that do militia drills out in the woods and whatever armory of guns they have is going to stand a chance, if the US government/military really wanted to crush them.

Worked in Vietnam. Seems to be working in Afghanistan and Iraq. And if a bunch of rice farmers and goat herders can do it, so can Americans.

(08-16-2019 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 04:13 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 11:35 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  Although I am a conservative and a 2nd Amendment supporter (for now -- more on that below), I do have to say that IMO, arguments that "people need guns as a check on government power" and "people need guns to make sure they keep all their other rights" etc. just don't strike me as likely to be very persuasive to today's moderates, independents, overall masses, or even the smart & thoughtful liberals that post here and are willing to entertain good arguments.
I mean, don't get me wrong, it's historically accurate and definitely one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment in the first place (hence the prefatory clause), but that was then and this is now. We are hardly any longer a new nation just out from under a long experience with tyranny (and with that tyrant still having troops on our doorstep, in Canada) and composed of disparate states who weren't all sure what the other states might want to do going forward. We're a completely mature, stable democracy now. Those arguments are so theoretical and there would have to be such a dystopian devolution for them to become relevant again that they're just going to be tuned out.
I think a -- perhaps the only -- winning modern argument for why regular people need access to guns is, frankly, for self-defense against other people with guns. Even people that don't own guns (that includes me) can understand that self-defense is a fundamental right. And also, I think that people intuitively understand that there is probably some connection, at least, between the general -- and substantial -- drop in crime rates over the past few decades (notwithstanding the rise in mass shootings, although those are simply insignificant as a statistical matter) and the general rise in guns in circulation. There has to be some deterrent effect at work.
But I think it's also time to admit that we don't need the absolutist "shall not be infringed" 2nd Amendment in order to preserve that fundamental right of self-defense. I'm for the Second Amendment being followed as long as it is in place -- I have only contempt for the progressive tactic of ludicrously redefining or outright ignoring democratically enacted words they don't like (see also: not enforcing immigration laws, abortion "rights"), because heaven forbid it should take time and effort to build consensus in a democracy -- but I'm definitely persuadable on the issue of repealing it. I don't think that repealing the 2nd Amendment would result, in our mature democracy, in banning and confiscation of all private guns or anything even close to that. Sure, some people would like to see that happen, but their crazy, emotion-laden appeals are also completely unpersuasive and will never appeal to anything close to a majority. I don't see our country ever coming to a consensus that acquiring a gun should be impossible or even close to it because, again, the right to self-defense is so fundamental. As a practical matter anyway, repeal of the 2nd Amendment would probably be politically possible only if it was coupled with a new amendment that still had robust (just not absolutist) language.
Bottom line, though, it just makes sense to me and obviously lots of other people that in the modern world one should have to take a class, pass a test, register, or whatever else, in order to have a firearm. So, I'm for doing that -- but only the right, honest way.

Generally agree with this. The argument that guns will protect us from a "tyrannical government" nowadays is hilarious. The US government/military has the might and weapons to wipe countries off the map; no nutjob anarchists that do militia drills out in the woods and whatever armory of guns they have is going to stand a chance, if the US government/military really wanted to crush them.

Worked in Vietnam. Seems to be working in Afghanistan and Iraq. And if a bunch of rice farmers and goat herders can do it, so can Americans.

See the 1984 movie Red Dawn

(08-16-2019 04:13 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  if the US government/military really wanted to crush them.

big if.... and if we got to that point, I suspect lots of countries would be more than happy to arm and train our 'freedom fighters'.

(08-17-2019 02:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 04:13 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  if the US government/military really wanted to crush them.

big if.... and if we got to that point, I suspect lots of countries would be more than happy to arm and train our 'freedom fighters'.

See, no reason to worry about the 2nd Amendment since we’d get our guns anyways.

(08-17-2019 03:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 02:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-16-2019 04:13 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  if the US government/military really wanted to crush them.

big if.... and if we got to that point, I suspect lots of countries would be more than happy to arm and train our 'freedom fighters'.

See, no reason to worry about the 2nd Amendment since we’d get our guns anyways.

Then no point in wasting time energy and money trying to take away what we already have then.

With another mass shooting in Texas today, I thought it was an appropriate time to bring this link into play.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/gun-safety/

I also don't believe any of the new Texas gun laws that start up tomorrow will help this issue.

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/san-ant...d-to-know-

When I was in high school, half the trucks in the parking lot had a rifle rack with a rifle in it in the rear view window. Student's trucks, teacher's trucks.

No shootings, nobody even could conceive of something like that happening.

Now we have longer waits and more checks and more restrictions, and with them come more shootings.

What is the difference between 1963 and now?

(08-31-2019 09:31 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  With another mass shooting in Texas today, I thought it was an appropriate time to bring this link into play.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/gun-safety/

I also don't believe any of the new Texas gun laws that start up tomorrow will help this issue.

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/san-ant...d-to-know-

I am curious, what proposals do you think would have prevented this, or any other shooting, and which Democrats are making those proposals?

Well it's way too early to know the details yet about the Midland/Odessa shooter, but I think several of Yang's proposals might have helped (and there are plenty of other proposals out there to consider).

But I'll turn the table on you, do you think any of the new laws in effect today will help (from my second link)?

You do realize the shootings yesterday began from a traffic stop by the DPS?

If Trump, McConnell and Congress (the Senate) do nothing (for instance on the background check bill proposed), the Suburban mom vote will abandon the Republican party next November. That's my prediction.

Here's one more proposal for you, but this is from a right-wing consultant. His main three proposals are upgrading the NICS program, the 'Red Flag' program, and just condemning all groups that use political rhetoric to justify violence.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/20...-red-flags

I honestly don't care what is done (although I would prefer we start with stricter background checks). I just want something to be done.

Quote:I honestly don't care what is done

You have made that quite understood.

(09-01-2019 06:24 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Well it's way too early to know the details yet about the Midland/Odessa shooter, but I think several of Yang's proposals might have helped (and there are plenty of other proposals out there to consider).

But I'll turn the table on you, do you think any of the new laws in effect today will help (from my second link)?

You do realize the shootings yesterday began from a traffic stop by the DPS?

If Trump, McConnell and Congress (the Senate) do nothing (for instance on the background check bill proposed), the Suburban mom vote will abandon the Republican party next November. That's my prediction.

Why do you think a tougher background check would have prevented this?

Which of Yang's proposals might have helped?

I do think some of the new laws will help in future situations, although they would have had no effect on the shootings in Midland.

Also, why have these shootings become so prevalent now, when there were none when I was young and guns were more prevalent and easy to get?

Yes, i am sure the left will politicize these deaths to their advantage. I am sure some of them are hoping for more. More deaths = more votes.

(09-01-2019 06:56 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Here's one more proposal for you, but this is from a right-wing consultant. His main three proposals are upgrading the NICS program, the 'Red Flag' program, and just condemning all groups that use political rhetoric to justify violence.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/20...-red-flags

I honestly don't care what is done (although I would prefer we start with stricter background checks). I just want something to be done.

Is there even one single mass shooter who would have been stopped by stricter background checks? Names, please. To the best of my memory, every single one of them either passed or got their guns illegally. I expect this shooter will fit into one of those categories. We could have the FBI do a background check similar to the one done in granting security clearance. Which shooter(s) would that have stiopped?

I am in agreement with red flag laws.

I am in agreement with condemning those who preach violence. On both sides, not just one, as leftists do.

(09-01-2019 08:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:I honestly don't care what is done

You have made that quite understood.

Yes FBO seems to fit into the great majority of Democrats, which is to say, they favor doing something useless, as long as they can say they are doing something.

I am still waiting for one of them to advocate a change that will help. It ain't gonna be Beta.

"Provide deescalation training and mental health professionals to law enforcement agencies to prevent interactions from becoming deadly" possibly? It sounds like it was a routine traffic stop and the guy shot at the officers with a rifle before they approached the vehicle (hitting one of them). That's an unfortunate ambush and nothing could probably have been done there to prevent that.

But I'm sorry, I don't think the officers did a good job of apprehending him when he was able to drive 20-30 miles away on a high speed chase on a major freeway, shooting (and perhaps) killing people along the way. Then he apprehended a post office van, killed that driver and hijacked that vehicle before they finally caught up to him at the movie theater.

A lot has changed since 1963. More violent movies, TV shows, video games certainly don't help. It wasn't ideal in the 1960's either - don't fool yourself. But outside of the UT shootings and maybe Charles Manson, most of the high publicized killings of that era were political assassinations. Maybe the shootings existed but just weren't publicized to the extent they are today. Maybe weapons have been more advanced and it's just easier for crazies to kill more people in a quicker amount of time than they could have 55 years ago. Today's political climate doesn't help things either.

(09-01-2019 09:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2019 06:56 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Here's one more proposal for you, but this is from a right-wing consultant. His main three proposals are upgrading the NICS program, the 'Red Flag' program, and just condemning all groups that use political rhetoric to justify violence.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/20...-red-flags

I honestly don't care what is done (although I would prefer we start with stricter background checks). I just want something to be done.

Is there even one single mass shooter who would have been stopped by stricter background checks? Names, please. To the best of my memory, every single one of them either passed or got their guns illegally. I expect this shooter will fit into one of those categories. We could have the FBI do a background check similar to the one done in granting security clearance. Which shooter(s) would that have stiopped?

I am in agreement with red flag laws.

I am in agreement with condemning those who preach violence. On both sides, not just one, as leftists do.

Devin Kelly, 2016 Sutherland Springs church shooter. Air Force screwed up his paperwork but stricter guidelines and a stronger computer database might have prevented his buying the weapon that he killed 26 people with.

(09-01-2019 09:35 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  "Provide deescalation training and mental health professionals to law enforcement agencies to prevent interactions from becoming deadly" possibly? It sounds like it was a routine traffic stop and the guy shot at the officers with a rifle before they approached the vehicle (hitting one of them). That's an unfortunate ambush and nothing could probably have been done there to prevent that.

But I'm sorry, I don't think the officers did a good job of apprehending him when he was able to drive 20-30 miles away on a high speed chase on a major freeway, shooting (and perhaps) killing people along the way. Then he apprehended a post office van, killed that driver and hijacked that vehicle before they finally caught up to him at the movie theater.

A lot has changed since 1963. More violent movies, TV shows, video games certainly don't help. It wasn't ideal in the 1960's either - don't fool yourself. But outside of the UT shootings and maybe Charles Manson, most of the high publicized killings of that era were political assassinations. Maybe the shootings existed but just weren't publicized to the extent they are today. Maybe weapons have been more advanced and it's just easier for crazies to kill more people in a quicker amount of time than they could have 55 years ago. Today's political climate doesn't help things either.

Deescalation training sounds like a good thing in and of itself, but I don't know which, if any, f these incidents was a standoff gone bad. The more common result is the shooter shoots a bunch of people, the cops arrive a few minutes later and deescalate the situation by shooting him or taking him into custody.

I referred back to my high school days for two reasons. One, guns were prevalent at my school and throughout Texas. Two, this was before the UT shootings and the Manson family.

More violent movies> HA! You must think I grew up watching "the Seven Year Itch" and "The Wizard of Oz". When I was growing up, the main fare was war movies, westerns, and monster movies, like Godzilla. Of course, the heroes only shot bad guys, like Nazis and outlaws. maybe the definition of bad guys has changed.

I don't think the shootings existed very much, and they damn sure didn't become political footballs. The media back then was very different. Report a story, move on. Now we have the 24 hours cable people hammering at it 7/24.

Weapons were plenty advanced enough back then. Think of the guns used in the 30's.

agree on the political climate.

Plenty of guns back then, few shootings. The change is not in the guns, the type of guns, or the availability of guns. It is in the people.

Is that all, FBO? I was hoping we could have some concrete proposals to discuss.

I've stated before I would like to see further online scrutiny of online social media sites, including dark web sites like 4Chan and 8Chan (are they different? I have no idea). Just the other day, they stopped a North Carolina college student from possibly creating another mass shooting incident. I'd rather have Homeland Security worried about domestic terrorist incidents than international ones.

(09-01-2019 09:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2019 06:56 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Here's one more proposal for you, but this is from a right-wing consultant. His main three proposals are upgrading the NICS program, the 'Red Flag' program, and just condemning all groups that use political rhetoric to justify violence.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/20...-red-flags

I honestly don't care what is done (although I would prefer we start with stricter background checks). I just want something to be done.

Is there even one single mass shooter who would have been stopped by stricter background checks? Names, please. To the best of my memory, every single one of them either passed or got their guns illegally. I expect this shooter will fit into one of those categories. We could have the FBI do a background check similar to the one done in granting security clearance. Which shooter(s) would that have stiopped?

I am in agreement with red flag laws.

I am in agreement with condemning those who preach violence. On both sides, not just one, as leftists do.

Possibly yesterday's too. I just read on CNN that the shooter yesterday was previously arrested in 2001 for criminal trespass and evading arrest, both of which are misdemeanors, according to public records. Adjudication was deferred, though the details of the case were not immediately available.

His record also includes a 2018 traffic citation for a federal motor-carrier safety violation, according to court records in Ector County, Texas.

Would either of those preclude him from being able to buy a new gun?