now a semi-automatic is a wmd ? lol

Today the President created a taskforce headed by Joe Biden to come up with gun control legislation ...... yes this Joe Biden

Biden and his Beretta - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XcyLeOm6yGc)
I wonder why he didn't get Dingy Harry Reid (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/harry-reid-youtube-account-features-video-with-hea) and Diane Feinstein (http://mrctv.org/videos/feinstein-1995-her-concealed-carry-permit-i-know-urge-arm-yourself-because-thats-what-i-did) to figure it out?

Hello again, tom:


now a semi-automatic is a wmd ? LolYou call 'em what YOU want, and I'll call 'em what I want..

ANY weapon that can wipe out 100 people in 30 seconds, and with a quick change of the magazine, another 100, IS a weapon of mass destruction in MY book.. It don't surprise me none that we don't agree.

Excon

I'm with you ex, there has been pussyfooting around this issue for a long time, I'll tell you this so the gunnuts have something to look forward to.

You would be aware that we have some stringent gun control laws here, well in the aftermath of recent gang violence and an on the street assassination among our more violent residents, no prizes for guessing who, they will move to ban semi-automatic hand guns in my state.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/barry-puts-the-safety-on-guns-in-nsw/story-e6frg6n6-1226540732055

And the interesting thing is there isn't even a ripple of protest

Enough pussyfooting around on this issue no matter where you live!

Hello again, tom:

You call 'em what YOU want, and I'll call 'em what I want..

ANY weapon that can wipe out 100 people in 30 seconds, and with a quick change of the magazine, another 100, IS a weapon of mass destruction in MY book.. It don't surprise me none that we don't agree.

excon

I agree with you 100%. That's been my point this entire time. To me, a gun that has a 100 bullet clip that can shoot 100 bullets in a matter of seconds, is a dangerous weapon that should not have been in the hands of a civilian.

On fb I'm having this same argument, and I'm repeatedly told that this tragedy would still have happened had the killer not had this gun, but just a 6 shooter handgun or a knife. Well, if you look at this crime, right after shots were heard, teachers hid their students, the school was put on lockdown. Would people have still died if the killer had only had a 6 shooter handgun or knife? Probably. But 26 people? Doubtful.

We can't prevent murder, we can't prevent things like this from happening completely, but we can sure as hell make it harder for people to kill dozens of people in a few minutes, by limiting the weapons they have access to. Had this killer not had access to the weapons he had, 20 parents wouldn't be grieving the loss of their children tonight. Would any be grieving? Could be, the shooter could be a good shot and aim and hit all 6 targets if he had the kind of gun I believe is the only type of weapon that should be allowed for civilians. But 20 children? I doubt it.

I have 3 weapons, I have one that can hold 5 bullets. Trust me, that's all I need for protection. If you break into my home and my dogs don't tear you apart, I will take you down, and I won't need all 5 bullets to do it. So why does anyone else need 100 bullet clips, and guns that can hold those clips? I'm not a gun aficionado, that's obvious, but I can aim and shoot, and 5 bullets is all I need if you intend to do me harm. Frankly, I most likely wouldn't even need that, I have a baseball bat and two dogs that are very protective of their family home, and only accept invited guests that we personally greet.

So why does anyone else need 100 bullet clips, and guns that can hold those clips? .

Let me try and answer your question. Because of the rambo mystique. There is a belief that a courageous, if inadequately trained citizen, will be victorious over an armed attacker, that the attacker will back off if confronted. The attacker in the Newtown case went prepared to be confronted, he wore a bullet proof vest, proving his obvious intent to fight it out. There is also some sort of belief that the US is about to suffer some form of invasion which will require the average citizen to defend themselves, thus they need weapons with high magazine capacity. This is some sort of hangover from the revolution and it is true that for about fifty years they might have had reason for concern. Fact is they have created the situation where they need to defend themselves against each other. This is called paranoia

There is no legal gun on the market that can "wipe out 100 people in 30 seconds" . A rapid rate of fire of a Bushmaster AR-15 is about 45 rpm and that depends on the ability of the shooter to pull the trigger at that rate . As I already said ,I have no problem with restrictions on magazine sizes.

There is no legal gun on the market that can "wipe out 100 people in 30 seconds" . A rapid rate of fire of a Bushmaster AR-15 is about 45 rpm and that depends on the ability of the shooter to pull the trigger at that rate . As I already said ,I have no problem with restrictions on magazine sizes.
And my husband said there were probably 30 bullets in the clip and he had to pull the trigger for each shot -- it wasn't an automatic spray of bullets after one trigger pull.

And my husband said there were probably 30 bullets in the clip and he had to pull the trigger for each shot -- it wasn't an automatic spray of bullets after one trigger pull. yes ;each shot has to be the result of an independent trigger pull. The semi-automatic differs from the bolt action in that a bullet resets in the chamber automatically. The clip size sounds right.

And my husband said there were probably 30 bullets in the clip and he had to pull the trigger for each shot -- it wasn't an automatic spray of bullets after one trigger pull.

Where did your husband get this information?

Edit. If the shooter had 30 bullets in his gun, then he didn't have to reload once to kill the 26 people he killed.

Where did your husband get this information?

Edit. If the shooter had 30 bullets in his gun, then he didn't have to reload once to kill the 26 people he killed.
He knows from personal knowledge as a gun collector that a Bushmaster is semi-automatic (one trigger pull for each shot) and that 30 rounds is the usual for it for one magazine.

Here is something from online CNN --

"The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military. The original M-16 patent ran out years ago, and now the AR-15 is manufactured by several gunmakers. Unlike the military version, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic, firing one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. But like the M-16, ammunition is loaded through a magazine. In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines."

Newtown shooter's guns: What we know - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html)

Edit: The children were shot multiple times. Lanza reloaded and used more than one magazine.

2nd edit: And Lanza shot staff and students who were in more than one room, i.e. he walked around from room to room..

Let me try and answer your question. Because of the rambo mystique. there is a belief that a courageous, if inadequately trained citizen, will be victorious over an armed attacker, that the attacker will back off if confronted. The attacker in the Newtown case went prepared to be confronted, he wore a bullet proof vest, proving his obvious intent to fight it out. there is also some sort of belief that the US is about to suffer some form of invasion which will require the average citizen to defend themselves, thus they need weapons with high magazine capacity. this is some sort of hangover from the revolution and it is true that for about fifty years they might have had reason for concern. Fact is they have created the situation where they need to defend themselves against each other. This is called paranoia


I understand that you have a personal vandetta to settle with the world. I get that. But your constant trips into fantasy land are just so tiring. I guess what your trying to say is that anyone that is proficient with a firearm is a rambo no matter how much they may train or what their background is. News flash. Police kill innocent people all the time because they don't train as much as many of the people that I know that are responsible gun owners.

It is also a sport as well. But in your mind if someone were to shoot back you assume that the attacker will just stand there and keep picking other targets rather then being distracted by the bullets coming his/her way.

That isn't going to happen. The confusion alone could save lives. But return fire by responsible gun owners would most likely result in the perp assuming room temprature in a very short time with full ventilation.

So if you want to win hearts and minds then at least center yourself in the real world and not hide behind the shadows of your past.

And I also wonder why it is assumed that any civilian with a gun is automatically "inadequately trained"... How is that? I'll give you that not everyone that owns or carries a gun is fully trained but to assume that simply because you're a civilian that you aren't trained... it's just wrong. I know plenty of civilians (myself included) that are better with guns than the police are. I know plenty of civilians that have had adequate training. Just because you wear a badge doesn't automatically make you adequately trained.

And I also wonder why it is assumed that any civilian with a gun is automatically "inadequately trained"....How is that? I'll give you that not everyone that owns or carries a gun is fully trained but to assume that simply because you're a civilian that you aren't trained...it's just wrong. I know plenty of civilians (myself included) that are better with guns than the police are. I know plenty of civilians that have had adequate training. Just because you wear a badge doesn't automatically make you adequately trained.

Yeh I know a lot pass through the military. It seems from your remarks that your police training should be brought up to speed, But it isn't just an assumption, owning a gun, going to the range now and then, isn't training to aim and kill or maim, there is a lot more to it

I guess what your trying to say is that anyone that is proficient with a firearm is a rambo no matter how much they may train or what their background is.



I think he is referring to your ethos. Ex's post #122

I think he is referring to your ethos. Ex's post #122

My ethos is I know enough about the stupidiy associated with guns, and violent fantasy, to understand it fueled by violent videos, games and so on in unbalanced individuals. I have a great deal of life experience in these issues, experience I would rather not have gained. I'm on the side of the victims of gun violence. I understand, as is demonstrated in societies all over the world that the restriction of gun ownership is clearly demonstrated to reduce casualities associated with gun use and the slaughter of innocents. As I said much earlier there is a higher right than the right to own a gun, and that right is the right to life. This is the point no one wants to argue. They don't realise that having a gun in every home is not an assurance of security, it is reinforcing an ethos that if you want to succeed in criminal activities you must kill or be killed. This is not an attack on commerce, it is not an attack on liberty, it is a simple statement, the opening words of a well know document right to life, stated before any other rights.

As part of the stupidity I speak about, are you aware that Bushmaster promote a man-card as part of their gun marketing and that they revoked the shooter's man-card after he used a bushmaster to slaughter 26 people. How stupid can you get? Rhetorical question, I know.

This is not an attack on commerce, it is not an attack on liberty, it is a simple statement, the opening words of a well know document right to life, stated before any other rights. The founders did not list them according to importance. But it is also self evident that life ,liberty and property(or as the founders put it the 'persuit of happiness') ,if they are a rights ,needs to be defended... and a person does have that right... really.. they do.

Yeh I know a lot pass through the military. It seems from your remarks that your police training should be brought up to speed, But it isn't just an assumption, owning a gun, going to the range now and then, isn't training to aim and kill or maim, there is a lot more to it


And again... you don't know what kind of training I have had... what kind of training anyone has had. You only assume that our training is no more than just going to the range now and then. How do you know this? As I said earlier, I'll give you that not every gun owner is properly trained for a "situation" but don't sit there and make a blanket assumption (stated as true fact) that every gun owner has no training other than maybe the range now and then.

One of our Texas reps has the answer (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/12/20/congresswoman-install-automatic-retractable-steel-walls-on-every-school-campus/), install automatic retractable steel walls in every school in America. Frankly I like the alligator filled moat idea better.

Hello again, Steve:

I heard your congressman Gomert wishing the teacher in Connecticut HAD an assault rifle so she could have STOPPED the carnage... I've never heard anything more STUPID in my life.

Your vision for America, Steve, is a far cry from MY vision. Good thing YOUR vision has been REPUDIATED. There WON'T be MORE arming of America. There WILL be LESS. Live with it.

excon

You have no idea what my vision for America is, you've spent years painting your own deluded picture of what you THINK it is.

FYI, we already have districts in Texas that arm teachers and train them to respond. You must not have any idea how many rural schools we have in this nation that are literally in the middle of nowhere. They can't rely on law enforcement, they're too far away. It makes more sense than imprisoning kids in steel walled schools.

Of course your side has resisted every effort we've made to get kids out of dangerous, failing public schools and making sure we have a culture that considers human life disposable. Your Hollywood libs are just as hypocritical in feeding us ever more violence, sex and filth before getting on their soap boxes about peace, love and the decline of civility.

You have a Democrat in Michigan saying there will be blood, a union thug warning of civil war, teachers that are "doing it for the kids" faking illness and getting fake doctor's excuses to go throw their little temper tantrums instead of caring for the children.

You yourself have been thumping your chest over a WAR on women. We have a VP who warns we're going to put blacks back in chains, and all manner of other uncivil, bloody, violent imagery and behavior (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/new-era-civility-557505.html) from the left. Why the heck should we take you seriously?

P.S. You know where the sharpest rise in gun ownership has occurred? Among Democrats, women and every region but the south (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/19/a-gun-ownership-renaissance/?wprss=rss_politics). They're just taking after Biden and Reid and their love for Berettas, and Feinstein who used to (and may still) carry everywhere she went. I think it's time you minded your own house instead of invading my peaceful home.

You have no idea what my vision for America is, you've spent years painting your own deluded picture of what you THINK it is.

FYI, we already have districts in Texas that arm teachers and train them to respond. You must not have any idea how many rural schools we have in this nation that are literally in the middle of nowhere. They can't rely on law enforcement, they're too far away. It makes more sense than imprisoning kids in steel walled schools.

Of course your side has resisted every effort we've made to get kids out of dangerous, failing public schools and making sure we have a culture that considers human life disposable. Your Hollywood libs are just as hypocritical in feeding us ever more violence, sex and filth before getting on their soap boxes about peace, love and the decline of civility.

You have a Democrat in Michigan saying there will be blood, a union thug warning of civil war, teachers that are "doing it for the kids" faking illness and getting fake doctor's excuses to go throw their little temper tantrums instead of caring for the children.

You yourself have been thumping your chest over a WAR on women. We have a VP who warns we're going to put blacks back in chains, and all manner of other uncivil, bloody, violent imagery and behavior (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/new-era-civility-557505.html) from the left. Why the heck should we take you seriously?

P.S. You know where the sharpest rise in gun ownership has occurred? Among Democrats, women and every region but the south (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/19/a-gun-ownership-renaissance/?wprss=rss_politics). They're just taking after Biden and Reid and their love for Berettas, and Feinstein who used to (and may still) carry everywhere she went. I think it's time you minded your own house instead of invading my peaceful home.

Bravo! F'ing BRAVO! Standing ovation!

. Your Hollywood libs are just as hypocritical in feeding us ever more violence, sex and filth before getting on their soap boxes about peace, love and the decline of civility.
... then driving away in their limo with their armed security guard.

Interesting and important point you make about rural and urban environments. I can see where a smaller community would have to rely more on each other rather than law enforcement for safety and protection. I can see a principal or teacher being the fire chief or the police chief. Even the barber. Or wearing all the above hats

That's food for thought.

How small is that community, just big enough to murder yourself?

The founders did not list them according to importance. But it is also self evident that life ,liberty and property(or as the founders put it the 'persuit of happiness') ,if they are a rights ,needs to be defended .....and a person does have that right ...really ..they do.

Hi Tom,

They need to be defended because they are self-evident, or they need to be defended because they are a right?

Think it through carefully before you answer.


Tut

Don't have to think hard at all the words weren't parced in the Declaration of Independence :

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
The self evident truth is about the rights .

don't have to think hard at all the words weren't parced in the Declaration of Independence :

the self evident truth is about the rights .

Ok then it is a self-evident truth. Do you know what a self-evident truth is?

Tut

don't have to think hard at all the words weren't parced in the Declaration of Independence :

The self evident truth is about the rights .

I think you are guilty of revisionism Tom and yet you keep telling us about original intent

You cannot get more original than this


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

I cannot see a number of things in there, in particular property, nor do I see guns. Now I know that a lot can be read into the word among, but because they are not specifically stated they rank a little lower.What you have been just telling us is words mean whatever you want them to mean

Wow it's been a long time since I took this quiz. A truth is a fact. A self evident truth is so obvious that it's well understood without having to provide proof . To save time I'll offer that an unalienable right is a natural right as recognized by the thinkers of the Enlightement What's your point ?

I cannot see a number of things in there, in particular property. nor do I see guns. Because you don't understand that the pursuit of happiness was property rights . Look it up . I don't have time to play word games.. the end of the world is hours away. I said that everyone has a right to defend their right.. that's where guns come in.

Hello again, tom:


I said that everyone has a right to defend their right.. that's where guns come in.So, you're from the wing that thinks assault rifles can defend against Apache helicopters and 50 caliber machine guns, huh?

Alrightee, then.

Excon

Didn't you already point out that the greatest army in the world has issues against comparatively simple unsophisticated weapons ?

Wow it's been a long time since I took this quiz. A truth is a fact. A self evident truth is so obvious that it's well understood without having to provide proof . To save time I'll offer that an unalienable right is a natural right as recognized by the thinkers of the Enlightement What's your point ?





We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness




You appear to have posted contradictory statements in terms of unalienable rights. Where do these types of rights come from according to the Enlightenment time you are talking about? From the Creator? No.The idea was to reject the Creator as an architect of natural rights.

Tut

Hello again, tom:


didn't you already point out that the greatest army in the world has issues against comparatively simple unsophisticated weapons ?That was me.. But the unsophisticated weapons I was TALKING about were IED's - not puny assault rifles.

Now, I understand that IF the government attacked you, you'd DITCH the rifles and GET a couple tanks, and I'd be right there with you... But that kind of belies your need for assault weapons at all.

Or, are you still going to maintain the fantasy that having an assault rifle in your closet is DEFENDING the country??

Excon

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness




You appear to have posted contradictory statements in terms of unalienable rights. Where do these types of rights come from according to the Enlightenment time you are talking about? From the Creator? No.The idea was to reject the Creator as an architect of natural rights.

Tut

Have a nice day.

Hello again, tom:

That was me.. But the unsophisticated weapons I was TALKING about were IED's - not puny assault rifles.

Now, I understand that IF the government attacked you, you'd DITCH the rifles and GET a couple tanks, and I'd be right there with you... But that kinda belies your need for assault weapons at all.

Or, are you still gonna maintain the fantasy that having an assault rifle in your closet is DEFENDING the country???

excon

Defending the country ? Not necessarily . Protecting my life and property ? Yes.

You will be like that fellow in Syria on the news, desolation all around him but he won't leave his property

Hello again, tom:


protecting my life and property ? Yes.Then you won't need a 100 round magazine. I'll bet you're defending your family FINE right now WITHOUT one.

Excon

Well Nanny Bloomberg seems to think a gun shouldn't need more than 3 rounds because if you can't hit a deer in that many shots you're a lousy shot. It's not about hunting.

Hello again, tom:

Then you won't need a 100 round magazine. I'll bet you're defending your family FINE right now WITHOUT one.

excon

I've already said that I have no problem with limiting rounds in magazines.

How about limiting them to single shot?

How about limiting them to single shot?

Ball and powder no doubt.

Ball and powder no doubt.
Heck, let's just get rid of them all and be done with it.

Heck, let's just get rid of them all and be done with it.

That would be a firm negative.

Ball and powder no doubt.

What ever turns you on, you should follow the founding fathers in everything, but seriously, hunting; you should only need one well aimed shot, and ditto for an intruder, if you have more than that you are screwed anyway, and not every confrontation will be the 400lb guy it would take a clip to bring down

what ever turns you on, you should follow the founding fathers in everything, but seriously, hunting; you should only need one well aimed shot, and ditto for an intruder, if you have more than that you are screwed anyway, and not every confrontation will be the 400lb guy it would take a clip to bring down

How much hunting have you actually done or have you ever dealt with a home invasion ?

How much hunting have you actually done or have you ever dealt with a home invasion ?

I've done a little hunting and no, not home invasion just a siege, state protection group and all that. We don't have many home invasions here, they seem to happen among ethnic groups

have a nice day.


Don't be like that Tom. I might be able to help a bit.

It doesn't really matter that a Creator is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but not in the Constitution. When they give differing accounts of the origin of liberty we can always say that the Declaration of Independence is not an actual constitutional document. It is in fact, just what it says it is. Namely, a justification for the rejection of British rule.

If we put aside this document ( for this purpose) then we are not subject to the criticism we are trying to claim that all rights are God given rights. Clearly the Enlightenment thinkers of the time, notably Locke, would have course reject the idea that we are in any way benefactors of Divine rights. Instead they preferred the idea of natural rights.

Locke claimed that natural rights are those rights that men enjoy in a state of nature before the advent of organized society and its legal system. Leaving aside any problems with this claim the important point is that Lock's account is a prescriptive explanation for rights. This is regardless of any move on the part of Locke to provide us with a descriptive explanation for rights. In other words Lock is saying that men ought to have these rights.

Tut

You can't help Tom he is like the NRA guns are an answer to everything, right now they are running scared and so they should be, they have encouraged these weapons in the community

And again I get to debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Ok the founders ;even the ones like Jefferson (who still believed in the concept of "nature's god",were men who lived before Darwin. It would've never occurred to them to separate natural law from a creator .

And where is God in the Constitution ? It is in the Ratification Clause (Article VII)
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, [/I]

The LORD referred to is not the King of England. The phrase "in the year of our Lord" in the Constitution replaced"in the year of our reign" use by kings in royal decrees.

Also ,in the Preamble the phrase "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" was nothing less than linking the governing document with the document of principles that is the Declaration of Independence.

You can't help Tom he is like the NRA guns are an answer to everything, right now they are running scared and so they should be, they have encouraged these weapons in the community

Here's a flashback from 2000... back then the libs had no problem with the NRA proposal of putting more cops in the schools .

Clinton Pledges Funds to Add Police to Schools - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323)

This was one year after the Columbine shootings . There was at that time an active ban on "assault rifles " .

Hello tom:

Like your right wing brethren, you're using the tragedy to BASH the opposition INSTEAD of finding a meaningful ANSWER to our problem.. I suppose if my party had been wasted like YOURS was, I'd try to resurrect something too.

But, your views have been repudiated. The country thinks we should be doing LESS to women. Your party thinks it should do MORE. The country thinks we should be LESS mean to the undocumented. Your party thinks it should do MORE.

I could go on, and on, and on. But, my point is, the country thinks we should have LESS guns, and LESS magazines, and your party thinks we should have MORE.

You guys are OUT of STEP. We've moved "Forward", to coin a phrase. Gun control WILL happen. I can't IMAGINE that you don't get the MOOD of the country... On second thought, you don't LISTEN to the MOOD of the country.

excon

Hello again,

As we've discussed in the past, I'm an adherent to the belief that an ARMED society, is a POLITE society. What I DON'T know, is whether an ARMED society, is a SAFE society.

I'm beginning to think it's NOT.

excon

My party ? Why don't you start your efforts in the inner cities of America where the loss of life in the Connecticut suburb is a typical weekend . You want to start controlling guns.. then go after the illegal ones used routinely in New Orleans ,Jacksonville ,Newark and Chi-town. But you won' t because your;e afraid that you would trample on some gangbanger's rights .

The country mourns Connecticut and gives a collective yawn to those weekly tragedies. So spare me this sudden discovery that guns in the wrong hands are unsafe .

Hello again, tom:

Now, I'm NOT a student of history, like you are. But, there's a curb on the First Amendment that essentially says that you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater. I don't know if that was a REAL case or just a metaphor, but the CURBS are REAL.

I'll just BET that when liberals proposed those curbs, that conservatives yelled about it, kind of like they're yelling today.. But, reason prevailed, and we have a CURB on the First Amendment. And the sky didn't fall.

excon

Again you make the false claim that I am speaking in absolutes while on this thread alone there are countless examples of where I said I am not. BTW ;most free speech restrictions are oppressive so the exception you cite is not the rule.

The 'shouting fire 'example is a metaphor that was used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1919 Schenck v. United States decision. He was wrong in his ruling regardless of the metaphor . (what a surprise... a bad SCOTUS decision!) It was in support of the Wilson 1918 Sedition Act. Holmes said that the act was permissible because protests against WWI were a clear and present danger to the government recruiting effort . The metaphor also only applies to a false shout of fire. If there really is a fire ;it's probably a good idea to shout it out.

Hello again, tom:


He was wrong in his ruling regardless of the metaphor

So, you think yelling fire in a crowded theater where this is NONE, is PROTECTED speech? You don't, do you?

Excon

I was speaking of the case he was deciding ;which was authoritarian . You can't tell me you agree that protesting a war is sedition?? Holmes tried tying the idea of yelling fire in a crowded theater as a First Amendment exception to the idea restricting speech against the government in wartime .He was absolutely wrong .

Hello again, tom:

That's funny... A case WRONGLY decided resulted in one of the most accepted curbs on freedom of speech..

excon

It was reversed in 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio . The Brandenburg test bans speech only if it incites or could incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).

Hello tom:

Like your right wing brethren, you're using the tragedy to BASH the opposition INSTEAD of finding a meaningful ANSWER to our problem..

excon

You want a solution. A permanent one that provides protection as well as routes for safety of the children. How about this.

Every classroom gets a 12 ga semi auto shotgun in it. The principle or admin staff get a cabinet full of them. All you need to do is provide the right training and fill them with bean bags. Even a poor shot that goes awry won't harm the children. And the shooter goes down no matter what they are wearing. You can stop them from breathing if you hit them repeatedly.

Just a suggestion from here.


Bean Bag Ammunition For Sale : 12ga Ballistic Bean Bag Rounds for your Shotgun : Power Punch Bean Bag - Keepshooting® (http://www.keepshooting.com/12-gauge-ballistic-bean-bag-round.html)

Non-lethal shotgun training - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blsSSFZEqck)

Shot by Shotgun with Bean Bag Shot - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=805t_qFTgy8)

Hello again, dad:

The problem is there's TOO many guns.. Not too little.

excon

Hello again, dad:

The problem is there's TOO many guns.. Not too little.

excon

And just what is your idea of a solution that is realistic. I know you have had military trainiing and may have had access to some of the more high powered weapons. So what do you suggest as the defense against them?

Hello again, dad:


So what do you suggest as the defense against them?LESS of them. Or at least LESS of them with giant, huge, humongous magazines. That can easily be done. You get LESS of them when you CLOSE the gun show loophole. You get LESS of them, when a REAL background checks can be done ON THE SPOT.

I'm not a fan of eliminating assault rifles, because it's only LOOKS that make it different from your ordinary hunting rifle. But, if it results is LESS guns on the street, then let's do that.

You do those things IN COMBINATION with a re-introduction of our nations mental health responsibilities... You do that when the country is READY to do it because this IS the last massacre.

Nobody wants to interfere with YOUR right to defend your family, collect guns if you wish, and hunt to your hearts content. None of the restrictions I mention DO that to you.

Of course, Republicans STILL control the House, and they'll STILL be able to filibuster the Senate, so I don't see ANY of those reforms being enacted.

I SAW Wayne La Pierre. He's INTRANSIGENT! If the NRA is as powerful as I think it is, there won't be ONE Republican who'll vote for ANY reforms..

Excon

Hello again, dad:

The problem is there's TOO many guns.. Not too little.

excon

Simple solution buy them back

simple solution buy them back
That doesn't work. It been tried many times.

Hello again, clete:


simple solution buy them backWe're doing that. San Diego gun buyback (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-guns-buyback-20121222,0,2712228.story) nets a record 364 weapons. Other communities are doing it too.

Excon

That's good Ex it's a start, if the rewards are big enough it will work

They have buy backs all the time.. The gangbangers get cash for obsolete weapons they can't use anymore . Then they get new illegal guns... Amazing... switch the words guns and drugs and the narrative changes. We get told making drugs illegal won't stop anyone from using them. But evidenly prohibition will work with guns.

Hello again,

As we've discussed in the past, I'm an adherent to the belief that an ARMED society, is a POLITE society. What I DON'T know, is whether an ARMED society, is a SAFE society.

I'm beginning to think it's NOT.

excon


Hi Ex,

An armed society is polite because it is a nervous society. Nervous people are not always safe to be around.



Tut

P.S. If you are wondering why I have changed by user name it is because I closed by old e mail account in favour of a different account, I assumed that I would have to re register using my new account. If I am wrong I am sure somebody will point this out.

the 'shouting fire 'example is a metaphor that was used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1919 Schenck v. United States decision. He was wrong in his ruling regardless of the metaphor . (what a suprise ...a bad SCOTUS decision!) It was in support of the Wilson 1918 Sedition Act. Holmes said that the act was permissible because protests against WWI were a clear and present danger to the government recruiting effort . The metaphor also only applies to a false shout of fire. If there really is a fire ;it's probably a good idea to shout it out.


Tom, is is an example of hindsight bias, or "I know it all along" It is easy to apply this type of bias after the event. This is why you have such a long list of "What a surprise...a bad SCOTUS decision"

As you know we cannot have absolute freedom against the state. By the same token this does not means that the state has absolute authority over us. Rights in this view are those which can be infringed with a majority consent - when the public is under threat.


Tut

Funny that we're back to talking about buybacks being the solution. I pointed this out several pages ago how they don't work and then it was dropped. Now it comes back as the solution all over again.

People turn in junk. They turn in hunting rifles. They turn in relics. They turn in everything except for those guns that get used in crimes... those very guns that you seem to be so afraid of.

Why is it 20/20 hindsight calling an unconstitutional decision by SCOTUS a bad call ? Laws against sedition have always been constitutional violations . The fact that the court unanimously made such a bad call makes it all the more disturbing... and that was just one of many calls that SCOTUS has horribly blown. I can only cite the more infamous ones ;and I can cite quite a few . Too much power has been vested in such a small body of unelected oligarchs.

why is it 20/20 hindsight calling an unconstitutional decision by SCOTUS a bad call ? Laws against sedition have always been constitutional violations . The fact that the court unanimously made such a bad call makes it all the more disturbing...and that was just one of many calls that SCOTUS has horribly blown. I can only cite the more infamous ones ;and I can cite quite a few . Too much power has been vested in such a small body of unelected oligarchs.


I guess the short answer is because you were not there at the time.

Having googled the case I agree that it was a bad decision, but I wasn't there in during a World War. The important point is that it was seen as a right decision for the time. If those judges were alive today and they viewed a similar case they would probably come up with the opposite decision.

However, during that time and give the progress of history up until that point they decided that there were exceptional circumstances that required a freeze on this type of free speech in the interests of the majority.

Of course this type of decision wouldn't wash today. There are no ideal observers in this world that can extract themselves from their historical context and make a decision. Can you extract yourself from your history?

In the future, people will say, "Bad decision, I knew it all along."

That is why it is called creeping determinism.

Tut

Funny that we're back to talking about buybacks being the solution. I pointed this out several pages ago how they don't work and then it was dropped. Now it comes back as the solution all over again.

People turn in junk. They turn in hunting rifles. They turn in relics. They turn in everything except for those guns that get used in crimes....those very guns that you seem to be so afraid of.

Sooner or later they won't have junk to trade in then they will cut to the chase, once you are over the fiscal cliff a buy back might be very attractive

and again I get to debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Ok the founders ;even the ones like Jefferson (who still believed in the concept of "nature's god",were men who lived before Darwin. It would've never occured to them to separate natural law from a creator .

And where is God in the Constitution ? It is in the Ratification Clause (Article VII)
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, [/I]

The LORD referred to is not the King of England. The phrase "in the year of our Lord" in the Constitution replaced"in the year of our reign" use by kings in royal decrees.

Also ,in the Preamble the phrase "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" was nothing less than linking the governing document with the document of principles that is the Declaration of Independence.


A lot of issues here. Perhaps we can deal with them one at the time. The first one has got me intrigued.

Jefferson being the learned man he was would have been very familiar with Locke's Treatises of Government. So yes he would have had a very good knowledge of the theory of natural laws. Being a Deist he may very well have been prepared to argue that natural laws are bound up with the idea of a Creator, but he would have been equally aware that it is an entirely different proposition to claim that natural laws are a product of a Christian God.

I am not sure where Darwin comes into the picture. You don't need to understand Darwin to understand Deism and Locke.


Tut

but he would have been equally aware that it is an entirely different proposition to claim that natural laws are a product of a Christian God.


Yes ,but of course my premise has not been that the founding was based on a Christian God .Instead ,the text of the Declaration is specific about 'Nature's God ' .

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

yes ,but of course my premise has not been that the founding was based on a Christian God .Instead ,the text of the Declaration is specific about 'Nature's God ' .


From my point of view that would be reasonable assumption when it comes to the Declaration.

The difficulty comes about when we try to say that the Constitution is 'the product' of a Christian God. I guess 'the product' here largely depends on how much you want to read into the example you posted... 'in the year of our Lord'

You would need to clarify this for me. I am assuming you are NOT saying that the Constitution is a theistic document. If it were in terms of a product of a Christian God then it would be a non-naturalistic explanation for rights. On this basis free speech would be an absolute right in exactly the same way as the decisions of Congress would be absolute.

Deism on the other hand can( with a bit of work) can accommodate natural rights being the product of a Creator. Sure, if you wanted to point out a link between the Declaration and the Constitution in terms of Deism I think you can structure a reasonable argument in that direction.But I think you are going to run into trouble when you try and link the idea of natural rights with Deism and the idea of natural rights with a Constitution that is the product of a Christian God.

But again, it depends on how far you want to push the Christian influence into the Constitution. I'm not sure how far you would be prepared to push in this direction.

Tut

Tom, is is an example of hindsight bias, or "I know it all along" It is easy to apply this type of bias after the event. This is why you have such a long list of "What a surprise...a bad SCOTUS decision"

As you know we cannot have absolute freedom against the state. By the same token this does not means that the state has absolute authority over us. Rights in this view are those which can be infringed with a majority consent - when the public is under threat.


Tut

I believe to receive email notifications you just need to change your "contact" information in your user profile. That is where your email is stored for notices.

And again I get to debate the angels on the head of a pin. You asked where the references to God are in the Constitution ;and I gave them . The ratification clause was one ;and the preamble was the other. It is in the preamble where there is a link the liberties defined as unalienable God(natures God) given rights.
Now can we get off this tangent please. My very simple assertion is that if we have rights to life ,liberty and property ;we also have a right to defend them . That was clearly understood by the founders,
The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defence. (Thomas Paine)

This is really just going around in circles now. Nitpicking the Constitution and what the founding fathers meant and how they may view things now... it's all just a bunch of crap that I've heard before. And now... that just keeps being beaten over and over. This thread has run its course.