Common Sense Gun Control

[houndawg]

As AZ stated, carrying concealed isn't a Constitutional right.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Is it an infringement to limit the definition of "arms"?

If semi-automatics are ok, why not full automatics? If full automatics are ok, why not bazookas, RPGs, etc.? If you can draw a line, where should it be drawn and how do you justify it?

The second amendment was written by people that planned to "avoid standing armies and foreign entanglements". The amendment became unnecessary when we adopted standing armies and when our well-regulated militias began using arms provided by the government rather than providing their own weapon as was the custom at the time of the founding fathers.

[Ibanez]

I realize I'm extremely jaded but I don't believe there's any real desire on either side to solve the hard issues. That goes for guns, Social Security, budgets, etc...

I think amending the Constitution to reflect modern challenges works. Sometimes we get it wrong (Prohibition) but sometimes we get it right (13th amendment).We've been doing it since 1795 (94?) with the 11th amendment, roughly 4years after the Constitution was ratified.

Sometimes we're very late on ratifying them, the 27th Amendment was first ratified by some states in the 1790s and not completely ratified until the 1990s.

I get what you’re saying, but I say we’be been amending it since 1791..

1787 written
1788 ratified
1789 in effect
1791 began amending (1st 10 amendments).

I was starting with the 11th Amendment but I see your logic. I considered the Bill of Rights to be the benchmark. It's good to see you admit the Constitution is a living document due to it's amendments.

[Ibanez]

It doesn't but who am I to say that someone shouldn't make that decision for themselves if they've been raped.

I'm as hypocritical as those gun and bible toting Christians that want to ban abortion but are ok with the death penalty. Pro-life shouldn't have exceptions, IMO. You're either for preserving all life or you aren't.

Not the same thing. Do better.

No, it is. A life is a life.

[Winterborn]

Right, because killing them in the womb is fine. Killing them after is a crime. Makes perfect sense.

It doesn't but who am I to say that someone shouldn't make that decision for themselves if they've been raped.

I'm as hypocritical as those gun and bible toting Christians that want to ban abortion but are ok with the death penalty. Pro-life shouldn't have exceptions, IMO. You're either for preserving all life or you aren't.

Another topic where we disagree.

Having the death penalty is very different than apposing abortion. One is a life that has not had a chance to make any choice or say in the matter (rape represents less than a half of 1% of all pregnancies and actually might be less but it has been sometime since I looked at the numbers), the other is an adult who made a conscience choice to do something horrible (i.e. multiple murders, etc.). That conscience choice forfeits your right to life.

For those that say they need proof beyond a shadow of doubt to convict for the dealt penalty, what does that level of proof look like?

[Ibanez]

It doesn't but who am I to say that someone shouldn't make that decision for themselves if they've been raped.

I'm as hypocritical as those gun and bible toting Christians that want to ban abortion but are ok with the death penalty. Pro-life shouldn't have exceptions, IMO. You're either for preserving all life or you aren't.

Another topic where we disagree.

Having the death penalty is very different than apposing abortion. One is a life that has not had a chance to make any choice or say in the matter (rape represents less than a half of 1% of all pregnancies and actually might be less but it has been sometime since I looked at the numbers), the other is an adult who made a conscience choice to do something horrible.

For those that say they need proof beyond a shadow of doubt to convict for the dealt penalty, what does that level of proof look like?

That's fine. We can disagree. I'm still going to buy a beer or 2 when you're in town.

I understand the differences but at the end of the day, it's a life. And as much as I probably didn't realize it, it's my Catholic upbringing that's brought me to that. Only God can take a life. I used to be a "firing squad is the most cost efficient way to kill convicts" kind of person but i've changed.

Besides, it's not as if the Death Penalty is effective...people are still committing awful crimes knowing that it's a possibility.

[Baldy]

Not the same thing. Do better.

No, it is. A life is a life.

Then a gun is just a gun...

[Winterborn]

Another topic where we disagree.

Having the death penalty is very different than apposing abortion. One is a life that has not had a chance to make any choice or say in the matter (rape represents less than a half of 1% of all pregnancies and actually might be less but it has been sometime since I looked at the numbers), the other is an adult who made a conscience choice to do something horrible.

For those that say they need proof beyond a shadow of doubt to convict for the dealt penalty, what does that level of proof look like?

That's fine. We can disagree. I'm still going to buy a beer or 2 when you're in town.

I understand the differences but at the end of the day, it's a life. And as much as I probably didn't realize it, it's my Catholic upbringing that's brought me to that. Only God can take a life. I used to be a "firing squad is the most cost efficient way to kill convicts" kind of person but i've changed.

Besides, it's not as if the Death Penalty is effective...people are still committing awful crimes knowing that it's a possibility.

Well I think I can put up with you long enough to drink a beer or two.

I do not disagree on the life is life point. There is multiple points in the Bible where God allowed the Jews to take a life. Now I do not agree with all of those (and I think the NT backs up that not all of the OT cases are valid though some of Jesus's sermons) but others I am for. I used to be on the fence to light supporter of it, but that has changed slightly with what I have been doing the past few years. Mainly due to the fact that I have seen and been around more legal cases that are truly horrific and there is zero remorse for what they have done (which is why I asked what people think beyond a shadow of a doubt is).

And we execute so few and so long after the crime (less than 25 per year for the last 5 years), I do not think one can draw a statistical conclusion based on that number. But I am open for a discussion on it and prepared to change my mind. And me changing my mind takes much less than what I typically portray. Usually I will argue vehemently for a point until the other side is just about to give in (or walk away in a huff) and then say that they brought up some very good points and I am in more agreement than disagreement.

[Ibanez]

That's fine. We can disagree. I'm still going to buy a beer or 2 when you're in town.

I understand the differences but at the end of the day, it's a life. And as much as I probably didn't realize it, it's my Catholic upbringing that's brought me to that. Only God can take a life. I used to be a "firing squad is the most cost efficient way to kill convicts" kind of person but i've changed.

Besides, it's not as if the Death Penalty is effective...people are still committing awful crimes knowing that it's a possibility.

Well I think I can put up with you long enough to drink a beer or two.

I do not disagree on the life is life point. There is multiple points in the Bible where God allowed the Jews to take a life. Now I do not agree with all of those (and I think the NT backs up that not all of the OT cases are valid though some of Jesus's sermons) but others I am for. I used to be on the fence to light supporter of it, but that has changed slightly with what I have been doing the past few years. Mainly due to the fact that I have seen and been around more legal cases that are truly horrific and there is zero remorse for what they have done (which is why I asked what people think beyond a shadow of a doubt is).

And we execute so few and so long after the crime (less than 25 per year for the last 5 years), I do not think one can draw a statistical conclusion based on that number. But I am open for a discussion on it and prepared to change my mind. And me changing my mind takes much less than what I typically portray. Usually I will argue vehemently for a point until the other side is just about to give in (or walk away in a huff) and then say that they brought up some very good points and I am in more agreement than disagreement.

Your experience has value and gives a better understanding of why you believe the things you do. I think you can make the argument that since God commanded the Jews to kill, then it was acceptable. They are just obeying their God. Which sounds batshit crazy but hey, that's where we are.

As I understand, even 1 aborted baby is 1 too many for the pro-life supporters. Why should we rationalize the death penalty based off the quantity?


I'm not sure we'll agree 100% on this, and that's fine, we don't need to. We both understand each others positions and I still have respect (and a small dash of love) for you. So really, the bigger question is when are you returning to CLT b/c I got some OG southern BBQ for you to try.

[Ibanez]

No, it is. A life is a life.

Then a gun is just a gun...

You're still killing something, you've only rationalized it in your head that some are worth saving over others. The logic makes sense to me, someone had committed a heinous, vile crime and they a jury has decided they aren't worthy of life as they are so far outside of societal norms and are in fact a danger to society. But God didn't command, " Thou Shalt Not Kill..unless they're truly evil." If the pro-life group wants to use Judeo-Christian beliefs as their moral compass, which the vast majority of the due let's be honest, then their support of the death penalty is a contradiction.

[AZGrizFan]

Then a gun is just a gun...

You're still killing something, you've only rationalized it in your head that some are worth saving over others. The logic makes sense to me, someone had committed a heinous, vile crime and they a jury has decided they aren't worthy of life as they are so far outside of societal norms and are in fact a danger to society. But God didn't command, " Thou Shalt Not Kill..unless they're truly evil." If the pro-life group wants to use Judeo-Christian beliefs as their moral compass, which the vast majority of the due let's be honest, then their support of the death penalty is a contradiction.

You’re comparing something that impacts 5 people a year, to something that impacts 600,000.

And are you telling me that you wouldn’t pull the trigger on that fuck if you were given the opportunity? I damned sure know I would, and I’d sleep just fine at night with that “moral dilemma”.

[kalm]

Another topic where we disagree.

Having the death penalty is very different than apposing abortion. One is a life that has not had a chance to make any choice or say in the matter (rape represents less than a half of 1% of all pregnancies and actually might be less but it has been sometime since I looked at the numbers), the other is an adult who made a conscience choice to do something horrible.

For those that say they need proof beyond a shadow of doubt to convict for the dealt penalty, what does that level of proof look like?

That's fine. We can disagree. I'm still going to buy a beer or 2 when you're in town.

I understand the differences but at the end of the day, it's a life. And as much as I probably didn't realize it, it's my Catholic upbringing that's brought me to that. Only God can take a life. I used to be a "firing squad is the most cost efficient way to kill convicts" kind of person but i've changed.

Besides, it's not as if the Death Penalty is effective...people are still committing awful crimes knowing that it's a possibility.

I agree. Taking a life outside of self defense is wrong whether it’s a private actor or the state.

If the justification is punishment or revenge…

“The best revenge is to not be like your enemy”

- Marcus Aurellius

[Ibanez]

You're still killing something, you've only rationalized it in your head that some are worth saving over others. The logic makes sense to me, someone had committed a heinous, vile crime and they a jury has decided they aren't worthy of life as they are so far outside of societal norms and are in fact a danger to society. But God didn't command, " Thou Shalt Not Kill..unless they're truly evil." If the pro-life group wants to use Judeo-Christian beliefs as their moral compass, which the vast majority of the due let's be honest, then their support of the death penalty is a contradiction.

You’re comparing something that impacts 5 people a year, to something that impacts 600,000.

And are you telling me that you wouldn’t pull the trigger on that fuck if you were given the opportunity? I damned sure know I would, and I’d sleep just fine at night with that “moral dilemma”.

Why does the number matter? You're still killing someone.

[AZGrizFan]

You’re comparing something that impacts 5 people a year, to something that impacts 600,000.

And are you telling me that you wouldn’t pull the trigger on that fuck if you were given the opportunity? I damned sure know I would, and I’d sleep just fine at night with that “moral dilemma”.

Why does the number matter? You're still killing someone.

Scale. It’s not that complicated. it’s like worrying about school kids being killed when over 100 people a DAY are dying from fentanyl OD as it pours across our southern border. Ask yourself (deep introspection) why nobody bothers talking about THOSE people? Or the 50-100 people who get shot in Chicago literally EVERY weekend?

Never mind….rhetorical question….its not politically expedient. Doesn’t move a voter’s needle.

It’s not about the DEATHS. it’s about how those deaths can/cannot be leveraged to gain votes. That’s why fucktards like Beta do what they do.

And you never answered my question. Would you, or would you not, pull the trigger given the chance?

[kalm]

[Winterborn]

Well I think I can put up with you long enough to drink a beer or two.

I do not disagree on the life is life point. There is multiple points in the Bible where God allowed the Jews to take a life. Now I do not agree with all of those (and I think the NT backs up that not all of the OT cases are valid though some of Jesus's sermons) but others I am for. I used to be on the fence to light supporter of it, but that has changed slightly with what I have been doing the past few years. Mainly due to the fact that I have seen and been around more legal cases that are truly horrific and there is zero remorse for what they have done (which is why I asked what people think beyond a shadow of a doubt is).

And we execute so few and so long after the crime (less than 25 per year for the last 5 years), I do not think one can draw a statistical conclusion based on that number. But I am open for a discussion on it and prepared to change my mind. And me changing my mind takes much less than what I typically portray. Usually I will argue vehemently for a point until the other side is just about to give in (or walk away in a huff) and then say that they brought up some very good points and I am in more agreement than disagreement.

Your experience has value and gives a better understanding of why you believe the things you do. I think you can make the argument that since God commanded the Jews to kill, then it was acceptable. They are just obeying their God. Which sounds batshit crazy but hey, that's where we are.

As I understand, even 1 aborted baby is 1 too many for the pro-life supporters. Why should we rationalize the death penalty based off the quantity?


I'm not sure we'll agree 100% on this, and that's fine, we don't need to. We both understand each others positions and I still have respect (and a small dash of love) for you. So really, the bigger question is when are you returning to CLT b/c I got some OG southern BBQ for you to try.

We probably don't and as a result we should sit down over some adult beverages and have a good debate. Too bad Ivy isn't around, as he could play arbitrator for us. And the respect goes both ways.

And the answer to your question is June 15-17 but I will be traveling with my boss, so not sure if I can escape of not. I am putting on a "Train the Trainer" event for a big client of ours and it promises to be a busy few days. I have another potential one in July/August time frame but not sure on the details yet.

[BDKJMU]

I get what you’re saying, but I say we’be been amending it since 1791..

1787 written
1788 ratified
1789 in effect
1791 began amending (1st 10 amendments).

I was starting with the 11th Amendment but I see your logic. I considered the Bill of Rights to be the benchmark. It's good to see you admit the Constitution is a living document due to it's amendments.

Nope. It is dead, dead, dead.

[kalm]

I was starting with the 11th Amendment but I see your logic. I considered the Bill of Rights to be the benchmark. It's good to see you admit the Constitution is a living document due to it's amendments.

Nope. It is dead, dead, dead.

So everyone who is not a member of an organized militia needs to turn in their guns…immediately!

[houndawg]

After 9/11we secured the cockpit. Let's spend the money to really secure the schools.

Can't, Ukraine needs it.

When the Straw Man doesn't work, segue over to the false dichotomy....nice

[houndawg]

That's fine. We can disagree. I'm still going to buy a beer or 2 when you're in town.

I understand the differences but at the end of the day, it's a life. And as much as I probably didn't realize it, it's my Catholic upbringing that's brought me to that. Only God can take a life. I used to be a "firing squad is the most cost efficient way to kill convicts" kind of person but i've changed.

Besides, it's not as if the Death Penalty is effective...people are still committing awful crimes knowing that it's a possibility.

I agree. Taking a life outside of self defense is wrong whether it’s a private actor or the state.

If the justification is punishment or revenge…

“The best revenge is to not be like your enemy”

- Marcus Aurellius

Absolutely! And after I get my revenge I will take it to heart.

[UNI88]

Can't, Ukraine needs it.

When the Straw Man doesn't work, segue over to the false dichotomy....nice

So let's embrace the kiss of debt and just print "the money to really secure the schools."

[Col Hogan]

When the Straw Man doesn't work, segue over to the false dichotomy....nice

So let's embrace the kiss of debt and just print "the money to really secure the schools."

Or, how about this. We rack and stack all federal expenditures. We rank order them from 1 to n. We then look at how much income we have. We then add school security near the top of that 1 to n ranking.

Are you with me?

We take the amount of income that we have, compare it to the 1 to n ranking list, THEN WACK OFF ANYTHING that falls below the amount of income we have.

No more printing needed.

[kalm]

When the Straw Man doesn't work, segue over to the false dichotomy....nice

So let's embrace the kiss of debt and just print "the money to really secure the schools."

We have given UKR, what…about 10% of our ANNUAL defense budget?

We fund local LE to the teeth with guns, tactical teams, and 10 gallon hats so that they are checked by one guy with an AR15 while moms are rushing in ahead of them to rescue her kids.

Does this have something to do with why there are no slogans of ACAB and “fuck the police” regarding paramedics and firefighters?

Just curious…

[AZGrizFan]

So let's embrace the kiss of debt and just print "the money to really secure the schools."

We have given UKR, what…about 10% of our ANNUAL defense budget?

We fund local LE to the teeth with guns, tactical teams, and 10 gallon hats so that they are checked by one guy with an AR15 while moms are rushing in ahead of them to rescue her kids.

Does this have something to do with why there are no slogans of ACAB and “fuck the police” regarding paramedics and firefighters?

Just curious…

I’m not going to sit here and say that the police didn’t fuck up majorly in this particular instance. MAJORLY. Standing around for an hour with an armed gunman in the school, and then arresting parents who tried to actually do something? NOT a good look. And I am NOT a fan of arming teachers (but I AM a fan of giving them the option if so desired). But it wouldn’t cost that much to deploy the following multi-layer security strategy (maybe the cost of 1 administrator salary per year):

Fence every school property - and not with useless chain link (like they are here in San Antonio), but with something substantial (8-10 feet with barbed wire/razor wire on top) that would stop/deter/slow down/prevent entry of undesirables
Lock down during school day - closed campus strategy, which has been employed by many school districts for years
Restrict/funnel entry to a single control point (with metal detectors) to prevent wanderers from gaining access
Require buzzing in visitors through gate after presentation of proper ID
Armed SRO’s on site during school hours manning the point of entry/security cameras & a roaming guard (probably the most expensive part of any long-term solution)
Centralized Artificial Intelligence/security camera system to show restricted view areas
Classroom doors that are fire rated and that automatically lock from inside when shut
Exterior doors retrofit with automatic locking mechanism and only openable from inside when threat detected (some kind of lockdown capability from remote points)
Barricade bars/door wedges provided in every classroom to help prevent undesired entry should someone breach the other layers of security

I know the standard lib argument: WE DON’T WANT TO TURN THEM INTO PRISONS!! Well, that’s just a retarded argument. We already have a NUMBER of things we do around schools to ensure safety and security — special speed limits (usually with zero tolerance from the cops frequently onsite), cops directing morning and afternoon traffic, crossing guards, SRO’s, etc., etc. The money we just sent to Ukraine could have sent $400,000 to every school in America. That pays for a SHITLOAD of more security. We CHOOSE to secure our banks, jewelry stores, sporting events, music events, politicians, celebrities, etc., etc….When was the last sporting event or concert you went to where you didn’t have to empty your pockets and go through a metal detector? NOT securing our schools is a choice.

It’s just not rocket science. Hell, fund this with the money taken from police forces, I don’t give a shit. They’re obviously not interested in risking their lives, given that they’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t. And every single one of these would be more effective than another useless “common sense gun control” law that won’t stop a thing. So again, ask yourselves WHY don’t they do these things?

Spoiler: show

VOTES

[kalm]

We have given UKR, what…about 10% of our ANNUAL defense budget?

We fund local LE to the teeth with guns, tactical teams, and 10 gallon hats so that they are checked by one guy with an AR15 while moms are rushing in ahead of them to rescue her kids.

Does this have something to do with why there are no slogans of ACAB and “fuck the police” regarding paramedics and firefighters?

Just curious…

I’m not going to sit here and say that the police didn’t fuck up majorly in this particular instance. MAJORLY. Standing around for an hour with an armed gunman in the school, and then arresting parents who tried to actually do something? NOT a good look. And I am NOT a fan of arming teachers (but I AM a fan of giving them the option if so desired). But it wouldn’t cost that much to deploy the following multi-layer security strategy (maybe the cost of 1 administrator salary per year):

Fence every school property - and not with useless chain link (like they are here in San Antonio), but with something substantial (8-10 feet with barbed wire/razor wire on top) that would stop/deter/slow down/prevent entry of undesirables
Lock down during school day - closed campus strategy, which has been employed by many school districts for years
Restrict/funnel entry to a single control point (with metal detectors) to prevent wanderers from gaining access
Require buzzing in visitors through gate after presentation of proper ID
Armed SRO’s on site during school hours manning the point of entry/security cameras & a roaming guard (probably the most expensive part of any long-term solution)
Centralized Artificial Intelligence/security camera system to show restricted view areas
Classroom doors that are fire rated and that automatically lock from inside when shut
Exterior doors retrofit with automatic locking mechanism and only openable from inside when threat detected (some kind of lockdown capability from remote points)
Barricade bars/door wedges provided in every classroom to help prevent undesired entry should someone breach the other layers of security

I know the standard lib argument: WE DON’T WANT TO TURN THEM INTO PRISONS!! Well, that’s just a retarded argument. We already have a NUMBER of things we do around schools to ensure safety and security — special speed limits (usually with zero tolerance from the cops frequently onsite), cops directing morning and afternoon traffic, crossing guards, SRO’s, etc., etc. The money we just sent to Ukraine could have sent $400,000 to every school in America. That pays for a SHITLOAD of more security. We CHOOSE to secure our banks, jewelry stores, sporting events, music events, politicians, celebrities, etc., etc….When was the last sporting event or concert you went to where you didn’t have to empty your pockets and go through a metal detector? NOT securing our schools is a choice.

It’s just not rocket science. Hell, fund this with the money taken from police forces, I don’t give a shit. They’re obviously not interested in risking their lives, given that they’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t. And every single one of these would be more effective than another useless “common sense gun control” law that won’t stop a thing. So again, ask yourselves WHY don’t they do these things?

Spoiler: show

VOTES

I agree.

[BDKJMU]

Nope. It is dead, dead, dead.

So everyone who is not a member of an organized militia needs to turn in their guns…immediately!

Wrong. Well reguated 18th century means proficiency in arms.