Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Mother Cocanuts

Gun Control III: the Hedge Knight Rises.

248 posts in this topic

Perhaps not enough of the children were armed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The obvious solution is to arm all pastors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

The obvious solution is to arm all pastors.

Apparently he was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats really fucking sad and depressing is that if this is some random white dude, no one will even care about this in a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  The specific words used in the Second Amendment are "keep and bear" arms.  The point is that not all arms may be "borne" by one person.  To operate such weapons you need more than one person and that they, therefore, cannot be among those arms protected because they cannot be "borne" by a single person.

To bear and to operate are completely different. To bear is to establish possession or ownership, which does not require my having to operate that which I possess or own. Ownership is a claim; possession doesn't require that I be able to hold it in my hands, unless you want to submit a definition of "bear," you believe Adams and the founding fathers used.

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Further, that under the concept of "militia" those people appearing to serve in the militia were expected to keep and bear their own small arms, pistols and rifles, they were not expected to keep and bear heavy weapons such as artillery and those that have been created since the time of the writing of the Second Amendment.

Do you have a reference?

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 As such is is a long way from foolish to claim that the team based weapons like artillery, missiles, tanks, and nuclear weapons are not among those protected by the express terms of the second amendment. 

You have not submitted a definition of "bear" which describes exclusion to possession about one's person. I await your submission in order to continue.

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And, for the record, the word "retarded" when used to describe either an individual or their argument has long been frowned upon in this forum.  We would all appreciate it if you refrained from that particular term.

Is the use of the word, "retarded" against the rules? If it is, I take no issue with refraining from its use. I will not however submit my speech to the scrutiny of anyone other than staff.

3 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

All the people, apparently. As Mother C stated in an earlier installment of this thread, as long as these acts are the deed of a minority of gun owners, (s)he won't agree to any regulation.

No. I don't agree with any regulations because "keeping and bearing arms" is a right. I've stated as much in that previous installment.

3 hours ago, TheMightyKC said:

We probably shouldn't do anything about murder, theft, or other crimes unless a majority of the population is committing them *lolsob* *rolls beautiful eyes*.  C'mon, gang, we can do better than that!  

This makes no sense. What we do against murderers, thieves, etc. holds them liable after the fact. We do not however hold the entire population culpable before the fact because select individuals decided to commit the aforementioned crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MC,

I believe, if a mod will correct me I would appreciate it, that the word "retarded" used in the context you offered it is a violation of the terms of use on this site.

Clearly Justice Scalia, author if the Heller majority agreed with my view on the 2nd Amendment.  He was not an intellectual lightweight:

Quote

“We’ll see,” he answered. “I mean, obviously the (Second) amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It’s to keep and bear — so it doesn’t apply to cannons.

“But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be … decided.”

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

 

This makes no sense. What we do against murderers, thieves, etc. holds them liable after the fact. We do not however hold the entire population culpable before the fact because select individuals decided to commit the aforementioned crimes.

Yet we make the action of murdering someone illegal before the action takes place.  We ban some bloodsports (bare knuckle boxing for example) because of the danger to voluntarily participants not waiting for the indivualized events to determine if competetors or organizers went to far.  

The Court in Heller clearly stated that some form of regulation of the rights under the second amendment was possible.  It limited its findings to stating blanket bans against all private ownership of firearms in a given jurisdiction is unconstitutional.  As such your position that any and all regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is a priori unconstitutional is an untenable position.  The express terms of Heller state that regulation is possible.  It simply does set out what that regulation can be.  It says only that it can't be a blanket ban.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

MC,

I believe, if a mod will correct me I would appreciate it, that the word "retarded" used in the context you offered it is a violation of the terms of use on this site.

Perhaps, a mod should weigh in. I'd appreciate it as well.

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Clearly Justice Scalia, author if the Heller majority agreed with my view on the 2nd Amendment.  He was not an intellectual lightweight:

I've declared neither you nor Scalia an intellectual lightweight. Only that the logic of the argument that certain arms do not fall under scope of the 2nd Amendment because they cannot be "borne," assuming of course that the definition of "to bear" you're using is "to carry," is nonsense. Even if we were to entertain this unsound logic, Ser Scot, the 2nd Amendment describes the right as the discretion to both "keep and bear." Even if you're arguing that they cannot be "borne" by an individual, there's no sound interpretation that would exclude their being "kept."

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The Court in Heller clearly stated that some form of regulation of the rights under the second amendment was possible.  It limited its findings to stating blanket bans against all private ownership of firearms in a given jurisdiction is unconstitutional.  As such your position that any and all regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is a priori unconstitutional is an untenable position. 

I've never maintained the position that regulation is a priori unconstitutional. What is or isn't constitutional is subject to the interpretation of Supreme Court Justices. I've maintained that rights, particularly those described in the Bill of Rights, should not be regulated because it undermines them. The government is there to protect them, not regulate and dictate what they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

 

I've never maintained the position that regulation is a priori unconstitutional. What is or isn't constitutional is subject to the interpretation of Supreme Court Justices. I've maintained that rights, particularly those described in the Bill of Rights, should not be regulated because it undermines them. The government is there to protect them, not regulate and dictate what they are.

Well, if you look at existing case law what a Constitutionally protected liberty does is not ban Government regulation of the liberty interest set out.  It sets up a standard where the Court will apply a "strict scrutiny" standard of review to any statute or regulation created to control that right.  It is difficult to craft regulations or statutes that will survive strict scrutiny. But it has been done.

What I have seen you argue, repeatedly, is that blanket regulations of firearms use in the US is inappropriate because most firearms users are not committing mass shootings.  That misses the point if the government offering such a regulation to control or prevent mass shootings and can show that the regulation is narrowly tailored to facilitate that important goal it can stand up to strict scrutiny review and must apply to all to survive the strictures of equal protection under the 14th amendment.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2017 at 10:43 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Keep and "bear".  There is some question that the "bear" portion of the 2nd amendment restricts access to the general public for "team operated" weapons like fully on belt feed machine guns, artillery, and nuclear weapons.

Scott all Justice Scalia views aside in Heller, that's some sophist BS.

I have personally carried and operated solo an M-60, M-249 and M-240 machine guns including their spare barrels, tripods and T&E gear. Hell George Washington supplied to the Continental Army multiple field cannon. I'm not saying anyone should be able to go buy a muzzle loaded black powder field gun, but saying well the Founder's this or that crap is some silly BS. 

Let's all put our big-boy/girl pants on and be honest. We dont want people to have machine-guns, howitzers and tanks. 

Cool now that we have that out of the way, what other reasonable restrictions should their be? I can get behind total and robust reporting requirements along with good background checks. There have been way to many people killed an injured because states arent fully reporting to the Federal background check system, see e.g. Jared Loughner. Also the background check system we have now is old as hell and doesnt work for shit. We need a modern integrated system that takes data from the states and federal agencies and links it up in near real time. Furthermore, we need to have FFL transfers for all weapons, and straw purchasers should be charged with any crimes committed with weapons they supply just as if they had done the deed themselves.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, sure, but the NRA and those politician - so-called legislators don't allow anything even that that faintly sensible.

As it is whoever sold this guy his weapons did so illegally (at least the San Antonio dealer of a Fishing and Hunting store, illegally sold him the military weapon that he seems to have used exclusively at the church).  Both as a dishonorably discharged service man and convicted domestic abuser, he is barred from owning guns.

 

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Ya, sure, but the NRA and those politician - so-called legislators don't allow anything even that that faintly sensible.

As it is whoever sold this guy his weapons did so illegally (at least the San Antonio dealer of a Fishing and Hunting store, illegally sold him the military weapon that he seems to have used exclusively at the church).  Both as a dishonorably discharged service man and convicted domestic abuser, he is barred from owning guns.

I'd love to see a Class Action suit fronted by the surviving families and parishioners of this church vs some combination of the NRA, The Federal Government and State government in regards to the lax rules surrounding background checks and the like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, James Arryn said:

The obvious solution is to arm all pastors.

Something like this?:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kouran said:

Let's all put our big-boy/girl pants on and be honest. We dont want people to have machine-guns, howitzers and tanks. 

Speak for yourself. If the people had access to military hardware they'd be able to deal with domestic and foreign invasions better, as well as domestic and foreign tyranny. 

I don't want untrained people to have access to these things, mind you - but I absolutely want people to have them. 

1 hour ago, Kouran said:

Cool now that we have that out of the way, what other reasonable restrictions should their be? I can get behind total and robust reporting requirements along with good background checks. There have been way to many people killed an injured because states arent fully reporting to the Federal background check system, see e.g. Jared Loughner. Also the background check system we have now is old as hell and doesnt work for shit. We need a modern integrated system that takes data from the states and federal agencies and links it up in near real time. Furthermore, we need to have FFL transfers for all weapons, and straw purchasers should be charged with any crimes committed with weapons they supply just as if they had done the deed themselves.  

All of this is entirely against the 2nd amendment and quite possibly privacy rights. Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'd love to see a Class Action suit fronted by the surviving families and parishioners of this church vs some combination of the NRA, The Federal Government and State government in regards to the lax rules surrounding background checks and the like. 

He also worked as a 'licensed' security guard -- though he didn't have a carry license.  Which latter, of course, he couldn't have / shouldn't have either, being a dishonorable discharge and a convicted domestic abuser.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

34 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'd love to see a Class Action suit fronted by the surviving families and parishioners of this church vs some combination of the NRA, The Federal Government and State government in regards to the lax rules surrounding background checks and the like. 

The gun manufacturers are legally protected, and I suspect that anything else would be thrown out of court for similar reasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The gun manufacturers are legally protected, and I suspect that anything else would be thrown out of court for similar reasons. 

Yeah, I suspect you are right. It would not be an easy row to hoe, for sure. Surely there is a legal angle of attack here somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I suspect you are right. It would not be an easy row to hoe, for sure. Surely there is a legal angle of attack here somewhere.

Not particularly. In general, provided that things were done with the intent of an illegal action, there's very little liability - basically it's the global value of 'if you use this in a way we did not intend, we can't be held responsible'. 

If he's shown to have been able to get weapons 'legally' despite not being allowed to do so, that's another thing. But the NRA didn't tell anyone to do this and would be easily able to demonstrate this is not what they stand for, the state and local agencies don't necessarily have any jurisdiction, and this was a man who had been using his rights until the time he wasn't.

Another thing is that the idea of good guy carrying gun here probably did save some lives in this case. There were two people who heroically faced this guy, and they should be lauded for it. And yes, one of them shooting back certainly stopped this guy from shooting more. What this points out is that it still isn't sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

Another thing is that the idea of good guy carrying gun here probably did save some lives in this case. There were two people who heroically faced this guy, and they should be lauded for it. And yes, one of them shooting back certainly stopped this guy from shooting more. What this points out is that it still isn't sufficient.

At present we have no information that this is the case, indeed there is just as much chance that the dickhead taking a gun to church killed innocent bystanders. 

Edited by BigFatCoward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigFatCoward said:

At present we have no information that this is the case, indeed there is just as much chance that the dickhead taking a gun to church killed innocent bystanders. 

They don't know yet for sure if the gunshot wound that killed the shooter was self-inflicted or if it came from one of the men who shot at him, but it does appear that those men drove him off at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0