Tweets Donald Trump this morning.
He also has this:
We cannot let those killed in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, die in vain. Likewise for those so seriously wounded. We can never forget them, and those many who came before them. Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks, perhaps marrying this legislation with desperately needed immigration reform. We must have something good, if not GREAT, come out of these two tragic events!I'm reading his tweets this morning because I see the NYT has a headline "Trump Condemns White Supremacy but Doesn’t Propose Gun Laws After Shootings." I guess he condemned white supremacy somewhere other than on Twitter. Let me read this NYT thing:
“In one voice our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy,” Mr. Trump said....Let's find the video. Here:
He warned of “the perils of the internet and social media” with no acknowledgment of his use of those platforms to promote his brand of divisive politics.
It remained unclear whether Mr. Trump’s 10-minute remarks....
ADDED: Trump's main proposal is to develop methods of detecting mass murderers before they act. The idea is then to prevent them from buying guns and to provide mental health treatment and, in some cases, involuntary confinement.
ALSO: Trump read the speech stiffly and with some awkwardness. I think that's his style when he needs to be serious, but to some it may sound as though he's feeling forced. He seemed short of breath, as if he was tired, but he didn't look tired. There was a lot of talk about the need for bipartisanship, but I don't have any hope that the mass killings of the past weekend will lead to any new bipartisanship.
On the subject of white supremacy, mental illness, and detecting murder before it happens, I wonder if there is any expert opinion about where the white supremacy arises in the process. Do mentally ill people get drawn into the delusions and distortions of white supremacy as they move forward toward acting out murderously or is the white supremacy there at the outset, drawing the future murderer into insanity? Are there white supremacists in the United States who are not mentally ill? I guess that depends in part on how you define white supremacy. But if you use a narrow definition... aren't they all mentally ill? Is it perhaps a way for the mentally ill to exacerbate existing illness and feel reinforced and dedicated and to lose track of right and wrong?
Posts
377 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 377 of 377201?
Bingo (201)
In the initial aftermath of the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks there were reports that at one cafe the muslim shooters entered they were shot by the customers, many of whom were unlawfully carrying weapons. It was a favorite hangout of a group of Eastern European gangsters, I forget which variety. That bit of information was swiftly suppressed. And the gendarmes didn't do any investigation as to what happened there.
There is much evidence that an armed populace can put a quick stop to mass shootings.
The first mass shooting in my personal memory bank is the Texas Tower shooting in 1966 when I was 11. Casualty count would have been much higher but for the immediate reaction of the unorganized militia. Students, faculty, people parked nearby went to their vehicles, got their rifles, and started shooting back, forcing the shooter to take cover, disrupting his aim. Which, BTW, is what the vast majority of bullets fired in combat are doing. The covering fire allowed armed people, to approach and enter the tower, which they climbed to bring an end to the rampage.
If you support a racist POS, you are a racist POS.
Fine. I'm a racist POS.
What else you got?
Jim,
That's it.
Unless you also drive a Prius. And therefore are, seemingly, required to be a smug dolt.
Then, yur totally maxed out on sux.
IMHO.
I can almost guarantee the both of these murderous nihilists were on behavior modification drugs for Attention Deficit Disorder or depression at some point in their youth.
To find the truth in modern day America, you have to look at what is never mentioned, let alone discussed.
B-dog,
Is it a problem if a POTUS has an issue w/ speed, or the diet pill version, or the Adderall version?
Nichevo said...
Hey, I've got a long term solution idea. Just throwing it out there...
Everyone, at the age of say thirteen, or otherwise as the shrinks advise, is universally profiled for crazy threat value.
It should be on objective fair standards. Not, do you like the President, but the usual shrink stuff, like Rorschach blots and the TAT, MMPI and so forth. We could call it the Voight-Kampff test.
Anyone identified as an actual or potential problem gets a little extra attention, follow-up. Sooner or later it may lead to various loss of privileges...
I'm sure there are pitfalls, but if we avoid ideology, at least it seems fair.
This stuff starts early. Early detection, early prevention.
***********
Xi Jingping could not have said it better. It'd be the start of a Social Credit system in the US.
Too much complaining about the Democratic Party? No air travel for YOU!
It's cool that none of you can take a step back and assess the POTUS using this as leverage for giving the terrorist exactly what the terrorist wants (which, indeed, is exactly what DJT and many others (here, too)) want.
Not just the xenophobia based law making. But, more stuff about the media being the enemy of the people, too.
Wonderful case study re human minds.
Very cool!
S(h)itter is quite animated today.
That El Paso "con" was also an eco nut.
Why, he might just be crazy.
(Anywho..)
Jeffrey Goldberg writes about a Trump rally sans his teleprompter:
The Panama City rally [on May 8] was not particularly remarkable, as Trump rallies go. His message was typically soulless. He tried to provoke feelings of deep insecurity among his followers, in the style of an expert populist preacher, and he stroked their egos by referring to them as America’s true elite. At times, his rhetoric was uglier in degree, though not in kind, than normal. He scapegoated Puerto Rico; he encouraged the crowd in its call to imprison Hillary Clinton; he praised Republican Senator Marco Rubio, whom he has neutered; he shared his jumbled thoughts about General Motors; he stated, fantastically, “We believe in the rule of law.”
Late in his disorderly presentation, as he discussed the work of Border Patrol officers, he raised, and then dismissed, the idea of allowing them to use violence against migrants.
“And don’t forget—we don’t let them and we can’t let them use weapons,” he said. “We can’t. Other countries do. We can’t. I would never do that. But how do you stop these people? You can’t. There’s—”
It was then that he was interrupted by a woman in the crowd. “Shoot them!” she yelled.
The president found this funny, as did his audience. “That’s only in the Panhandle you can get away with that stuff.” He stopped for a moment to take in the crowd’s roaring approval. “Only in the Panhandle!” he repeated.
It is worth pausing on the choice that was available to the president at that moment. Trump was faced by a person in the crowd who argued for the murder of immigrants. He could have . . . used a foul moment to teach a lesson about the moral necessity of nonviolence and rhetorical restraint. But . . . he encouraged—in the greasy, joking-not-joking style he has perfected—the normalization of violence.
Walt,
Just tryin' to break the log jam.
How many threads can drone on an on about how the liberals are murdering Mexicans in Walmart before you've had yur fill?
Douglas said...
How can you stop mass shootings? One alternative would be to disarm the civilian population.
Why didn't we think of this during the DOD? All we had to to was take the drugs away from civilians.
For some reason it is (or was) popular to trash Inga for jabbering about talking points, but it's uber-cool to jabber about how a liberal went to El Paso to kill Mexican invaders.
Why not put on yur thinkin' caps?
Gadfly - you do recognize the difference between illegal entrants (stopping them somehow) and shooting innocent people in a Walmart, right?
yes, Gospace, in an alternate reality, the womens empowerment movements would have coaxed government to create a FEM-militia, arm & train them, and let them be citizen ready-to-defenders for all good reasons.
first wondered on that with that early Colorado crowded kids film shooting: what if that angry young man instead had to figure on 5 armed moms at that that day? would he have done a thing?
we who know nothing of firearms are now aiming to buy and get to know a shotgun. its a start.
I was surprised when I opened an article that said that we need to ratchet down the crazy rhetoric to see that they had focused it on Trump, and not MSNBC and CNN.
Thank you for your public service, 'Sitter.
BleachBit-and-Hammers
You do recognize the difference between Gadfly, and somebody who is interested in honest debate, right?
anti-dipshitter:
This isn't about POTUS.
Give it a rest.
That, or state outright that POTUS is to blame.
Re the NRA not giving an inch:
Lefty compromise:
They get 90% of what they want.
You give 90% of what they want.
"That, or state outright that POTUS is to blame.”
His still is more that of rambling innuendo, that way he doesn’t get shot down so convincingly as he does when he wanders into the realm of supported opinion and objective facts.
Dayton socialist/open borders guy disliked Biden's generation, but is fine with Warren.
He might just have been crazy.
I don't know if either shooter are or were mentally ill. Obviously they had some rather strong emotions. Strong enough to motivate them to kill multiple people. But I think we are too quick to assume that someone who murders is mentally ill. Because it seems impossible for us to imagine ourselves murdering someone let alone multiple people.
Whenever something like these events happen everyone tends to too quickly look for causes of the shooting outside of the person who actually did it. I think the truth is, is that far more people than would like to admit have within them the capacity to do great evil given the right circumstances or perhaps just perception of circumstances.
White Supremacist group photo 2019
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBOnCtOUcAEUOaj.jpg:large
Maybe - if we were able to stop the flow of automatic weapons across our southern border.
I knew a guy who used to run guns from California down to Central America, I would guess the flow could easily go the other way.
B-dog,
DJT is responsible for what DJT says and what DJT's tweets say.
Stuff like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP4DdYvD480
Well..I doubt they expect to get out alive.
Seems at least suicidal.
meanwhile,
https://twitter.com/politico/status/1158498559576199168
quelle surprise:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/05/exclusive-air-force-report-hyten-accuser-has-history-of-unsubstantiated-allegations/
Donald J. Trump
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
I want socialism, and i'll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding
"DJT's trade isn't re criminals. It's re non-whites."
Facts not in evidence. Nor needed evidently.
-------
But since this thread has become more about "an armed citizen is a a safe citizen" here is my 2 cents: Studies on this vary, but on whole indicate that this is not true.
You are 3 times more likely to be killed in a home invasion if there is an owner's gun in the house.
The suicide rates are much higher in gun owning households.
More mass murders are stopped by unarmed civilians than armed ones. (Maybe not the best stat to use in this argument, and take the other two with a grain of salt).
There are no ethical ways to do a controlled study on gun control issues that I can think of, so all studies pro and con are going to be flawed in some manner, but my thought is that if everybody is armed there is going to be more armed conflict. And imo an armed citizen militia is obsolete as per the 2nd amendment's purposes.
That being said, gun deaths, excluding suicide, are pretty minimal and unlikely to be affected much by even draconian laws. Gun control as a practical matter is much ado about nothing, and misguided at best. Harmful at worst.
#This is a very short comment on a complex emotionally charged subject. I know it is more nuanced than this.
Jeffrey Goldberg writes about -
Jeffry Goldberg is a lying pos media hack.
People like Goldberg are the reason a solution to this will never be found. For them, a mass shooting is just another opportunity to take scalps of people they hate. Pile up the dead bodies on a soap box and try to shame your enemy by association with the killer: "He liked his coffee black. He was a cat person. And a Lakers fan!"
And the Left can't talk about gun control because no one trusts them.
My solution to mass shootings? Round up all the Marxists. It will do more to stop gun violence than any of the other "solutions", and if you are so keen on violating the constitution, start there instead.
An item from the Bygone Days column, 125 years ago
"3 August 1894, Paris. The Chamber of Deputies has acted on [this paper's] advice in regard to the treatment of anarchists. The moment a redhanded anarchist is taken, that is the last that is ever heard of him. There are more people than the world imagines to whom the opportunity for notoriety and a chance to swagger up to a guillotine and have themselves beheaded is a great attraction."
So, idea-addled killers and satisfying but ineffective solutions that hinge on media coverage!
To my mind, white (or any other violent) supremacy-ideology is just a version of our old companion Pride.
Narr
Nothing new under the sun
well Goldberg was a reservist in samaria or Judea, in the 80s when he went awol because intifada, and became a times favorite, about a decade later, he was at the new Yorker, where he wrote some interesting pieces on Hezbollah, and the kurds in Iraq, including Ansar al islam, the islamist faction that sheltered zarquawi, he apologized for that in the after math of the Iraq war,
Pac,
DJT said that he wants more Norwegians to come to the country.
That (or maybe Sweden) is were the stereotypical super white folks live. Blond hair, blue eyes. The whole package.
Doesn't seem to matter that they're socialists. As long as they're white as rice, that's who DJT wants. And, they're not all libs, there are the Breivik types who are against Muslims.
ah yes anarchists, particularly reclus, they arose out of the canal scandal that exploded In the 1890s, although there were manifestations in spain, where they killed a prime minister who was a relative moderate, who might not have involved in the Spanish American war, zencey's panama, which has a cameo by henry adams, is a good primer,
You are 3 times more likely to be killed in a home invasion if there is an owner's gun in the house.The suicide rates are much higher in gun owning households. More mass murders are stopped by unarmed civilians than armed ones.
More lies. Theses "studies" have become so politicized that they are worthless. When you drill down beneath the stats, you see they are deliberately misleading, for example:
1) Suicide rates are higher in gun households because firearms are the most effective tool to commit suicide. Would you rather the perp employ a method that risks other innocent lives?
2) "Everytown" used biased studies that lumped midnight drug deals and gang violence on school property as "school shootings"
3) When an armed shooter prevents a mass shooting with less than 4 casualties, the "study" didn't define that as a mass shooting that was stopped. I suspect your last "stat" has been similarly massaged.
In short, the Left own the research mills on gun violence, same as they own the research mills on climatology. Which is why John Lott's work proving them wrong was such a noteworthy breakthrough - it revealed just how biased these "studies" have been.
"But, more stuff about the media being the enemy of the people, too."
Well, yes, they are.
This is quite a common case.
I grew up, mainly, in dictatorships, where the commercial press and broadcast media was generally owned by friends of the regime. One understood its nature by osmosis.
What you Americans have today is very much like that.
Of course, in recent years, quite hysterical in tone, vs the rather bland affect of the dictatorships of my youth. Granted, for most of that time there was no effective challenge to the rulers of those places.
One has to be from a banana republic to properly understand a banana republic, as a great deal of the structure of the system is covered with similar disingenuous facades. Which is what you have.
Outside the Muslim terror attacks, these are nothing but a series of Columbine massacres, over and over.
The only difference is now you can blame a republican President. Which, guarantees more Colombine massacres.
I hope un packing these links aren't too much trouble, Chinese state media, is following the wagging tail of 'white nationalism' because a) they may believe it, b) it fits the global narrative, although they've already In a psychological state of war,
but my thought is that if everybody is armed there is going to be more armed conflict.
Everyone predicted concealed carry would lead to daily bloodbaths in the streets. That simply has not happened. I'm sorry, but your thinking on this is a stale 10 year old liberal talking point. I advise you catch up.
Here is a good place to start.
An Opinion on Gun Control by Larry Correria
You might want to download it too, before the Left and their Google Nazis memory hole it.
That "shithole" episode has no recording and dubious sourcing.
Given the left's constant isolation of words and twisting of context, not much to hang onto.
Dayton mass shooter was a leftist. He said he'd happily vote for Warren. He'd also support Sanders. Said he supports socialism. Said on twitter "Vote blue for gods sake".
NBC attempts to cover for the shooter's obvious leftwing political views.
NBC Reporter Dismisses Host Bringing Up Dayton Shooter’s Pro-Warren Tweet
"Unless you also drive a Prius. And therefore are, seemingly, required to be a smug dolt."
-- Let's not even get into if you're one of those Cross Fit Evangelicals.
gadfly said...
Jeffrey Goldberg writes about a Trump rally sans his teleprompter:
The Panama City rally [on May 8] was not particularly remarkable, as Trump rallies go. His message was typically soulless. He tried to provoke feelings of deep insecurity among his followers, in the style of an expert populist preacher, and he stroked their egos by referring to them as America’s true elite. At times, his rhetoric was uglier in degree, though not in kind, than normal. He scapegoated Puerto Rico; he encouraged the crowd in its call to imprison Hillary Clinton; he praised Republican Senator Marco Rubio, whom he has neutered; he shared his jumbled thoughts about General Motors; he stated, fantastically, “We believe in the rule of law.”
Late in his disorderly presentation, as he discussed the work of Border Patrol officers, he raised, and then dismissed, the idea of allowing them to use violence against migrants.
“And don’t forget—we don’t let them and we can’t let them use weapons,” he said. “We can’t. Other countries do. We can’t. I would never do that. But how do you stop these people? You can’t. There’s—”
It was then that he was interrupted by a woman in the crowd. “Shoot them!” she yelled.
The president found this funny, as did his audience. “That’s only in the Panhandle you can get away with that stuff.” He stopped for a moment to take in the crowd’s roaring approval. “Only in the Panhandle!” he repeated.
It is worth pausing on the choice that was available to the president at that moment. Trump was faced by a person in the crowd who argued for the murder of immigrants. He could have . . . used a foul moment to teach a lesson about the moral necessity of nonviolence and rhetorical restraint. But . . . he encouraged—in the greasy, joking-not-joking style he has perfected—the normalization of violence.
Care to review the liberal responses to the news that Rand Paul had to have a piece of lung removed because of his Democrat neighbors violent attack?
yes, an earlier survey included the tsarnaev's and the san Bernardino killers in the total, just sloppy or malicious sourcing,
The NRA actually routinely gives inches. But, they also try not to politicize tragedy, so you can see why people might forget that.
he still makes excuses for prisoners who were hamas during the intifada in the 80s, he reluctantly acknowledges they do want to kill all jews, but they have their reasons,
@Fen
"More lies. Theses "studies" have become so politicized that they are worthless."
Most of the stats I quoted are from studies before 2000 as I don't trust anything recent, and Brady probably makes even these misleading. So help yourself to the grains of salt regarding any study pro or con. As a gun owner I have no desire to repeal the 2nd. By the same token I see no concrete evidence that an armed society is safer from gun violence.
I straddle this issue, but most of what I see are emotional appeals and anecdotes from both sides rather than a fact based argument on policy. This is the point of my comment. I will research John Lott. Thanks.
"By the same token I see no concrete evidence that an armed society is safer from gun violence."
-- So, you've never seen a single report of someone with a gun defending themselves from an armed assailant? If you've seen at least ONE of these reports, then you have seen concrete evidence that armed societies have the capacity to be safer for some people. Now, whether you think the trade off that these some people are safer so that other some people are more in danger from the higher availability of firearms is a political and moral calculation you can debate -- but to pretend that there is no concrete evidence that armed citizens have ever been safer from gun violence than unarmed citizens is just willful ignorance or accidental vagueness.
“Fake news”, coming from the guy who said he had proof that Obama was from Kenya.
"You are 3 times more likely to be killed in a home invasion if there is an owner's gun in the house.
The suicide rates are much higher in gun owning households. "
-- Do the studies you're quoting look into whether people who have a gun in their home might be more likely to be contemplating suicide or the target of a home invasion? For example, I fully expect to find a gun in the home of someone who decided to shoot themselves, and they very well may buy it legally instead of illegally. But that doesn't mean if they could not have bought that gun, they would not have killed themselves in some other way.
Its quite astonishing that the whole point of letting the population arm itself is so rarely mentioned. That this is a political measure, and has nothing to do with personal safety.
Sooner or later, people will start to understand they are complicit in these murders because of their skin color.
Until then, they'll use facts, logic, reason, and a moral code to defend themselves; to no avail.
Gadfly has wisely refrained from offering any of his own thoughts and instead simply offers up complete cut and pastes to make "his" point.
BTW re lib media, I see that WaPo has a new piece on "Euphoria."
That show seems dirty. Why is there a show that is made so that adults can watch the characters that are supposed to be kids do each other, and get done by adults? Graphically.
I know HBO has it's angle re T&A & such.
But, this seems like something more.
Anywho, I did think the tranny was a gal until the dick was shown. But, I wasn't into her. But, I also wasn't into the other actors playing kids. And, I'm nowhere near being a geezer, unlike so many golden years folks here, not that there's anything wrong w/ y'all. But kids aren't sexy.
Anywho, I'd like to see if a more age appropriate (and hotter (let's be honest, that gal is a bit homely, imho)) tranny could surprise-catch my eye. For science.
Sometimes their scares dont work over time
https://www.smh.com.au/national/more-guns-in-australia-now-than-before-the-port-arthur-massacre-report-20190327-p5188m.html
@Matt
"So, you've never seen a single report of someone with a gun defending themselves from an armed assailant?"
Sure I have, but my comment is intended to address the aggregate.
"Do the studies you're quoting look into whether people who have a gun in their home might be more likely to be contemplating suicide or the target of a home invasion?"
Nope. And you have a valid point.
I am still looking at Fen's leads. I am unconvinced so far by the one to the Correria article (with the exception of arming teachers).
Also: I am suddenly amazed at the amount of people stating that mental illness plays no part in these mass shootings all of a sudden. This has not been something considered objectionable or false up until the last few days. It's amazing how quickly that worm turned.
anti-de Sitter space said...
"(I'll trade more enhanced background checks for increased immigration control of dangerous criminals)."
DJT's trade isn't re criminals. It's re non-whites.
So you'd rather the carnage continue than inconvenience your little brown brothers? Is that what you're trying to say?
Plenty of white immigrants to keep an eye on. Irish are white. Russians are white. For that matter Arabs are white.
TL,DR, you're not serious, but then, you never are.
So many posts on this.
I don’t mind the second amendment.
I find the fifth more complex so I don’t judge guns at all.
Kids, guns, feelings, information, illness, social media, etc, etc, etc. Too much for one figure head to tackle.
Prevention is the key word I am getting and I don’t have a solution to that, now or before.
Not to be funny, I’d like to hear that President Trump will have a good game of golf.
I hear he will be in Long Island. I’m not sure about golf courses but he’ll be treated nice there.
The US encouragement, a license, to revolt, in effect, is unique, or nearly so in the world.
Lots of countries romanticize revolutions, but they don't semi-explicitly encourage another one.
That makes you unique, strangely cool. It is certainly part of the American nature. I can see why it is suppressed in official speech and propaganda, in favor of various philosophical attitudes that always seemed like platitudes. One can marvel at the common sense of Locke and such gentlemen, but when it comes to important matters, like revolutions, they don't matter a bit. They serve, at best, to rationalize what happened, a sort of bodybag for the gore.
Oh yeah, and anti:
BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
Dayton mass shooter was a leftist. He said he'd happily vote for Warren. He'd also support Sanders. Said he supports socialism. Said on twitter "Vote blue for gods sake".
So just remember, voting for Democrats makes you a terrorist. A terrorist said so.
According to variability in what people are willing to pay for a given home based on its location, pretty much everyone is a white supremacist.
Nich,
Was the one in Toledo the Satan follower? If so, the 'g' word must be re fallen angle.
Maybe it was the other one that liked Lucifer.
Religion.
By the same token I see no concrete evidence that an armed society is safer from gun violence.
There's enough concrete evidence to bury both the Chernobyl and Fukushima reactors in the book More Guns Less Crime:
On its initial publication in 1998, John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime drew both lavish praise and heated criticism. More than a decade later, it continues to play a key role in ongoing arguments over gun-control laws: despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime. Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of guns, crime, and violence. For this third edition, Lott draws on an additional ten years of data—including provocative analysis of the effects of gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C—that brings the book fully up to date and further bolsters its central contention.
I have a hard time taking anyone who says they have "seen no concrete evidence" seriously. At this point in the debate, you would have to be either willfully blind or just now being introduced to the subject matter. As the initial study is more than 20 years old.
For Lucifer's sake vote blue.
“You are 3 times more likely to be killed in a home invasion if there is an owner's gun in the house.”
Not a very meaningful statistic unless we know more. Is the “you” in the sentence killed with your own gun or with the invader’s gun? Are “you” killed because you don’t know how to use your gun? Are you killed because the invader comes in unarmed (really?) and wrests your gun away from you? Are you killed because you keep your guns where the invader can get to them more easily than you can?
Sadly, a lot of people who buy a gun for home defense never practice with it or teach the other residents of the house how to use it. But that’s on them. It’s not a reason for me not to keep guns in my house.
@Bruce: good point. I'm okay with it for the selfish reason that I have no desire to own one. The restrictions that piss me off are the ones that keep me from easily buying what I want.
I am unconvinced so far by the one to the Correria article
He's a subject matter expert. If you can't find merit in his reasoning, then there really isn't anything that will convince you, which makes you either an idelaogue or concern troll that should not be taken seriously.
So, Kamala Harris said today she's wiling to send cops to homes to confiscate guns.
I'm kinda glad they're willing to state the obvious, sad they don't care about the blood letting that will ensue.
'Kamala Harris said today she's wiling to send cops to homes to confiscate guns.'
The Fraternal Order of Police must have been excited to hear that news!!
The argument in favor of depending on Law Enforcement has gotten even weaker in the past decade. We have evidence of:
1) LEOs refusing to enter the scene and confront the shooter, hiding like cowards behind their squad cars (Parkland school shooting)
2) Multiple examples (Charlottesville, Baltimore, Portland, Los Angeles, San Diego) of police being ordered to pull back and let people of the "wrong" political persuasion get beatdown by Antifa Nazis.
The only person you can depend on to defend your life is yourself.
So, Kamala Harris said today she's wiling to send cops to homes to confiscate guns.
If they try that, they are going to be too busy defending their home address to go door to door. Police have to live in a community. And most of them align more with responsible gun owners than the marxist gun-grabbers anyway. But if not:
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
"Also: I am suddenly amazed at the amount of people stating that mental illness plays no part in these mass shootings all of a sudden."
Hopefully that's not directed at me. It has everything to do with them. And while strict gun control laws would be an inconvenience, I don't see them as a real barrier to crazy.
@Fen
Sorry, I can pick apart a lot of Lott's stats just like I can other studies. When you compare different cultures without taking the cultures themselves into account I question their validity pro or con. I just don't see that gun control or not makes much statistical difference either way. And if you take gang violence (unstoppable with gun control laws), suicides (see Matt's objection), and legal shootings (miniscule) out of the mix the number of people killed by guns is insignificant. I remain unconvinced that an armed society is a safe one. I don't think it makes much difference either way.
It may make a police state harder to set up, but that cuts both ways.
White Nationalism is a mental disorder
You know David Hogg is miserable today.
Matt Sablan: "Also: I am suddenly amazed at the amount of people stating that mental illness plays no part in these mass shootings all of a sudden. This has not been something considered objectionable or false up until the last few days. It's amazing how quickly that worm turned."
The Gang Rape lies have died.
The collusion hoax has been exposed.
The dem candidates are just as pathetic as everyone suspected they were.
This is all the dems/left/LLR-left have remaining going into 2020.
I have family in North Carolina and the husband has been using guns since I can remember and when they were in upstate New York.
I think he uses it for self therapy if that is even proper to say.
The kid grew up shoveling after horses before sunrise, went to school and then after learned/worked construction.
He’s married to my cousin. No further comment.
When she approached me with concern or question about the guns.
I told her exactly that and heard no more anything about guns in their family.
Neither my cousin or myself were raised with guns.
I had great therapy results in PA with a few friends for about a week.
It took less than a day in Brooklyn to return to my NYC mode.
NYPD has guns and tasers currently.
NYC Penn Station has soldiers with bigger guns.
Guns are part of the job and must be respected.
Respect the person and the gun attached is irrelevant.
As for the incident, if I recall correct.
Non of the authorities have used any gun in that incident.
Howard: "White Nationalism is a mental disorder"
Leftists: All Trump voters are white nationalists and have to be silenced and driven from the public square and have their rights abrogated.
Also leftists: Don't worry Trump voters, once you are disarmed we promise to treat you fairly........
Trump voters: Uh, uhm, yeah. No.
For those paying attention, we have actual real-time case studies in Venezuela and brewing in Hong Kong as to how leftists treat disarmed political opponents.
White nationalism is a symptom of the triumph of American integration.
Instead of nationalist tribes of Englishmen and Germans and Italians, this or that flavor of Slav that have hated each other since the death of Wenceslas, and the dozens of other European-Middle Eastern nationalities who spent a couple of millennia cutting each other’s throats, you have white Americans. Heck, you can even get Indo-Aryans like Sikhs and even Syrians, Lebanese and Armenians in unity.
The range of “white Americans” is pretty broad. Fantastically broad. Best to begin by celebrating before bashing all these people on the head with hammers.
Please-
If you're going to throw around the term "gun control" the same way you throw around terms like "immigration reform"..
..be specific.
My version of gun control comes from my Hunter's Safety Course when I was 12. I doubt that's what you're referring to.
"He's a subject matter expert. If you can't find merit in his reasoning, then there really isn't anything that will convince you, which makes you either an idelaogue or concern troll that should not be taken seriously."
There are a lot of subject matter experts out there. On both sides. And there is merit to his reasoning. None of the objections he counters are ones I would raise though. I can assure you I'm neither of your accusations, think what you like. But I take nothing at face value, although I can be convinced to change positions due to evidence. I'd assume we agree on more than we disagree on and I'm not sure we even disagree on gun control that much. I'm against much more controls than we have now. They are useless overkill to a periphery problem that creates a problem for the vast majority of responsible gunowners.
If thinking that arming everyone doesn't make us a safer society makes me a concern troll, so be it.
Well they mean white anglosaxon probably protestant but not exclusively, southern and midwestern (the vendee in a term from an earlier era) which isnt comprehensive.
Soros (Sara diamond) and ayer (joyce founsation) have taken the commanding heights re authoritative (narrative research) you see the lefties in Australia are upset their port Arthur gambit (aided by Murdoch publications did not pan out) you see how they are replicating rye payterm here.
The pattern here,
"There are a lot of subject matter experts out there. On both sides."
No there really are not. Your "experts" so confused clip with magazine and Semi with Auto.
"If thinking that arming everyone doesn't make us a safer society makes me a concern troll, so be it."
It means you're full of shit it shouldn't be treated seriously or with any courtesy. Just another fucking troll.
The reason there hasn't been any progress on stopping gun violence is because of people like you who are dishonest untrustworthy and deceitful.
Consider Sri Lanka (Ceylon).
There is no concept of “brown nationalist”
There are rather Sinhalese and Tamils (mainly) who generally don’t like each other much and don’t mix.
The funny part about it is that outsiders have difficulty telling them apart.
Steve Uhr: ‘There has to be some compromise on gun control. The NRA never seems to give an inch."
Your move. Where do you propose we start?
You might want to read Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago” to understand our side’s reluctance to compromise.
Y’all sound so unassuming and reasonable until you get power, and then...
La Raza (being in large part hundreds of thousands of descendants of Spanish Conquistadores), that "submission" religion, and that group that sometimes refers to itself as the chosen people contain large numbers of racial purist, self-segregating people. Are such people also mentally ill? You're gonna need a bigger asylum.
"you're going to throw around the term "gun control" the same way you throw around terms like "immigration reform".."
Stringent background checks.
Mandatory safety training requirments.
"My version of gun control comes from my Hunter's Safety Course when I was 12. I doubt that's what you're referring to."
No, that's pretty much it other than a background check. I got mine at the hands of relatives earlier than that. Just pass a competency course taking ownership of your first weapon.
The term "white" is itself a destroyer of recognition of the various European ethnicities, or nations, whose diasporas exist in the United States and elsewhere. It is anti-European (and anti-European descendants) to deploy such a term, which is racist, and hateful, with an aim to dominate using weakness to obtain pity.
pacwest: "Mandatory safety training requirments."
Will we also be required to have "mandatory" courses to exercise our first amendment rights as well?
After all, we wouldn't want to be inciting riots and such accidentally.
And wouldn't the state be in charge of administering these gun safety courses? How much will the fees be for those courses......and what keeps the lefties from charging exorbitant fees for such courses?
pacwest - more licensing by incumbents and government and quasi-government functionaries, who are all our good friends! Terrific. Really terrific. First they came for the hairdressers, etc. Does no one see the gross lack of adequate security? The "Party of Science" and "Reality-based Community" blame these events on completely innocent and non-participating people. Why are they so gleeful - shedding crocodile tears - when these killings occur, while ignoring unlivable sites of black on black daily killing where their confiscation policies are enacted? Goals.
You know, now that I think about it, maybe its time citizens are required to take Mandatory Rights Courses for all supposed rights.
After all, we don't want citizens objecting to lawful Searches and Seizures, so now would be the time to require citizens take mandatory Understanding the 4th Amendment Courses BEFORE any citizen can lawfully object to any search demand by law enforcement authorities.
You know, if it would save just one life......
The Dayton Shooter Was The Lead Singer Of A "Pornogrind" Metal Band
"Another dime a dozen Ohio grind dude who caped progressive politics while treating women like shit."
Mandatory safety training requirments.
How about a literacy test for voters too?
(are you a sophomore?)
Ohio shooter member of a violent sexual fantasy heavy metal band
"The band's song titles are explicitly sexually violent, such as "Preteen Daughter Pu$$y Slaughter" and "Cunt Stuffed With Medical Waste - Sexual Abuse Of A Teenage Corpse." The album art is equally explicit. One album cover shows a woman consuming feces, while another shows an illustration of a young woman's headless body chained to a bed, covered in blood, as a man puts his pants back on.
Warren + Sanders + socialist supporter.
waiting for the MSM to mention Ohio shooter's politics.
"The reason there hasn't been any progress on stopping gun violence is because of people like you who are dishonest untrustworthy and deceitful."
OK then. What would be this magical course to stop gun violence? Since anyone who deviates in the slightest from it is worthy of scorn you must have something pretty specific in mind. I got open ears. I'll try to keep an open mind on this end in spite of. And I have already stated several times I don't think that citizen gun ownership is a problem. I don't think it solves the problem of gun violence except in isolated instances though.
These random mass shootings aren't going to stop, they are going to get more frequent due to the nature of our accelerated technological society.
"How about a literacy test for voters too?"
Eh. I'd be all in for proving you could speak at least rudimentary English before voting though.
Let’s repeal the Third Amendment, too. After all, as the esteemed (and undead) Ruth Bader Ginsburg says, our Constitution is an anachronistic 18th century text (which she wouldn’t recommend to other countries). Therefore, the Quartering of Troops in people’s homes isn’t a problem, really. What parent of a young, comely daughter wouldn’t want a soldier living in their home? Those old Colonials... such worriers! What could possibly go wrong???
"And wouldn't the state be in charge of administering these gun safety courses?"
I would assume any outside licensed business could certify. Or the DMV. But that might be a clusterfuck.
Diversity or color (i.e. low information attribute) judgment is an immoral doctrine that progressed to an established format from earlier forms of racism, sexism, selective-child, etc.
Steve Uhr: ‘There has to be some compromise on gun control. The NRA never seems to give an inch."
Steve would you settle for enforcing laws already on the books ? The shooter in Aurora IL a year ago had a felony domestic violence conviction. Yet he bought a gun legally because the IL state police, who are supposed to enforce the gun laws, did nothing.
There are hundreds of laws about guns. The left keeps thinking a new law will solve the problem.
The biggest problem in spree shooting like these two are mental health issues. The deinstitutionalization began in the 60s and there is no prospect of anything changing.
And even in Florida, the verification system was screwy:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/on-trumps-excellent-speech.php
I get the feeling that a lot of folks here are adamant that any restrictions on gun ownership other than being a proven danger to others are unacceptable. I don't agree. I thought I was being reasonable. Guess not.
‘TRAGEDY AVERTED’: Feds Say They Have Thwarted a Mass Shooting Plot In Lubbock, Texas
https://breaking911.com/tragedy-averted-feds-say-they-have-thwarted-a-mass-shooting-plot-in-lubbock-texas/
Take the measures mentioned in the powerline link, do you trust the authorities not to abuse the power they would be entrusted with.
I thought I was being reasonable.
No, you're being dishonest and not arguing in good faith, like all the other lefties that have come before you. There is a price for forsaking credibility to push your agenda, this is it: no one believes a word coming out of your mouth.
So you get NOTHING. No compromise, no "common sense" restrictions, no dialogue seeking to understand your pov or educate you on the difference between a clip and a magazine.
YOU ARE NOT GETTING THE GUNS. PERIOD. Shout at the wind for all I care, little Concern Troll.
"March Against Whiteness" --August 10
https://archive.is/PszCc
"How about a literacy test for voters too?"
Eh. I'd be all in for proving you could speak at least rudimentary English before voting
Woosh.
Do you honestly have no idea that Literacy Tests were once used and how they were abused to keep former slaves from voting?
Are you a high school student? I only ask because, if so, then I would be inclined to treat you as someone who really doesn't have a grasp of history or the background to understand complex political issues. I would be more gentle with you.
But if you're an adult, I would ask that you please tear up your voter registration, at least until you have spent a year at your local library.
All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus. Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.
anti-de Sitter space said...
It's cool that none of you can take a step back and assess the POTUS using this as leverage for giving the terrorist exactly what the terrorist wants (which, indeed, is exactly what DJT and many others (here, too)) want.
Not just the xenophobia based law making. But, more stuff about the media being the enemy of the people, too.
Wonderful case study re human minds.
Very cool!
Both shooters were democrats. Period. You shitheads have been systematically violent.
The shooters are being heralded by the media which is doing everything it can to encourage copy cats. They are getting more attention for their actions than they got ever in their lives.
And douchey pieces of shit like you are calling them white nationalists and trying to take away our freedom. You are attacking people who disagree with you with terms like white nationalist and terrorist even though the shooters were clearly democrats. There are democrats by the thousands on twitter threatening violence and celebrating political attacks.
You are all just pieces of shit. You have been spewing hatred at us for years. You reap what you sow.
Fuck you.
War.
a lot of folks here are adamant that any restrictions on gun ownership other than being a proven danger to others are unacceptable.
What restrictions that do not now exist would you want ? Most people who are not gun owners know nothing about guns or the existing laws.
Peanut know nothing but pretends to be cool and know a lot.
What would be this magical course to stop gun violence?
There isn't one.
Most gun violence is black on black crime. To stop that, you need to put black fathers back in the home. The Left won't do that because they want blacks dependent on the State, and the family competes for that loyalty. So it must remain dysfunctional.
For mass shootings, the solution centers around the mentally ill, putting them back in mental hospitals. But that's off the table because the Left routinely produces "studies" claiming that people who lean right are "mentally ill" so we don't trust the system to distinguish between the mentally ill and people with the "wrong" politics.
Both the above dilemmas will be solvable once we round up all the Marxists, socialists and communists and execute them. But such an act would be as extreme as it is distasteful.
Correrra has better ideas and solutions, as presented in An Opinion On Gun Control but people like you are immune to reason.
So we are left to watch as more Americans die needlessly while you pretend to care about the things you lecture the rest of us on.
You really want to save lives? Step out of the debate. You are just making it worse.
pacwest said...
I get the feeling that a lot of folks here are adamant that any restrictions on gun ownership other than being a proven danger to others are unacceptable. I don't agree. I thought I was being reasonable. Guess not.
I blame public education. Do you people not think?
Unalienable rights. God given. Once you give up that ground it is all over.
The laws against felons owning guns for example are the ultimate stupidity. That extra year or two in jail is sure going to stop a criminal from shooting someone. Being a felon they have already proven how much sway the laws have with them.
But you have just given the Government the authority to take away your guns on any flimsy premise they come up with to label you a felon.
And all so you can keep the felons who obey the law, and would be least likely to do violence with a gun, from defending themselves.
Meanwhile the same number of people who commit murder are breaking the law.
I wish you people would use your brain before you just go off and give the freedoms we fought for away.
Mandatory Safety Training.
Literacy Tests.
"From the 1890s to the 1960s, many state governments in the United States administered literacy tests to prospective voters purportedly to test their literacy in order to vote. In practice, these tests were intended to disenfranchise racial minorities. Southern state legislatures employed literacy tests as part of the voter registration process starting in the late 19th century. Literacy tests, along with poll taxes, residency and property restrictions and extra-legal activities (violence, intimidation)[2] were all used to deny suffrage to African Americans. The first formal voter literacy tests were introduced in 1890. At first, whites were generally exempted from the literacy test if they could meet alternate requirements that in practice excluded blacks, such as a grandfather clause or a finding of "good moral character"
In Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections (1959), the U.S. Supreme Court held that literacy tests were not necessarily violations of Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment nor of the Fifteenth Amendment. Southern states abandoned the literacy test only when forced to do so by federal legislation in the 1960s. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 provided that literacy tests used as a qualification for voting in federal elections be administered wholly in writing and only to persons who had completed six years of formal education.
In part to curtail the use of literacy tests, Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Act prohibited jurisdictions from administering literacy tests to citizens who attained a sixth-grade education in an American school in which the predominant language was Spanish, such as schools in Puerto Rico.[3] The Supreme Court upheld this provision in Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966). Although the Court had earlier held in Lassiter that literacy tests did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment,[4] in Morgan the Court held that Congress could enforce Fourteenth Amendment rights—such as the right to vote—by prohibiting conduct it deemed to interfere with such rights, even if that conduct may not be independently unconstitutional.[5][6]
As originally enacted, the Voting Rights Act also suspended the use of literacy tests in all jurisdictions in which less than 50% of voting-age residents were registered as of November 1, 1964, or had voted in the 1964 presidential election. In 1970, Congress amended the Act and expanded the ban on literacy tests to the entire country.[7] The Supreme Court then upheld the ban as constitutional in Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), but just for federal elections. The Court was deeply divided in this case, and a majority of justices did not agree on a rationale for the holding.[8][9]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test
"Use your brain" always helpful in a friendly discussion of constitutional law.
"Pretend to care" another helpful argument in matters involving tragedy.
"Use your brain" always helpful in a friendly discussion of constitutional law.
readering is opposed to using your brain. You are in the right party.
"The deinstitutionalization began in the 60s and there is no prospect of anything changing."
Neither of these young men would have been institutionalized prior to the 1970s.
Althouse, based on her proven to be false, but oh so stylish sources, buys the white supremacy bullshit she’s being fed.
El Paso: read the manifesto. It’s readily available, and reading it won’t make him more famous but would let you judge for yourself instead of ingesting fake news. I picked up three themes and a declaration: 1. Militantly anti Mexican immigration, says nothing about black or yellow or actually any color. I thought to be a white supremecist you had to hate all people not white? 2. Militant environmentalist, sounds extreme Sierra Clubish. So not easy to categorize as left or right, but doesn’t seem white supremecist to me. 3. Had no hope for a future—guess if you’re constantly told the world will end very soon, some unbalanced folks develop a doomsday psychological state. Declaration: decided to do this year’s ago, before Trump ran for office. Not easy to pigeonhole this one.
Dayton: Clearly disturbed, kicked out of high school for his rape and murder fantasies/threats re his female classmates. Avowed socialist, Bernie, Warren, Squad cheerleader. Antifa fan.
So, AA, you got just about everything wrong on this. But stick with your proven news sources, remain credulous, but uninformed.
"Just pass a competency course taking ownership of your first weapon."
-- See, there's a long, sordid history of politicians -- especially Democrats -- using "reasonable" sounding restrictions, oh -- wait. You already accidentally walked into the "literacy exam" buzzsaw without realizing you were consenting to Jim Crow laws.
I'm going to gently suggest you do some reading on constitutional law before we further this discussion, because it really, really sounds like you just don't *get* how America is supposed to work.
No Fen, I'm retired and ran a successful multi-million dollar business for most of my adult life. College educated with a degree in chemical engineering for what that's worth since it was never put into practice. Read constantly, and always try to check my assumptions. I'm well aware that my opinions are not the do all and be all and in fact are sometimes formed by erroneous biases. Not everyone who doesnt agree with you is a doofus idiot troll. Try checking your assumptions every now and then.
And much to your seeming dismay I will be voting again.
"For mass shootings, the solution centers around the mentally ill, putting them back in mental hospitals."
-- That and enforcing existing gun laws. I came to the conclusion back during the VA Tech Shooting. I live in VA, and for many people I know, it was a personal event that touched someone in their circle. But, I also realized: The guy had literally threatened his psychologist who had put in the paper work... but it didn't stop him from legally acquiring at least one of the weapons used. Why should I say: "Yes, please, let's create more laws," when the existing ones, had they been properly enforced, *could have stopped the tragedy.* Look at the shooting in Florida; that guy was a "known wolf" with domestic violence calls on him, and he never got help that should have come to a kid with those warning signs.
You want me to consider new laws that might force us to re-evaluate the Second Amendment? Prove to me that the government won't just ignore or not enforce those laws as well and leave us with another tragedy AND having given up more power to the federal government.
"Eh. I'd be all in for proving you could speak at least rudimentary English before voting"
I'd say the potential voter has two identify two of the candidates and name the incumbant.
My theory: If you want an educated voting populace, that's on you. You can't mandate it. You can encourage it, you can hope for it -- but in America, even stupid people get to vote. It is part of our charm, when you think about it.
There are hundreds of laws about guns. The left keeps thinking a new law will solve the problem.
Larry Correia in the link upthread says: "There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books, and I have no idea how many pages of regulations from the BATF related to the production and selling of them."
I take that statement as fact considering he: owned a gun store. We were a Title 7 SOT, which means we worked with legal machine guns, suppressors, and pretty much everything except for explosives. We did law enforcement sales and worked with equipment that is unavailable from most dealers, but that means lots and lots of government inspections and compliance paperwork. This means that I had to be exceedingly familiar with federal gun laws, and there are a lot of them.
And I've never understood people who think a criminal who plans on committing mass murder will be stopped by a piece of paper saying he can't use a magazine of more than 10 rounds, etc.
Their intent is not to stop the mass murderer, their intent is to strip law-abiding citizens of the ability to defend themselves. From either a Marxist State or from the Antifa Stormtroopers and the Kristallnacht they would unleash on us.
If that seems hyperbolic, consider some of the statements coming from the Marxist Left: "After today there is no longer any room for nuance. The President is a white nationalist terror leader. His supporters - ALL OF THEM - are by definition white nationalist terror supporters. The MAGA hat is a KKK hood. And this evil, racist scourge must be eradicated from society."
Marine Corps doctrine is to respond to such legitimate threats pre-emptively and with disproportionate force. Just sayin.
"The band's song titles are explicitly sexually violent, such as "Preteen Daughter Pu$$y Slaughter" and "Cunt Stuffed With Medical Waste - Sexual Abuse Of A Teenage Corpse."
--
Pelosi did say Pelo-Reid Care would bolster poets.
pacwest: College educated with a degree in chemical engineering for what that's worth since it was never put into practice. Read constantly, and always try to check my assumptions. I'm well aware that my opinions are not the do all and be all and in fact are sometimes formed by erroneous biases.
And I'm Audrey Hepburn.
Sorry, but that just doesn't follow. Your arguments are sophomoric, as if this is the first time you've dealt with the topic. And you readily discount subject matter experts like Larry Correia and John Lott. You are immune to reason and you smell exactly like every other lefty concern troll I've dealt with on this issue for the last 40 years.
You don't like that conclusion, up your game.
I mean, Lott's work on "More Guns, Less Crime" is 20 years old and hardly in contention, yet you are just now aware you are arguing against it? Doesn't follow.
Well-read and doesn't understand how "literacy tests for voters too?" is a counter-argument?
Doesn't follow.
readering said...
"Pretend to care" another helpful argument in matters involving tragedy.
You are a democrat.
We know you don't care about stopping violence. You clearly want people to be unable to defend themselves and you are allied with numerous violent groups who attack your political opponents.
When 2 democrats go on a shooting rampage we fully expect you to call them republicans and trash your political opponents while trying to disarm us so we are less able to stop the next attacks.
Unlike Fen, I can believe you're college educated, because, frankly, colleges do a piss poor job of training people in either rhetoric or providing moderate right view points (which, honestly, Lott is fairly moderate right when it comes to gun control). I am surprised that your college education completely missed Jim Crow laws though. We covered that in elementary school, then again in High School -- and as a History Major, all 3.5 years of my college career had some mention of them somewhere. Maybe hard sciences like chemical engineering skipped that stuff though, in which case, your school failed you.
" See, there's a long, sordid history of politicians -- especially Democrats -- using "reasonable" sounding restrictions,"
Yeah. So what you are talking about is not the restriction, but the possibility or likely hood of it being abused? That exists.
"oh -- wait. You already accidentally walked into the "literacy exam" buzzsaw without realizing you were consenting to Jim Crow laws."
That one I don't get. In response to Fen's question about literacy tests (which I sluffed off) I responded that English should be the national language and I was supporting Jim Crow??
I'm never going to be a constitutional scholar. I didn't know that was going to be on the test. Am I still allowed to comment?
Neither of these young men would have been institutionalized prior to the 1970s.
Possibly. You seem quite sure of things that are unknowable. The Gabby Giffords shooter had many complaints about his psychotic behavior concealed by his mother, who worked for the Pima County Sheriff. The Connecticut shooter was obviously psychotic but protected by his mother. His father might have asked for help if it was available The Aurora CO was under treatment, and might have been committed.
pacwest said...
And much to your seeming dismay I will be voting again.
The constitution was specifically and clearly written to protect us, all of us, from people like you.
You don't get to vote for gun control. It is not a choice. It is not a political artifact. It doesn't matter how "reasonable" your gun control is.
The government is just an extension of the mob and it has no place in controlling what weapons we have or how we defend ourselves. A higher power gave us these rights.
We are not a democracy. Any attempt by a mob to abuse the laws of our republic to take away those unalienable rights will be turned away.
People just don't seem to get it.
"Yeah. So what you are talking about is not the restriction, but the possibility or likely hood of it being abused? That exists."
-- The whole POINT of the exams was to racially exclude newly freed slaves (and later on, similar laws were specifically created to target African Americans.) This isn't a "whoops, what an unfortunate side effect," that was what the politicians who passed them WANTED as a result, but they understood that carpetbagging Republicans (and later, other politicians) wouldn't sign on to "Keep ******s from voting," so they came up with creative ways to do that without doing that.
"That one I don't get. In response to Fen's question about literacy tests (which I sluffed off) I responded that English should be the national language and I was supporting Jim Crow??"
-- No, you didn't sluff it off. You said you would be "all in" for people to pass basic English literacy tests. That's flatly unconstitutional, which if you didn't know then, you know now. The point of saying you walked into the buzzsaw is to say you *didn't know* what you were talking about. Which you acknowledge, you don't. You can keep commenting; no one is going to stop you. But, I recommend getting more well versed in things before shooting from the hip.
After today there is no longer any room for nuance. The President is a white nationalist terror leader. His supporters - ALL OF THEM - are by definition white nationalist terror supporters. The MAGA hat is a KKK hood. And this evil, racist scourge must be eradicated from society.
I see Fen linked to this above.
2 democrats go on a shooting spree. Other democrats say their political opponents need to be eradicated.
Thousands of people are liking that comment above. It is not the only one. There have been thousands of such comments.
I am starting to believe you all are going to force this fight on us again. I think you are taking our silence and lack of response to your violence as weakness.
We all see this. We all see what you people are saying.
You need to know you are being led to this be the people that own the media. But that doesn't mean we will show you any quarter.
Yeah those were self defense weapons!
Let it be known: I am of the opinion quarter should regularly be shown. Violence is not THE solution, but it is a solution with a fairly effective track record, but also, a fairly high cost. I recommend groups like the Proud Boys, Antifa and any other extremist group that thinks violence will always end in their favor seriously reconsider. Violence is not the best solution to the current set of problems, and we shouldn't tell people it is -- or we end up with Congressmen being shot on baseball fields and innocent people being shot in random other places as unhinged people start acting on what they're told.
Howard said...
White Nationalism is a mental disorder
Is any other kind of Nationalism a mental disorder?
Pacwest said...
"oh -- wait. You already accidentally walked into the "literacy exam" buzzsaw without realizing you were consenting to Jim Crow laws."
That one I don't get. In response to Fen's question about literacy tests (which I sluffed off) I responded that English should be the national language and I was supporting Jim Crow??
Yes sir, that is correct. That is precisely correct. It is precisely correct that literacy tests were used in the Jim Crow era to deny blacks access to the polls. It is precisely correct that the leftists who want the gun control that you're willing to compromise with them on, would hiss you out of the forum if you were to make reference to supporting literacy tests.
Matt Sablan said...
Let it be known: I am of the opinion quarter should regularly be shown. Violence is not THE solution, but it is a solution with a fairly effective track record, but also, a fairly high cost. I recommend groups like the Proud Boys, Antifa and any other extremist group that thinks violence will always end in their favor seriously reconsider. Violence is not the best solution to the current set of problems, and we shouldn't tell people it is -- or we end up with Congressmen being shot on baseball fields and innocent people being shot in random other places as unhinged people start acting on what they're told.
They have already started shooting our congressman on baseball fields.
Their political leaders have been caught on video tape paying for violence at our rallies.
They are promising to eradicate us.
They have been attacking us routinely.
They have Governors and Mayors telling the police to stand down and not defend us from them.
You lump the Proud Boys in with Antifa. That is stupid and ignorant. Just like your belief that the left is not going to do what they promise to do and what they are already doing.
You are going to be hiding behind people like the Proud Boys. I wouldn't disparage them too much.
Black Panthers were protected by Obama Administration.
Anybody remember that?
Just me?
"The constitution was specifically and clearly written to protect us, all of us, from people like you."
Off the reservation, huh?
I get that for you and Fen this is high priority due to your military service. I'm not trying to diss that or your passion. Your service is respected.
Since I'm a strong Trump supporter, especially given the options, I'm sure there will be other things we can agree on. Not that I see that big a disagreement to begin with.
Off to bed.
Just you
That's flatly unconstitutional, which if you didn't know then, you know now. The point of saying you walked into the buzzsaw is to say you *didn't know* what you were talking about. Which you acknowledge, you don't. You can keep commenting; no one is going to stop you. But, I recommend getting more well versed in things before shooting from the hip.
Exactly. I was trying to get him to recognize that "mandatory safety training" would be used to deny law-abiding citizens the right to own firearms much in the same way that "literacy tests" were used to deny blacks the right to vote.
This is remedial work.
Birkel said...
Black Panthers were protected by Obama Administration.
Anybody remember that?
Just me?
Letting a bunch of armed thugs stand outside voting stations in Philadelphia and threaten people who would vote against democrats is par for the course.
Democrats hired thugs to beat up people attending the San Jose rally too.
And the Democrat Mayor told the police not to interfere.
Portland democrats have been working with antifa for years allowing them to attack political opponents.
The media has been spewing accusations of racism and hatred at Trump and his supporters in a particularly virulent way for over three years.
Super Surprised two democrats went on shooting sprees.
People like readering who sign off on this deserve what they get.
I get that for you and Fen this is high priority due to your military service.
It's not due to my military service, I felt this strongly before I enlisted.
Odd though, I don't remember you. I don't recall discussing my service with you. How do you come across this info? Am I expected to believe you are a long time lurker, a life long Republican er Trump Supporter who was just now motivated to enter the discussion on the side of gun control?
You understand we've have a rash of sockpuppets and concern trolls here, so while I may have treated you as such, it's not unreasonable.
We just hanged Benedict Arnold and you waltz in saying he was right about some things, can you blame me for looking at you sideways?
pacwest said...
"The constitution was specifically and clearly written to protect us, all of us, from people like you."
Off the reservation, huh?
I get that for you and Fen this is high priority due to your military service. I'm not trying to diss that or your passion. Your service is respected.
Since I'm a strong Trump supporter, especially given the options, I'm sure there will be other things we can agree on. Not that I see that big a disagreement to begin with.
Off to bed.
Thank you for your service.
Now you have to take this test to enjoy the rights you fought for and god gave you.
I am totally sure you will pass this test.
Do you have PTSD? No? Are you sure?
Well we are kinda concerned about some of the things you are saying and you have this odd idea that the 2nd amendment makes this test unconstitutional so we are going to have to deny your request.
I hope there is no White-a-phobia in response to this...
That is always the main media concern after an Islam based slaughter.
Blogger readering said...
“Yeah those were self defense weapons!”
Not sure women’s you are talking about, but if you are talking about the AK and AR variants used by the two shooters, they are indeed some of the best home defense guns available.
What you need to remember is that, except in that one Clint Eastwood spaghetti western, when a man with a pistol meets a man with a rifle, the one with the rifle will usually win (Eastwood cheated, wearing the equivalent of modern armor plate under his serape). Longer sight radius results in more accurate shots. The design of, in particular, AR variants, is extremely ergonomic, using both locating the bore access straight to the shoulder, as well as a buffer, to greatly reduce felt recoil, allowing for quicker follow up shots. Corella is a carbine type guy for home defense. An argument can also be made for shotguns, esp probably firing a number of moderate sized pellets (such as 00 Buck). Either type of longun, carbine or shotgun, is vastly superior to a handgun in home defense. The place where handguns reign supreme is for self defense outside the home, simply because long guns (rifles, carbines, and shotguns) are cumbersome and almost impossible to conceal. If you want to have a self defense gun outside your home, handguns are the best choice. But only after you walk out the front door.
For a number of years, I have used a 12 gauge pump shotgun loaded with 00 Buck (with another 5 shells in a carrier on the stock) for home defense. But I am thinking of trying something new this year. We have been building AR pattern rifles and carbines this summer. But the new things are carbine and rifle caliber handguns build on an AR-15 lower receiver. What I am looking at right now looks a bit like a stubby (9”) AR-15 carbine with a weird looking stock - which is actually a pistol brace. Preferably, I think, shooting .300 Blackout, which has a faster burn rate than typical .223 and 5.56 ammunition, which typically needs at least a 16” barrel to fully burn the powder. While normal .223/5.56 standard capacity (30 round) magazines are supposed to work with 300 BO, MagPul, at least, has standard capacity compatible 300 BO magazines commonly available.
One interesting side effect here is that in the past, AR-15 lower receivers (the part with the serial number) were treated as rifles and carbines, in terms of federal law. That meant that you could purchase one across state lines from a FFL. Not anymore. Since they can be used to build handguns or long guns, they take the most restrictive licensing regime, which means that you cannot buy across state lines (except using a local FFL) and, I believe, you now need to be 21.
A literary test for voters? Now you're talking. Also a small fee payable at the polling place to finance the enterprise and ownership of some interest in real property coupled with net tax paying participation (taking account of and disqualifying persons taking washing machine salaries funded with tax receipts or promises to hold people at gunpoint for debt repayment) would also be splendid. No representation without taxation!
You gotta admit: All these illiterate cloying voters are doing a very shitty job. Qualifications for voting existed in all the (formerly sovereign) States at the time of ratification of the Constitution. Emotive arguments about freed slaves under the new mandatory republic and all of the subsequent abuses of the Fourteenth Amendment are just appeals to emotion. They are based on the flimsiest of judicial reasoning and brute force, which is why you have to appeal to emotion.
"""Use your brain" always helpful in a friendly discussion of constitutional law."
readering is opposed to using your brain. You are in the right party."
I know it's past his sleepy time. So we can talk turkey. Sans hurtin' the little guy's feelin's.
We all thought of the thread where Althouse made fun of adults who use the "rubber/glue" jabber that really only works in kindergarten. Amirite?
Doc Mike is comedy gold.
Equating the Proud Boys who act (and have always acted) defensively with the cowardly abusers of Antifa who act under permission of scofflaw Democrat politicians who should be held personally liable for their damages is a clear sign of gross misunderstanding or deception, or both. Too bad.
Oh I remember the Black Panther thing. I live very close to Philly, and the day of that election the local news interviewed a whole bunch of people who attested to direct intimidation and threats by the Panthers as they went to vote, including an Iraq War veteran.
I never saw a single moment of those interviews ever played again, anywhere. Utterly and completely buried. I tape the news the day of elections from then on. I recommend everyone do the same (unless you're a poll watcher which is even better). The fraud and suppression this time around is going to make all previous fraud look positively honest, and it's not rare for it to get documented by news channels only to be suppressed afterwards.
This is critical background for interpreting the Second Amendment:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Listed first as an unalienable right is the right to Life. One of the necessary corollaries of this is the right of self defense. The first listed unalienable right is that of one’s own life, and that necessarily includes the right to protect it - the right to engage in self defense. Because it was listed first, the unalienable right of self defense can be viewed as the primary reason that the 2nd Amdt was enacted.
But close after Life is Liberty as an unalienable right. And because of that: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. That, then, is the secondary purpose of the 2nd Amdt - to guarantee to the American public the power to change their government, if it becomes too onerous, by force of arms, if necessary.
What needs to be remembered is that our Revolutionary War was begun in response to an attempt by the British to seize private arms belonging to Colonists. And that much of the War was fought, on our side, by people using their own arms, ranging from knives, swords, up through muskets, rifles, cannon, and even ships. Our Founders were well aware of this when they drafted our Constitution, and then, several years later, when the Antifederalists added the Bill of Rights to secure the fundamental rights for all posterity that the Federalists had believed too unalienable, too fundamental, to need specific mention. Indeed, they knew all this because they were the ones who wrote the Declaration of Independence, then led the militia army using their own personal arms, that ultimately defeated the most powerful army in the world at the time.
readering said...
Yeah those were self defense weapons!
readering is right.
Democrats keep shooting people.
In gun free zones they created.
Democrats shouldn't be allowed to have guns or make zones where we can't defend ourselves from them.
The so-called federalists believed? Or were they engaging in an imperial fraud the results of which - with the help of St. Abe - are there for all to see? The so-called antifederalists were in hindsight indispensable to securing for the time being our rights against the overspending, overtaxing, currency debasing, colossus that the federalists misrepresented in ratifying conventions and the limitations on which they subsequently began to attack relentlessly.
Young boys have been treated as mentally ill retards for decades. Now males are open targets for any leftist trope out there. In the late 80's our son was labeled unfit for kindergarten because he was born in June. Two people with Phd's in education, promised us our son would fail as some point in his education. Because testicles and birthday.(he graduate #2 in his engineering class.)(more than half of his incoming class were females, less the 5% of the gradating class was female (that means the females failed, not the mentally ill retard male))
Why he has not shot up the local Krogers I don't know. Maybe his job as an engineer for an industry leading manufacturing corporation keeps him too busy. Or his involvement in church, scouts, little league coaching soccer, baseball, football and such. Raising 3 of his own mentally ill retarded boys, with his wife of 12 years. Half of his male classmates were drugged when he was in elementary school.
packwest
I believe you're sincere so I will treat you accordingly.
If you are serious about gun control and want to discuss it in an informed way I suggest you go buy a gun. Not really. just go to a gun store and ask what it would take to buy a firearm. Both a long gun and a pistol. Then you can argue from an informed position.
Here in Illinois before I can even think of buying a gun I must first pay a ten dollar fee and register with the state police. For that I get a photo ID called a Firearm Owners Identification Card. I need it to purchase firearms and ammunition. This is before I fill out federal form 4473 and have them call the FBI for a back ground check. Once I make my purchase there is a three day waiting period for a handgun and a 24 hour waiting period for a long gun.
I suspect there are hoops you will have to jump through in your state.
I personal think I jump through enough hoops in order to enjoy a right. I'm going to fight not to increase the number of hoops.
On another note. For the rest of you whiners.
Again.
There are approx. 300 MILLION legally owned firearms in the United States. These are just the firearms that have been documented since 1968. There is another estimated 300 MILLION that never went through that process.
These firearms are in the hands of approximately 90 MILLION people. These are the people that have filled out forms and have had back ground checks. There maybe 10 to 15 million more.
What do you propose?
We will decide what is "reasonable"
Blogger pacwest said...
"The reason there hasn't been any progress on stopping gun violence is because of people like you who are dishonest untrustworthy and deceitful."
OK then. What would be this magical course to stop gun violence? Since anyone who deviates in the slightest from it is worthy of scorn you must have something pretty specific in mind. I got open ears. I'll try to keep an open mind on this end in spite of. And I have already stated several times I don't think that citizen gun ownership is a problem. I don't think it solves the problem of gun violence except in isolated instances though.
These random mass shootings aren't going to stop, they are going to get more frequent due to the nature of our accelerated technological society.
8/5/19, 8:47 PM
So, gun technology hasn't changed, so it's some other technology that you are referring to. It is not as if the next iPhone is so much better that it's going to push people into a shooting rage.
So what is it, then? A solution can't be identified, unless the problem is identified.
White Nationalism was almost unheard of 3 years ago, until the big media push to defeat Ttump. The MSM and the Left benefit from its rise, and from these mass shootings if they can, however tenuously, pin them on the White Nationalists, and therefore Trump, and therefor the Deplorables, and therefore any and all conservatives, and therefore any and all whites (except for themselves, of course. They're the good ones).
"After today there is no longer any room for nuance. The President is a white nationalist terror leader. His supporters - ALL OF THEM - are by definition white nationalist terror supporters. The MAGA hat is a KKK hood. And this evil, racist scourge must be eradicated from society."
A cannibal just told me I'm a bad person, HAHAHA!
“White Nationalism was almost unheard of 3 years ago, until the big media push to defeat Ttump. The MSM and the Left benefit from its rise, and from these mass shootings if they can, however tenuously, pin them on the White Nationalists, and therefore Trump, and therefor the Deplorables, and therefore any and all conservatives, and therefore any and all whites (except for themselves, of course. They're the good ones).”
Both the shooters appear to have been leftist whackos - though the first guy’s account was quickly hacked in order to change his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. No surprise that the Dayton killer apparently had Antifa ties. The MSM, etc are desperately trying to point the finger the other way. The real violence these days is on their side. They are the ones wearing masks, taking bats, chains, and brass knuckles to political rallies, and putting people in the hospital with their beatings. They are the ones shooting up Congressional baseball practices, and causing a Senator to lose part of his lung. Yet we hear constantly about the threat of White Nationalism. The FBI has even apparently told us that they are the biggest domestic threat of violence facing the American people. That they aren’t apparently looking at Antifa as the primary threat is strong indicator that the agency needs to be shut down and reorganized from the ground up, firing everyone currently working at their DC headquarters, from Dir Wray, on down. It is spin and fake news, over and over, ad nauseum.
Invest with 400$ and get a returns of 10,000$ within seven business working days.
Why wasting your precious time online looking for a loan? When there is an opportunity for you to invest with 400$ and get a returns of 10,000$ within seven business working days. Contact us now for more information if interested on how you can earn big with just little amount. This is all about investing into Crude Oil and Gas Business.
Email: investmoneyoilgasfast@gmail.com
pacwest looks an AWFUL lot like Chuck's sock. "I'm a [big important professional] and a big Trump supporter [lifelong republican].
"These firearms are in the hands of approximately 90 MILLION people. These are the people that have filled out forms and have had back ground checks."
And if, as suggested upthread, competency tests were made mandatory, how exactly would that work? Would it be only prospective? How would that help, with 90 million people being exempted? If it's retroactive ... yeah, good luck with that. Some Democrat would probably want a new federal agency to handle that, or would want to expand ATF by 500%.
I don't know why I'm treating this as a serious proposal, but say you did have competency tests. Would you have to take it every time you bought a new firearm? That's what torques my tail about the waiting period in my state, which is 10 days. It's applied to everyone, no matter how many guns they already own.
The idea is to make sure that anyone making an impulse purchase because they're angry or suicidal has a cooling-off period. Why should it apply to anyone who already owns a gun? If I want to kill someone, I already have the means. Why do I have to wait 10 days to take possession of the 9th gun I buy? (Rhetorical question -- the laws here aren't supposed to make sense. They're supposed to inconvenience people who have the temerity to actually want more than one gun.)
Post a Comment