A Gun control solution - perhaps

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Mar 7, 2018.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Honor obliges that at some point I call out the potential for provocateurism; I honestly don't think I could caricaturize the gun cult as savagely as you manage to.

    I mean, we just watched two of you invent a straw man, and you're actually willing to try to justify yourself.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You have no obligations of honor.
    You introduced the notion of prosecuting gun owners for allowing their guns to be stolen, on this forum, in earlier threads and posts. Now you accuse others of inventing that as a strawman?
    Later you offered - recommended - shifting to civil courts, insurance claims and monetary damages and the like, to avoid the burden of the rights of defendants in criminal court.

    Now you speak of honor.

    There is a Poe's Law problem on both sides of this issue.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Yet you haven't cited a single source to prove it.
    Yes, those tasked to protect failing to do their duty. But others who do stop school shootings. The failed security at the Vegas hotel.
    But all these seem to be red herrings to distract from the fact that you have nothing to support your claims about armed teachers.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    23/03/2018

    Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens drew attention Tuesday when he argued for the repeal of the Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms. But many gun control supporters say they don’t want to go anywhere near the idea....
    “That’s a very difficult challenge in the best of times; it’s even more difficult in the current times,” Turley said, noting that there is still a high level of support for Second Amendment rights across the country. “The chances of securing two thirds of both houses [of Congress] is rather remote, and the chances of securing ratification of 38 states is virtually nonexistent.”
    src: http://time.com/5216962/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment/
    but instead of repeal, replace was recommended ?
    Would it be easier to pass into law?
    My bet is that it would be....

    Instead of banging your head against the 2nd amendment fear wall try replacing it instead.

    If you could write the replacement amendment, what would you write?
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    At least you agree that more mass slaughter in schools is inevitable....yet suggest no solution worthy of serious contemplation.
    Teachers before students or students before teachers... eh?
    Should be NO slaughters. Period.

    So ... uhm... what is wrong with you?

    A Challenge for your mind:

    If you could write the replacement to the 2nd amendment, what would you write?
    (in lay mans terms of course)
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2018
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    So—

    —what was that?
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The thread and forum is littered with them. I think I have, actually, cited one or two - a teacher's gun discharging in a bathroom, both wounding the teacher and destroying expensive school property, was one of the several I know I referred to.
    And so that solution doesn't work, as noted. You can't "task" teachers like that without paying the costs and suffering the consequences. Teachers are over-tasked already.
    An aspect of a description of one of the sides in the bothsides jamb that has - my opinion - blocked reasonable and sane gun control in the US.
     
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Post #179, as designated by you as being one of the components of your gun control measures:

    Is your gun control measure the encouragement to spend the money on something else instead?

    Post 275:
    You talk about reasonable laws and regulations that won't infringe on people's right to keep and bear arms, and then come out with that..

    Then you say that "meanwhile, it isn't worth it". Is this your idea of bring up gun control measures?

    Post #278:
    Is this you promoting another form of gun control laws that would work well?

    You know, since you are the biggest proponent of gun control here on this site currently and all that?

    Post 323:
    Err? What gun control measures are you posting as per your list or whatever it was?

    Get the gist? You haven't posted gun control measures. You just whined about it. Over and over again.

    Post 500:
    Your gun control measures would see what? No firearms banned, and isolate the nuts, I presume they are the same nuts that you accused your "black President" of polarising?

    Mild envy?

    You refer to us as a "nanny state".. Then there was this gem:

    In response to Australian laws..

    Who is "they"?
    They were your words. Remember? Several of the posters engaged with you in that discussion attempted to get you to clarify what you meant, because you came across as such a bigot. You responded by insulting all involved, accused us of misrepresenting your words, when everyone took it at face value and then you doubled down:

    And on and on it went. You called us all stupid and various other terms, while maintaining the same position. You were then asked directly whether this is what you supported and you completely dodged it by referring back to your previous comments, that were so problematic to begin with, as your answers.

    Perhaps you should ask yourself that question.. "Lying, or stupid? Pick one."...

    Dude, you are the one who touted the mass incarceration of black males as a means to end gun violence so that gun control laws would not be needed.

    And then abused everyone for taking you at face value.
    You can only say that if you actually had a case to begin with.
     
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  12. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    "reckless driving"
    "dangerous driving"
    "careless driving"
    "using a motor vehicle as a weapon"
    "assault with a weapon"-'motor vehicle'

    variant degrees of 1st 2nd & 3rd... etc...

    if you are caught selling drugs do they take your children away in the usa ?
    if you are caught taking drugs & are a drug addict, do they take your children away ?

    if you are caught with an unsecured or illegal gun do they take your children away ?

    from an observers position it looks like they are intentionally making all the laws a complete mess and contradictory just to cause more chaos and death and imprisonment etc...
    it really does look completely crazzy
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Ok, you chose - you're claiming stupid.
    You'd have to be a damn moron to honestly read that into my post, almost the opposite of its meaning, and you claim not only that but the inability to comprehend the subsequent corrections and explanations and so forth.
    So: very, very stupid.
    And you are claiming to be too fucking stupid to read them with comprehension, or follow the argument they make. (The entire post is right there in context - you can review the prior thread in a few minutes, it's not that long.)

    Which would be fine, we can't all be intelligent people. I would maybe owe you an apology, after berating a mental cripple for producing what appeared to be dumbass slander from a trolling pos.

    But:

    when you claimed never to have seen those posts, back a few posts here, you were lying to abet that slander. That's not stupidity. That invalidates claims of stupidity. And so I'm going to save the apologies for those not devoted to lies, misrepresentations, and slander.

    And this edifice of posts from this self-described gun control advocate, complete with the "likes" and the coterie of defenders, the willful crazy of the self-righteous authoritarians in their pack, is now exhibit A in the wall of evidence I have posted for my argument: gun control in the US is a bothsides problem, gridlocked by whackjobs on "both sides" who mirror each other's bizarre insanity right down to the bedrock presumptions and the abandonment of reason.

    We can't get sane and reasonable gun laws in the US because the large majority of folks, the sane and reasonable people, are caught between two lunatic scrums of dangerously fantasy-addled fruitcakes - and splitting their votes accordingly, with the normal human bias toward the status quo and the less authoritarian tipping the verdict so far. (When in doubt, don't throw the Constitution out - can you blame them? ).

    And if all this affected were gun control laws, one could declare a pox on their houses and barricade the schools and suffer them out. But in my life, I've seen this crap take down as many good politicians as abortion. It's not isolated, this issue. It's not that much of an exaggeration to credit this deadlock with the rise of the Republican Party - at least contributing as it feeds back into racism and misogyny.

    There's a big election coming up, in my State - both Senators and the Governor, Democrats all, are on the ballot in eight months. And if any of them, or the House seats involved etc, go down because the gun control yammerpack sticks them with some kind of 2nd Amendment repeal demand, or a big mess over the local conceal carry law (it has had no visible effect on anything except signage), something useless like that (there's room for useful - domestic violence riders on carry and possession, for example)

    it would not be the first time for an unforced disaster of that kind.
     
  14. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    there is millions of americans who now realise the power of their vote which they withheld last time they had a national election.
    plus... the reactivist swing voters who supported the minority shift to the right have lost faith in the leadership whom they voted for which shows in the current polls.
    however... that doesnt mean the drug addict will suddenly wake up and stop choosing the herion.
    but... there may be a sizable swing back to democrats and the republicans can be duely concerned.
    more soo about the unfolding attack on conservative values performed by the media campaigns via cambridge analytics etc.
    thats bound to shorten a few long term mailing list buddies from the conservative support network for engaging in social engineering and outrigt manipulation rather than moral based equitable politics.

    the backlash is sure to rise
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Now that is worth quoting... thanks Iceaura!
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Iceaura

    At the time, 3 people asked you to clarify your statement. You doubled down and kept reiterating it and argued that it was a viable solution to be able to avoid gun control laws altogether. You also argued that most Americans felt this way. MR asked you for proof, he said what you were saying was crazy and asked you to explain yourself. Instead of actually doing so and perhaps explaining what you actually meant, you argued the same thing again and said that in your opinion, this is a good option.

    And you did that literally and repeatedly.

    Remember, iceaura, we can only go by what you type or write on this site. We aren't privy to your thoughts. If you intended it to mean something else, you were repeatedly advised of how you were coming across and were repeatedly asked to clarify and explain, you just kept repeating it. So if you intended it to mean something else, you have to actually communicate it. You were told this repeatedly, but you failed to actually explain yourself. They are your words and we all read it the same way. So we are either all stupid and for some reason, are incapable of reading and understanding just your words, or you fail at communicating your thoughts effectively. I suspect the issue is on your end.

    Which brings me to another point and one I have flagged a few times with you which you doubled down and kept doing it. You are on record as referring to African Americans, Native Americans and the like in particular ways that does sound bigoted. Perhaps you don't intend it to be, but some of the arguments you have made, even back then, comes off sounding rank. I would like to be certain that you are not racist or a bigot. It would behoove you to not go out of your way to deliberately sound like you are.

    Stop projecting, stop denying your own record on this site and stop abusing me and some others in this thread because we all take you at your word.

    If you want sane and reasonable gun laws in the US, you all need to start recognising others as being human beings. That would be a start. And not as "lunatic scrums of dangerously fantasy addled fruitcakes".

    You know, it starts with each individual, including (especially) yourself.

    A good politician is one who will fight tooth and nail for what is right, regardless of the risk to their seat. I think it's time to demand that politicians take on the tough fights instead of playing it safe in case they lose.
     
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    i think this point is worth noting for discussion.
    the idea that people "have" a vote
    Vs
    those whom control the content and subject "OF" the vote
    those being mixed together seems to be a thing.

    referring back to my politician(express terms of social moral values & ethics) comment
    if all the mass shooting victims(majority) were senators etc...
    the law would not only be changed by now but a near perminant state of martial law would be in place.

    i think that is worthy of discussion as a cultural moral value.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    So? I did. The posts were pretty clear in the first place, but I added some repetition of context etc.
    Oh bullshit.
    And later, in this thread, you claimed never to have seen my posts in that thread.

    I don't believe you are that stupid. You are a dishonest human being, fundamentally and irrevocably. And your faction in the US gun control debate is a threat, an already damaging and unreasoning obstacle to sound governance.
    Which means fighting against you and your kind, as well as the gun nuts, in this matter. Which has indeed cost several their seats.

    You have demonstrated that you have no idea what my posts "sound like" to reasonable human beings, and your bizarre interpretations of my arguments are a damn joke when they aren't simply lies.
    You're on record as responding to terms like "red" and "black" and "white" as if they "sound bigoted" - seriously. Then you turn around and throw down a genuinely offensive term (in many contexts) like "Native American"!
    Go back a couple of years: I have to work with those guys, Bells, my employer's Fond Du Lac wife signs my checks - she makes allowances for white guys, as with most of her Nation the terminology is no big deal (kind of like the Irish that way), but I can't be talking like that. Refer to her family, or my grandmother, as "Native American"? Uff-da. I drink coffee with Somalis, play Go with a Nigerian math student - "African American?" - no, do not use that term. Some touchiness, there.
    Thing is, I'm not going to post offensive garbage here because some tone-deaf Aussie read the wrong PC language manual. What if someone who knows me stops by this forum?
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2018
  19. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    lol
     
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466


    No surprise in Stevens words-----------he was on the losing sides in both Heller and McDonald.
     
    Vociferous likes this.
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Nope. The crime would be failing to safely secure their weapons.

    We hear all the time about how "gun control is hitting the target" "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" "the problem isn't responsible gun owners, it's criminals." So let's hold gun owners to that. Are they really as competent as they claim? Do they really defend their ownership of guns with the level of fervor they claim? Are they really certain their guns will be used only to stop crime, not cause crime? If so, then such a law will cause responsible gun owners no pain.

    Again, no. They would be asked to produce the gun they bought. Give them a day. Heck, give them a month. If they can't, then a jury hears the case. Did they allow the gun to be stolen? Or was it completely out of their control? Could a reasonable person have taken steps to make sure the gun wasn't lost, or stolen, or given away? Did the defendant take those steps?

    We have a pretty good justice system here. Not perfect, but pretty good. We should use it.
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Is that specifically Australophobic, or just a distracting pretense? The thing is that if someone who knows you stops by the forum, you will have already embarrassed yourself. To the one, if we've been here long enough, we all have. To the other, though, seriously, guns for stalkers, politics for predators; hell, we can even watch you try to manufacture a fallacy↑ in this thread, so, yeah, if someone you know shows up and you're ashamed, just blame your own posts on other peoplelike you already do↗.

    Meanwhile, as long as you're on the subject of yourself, I suppose I am curious just what exposure you think you have under tougher gun laws.

    And it's true I'll give you credit for variation on theme, but you didn't really clsoe the circle in those late paragraphs, so it's left reading like a version of not being racist because you have [_____] friends worked in there. And I know that review offends you, but your response seems to favor pursuit of satisfaction, and that likely has some deleterious effect on what you are trying to communicate. Like the posts from 2015; I can actually see what might be a couple of simple gaffes↗, potential errors of omission, and there is a context by which I would chuckle and shrug, but most days I feel like the only person left for whom that context even exists. For your part, your refusal to attend what people are actually saying is a powerful functional challenge: You gaffed by not being clear enough on particular issues; there is also, in that old formulation, an appearance of presupposed consistency on your part that does not coincide with or reflect in other people's assessments; when you fall back to pretending offense instead of clarifying, you appear to be standing on tacit presuppositions nobody else acknowledges, such that those presuppositions are only functional within your perspective. Even having the opportunity to clarify, you managed to appeal to other people to "think a sec"↗, but couldn't be bothered to actually say anything meaningful. When the answer is to simply parse the gaffe—which then opens a context for people to "think a sec"—in order to assuage what you consider their misinterpretation, that is somehow the one thing you did not do. The paragraphs actually stand out, these years later—

    Seems to be before, one would assume, looking around.

    Look, guys, think a sec: why was I posting there? What's my argument? I was posting about avenues of action, issues that could be addressed by those wishing to reduce gun violence in the US that have not been pretrashed by this garbage fight between extremist camps on - uniquely - both sides of the gun control issue. First a little paragraph observing the gun control issue is ruined, then an intro sentence on how there is hope, there are issues that have not been pretrashed by the loonies and offer opportunity for reason and cooperation and negotiation and coherent action widely supported by Americans, that also bid fair to enable significant gains in gun violence reduction. Then I listed a few. It's not a subtle point. I was asked for suggestions on reducing gun violence in the US, and my suggestion was to abandon gun control for a while and focus on these other areas where there is hope of significant progress.

    Do you have an argument against that? Do you object to some of the issues I claim can be addressed in ways that would reduce gun violence in the US significantly - you think addressing them properly wouldn't work to reduce gun violence?

    —in no small part for their failure to address the issue at hand; you managed to do it again a couple posts later↗. Try writing an actual, arguable thesis every once in a while. And, sure, that goes for a lot of people both here and at large. And go ahead and complain that you do, because when we look at those, certain differences will be apparent. When the actual argument, for instance, is just a whip-tail appended to the truculent retort that appears to be your priority—

    I got nothin'. The spittleflingers have, in my opinion, completely wrecked the machinery of legislation and sound governance in this matter, and only time will allow repair. We can maybe get some reasonable background checks through, some backlash against open carry threats should allow a gain here and there, but not much else. The realistic prospects of beneficial changes are not worth the career of a single good candidate for any office in the country. Just my opinion.

    Fortunately, big improvements in gun violence rates in the US are available in several ways not as yet pre-trashed. Drug war laws, mass incarceration of black men, militarization of the police, and some sensible improvements in mental health care and the formal handling of domestic abuse, are all on the table. They would not require extraordinary leadership, they have wide popular support, and they are likely to work imho. So that's my suggestion for the near term.


    (#3332915/41↗)

    —the potential for skittstyle gaffes rises dramatically. You led with Bitter Pilate, spitting insult as an excuse for not putting any effort into more substantial consideration, and that priority very much appears to have contributed to what, at best, is mere slipshod syntax for not having been important enough to warrant the effort of not failing.

    And if I write the gaffe and justification for you, what stands out is that you wouldn't. So it's really weird to explain that yes, there are reasons something you seem to think implicit, that I can actually find a context for, didn't communicate, because if it really is that simple, then so also is the point that you would not cover that vector as obvious and significant as the sun in the sky. And, in the end, who am I to box in your context, like that? Abstract alternative contexts aren't applicable until or unless they are not abstract alternatives.

    I figure there must be a reason why you won't navigate that course, but only you would know what it is.
     
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    All of our impassioned though idle chit chat aside
    we are still a nation of laws

    appertaining thereto:
    Caetano v Massachusetts
    Is an interesting read.

    It seems as though:
    Modern(and future) weapons are covered by the 2nd,
    and
    If you can lug it about with you, you can do so legally

    y'all read it the same?

    ....................................
    what was the name of that handheld weapon they used on star trek?
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2018
    Vociferous likes this.

Share This Page