More shooting in schools

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by timojin, Oct 2, 2015.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,276
    No. Why do you ask?
    False as always - no name calling in the second post, or on the first page. ("Clueless" is an adjective, and not only completely in tune with the language of the posts it responds to, but accurate and exactly necessary for the argument being made. The trashing of the gun control issue in the US has not been accomplished by the reason and sanity and informed discussion on either side.

    And not only false, but no excuse for your seven pages of posting here if it had been true. You've been a nasty piece of work here for an entire thread.
    And assumed the answer to your rhetorical and bad faith "question", in typical fashion.

    My answer, had I bothered for some reason, would have been "a lot of them", distributed among the various and overlapping types of gun owners I illustrated in that casual and imprudent manner - never assume honest, good faith readers in a thread with gun control advocates, would be the lesson still imperfectly learned by me.
    The timelines of your bullshit delusions are not an area of expertise for me.
    Once again into the sewer - - - what I explicitly and clearly and repeatedly and in short, simple phrases using ordinary English words said, throughout, is that the gun control extremists's rhetorical employment of statistics and studies and so forth is continually and typically and often flagrantly misuse: abusive, dishonest, misleading, in bad faith, and apparently without regard for reason or reality. It's lies and propaganda.

    It's the nature, not the fact, of your "referring". And I think you know that.

    And this means something, has consequences for the gun control issue in the US. Because in most issues influencing US politics this kind of propaganda and abuse of data and stats and so forth, by a visible faction, is typical of only "one side" or one approach or one take on an issue. "One side" features amplified visible wingnuttery; the "other side" features a variety of approaches all pretty much controlled by sanity and facts, that reasonable people can sign on to, any of whose prevailing would be an improvement and a good thing. But the gun control "debate" is dominated - actually taken over, pretty much - by the crazy on "both sides".#

    This is doubly frustrating to me, because it tangles progress in two major (but not equal) concerns of mine: reducing gun violence in the US, and somehow getting some purchase on the current corporate-degraded media framing of every political issue as a "both sides" conflict - in particular the shitshow that the Republican Party has put on since Reagan, as the malfunctioning of "both sides".
    It's your only excuse, yes. But you refuse to accept correction of your foreign and uninformed misconceptions from those who are, so that excuse is wearing thin.
    That's false, unfortunately.
    Nobody is. You're a guy who refuses to read or think, and keeps saying crazy stuff. And the plethora of you guys has trashed gun control in the US.
    You can't transform the modern National Guard into a militia in that way. See "legal personhood", "en loco parentis", and so forth.

    And immediately to the point: A formal, official, government established and trained and equipped and enlisted and paid and commanded, uniformed and UCMJ controlled, reserve force of the US Army, is not a militia, by definition.

    edit in#
    {Yesterday's paper: Seven letters to the editor in response to an opinion piece Wednesday in which the author declared he was "scared" and "disgusted" by guns - by the objects themselves, which he described as "cruel and lethal" - in the course of laying out (with actual and relevant insight; he mentions racial conflict, etc, and ignores the NRA) some of the roots and consequences of what is undeniably a serious mental pathology in the US: fascination with guns as objects.

    The author wants us to do something about this pathology, namely rid America ("the streets of America") of guns by Federal force. The opinion piece recommends starting - starting incremental progress toward ridding America of guns - by making it illegal to own handguns and "semiautomatics" (his term, not sure what he meant) in the US, and prohibiting their manufacture. Those who demur at this obvious first step in this obviously sensible agenda would have the blood of murdered children on their hands, he says. Explicitly: " - - the blood is on your hands" is the closing phrase.

    The seven letters were split about half: three objecting, four agreeing.
    The three that objected offered: 1) that guns "used responsibly" were no more a threat of harm than a case of beer "used responsibly", and "gun free zone" signs were an attraction to homicidal maniacs. 2) that Sam Colt made all men equal in America 3) suggested that calling something "gun violence" was equivalent to calling 9/11 "airplane violence".
    The four that agreed offered: 1) that the NRA was bad, failing to prevent massacres and murders was insane, and so the author was right 2) That a list of mass shootings could be printed, and so the author was right 3) that the NRA was bad, that the author exhibited unusual courage in "finally" talking about "the problem with guns", and so the author was right 4) that the NRA was bad, and that one could kill a lot more people with an "automatic rifle" than with a butcher knife. }
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,820
    Liar. Here's it is for all to see:

    "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."

    Noone changed anything. The organized militia has always been the National Guard since it's formation, and will remain so indefinitely.

    Congress says otherwise:

    "(b) The classes of the militia are—

    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

    Just out of curiosity, when you call up a militia in 48 hours, how do you know the men and boys you are calling even have guns? Isn't that a privacy issue? To my knowledge gun owners firmly oppose a national registery of guns.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,276
    You don't read, you don't think. You pay no attention to argument, context, or meaning. You refuse to accept correction. Then you blame me, and call me names.
    Congress is not in charge of the meanings of English words, nor is it capable of altering physical reality by statute.
    The National Guard was Federalized and reorganized as a branch of the State and US military, some years ago. Calling it a militia by statute does not change that.
    They know whether they have guns. They also know whether they have military training and so forth. They even know each other, and each other's capabilities. What's your point?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,820
    I can read exactly what you posted. You denying you said it is blatant lying.

    But they know nothing about being part of a militia. Nobody does because everyone knows the militia is the National Guard. You'd have to call them up and tell them to report for military service, and you'd never know who among them had guns and who didn't. So are you in charge of notifying them? Who appointed this job to you? Do you keep a personal list of gunowners at home with you? Who compensates them for lost work? You? I don't think so. Your so-called militia is a joke. It doesn't exist, and won't exist in the case of an emergency.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2015
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,276
    Then you should. I can't make you, but I can mock you for not doing it. (I could also once again try to fix your comprehension problems by rephrasing and reposting and so forth, repeatedly, directly in response to you, as in previous posts. But you have made it perfectly clear that you won't read them either.)
    And so gun control in the US is a trashed, almost hopeless issue. It can't even be handled in a forum like this.

    Between the paranoid clutching their pacifiers (there is an actual gun called a "Peacemaker") and the naive looking for a benevolent mommy with police powers (dangerous objects not allowed in the playpen, and the door fastened), US gun control as an issue is going to do little of significance but damage the careers of good politicians and boost the influence of bad ones.

    More promising issues for getting some reduction in gun violence abound.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2015
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,820
    You can rephrase, reinterpret, and repost all you want. I quoted what you posted and know what you said. It's there for all to see despite your lies that you never said it.

    We'll see about that after Obama and several lawmakers start working on it again.
     
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    HMM...said the pot to the kettle.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    True enough, but that isn't the issue here.


    This gets back to words have meanings. The US National Guard is an agency of each state. They aren't federal agencies. However, the Militias Acts allow these president to activate state militias for federal service, but that isn't federalization. The are still state militias in service of the federal government.

    Thus far you have ignored organized private militias of which there are many. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_organizations_in_the_United_States


    If the federal government activates a state militia the federal government does know the militia's capabilities. Most members are state militias were trained by the federal government or are former members of the federal military and the federal government. State militias train with the federal government and are often supplied by the federal government.
     
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,102
    You have spent the entirety of this thread calling people stupid and other names for not seeing or doing things exactly your way. I mean really, how far are you willing to go with this and pretend that you have done nothing wrong? How many more bridges are you willing to burn in your zeal to argue against anyone who dares show a leaning towards "gun control"?

    You haven't illustrated anything. You haven't supported any of your claims. You advised that people who purchase them to keep in their homes are somewhat paranoid. I asked a question in accordance to your unsupported claims about people who own them because they are paranoid because the Gallup results showed an overwhelming majority buy them for self protection.. Which in an earlier post you had deemed that people who are paranoid do so. Hence the question. It is only bad faith to you because the facts, studies, poll findings all seem to disagree with your stance in this thread, whatever that may be, because you are jumping about trying to deflect from the actual subject of this thread because apparently gun control advocates make you angry enough to act like a demented individual online. We get it, you have something something about guns.

    I am not the one who posted that the mass incarceration of black men, as well as increasing the drug war (which also targets blacks predominantly) and militarisation of police (which we also know targets blacks unfairly) is for the improvement of gun violence. You are.

    So the question remains.. unanswered..

    In other words, as I noted above, you have an issue when gun control advocates use those studies to further their point or their argument.

    Note my words that you quoted again. Read them this time. Perhaps you could wipe the spittle that you are spraying on your screen in rage if it makes it easier for you to read. We can only hope you use a cloth and not the back of your hand, because, you know, gross.....

    You have openly said that you had an issue with how the studies were "used" by gun control advocates.

    Because apparently the studies are fine in your opinion. But what is not fine is when those of us you refer to as gun control extremists dare to refer to them.


    Which is exactly what you are ranting about.. again..

    You have yet to provide any evidence that the data has been misused.

    I know, I know... '"something something" about guns and gun control advocates' does not count.

    Your own President has openly touted those "foreign" ideals about gun control in your country. Is he a gun control extremist as well?

    We know.. we know.. Your argument throughout this thread is that America cannot really be compared to other developed nations with gun control laws that have worked to reduce gun violence by a drastic margin. Because AMERICA...

    At present, the US has a higher gun homicide rate than Sudan. But hey, it's really the gun control advocates who are the bad people here, because you know.. AMERICA.

    You have yet to provide any correction for anything. All you have done is make a fool of yourself, making dubious arguments, refusing to acknowledge any evidence provided by deeming them misused and abused because they are used by gun control advocates. What you have proposed to reduce gun violence would be a huge breach of people's basic and fundamental human rights, not to mention downright racist and bigoted. Then you tried to deny you even said it. You are yet to explain that statement or retract it for the insanity it conveyed.


    Yes, we have a direct line to the Government of the US... They are spying on us right now.. reading all that we say and using that to influence policy... [The giant eyeroll is implied here]
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,276
    It was exactly the issue at hand.
    They aren't militias. They are regular military, regardless of which State they are military of. It was Magical's link that said they were federalized, organized into a reserve branch of the US Army, as well as being the military forces of individual States. Do you dispute his link?
    So you agree that Congress does not get to define what "organized" means either.

    No, I've been acknowledging them throughout, posting links to lists including past ones, mentioning such as Cliven Bundy and the KKK and the Korean grocers during the Rodney King riots, pointing to the ease with which a well-regulated militia could be raised privately from among the residents of my county, etc. I have been a major - in this thread the only - source of attention to private militia in the US on this forum for years now.

    Perhaps you have confused me with one of the several posters here who have claimed we have no well-equipped militias of trained men in the US? You can hardly be confusing me with the one or two who have been claiming that the National Guard is the only one.

    Especially the ones in the 2nd Amendment.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,276
    Batting a thousand, you are. No, that's false like all the others: it's your behavior, your posts, that have been earning all those perfectly accurate labels.
    Tip: when trying to wrongfoot a metaphor, do it before it's in play by the other guy. Less lame.
    False. And notably so - in addition to dealing with such matters routinely, I've handled a couple your particular misuses in fair and sufficient detail -
    - where you claimed Americans were armed to the teeth, and met my observation that most didn't even own a gun and most of the rest one or two, with a media stat that said we owned more than one per person on average. Plus insult and so forth, the standard punctuation.
    - the time you backed up your (insult festooned) claim that Americans were "drowning in a sea of gun blood" with stats showing the US had fifteen times the firearm homicide rate of Germany,

    and so forth.
    The word "misconception" and the word "ideal" are not synonyms.
    That is false. The words "misuse", "abuse", and the like, are not synonyms of "use".

    The fact that you are apparently incapable of actually using studies and statistics to support your claims, and definitely incapable of recognizing when they don't, and exemplifying thereby my observations about the gun control fringe and the mess it has created, is only relevant to you and the rest of that faction. And even there I will treat studies that support claims with due respect. If you had used the Gallup Poll on why recent buyers who responded to a Gallup poll bought their guns to support a claim that Americans were far too often absurdly paranoid and naive about the value of guns in self defense, I would have agreed immediately. But you brought it up to support a claim that my perfectly sensible, informed, and uncontradicted post about the situations of most gun owners in the US was wrong.
    Yes, you are. You posted that bullshit as your "interpretation" of my posting. You have since seen four separate repostings of the content of that post, each phrased a bit differently and written to help an honestly confused person comprehend the argument actually advanced there. They did not help you.
    This is a display of symptoms.

    But that last bit of bellspittle there should be addressed: the actual subject of this thread is gun violence of a particular and disturbing kind. Not gun control per se. So my attempts to get the issue of gun control dropped as trashed, for the reasons given and illustrated I think pretty clearly in this thread, are in the service of the thread topic.
     
  14. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,820
    Another lie..

    Here's what that link says again:

    "The National Guard of the United States, part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces, is a reserve military force, composed of National Guard military members or units of each state and the territories of Guam, of the Virgin Islands, and of Puerto Rico, as well as of the District of Columbia, for a total of 54 separate organizations. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311. National Guard units are under the dual control of the state and the federal government...

    Local militias were formed from the earliest English colonization of the Americas in 1607. The first colony-wide militia was formed by Massachusetts in 1636 by merging small older local units, and several National Guard units can be traced back to this militia. The various colonial militias became state militias when the United States became independent. The title "National Guard" was used from 1824 by some New York State militia units, named after the French National Guard in honor of the Marquis de Lafayette. "National Guard" became a standard nationwide militia title in 1903, and specifically indicated reserve forces under mixed state and federal control from 1933."===https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,276
    You don't read, you don't think, and like Joe you throw that word "lie" around a lot when severely underclocking.
    Your link also said this:
    And here's what I said:
    Now I could have used a different link from this thread, such as Rendwolf's in post 121, or yours in 112, there's one that includes the specific words "federalized" and "branch" and included the definition of the US militia for example (all grown men under age 45, basically), but they all say the same basic thing, and I preferred your most recent when responding to Joe because of your matching attitudes. The National Guard was organized and made part of the regular military forces of the US in the early 1900s - the various command structures of the existing State regular military and militia (two different things) were changed to fit into the US military, the enlistment and pay and legal structure (under the UCMJ) also, the funding and training and supply and logistics likewise, and all this was done by acts of Congress and completed in time for WWII.

    And no statute can make it a militia. That's not the kind of thing one can do by statute. Words have meanings, physical reality exists, Congress is not in charge of such matters.

    Meanwhile, the question of where you intend to go with the whole clusterdiddle of contrived modern meanings remains: the 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere. And there's plenty of room around the 2nd Amendment for significant gun control - you don't have to touch it. So why the obsession?

    btw: There is a State that still has a State organized militia, or sort-of militia (it too over the years has become increasingly regular military) - Texas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Guard.
     
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,820
    More lies:

    "All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311.National Guard units are under the dual control of the state and the federal government...

    Local militias were formed from the earliest English colonization of the Americas in 1607. The first colony-wide militia was formed by Massachusetts in 1636 by merging small older local units, and several National Guard units can be traced back to this militia. The various colonial militias became state militias when the United States became independent. The title "National Guard" was used from 1824 by some New York State militia units, named after the French National Guard in honor of the Marquis de Lafayette. "National Guard" became a standard nationwide militia title in 1903, and specifically indicated reserve forces under mixed state and federal control from 1933."===https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,276
    And corporations really are people, claims to the contrary being lies. So Texas has two State Militias, and no other "organized" militia. Got it. Looking forward to various interested and public spirited corporations joining the National Guard, especially in the command ranks they are so well suited to occupy. But there's still a question:

    T
    he lie is what, exactly?

    That somehow I really truly believe that Congress can transform the National Guard into a militia as in the 2nd by defining it as among the militia referred to by some statute, and I"m just saying that's silly to pull your chain?

    Bottom line: when you're done, the 2nd Amendment remains. The word "militia" appears in it, employed for its meaning by the writers of the Constitution as they were writing it. Anything enacted by Congress that actually conflicts with this meaning is null and void, by the fundamental agreements under which this country was founded. Likewise with the terms "the people", "arms", and so forth. So until it's amended you're stuck with it - the meaning of it.

    And the attempts to disengage the words from their meanings as written, or even to dismiss them completely; the public effort to hand transitory legislators under the sway of the fears and corruptions and passing obsessions of the day the power to alter this meaning as they see fit, or ignore it completely, are threats. They occupy an extremist position, which in synchrony with the extremist position on the "other side" has trashed public discussion of gun control in the US.

    Given that, one of the obvious approaches to reducing gun violence in the US, and in particular school shootings, is at least temporarily and partially blocked. Fortunately, others exist. I listed a few, far from exhaustively, in which genuine discussion appears possible. Any takers?
     
  18. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,820
    Your lie is that the National Guard isn't our militia when Congress and the U. S. government has precisely defined it as such. No amount of obfuscation and semantic parsing is going to change this fact. So quit lying.
     
  19. Saturnine Pariah Hell is other people Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,072
  20. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,820
    There's no way we're going to stop this shit without background checks on people for mental illness and criminal history. There just isn't. General recommendations for better mental health care from the right don't mean anything because nobody can force these depressed ideologically motived young males to admit they have a problem much less to see a doctor. There's always a fresh crop of mentally disturbed young men filling the ranks of potential mass murderers that are not on the radar yet. The only way we can make a dent in that is restrict access to guns. "Are you on medications for depression, bipolarism, or schizophrenia? BZZZZ! Sorry! No gun for you!"
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,276
    Almost universal agreement there - only the wingnuts on the "one side" oppose background checks in principle.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Correct, but we need to let linguists and historians tell us the meaning of those words when written, not some one with no special expertize, but huge ego, telling that his 2015 interpretation is the only correct one.

    In post 66, I quoted about seven more qualified authors of papers /articles, basically to show that the word "militia" as used by the constitution writers referred to a group of local men, who owned arms, and routinely trained under state appointed officers, typically more educated, elite members of the community or near by ones. Usually the state had laws describing requirements for the militia. It definitely was not a nationally established armed force. - The states were quite suspicious of any central authority.

    One of the main reasons for states creating their militias was to protect themselves from national authority abusing its power. They made sure there was the 2nd amendment in the Constitution (and nine other) guarantees of their and their population's rights. IE, if some power was not specifically given to the federal government, it was reserved for the states, and they could each use that reserved power differently if they liked.

    Here is a summary of the Bill of rights. All 10 place limits on the federal government. None authorize it to do anything.
    From: http://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~jdalbey/Public/Bill_of_Rights.html

    1 Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
    2 Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
    3 No quartering of soldiers.
    4 Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
    5 Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
    6 Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
    7 Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
    8 Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.
    9 Other rights of the people.
    10 Powers reserved to the states.


    PS, What do you think "well regulated" means if not regulated by state laws?
    Hint: A militia is NOT just a bunch of men who own guns. That is what US has today and is more than 100 times more fatale to Americans than all the terrorists are. IMHO, we need to restore in full the 2nd amendment, not ignore the second half of it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  23. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    How many of the school shootings were people on meds for the above?
     

Share This Page