More school shootings (but now's not the time to talk about it)

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Why aren't you screaming about judges who refuse to enforce gun laws?  No comment on the HS basketball player recently CONVICTED of ARMED ROBBERY, yet is still allowed to play HIGH SCHOOL basketball because he hasn't been sentenced.

How about this.  Criminals have been allowed to get away with gun crimes for so long, they don't give a damn.   How is that for the answer?  You want to weaken the justice system.  Continue to pass laws that you have no intention of enforcing.

I have no idea what the case you are referring to is all about or why the ruling was what it was.  Can you link to a reference to it?  I do know I am extremely wary of using an anecdotal instance to proclaim a universal such as "judges are refusing to enforce gun laws".

And I have no idea what " You want to weaken the justice system" is supposed to mean.  Who wants to weaken it?  Claiming that "liberals" what to "weaken the justice system" and while wanting stricter gun laws is nonsensical and contradictory shouting.

[rocket surgeon]

Wow! That was delicious Benny, Lenny and rara-you realize you're the one-legged men in the ass kickin contest right?  I'm just gonna sit back and watch-wish ya'll well

[Mutaman]

If only everyone could be more polarizing, categorizing and divisive, we would be more apt to working together to solve issues, right?

Jockey, I'm sorry to be the one that has to break it to you, but you appear to be no liberal.  Liberals are peaceful, tolerant and inclusive while you are simply acting like some vengeful mirror image of an alt-right neo-nazi.

Alt-right or alt-left, you're all wrong.

Jockey takes the position that "Common sense should rule this issue." and that makes him one of those hated "leftists" , polarizing, categorizing and divisive?

[Benny B]

Jockey takes the position that "Common sense should rule this issue." and that makes him one of those hated "leftists" , polarizing, categorizing and divisive?

If only "Common sense should rule this issue" was all that was written, you would have a valid point.  Unfortunately, it was not.

Until the "with us or against us" garbage stops, solutions will elude society.  But that (solutions) is not what politics are about these days, right... it's about sticking it to the other side, calling them names, fostering FUD, etc.  After all, what better way to motivate people to go out and vote than appealing to emotions of hatred and anger?

Now does everyone understand why voting should be compulsory, or do all y'all want to go on with your dance of suppression veiled in skepticism?

[Golden Avalanche]

Typical of all you guys.

You don't answer any of my legitimate points.  How long has the USA been adding gun laws?  How is that working?

This is the way liberals answer any issue.  Good intentions are the only thing that counts. 

Why aren't you screaming about judges who refuse to enforce gun laws?  No comment on the HS basketball player recently CONVICTED of ARMED ROBBERY, yet is still allowed to play HIGH SCHOOL basketball because he hasn't been sentenced.

How about this.  Criminals have been allowed to get away with gun crimes for so long, they don't give a damn.   How is that for the answer?  You want to weaken the justice system.  Continue to pass laws that you have no intention of enforcing.

I'm done.  I know the vocal minority will be all over me.  The silent majority that agrees with me has the brains to ignore your weak arguments.

I assumed this pent up frustration was written during a weekend of bad faith publicity stunting by your tribe but then the time stamp showed you were already quite agitated before the weekend of bad faith publicity stunting by your tribe. That's a tough double dose to swallow.

[mu-rara]

https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/high-schools/2018/01/30/basketball-standout-deontay-long-pleads-guilty/1080936001/

[Jockey]

Jockey takes the position that "Common sense should rule this issue." and that makes him one of those hated "leftists" , polarizing, categorizing and divisive?

Benny, for some reason, gets a kick out of attacking me.

I am rather amused by how he can come up with so many ways to say the same thing. That is something most cannot do. He is a true "artiste".

[Mutaman]

Benny, for some reason, gets a kick out of attacking me.

I am rather amused by how he can come up with so many ways to say the same thing. That is something most cannot do. He is a true "artiste".

Benny appears to be one of those big false equivalency guys.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/high-schools/2018/01/30/basketball-standout-deontay-long-pleads-guilty/1080936001/

Thank you for the link.  Based on the article, I don't understand your point that judges aren't enforcing gun laws or the claim about wanting to weaken the judicial system.  Per the article, "The district attorney recommended four years of confinement and four years of extended supervision. Judge Pedro Colon will offer the final say on Long's sentence at the sentencing hearing March 28."

The judge won't even rule on the length of the sentence until March.  How is that "refusing to enforce gun laws"??

If you are upset that he is still playing basketball in the meantime, I think you need to look at the school that is allowing it.    But again, I don't see how this kid's situation says anything about enforcement of gun laws.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

OK, I looked up a few more articles on this.  Take it for what it is worth since it is coming from the admitted robber, but he says it was a BB gun and belonged to one of the other robbers.

I will admit, I am not all that concerned about enforcing laws around BB gun possession. Does that qualify me as "wanting to weaken the judicial system"?

[mu03eng]

I will say this about the gun issue, while I do think there are several common sense changes/additions to gun laws that could be made the idea that adding laws will solve the problem is somewhat laughable. It seems to be the people who do bad things with guns come in two categories: bad actors that don't care about laws (armed criminals, etc) and mentally unstable people. New laws aren't going to stop the former and the latter are typically getting guns via legal means (family owned or purchased legally). A significant majority of new laws would simply impact already law abiding citizens. Pragmatically it doesn't move the needle.

If I were to make any changes it would be around the dealer network and punishment for gun crimes. Eliminating loop holes and forcing dealers to take on the burden of making sure guns get into the "right" hands is something that might work while not limiting law abiding citizens access to guns. Also, it's insane that someone can serve a longer sentence for dealing weed than if the commit armed robbery. I would decriminalize pot and I would significantly ramp up mandatory sentencing for crimes involving guns.

[Benny B]

Benny appears to be one of those big false equivalency guys.

Without going overboard on the nuance, my business is analogues, not equivalencies.  But for those who see their own respective worlds as black and white (read: not race but rather the representations of everything and nothing on the visual spectrum), allow me to put this into universally understood terms*:

|Jockey & Muta| = |Chicos & Heisy|

That's not art, that's math (which is more science than science itself).



* Universally understood, that is, by anyone who passed 7th grade math.

[Pakuni]

I will say this about the gun issue, while I do think there are several common sense changes/additions to gun laws that could be made the idea that adding laws will solve the problem is somewhat laughable. It seems to be the people who do bad things with guns come in two categories: bad actors that don't care about laws (armed criminals, etc) and mentally unstable people. New laws aren't going to stop the former and the latter are typically getting guns via legal means (family owned or purchased legally). A significant majority of new laws would simply impact already law abiding citizens. Pragmatically it doesn't move the needle.

If I were to make any changes it would be around the dealer network and punishment for gun crimes. Eliminating loop holes and forcing dealers to take on the burden of making sure guns get into the "right" hands is something that might work while not limiting law abiding citizens access to guns. Also, it's insane that someone can serve a longer sentence for dealing weed than if the commit armed robbery. I would decriminalize pot and I would significantly ramp up mandatory sentencing for crimes involving guns.

I don't mean to be caustic toward you in particular because you're a completely reasonable person, but I am so flippin' tired of the lame a-- argument that since stricter gun control measures won't prevent a deranged/evil/insane person from committing a mass shooting, then we shouldn't bother.
A law doesn't have to eliminate every single act it targets to be effective. In fact, it could eliminate zero acts and still be entirely worthwhile.

A law banning bump stocks or individual ownership beyond a certain number of rifles may not have stopped Stephen Paddock from shooting up a country music concert in Las Vegas, but maybe instead of 57 killed and more than 800 injured, there's 15 killed and 150 injured. Are those 42 spared lives less important than Stephen Paddock's "right"to an arsenal?

A law banning civilian ownership of weapons like an AR-15 (which serves no real civilian purpose other than killing humans) may not have stopped a couple of terrorists from attacking a holiday party in San Bernardino, but wouldn't they have been less effective with handguns or hunting rifles? And aren't those lives worth it?

A law limiting clip size may not have prevented James Holmes from shooting up a movie theater in Colorado, but I bet he wouldn't have been able to shoot 71 people in less than two minutes. Again, what matters more, gun nuts' non-existent need for extended clips or lives?

To me, this all comes down to what's your bigger priority: Human lives, or appeasing a small but vocal group of gun owners who build arsenals to overcompensate for their small weiners and fragile masculinity.
You want a gun to hunt, shoot targets or "protect" your home, business or person? Go for it. Plenty of rifles and handguns out there that are more than adequate for the job.
You afraid the "gubmint" gonna take away your right to stockpile instruments of mass death? Tough. My kids' lives, my neighbors' lives, my life matters more than your irrationality.

[Mutaman]

Without going overboard on the nuance, my business is analogues, not equivalencies.  But for those who see their own respective worlds as black and white (read: not race but rather the representations of everything and nothing on the visual spectrum), allow me to put this into universally understood terms*:

|Jockey & Muta| = |Chicos & Heisy|

That's not art, that's math (which is more science than science itself).



* Universally understood, that is, by anyone who passed 7th grade math.

Let me try to translate this into english: In Benny's world calling the Trump/NRA crowd "fools" and "traitors" is the equivalent of putting a white sheet over your head and burning crosses. Ok.
You can have the last word buddy.

[MU82]

Much respect to both mu03 and Pakuni for the good conversation.

I agree with both to a degree, and I like some of mu03's common-sense suggestions, but I hew more toward Pakuni's overall view on the "guns won't stop it all so let's not bother" argument some throw out there.

Rape laws don't stop all rapes, either!

I continue to be amazed that the same people who are against abortion rights because "every single life is precious" don't have a similar view on gun legislation that could do just what Pakuni says - save some lives.

[rocket surgeon]

Much respect to both mu03 and Pakuni for the good conversation.

I agree with both to a degree, and I like some of mu03's common-sense suggestions, but I hew more toward Pakuni's overall view on the "guns won't stop it all so let's not bother" argument some throw out there.

Rape laws don't stop all rapes, either!

I continue to be amazed that the same people who are against abortion rights because "every single life is precious" don't have a similar view on gun legislation that could do just what Pakuni says - save some lives.

I was re-reading the constitution and maybe someone can help me out here if I missed something, but I didn't see anything in there about abortion rights or rape rights

Gotta vote

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I was re-reading the constitution and maybe someone can help me out here if I missed something, but I didn't see anything in there about abortion rights or rape rights

Gotta vote

People seem to skip over the "a well regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment. But that aside, in your reading of the Constitution, did you detect any limits to gun ownership enumerated in the Second Amendment?

[rocket surgeon]

People seem to skip over the "a well regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment. But that aside, in your reading of the Constitution, did you detect any limits to gun ownership enumerated in the Second Amendment?

Just vote, eyn'a?  Vote for whoever runs on throwing out the 2nd amendment...good luck to you

Btw, anything in there about abortion and rape?  V-O-T-E

[naginiF]

Just vote, eyn'a?  Vote for whoever runs on throwing out the 2nd amendment...good luck to you

Btw, anything in there about abortion and rape?  V-O-T-E

A) nobody has ever said 'throw out the 2nd amendment' on Scoop.  And in the political sphere, politicians are not trying to 'throw out the 2nd amendment' (i'm sure there is a quote somewhere, by someone, that somehow can be twisted to be construed as a platform)....just stop murdering our children. 

B) that's a toxic '3 parts Heisy, 2 parts Chico's' cocktail you're drinking there. 

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Just vote, eyn'a?  Vote for whoever runs on throwing out the 2nd amendment...good luck to you

Btw, anything in there about abortion and rape?  V-O-T-E

So you didn't answer--is there any limit to gun ownership based on your reading of the Second Amendment?

And correct me if I'm interpreting your statement wrong, but are you saying gun ownership laws are more important than laws about rape because the former is addressed in the Constitution whereas the latter is not specifically called out?  Can you point me to the section of the Constitution that mentions laws about murder?

[mu03eng]

I don't mean to be caustic toward you in particular because you're a completely reasonable person, but I am so flippin' tired of the lame a-- argument that since stricter gun control measures won't prevent a deranged/evil/insane person from committing a mass shooting, then we shouldn't bother.
A law doesn't have to eliminate every single act it targets to be effective. In fact, it could eliminate zero acts and still be entirely worthwhile.

A law banning bump stocks or individual ownership beyond a certain number of rifles may not have stopped Stephen Paddock from shooting up a country music concert in Las Vegas, but maybe instead of 57 killed and more than 800 injured, there's 15 killed and 150 injured. Are those 42 spared lives less important than Stephen Paddock's "right"to an arsenal?

A law banning civilian ownership of weapons like an AR-15 (which serves no real civilian purpose other than killing humans) may not have stopped a couple of terrorists from attacking a holiday party in San Bernardino, but wouldn't they have been less effective with handguns or hunting rifles? And aren't those lives worth it?

A law limiting clip size may not have prevented James Holmes from shooting up a movie theater in Colorado, but I bet he wouldn't have been able to shoot 71 people in less than two minutes. Again, what matters more, gun nuts' non-existent need for extended clips or lives?

To me, this all comes down to what's your bigger priority: Human lives, or appeasing a small but vocal group of gun owners who build arsenals to overcompensate for their small weiners and fragile masculinity.
You want a gun to hunt, shoot targets or "protect" your home, business or person? Go for it. Plenty of rifles and handguns out there that are more than adequate for the job.
You afraid the "gubmint" gonna take away your right to stockpile instruments of mass death? Tough. My kids' lives, my neighbors' lives, my life matters more than your irrationality.

Yeah I meant literal gun laws. Limiting clip size or eliminating bump stocks or limiting scopes (no need for an ACOG sight, etc) make perfect sense, can be easily defined and enforced. I do have a tougher time with something like an AR15 simply because you (legal you, not literal you) can't define why/what makes an AR15 versus any other semi-auto long rifle.

[Mutaman]

Just vote, eyn'a?  Vote for whoever runs on throwing out the 2nd amendment...good luck to you

Btw, anything in there about abortion and rape?  V-O-T-E

The "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

[MU82]

Just vote, eyn'a?  Vote for whoever runs on throwing out the 2nd amendment...good luck to you

Btw, anything in there about abortion and rape?  V-O-T-E

So ... because there's nothing in the Constitution about rape being wrong, that means your official position is that rape is good?

Excellent to know!

[rocket surgeon]

"I continue to be amazed that the same people who are against abortion rights because "every single life is precious" don't have a similar view on gun legislation that could do just what Pakuni says - save some lives."

Speaking of saving lives...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/02/04/he-bought-a-gun-to-protect-his-family-then-he-saw-someone-beating-up-a-cop/?utm_term=.2a78655f0b96


82 conflated the other 2(rape and abortion) I didn't.  They are 2 separate I topics that I don't feel need to be nor should be discussed with regards to the 2nd amendment,unless it has something to do with protecting one from rape.  Then yes, guns are good. 

I can respect someone's fear of guns as long as they respect my right to have and/or carry just as Oprah's body guards do

[rocket surgeon]

So ... because there's nothing in the Constitution about rape being wrong, that means your official position is that rape is good?

Excellent to know!

Seriously?  It's got to be getting late out there in charlotte.  You know better than that 82