School shooting solutions

[jaybird18c 4]

Our Founding Fathers had a healthy fear and distrust of government. That's why they wrote the Constitution the way they did.

[DJL 232]

jaybird18c

Our Founding Fathers had a healthy fear and distrust of government. That's why they wrote the Constitution the way they did.

Two of the reasons it was written that way are because it's a cheap alternative to a standing army and because armies/navies of the time were used at the disposal of a monarch to support their own reign. 200 years later and we're simply not in that same situation.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,396]

>That's why they wrote the Constitution the way they did.

They also wrote that states had to return slaves to their rightful owners.

Times change.

[jaybird18c 4]

billvon

>That's why they wrote the Constitution the way they did.

They also wrote that states had to return slaves to their rightful owners.

Times change.

Red Herring. By that logic, because they also wrote what you said they did with regard to slavery, you should invalidate anything else you disagree with or all of it for that matter.

[billvon 2,396]

>By that logic, because they also wrote what you said they did with regard to slavery,
>you should invalidate anything else you disagree with or all of it for that matter.

Nope. Just pointing out that the idea that the Founding Fathers wrote infallible documents with impeccable logic is a fallacy. We are now up to 27 amendments, all of which change or supplant the Constitution - and the last one was ratified in 1992. Clearly the Constitution is a work in progress rather than an inviolate statement of truth.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

jaybird18c

Because without your right to defend it, your right to life and liberty is meaningless to those who would take it from you.

But the 2nd was written for the protection of a free state, not to defend your life and liberty.

These days, the 2nd isn't going to protect you form a rogue state, and lots of innocent people are being robbed of their right to life and liberty due specifically to the 2nd amendment.

[CygnusX-1 42]

DJL

The people I personally know who have been in politics are very candid about the fact that campaign finance runs their life. You have to put it this way, they may be good people and have a message and they may want to do what's best for the US but you can't do all of that if you're not in office and you're not in office without big money donors.

One word (or is it multiple letters strung together in some cryptic code):

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

[jaybird18c 4]

billvon

>By that logic, because they also wrote what you said they did with regard to slavery,
>you should invalidate anything else you disagree with or all of it for that matter.

Nope. Just pointing out that the idea that the Founding Fathers wrote infallible documents with impeccable logic is a fallacy. We are now up to 27 amendments, all of which change or supplant the Constitution - and the last one was ratified in 1992. Clearly the Constitution is a work in progress rather than an inviolate statement of truth.

And the right to bear arms is #2 right behind your right to free speech/expression. Must have thought it pretty important and foundational to the rest.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

jaybird18c

***>By that logic, because they also wrote what you said they did with regard to slavery,
>you should invalidate anything else you disagree with or all of it for that matter.

Nope. Just pointing out that the idea that the Founding Fathers wrote infallible documents with impeccable logic is a fallacy. We are now up to 27 amendments, all of which change or supplant the Constitution - and the last one was ratified in 1992. Clearly the Constitution is a work in progress rather than an inviolate statement of truth.

And the right to bear arms is #2 right behind your right to free speech/expression. Must have thought it pretty important and foundational to the rest.

At what number does "foundational" end?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

And the right to bear arms is #2 right behind your right to free speech/expression. Must have thought it pretty important and foundational to the rest.

Curious that the founding fathers felt it important to include all those words about a "well-regulated militia", which the "modern" interpretation of the 2nd completely discounts. They might as well have written "Beer being proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

On the other hand, perhaps the right to keep and bear arms is properly viewed through the lens of participation in a well-regulated militia, as the 2nd was interpreted for most of this country's history.

At any rate I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers were not thinking "Notwithstanding the deaths of thousands of innocent people every year (sucks to be them!), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[CygnusX-1 42]

Actually I think it was important to them at THAT time. It has become less important in today's age. As proof, I submit to you that no one has taken up arms against the federal government en mass recently. You see the occasional "lone wolf" crazy person out there. But that has no real chance of replacing our government or enacting change.

Under what scenario do you see civilians taking over and killing our leaders in DC (or any state for that matter) to prevent government overreach?

I say that will never happen again in the US.

[billvon 2,396]

>And the right to bear arms is #2 right behind your right to free speech/expression.
>Must have thought it pretty important and foundational to the rest.

And the requirement to return escaped slaves is right there in the body of the Constitution - not even a later amendment. By your standards that must be the most important part of all.

[jcd11235 0]

jaybird18c

Our Founding Fathers had a healthy fear and distrust of government. That's why they wrote the Constitution the way they did.

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Taking up arms against the government would be considered rebellion. It would appear the Framers' mistrust for armed citizens was a bit greater than their mistrust of government.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

jaybird18c

And the right to bear arms is #2 right behind your right to free speech/expression. Must have thought it pretty important and foundational to the rest.

Here's an interesting article from a few years back.

"If we restored the Second Amendment to its original meaning, it would be the NRA’s worst nightmare. Invoking the Second Amendment ought to be a more effective argument for increased regulation than it is against it."

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[DJL 232]

jaybird18c

***>By that logic, because they also wrote what you said they did with regard to slavery,
>you should invalidate anything else you disagree with or all of it for that matter.

Nope. Just pointing out that the idea that the Founding Fathers wrote infallible documents with impeccable logic is a fallacy. We are now up to 27 amendments, all of which change or supplant the Constitution - and the last one was ratified in 1992. Clearly the Constitution is a work in progress rather than an inviolate statement of truth.

And the right to bear arms is #2 right behind your right to free speech/expression. Must have thought it pretty important and foundational to the rest.

You should do some real research into why they created these Amendments and why they worded them like they did.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[DanG 1]

And, while we are doing research, even the barest of research into the history of the AR-15 will show that it is, in fact, a military weapon. It was developed at the request of the US Army. Just because they decided they wanted a fully automatic version and renamed it the M-16 doesn't mean the AR-15 isn't the same weapon without the automatic capability (unless you add a bump stock).

And I wish people would stop saying the 5.56 round is essentially a .22. This is extremely misleading. Sure, the diameter of the round is about the same, but the similarity ends there.

People need to be honest on both sides of the debate. Needing to lie to make your point is a sure sign of a weak argument.

- Dan G

[nolhtairt 0]

Quote

And the right to bear arms is #2 right behind your right to free speech/expression. Must have thought it pretty important and foundational to the rest.

Even with having the right to free speech, there are restrictions of course. You can't openly threaten another person or entity with physical violence. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowd or "I HAVE A BOMB!" on a plane without serious consequences.

The US Constitution was set up to be a living breathing document, to change as needed to deal with issues as time goes by.

I do support the 2nd Amendment, but there has to be restrictions on who can have what and those restrictions have to be enforced. The enforcement is what we're having issues with now.

The FBI and local authorities had multiple opportunities to investigate the Florida school shooter before he carried out his plan, and they failed to act, EVERY TIME. This cannot happen. This fuckup is on them, NOT the NRA.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

This Republican politician believes teachers should not be armed. Because most of them are women.....

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/03/women_scare_of_guns.html

[nolhtairt 0]

SkyDekker

This Republican politician believes teachers should not be armed. Because most of them are women.....

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/03/women_scare_of_guns.html

He's a dumbass. It's true that most teachers, whether men or women, would rather not carry in school, his reasoning was archaic and sexist.

There are of course, lots of women who are properly trained to carry and shoot. I've known a bunch. They carry for their own personal safety.

Arming teachers in school brings a whole new set of problems which I just don't think is feasible or safe. I just would not recommend it. Hire more SRO, install metal detectors and ensure they work, etc, as funds become available. Highest risk schools go first, and work down the list...

[jaybird18c 4]

nolhtairt

I do support the 2nd Amendment, but there has to be restrictions on who can have what and those restrictions have to be enforced. The enforcement is what we're having issues with now.

So you agree with me that there are already laws restricting gun ownership and penalties for misuse which need enforcement and that simply creating more restriction on the rest of us will not prevent another mass shooting tragedy?

[billvon 2,396]

>So you agree with me that there are already laws restricting gun ownership and >penalties for misuse which need enforcement

There are indeed laws restricting gun ownership and there are indeed penalties for misuse. And they do reduce gun deaths.

>simply creating more restriction on the rest of us will not prevent another mass
>shooting tragedy?

Increasing regulation will indeed reduce the odds of another "mass shooting tragedy." It worked in Australia. Zero mass shootings now. We won't get to zero in the US (we are much bigger and have a much greater love of guns) but we can reduce it. And reducing the number of mass shootings is a worthy goal.

[DJL 232]

jaybird18c

***I do support the 2nd Amendment, but there has to be restrictions on who can have what and those restrictions have to be enforced. The enforcement is what we're having issues with now.

So you agree with me that there are already laws restricting gun ownership and penalties for misuse which need enforcement and that simply creating more restriction on the rest of us will not prevent another mass shooting tragedy?

There are currently no laws differentiating between ownership of assault rifles and other weapons. They need to be in the same category as machine guns because of their ability to inflict a large quantity of damage in a short period both at short and long range.

The current laws for other firearms are pathetically weak.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[GeorgiaDon 340]

jaybird18c

***I do support the 2nd Amendment, but there has to be restrictions on who can have what and those restrictions have to be enforced. The enforcement is what we're having issues with now.

So you agree with me that there are already laws restricting gun ownership and penalties for misuse which need enforcement and that simply creating more restriction on the rest of us will not prevent another mass shooting tragedy?Would you agree to a law that says that anyone can purchase an AR-15 or other "assault" weapon, but in exchange law enforcement can monitor all your communications, you have to provide the government with all passwords and agree to un-encrypt anything they ask for, and you agree to share your medical history? Also, you will have to agree to have the government regulate your use of "violent" video games, movies, and music. After all, if the argument is that the solution to gun violence is to identify people likely to misuse firearms (but not to restrict access to firearms in any way) then surely we need to provide law enforcement with tools with which to do that?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[nolhtairt 0]

GeorgiaDon

******I do support the 2nd Amendment, but there has to be restrictions on who can have what and those restrictions have to be enforced. The enforcement is what we're having issues with now.

So you agree with me that there are already laws restricting gun ownership and penalties for misuse which need enforcement and that simply creating more restriction on the rest of us will not prevent another mass shooting tragedy?Would you agree to a law that says that anyone can purchase an AR-15 or other "assault" weapon, but in exchange law enforcement can monitor all your communications, you have to provide the government with all passwords and agree to un-encrypt anything they ask for, and you agree to share your medical history? Also, you will have to agree to have the government regulate your use of "violent" video games, movies, and music. After all, if the argument is that the solution to gun violence is to identify people likely to misuse firearms (but not to restrict access to firearms in any way) then surely we need to provide law enforcement with tools with which to do that?

Don

If the FBI and local authorities had done their due diligence and investigated the kid in the Florida school shooting in the months leading up to it, and there were clear signs and warnings, this tragedy could have been prevented. This is what I meant by better enforcement.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

nolhtairt

*********I do support the 2nd Amendment, but there has to be restrictions on who can have what and those restrictions have to be enforced. The enforcement is what we're having issues with now.

So you agree with me that there are already laws restricting gun ownership and penalties for misuse which need enforcement and that simply creating more restriction on the rest of us will not prevent another mass shooting tragedy?Would you agree to a law that says that anyone can purchase an AR-15 or other "assault" weapon, but in exchange law enforcement can monitor all your communications, you have to provide the government with all passwords and agree to un-encrypt anything they ask for, and you agree to share your medical history? Also, you will have to agree to have the government regulate your use of "violent" video games, movies, and music. After all, if the argument is that the solution to gun violence is to identify people likely to misuse firearms (but not to restrict access to firearms in any way) then surely we need to provide law enforcement with tools with which to do that?

Don

If the FBI and local authorities had done their due diligence and investigated the kid in the Florida school shooting in the months leading up to it, and there were clear signs and warnings, this tragedy could have been prevented. This is what I meant by better enforcement.Possibly so, in that one instance. What about most of the other dozens of school shooters? Or the Las Vegas shooter? Most people don't telegraph their intent, to pick up on it you'd have to be watching all the time.

In point of fact, kids will say all kinds of shit to get attention or to act out. Are you going to imprison every kid who makes an inappropriate comment that might be taken as a threat? If so, for how long? Life in prison for the bullied kid who says "I hope you die" to his tormentor?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)