2016 Election Thread

[Mike Sixel]

 

"Odd how many Americans invoke the 2nd Amendment to justify gun ownership, rather than explore whether or not it's a good idea"

-- Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

Belief....rather than science.

[mikecgrimes]

 

It saddens me the number of people whose first response when 50+ people die....that their first response....is about themselves, and their guns, and not about the people that just died.

 

 

Who exactly did that?  We thought this time we could focus on the real issue and not be forced in the silly gun debate once again.  Not only are we having the gun debate nobody wants to even mention the Muslim religion not only teaches intolerance of gay people it teaches the punishment for gay people must be death.  We had the gun debate 4 months ago everyone knows where the other side stands, everyone knows why the other side stands where they do.  If you want a meaningful change in guns laws you either have to win more elections or have your politicians compromise on other issues.  One things for certain the pro gun side of this debate did not start the debate this time.

[Steve J]

 

Belief....rather than science.

 

Science tries to tell us "what is", not "what we should do".

 

Tyson is, of course, wrong.  We have been exploring this for some time now.  He and others simply haven't liked the answer we have come to.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Who exactly did that?  We thought this time we could focus on the real issue and not be forced in the silly gun debate once again.  Not only are we having the gun debate nobody wants to even mention the Muslim religion not only teaches intolerance of gay people it teaches the punishment for gay people must be death.  We had the gun debate 4 months ago everyone knows where the other side stands, everyone knows why the other side stands where they do.  If you want a meaningful change in guns laws you either have to win more elections or have your politicians compromise on other issues.  One things for certain the pro gun side of this debate did not start the debate this time.

 

1) The pro-gun side is always going to be the ones starting the debate until we see some give on that side.  Sorry, that's just the way it is.

 

2) And I agree with you, more people on the left need to take heed of what Bill Maher has been saying.  As a liberal, what is going on in Islam should be among your top priorities.  If you understand what being a liberal means or the causes you are fighting for.

[Steve J]

Also, 

 

some have asked a very good question:  why did we allow a person under investigation to have firearms?

 

A: The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, and is considered a Civil Right.  You cannot remove civil rights except through due process of the Law.  In this case, a trail for certain.  'Suspicion' alone simply does not meet that bar. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Science tries to tell us "what is", not "what we should do".

 

Tyson is, of course, wrong.  We have been exploring this for some time now.  He and others simply haven't liked the answer we have come to.

 

I'm sorry, could you tell me more about what your exploration entailed?  Because it seems like it's merely "It's there, so it must forever remain there"

 

Which, if we had taken the same approach to other constitutional issues, you might need to explain to women in your life why they aren't fit to vote.  And why anyone black you know is only a partial, or not at all, person.

 

Or maybe, just maybe, the bill of rights isn't a static thing.

[Steve J]

 

1) The pro-gun side is always going to be the ones starting the debate until we see some give on that side.  Sorry, that's just the way it is.

 

 

There is ZERO logic to this statement.  

[Steve J]

 

I'm sorry, could you tell me more about what your exploration entailed?  Because it seems like it's merely "It's there, so it must forever remain there"

 

 

\

A) you haven't been reading my posts.

 

 

 

Which, if we had taken the same approach to other constitutional issues, you might need to explain to women in your life why they aren't fit to vote.  And why anyone black you know is only a partial, or not at all, person.

Or maybe, just maybe, the bill of rights isn't a static thing.

 

Please stop the strawmen.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

Not only are we having the gun debate nobody wants to even mention the Muslim religion not only teaches intolerance of gay people it teaches the punishment for gay people must be death.

I know another religion that "teaches" intolerance of gay people....

 

Whether hate emerges from Islam, or the KKK, out of Trump's mouth, from some eco-terrorists, or Uber hallucinations, Americans have way too easy of time arming themselves with death-machines.   Hate will always exist, let's not be naive.  The reason we keep talking about guns is nothing has been done on guns, because gun-advocates refuse to budge even in the most minor and sensible ways.  If you want people to stop talking about guns, be willing to compromise on the issue, otherwise you can expect to hear about guns each and every time mass shooting happens.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Also, 

 

some have asked a very good question:  why did we allow a person under investigation to have firearms?

 

A: The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, and is considered a Civil Right.  You cannot remove civil rights except through due process of the Law.  In this case, a trail for certain.  'Suspicion' alone simply does not meet that bar. 

It's simple really.  You create a process by which a person can challenge a finding that they aren't suitable to own guns.  FBI, or whoever, makes a determination that you are unfit to own a gun, and then you appeal if you believe they are wrong. As long as there is such a process where you can present evidence and testimony, due process will be satisfied. Moreover, there is broad authority for the abrogation of civil rights in the name of national defense.

[TheLeviathan]

 

There is ZERO logic to this statement.  

 

There absolutely is.  If a classroom full of dead first graders isn't enough to get even the slightest budge, you're asking for every single massacre to re-ignite the conversation.

 

A) you haven't been reading my posts.

 

 

Which ones did I miss?  And, again, can you elaborate on why only the second amendment seems immune from changes?  And why a bazooka is universally dismissed as protected under the 2nd amendment but not a X (pick whatever you'd like)?

[PseudoSABR]

 

There is ZERO logic to this statement.  

You can't expect people to stop debating guns when one side refuses to compromise at all.  What's illogical is to expect people to just shut up about it after you've refused to discuss it.

[Craig Arko]

Science tries to tell us "what is", not "what we should do".

 

Tyson is, of course, wrong.  We have been exploring this for some time now.  He and others simply haven't liked the answer we have come to.

Maybe he is wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're wrong. Now that we're achieved an understanding, what's the plan to make sure this doesn't happen again?

[Steve J]

 

It's simple really.  You create a process by which a person can challenge a finding that they aren't suitable to own guns.  FBI, or whoever, makes a determination that you are unfit to own a gun, and then you appeal if you believe they are wrong. As long as there is such a process where you can present evidence and testimony, due process will be satisfied. Moreover, there is broad authority for the abrogation of civil rights in the name of national defense.

 

This would be paramount to having to prove one's innocence instead of the presumption of innocence.  This too is not remotely Constitutionally workable and opens up a lot of other slippery slopes.

[TheLeviathan]

 

This would be paramount to having to prove one's innocence instead of the presumption of innocence.  This too is not remotely Constitutionally workable and opens up a lot of other slippery slopes.

 

Perhaps we should actually be working on some constitutionally workable solutions rather than throwing our hands in the air?  Or distracting the issue away towards mental health?

 

When is the last time the NRA or the pro-gun lobby worked towards anything meaningful?

[Steve J]

 

There absolutely is.  If a classroom full of dead first graders isn't enough to get even the slightest budge, you're asking for every single massacre to re-ignite the conversation.

 

 

 

 

How is this comment of yours not demagoguery?  

 

and no, there is no logic.  your basic premise was that the pro gun-side is the initiator of these debates simply because they don't wish to compromise their Civil Liberties to suit your agenda.  

 

 

 

Which ones did I miss?  And, again, can you elaborate on why only the second amendment seems immune from changes?  And why a bazooka is universally dismissed as protected under the 2nd amendment but not a X (pick whatever you'd like)?

 

I dunno, maybe we should be allowed to own Bazookas?  Even in the absence of the legality of that type of weapon, at the very least there is no compelling reason why the people's right to bear arms should be any further infringed.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

How is this comment of yours not demagoguery?  

 

and no, there is no logic.  your basic premise was that the pro gun-side is the initiator of these debates simply because they don't wish to compromise their Civil Liberties to suit your agenda.  

 

 

I dunno, maybe we should be allowed to own Bazookas?  Even in the absence of the legality of that type of weapon, at the very least there is no compelling reason why the people's right to bear arms should be any further infringed.  

 

You're not compromising your civil liberties.  No more than you have by not allowing the purchase of bazookas.  You still get guns, it's just more "well regulated".  Sorry, took that strictly from the 2nd amendment.

 

The compelling reasons are massacres of human lives, including a classroom of six year olds. Sorry that factor is inconvenient.  But it's not demagoguery - it's fact.  It's a thing that happened. Assuming you think such massacres are a problem, and since they are perpetrated by the acquisition (in many ways) of high powered, large magazine firearms - targeting the instruments of such brutality would seemingly be an avenue towards a solution - no?

 

If not - what's your solution?

[PseudoSABR]

 

This would be paramount to having to prove one's innocence instead of the presumption of innocence.  This too is not remotely Constitutionally workable and opens up a lot of other slippery slopes.

These kind of procedures already exist for a host of administrative actions including the denial of disability and social security benefits, denial of security clearance, wrongful firing by the feds etc.  And are premised under the Matthews v. Eldridge ruling years ago.  Denial of security clearance is particularly interesting as the Supreme Court has held they are non-reviewable by regular courts because national security reasons (See Dept. of the Navy v. Egan). 

 

The fifth and sixth amendment protections for criminal defendants, of course, are inapplicable for non-criminal cases.   We already have prohibited possession of firearms for persons who have committed a "crime of domestic violence," in addition to the punishment sentenced by the judge.  We already have background checks where people can be denied firearms.  This is nothing new.  There already is a so-called 'presumption of guilt' in that there is up to a three day waiting period before background is approved or denied. 

 

In the world you are conceiving, we couldn't deny people guns based on background checks without having a full-fledged criminal trial, which clearly isn't what's in the Constitution, nor how it's been interpreted. 

[Steve J]

 

You're not compromising your civil liberties.  No more than you have by not allowing the purchase of bazookas.  You still get guns, it's just more "well regulated".  Sorry, took that strictly from the 2nd amendment.

 

The compelling reasons are massacres of human lives, including a classroom of six year olds. Sorry that factor is inconvenient.  But it's not demagoguery - it's fact.  It's a thing that happened. Assuming you think such massacres are a problem, and since they are perpetrated by the acquisition (in many ways) of high powered, large magazine firearms - targeting the instruments of such brutality would seemingly be an avenue towards a solution - no?

 

If not - what's your solution?

 

 

Much of what you stated would rest on a vastly different take on what the purpose and meaning of "well regulated" means from that which I understand.  I don't see us closing this gap.  

 

 

 

Assuming you think such massacres are a problem, and since they are perpetrated by the acquisition (in many ways) of high powered, large magazine firearms - targeting the instruments of such brutality would seemingly be an avenue towards a solution - no?

If not - what's your solution?

 

There are other ways to prevent this for sure.  Please be mindful, I will attempt to play the "Devil's Advocate" of sorts in the next part, so please don't take these as serious policy considerations of mine....

 

 

 

1) In this case you could have banned Muslims from this country.  That would certainly have stopped this recent attack and would likely have prevented 9/11 (and as an aside, likely the ensuing Afghan and Iraq wars)

 

2) There seems to be a lot of plausibility to the notion that situations like Sandy Hook are "copy cat" fueled by the attention previous attacks have garnered from the Press.  We could censure the press to prevent this sort of sensationalism from happening.

 

[/End Devil's Advocate]

 

Both cases would involve a very significant destruction of Civil Liberties.  Both would have likely prevented deaths.  I think both would have been very wrong to do and would not have been worth the cost in liberties.

 

It was not my purpose to try to compare/contrast the value of the First Amendment vs the Second.  The point I'd like to make is that every Civil Liberty bears a Social Cost, including the bearing of Arms.

 

 

[Badsmerf]

Steve, the elephant I the room is where do we go with this conversation about guns and the second amendment. If you are implying nothing should be done and our right to bare arms is already infringed upon enough, you should go and talk to dinner victims of shootings.

 

I own 6 guns, 100% sure I'll purchase more. I would consider myself a responsible gun owner by any measure. My sister in law was shot in the head by a felon that was recently released from jail for a violent crime. Gun laws didn't save her, because criminals don't follow laws.

 

Thing is, we can't simply be satisfied with the way things are. People are dying. It's time to find some solutions.

[TheLeviathan]

Much of what you stated would rest on a vastly different take on what the purpose and meaning of "well regulated" means from that which I understand.  I don't see us closing this gap.  

At the very least that phrase should invite discussion. The NRA has bought and paid for so much political influence that most seem to think the second amendment is a right without any infringement. Whether we agree on how much is irrelevant. The conversation keeps coming up because one side refuses to acknowledge that rights are not limitless, especially those that are explicitly stated to be "well regulated". Regulation, by strict interpretation is mandatory and thus should be a larger conversation.

 

Your first idea doesn't even stop this Muslim man (born in NY) and does nothing for Sandy Hook.

 

Your second idea is pretty flimsy, if you're going to seriously address a serious problem...is that it?

 

 

Part of being a member of society comes with an accepted limitation on personal freedom, such sacrifices for all should never be off the table.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Steve, the elephant I the room is where do we go with this conversation about guns and the second amendment. If you are implying nothing should be done and our right to bare arms is already infringed upon enough, you should go and talk to dinner victims of shootings.

I own 6 guns, 100% sure I'll purchase more. I would consider myself a responsible gun owner by any measure. My sister in law was shot in the head by a felon that was recently released from jail for a violent crime. Gun laws didn't save her, because criminals don't follow laws.

Thing is, we can't simply be satisfied with the way things are. People are dying. It's time to find some solutions.

Sorry for your loss, and thanks for being open about where things can go from here.

 

I don't want to minimize your contribution here, but I do want to comment on the criminality of mass shooters, so I apologize for the aside (please just take it as that, an aside).  Most (if not all) of the shootings have been committed by non-criminals, by people who seek to kill by gaining the means through operating within the law.  Breaking the law to purchase gun does carry additional risks that sometimes gets overlooked.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

Part of being a member of society comes with an accepted limitation on personal freedom, such sacrifices for all should never be off the table.

This.  I think what really gets me when a person won't sacrifice one iota of their privilege/freedom/right as a matter of principal, when their actual privileges and freedoms would utterly be unaffected.  

 

Reasonable gun control laws could literally have zero affect on most gun owners.  

[Badsmerf]

That is just it, there are ways to target the bad guys without seriously affecting the good guys. We just need compromise and action.

 

Even with action, we all know there are too many guns in this country to eliminate all the violence.

[Steve J]

 

At the very least that phrase should invite discussion. The NRA has bought and paid for so much political influence that most seem to think the second amendment is a right without any infringement. Whether we agree on how much is irrelevant. The conversation keeps coming up because one side refuses to acknowledge that rights are not limitless, especially those that are explicitly stated to be "well regulated". Regulation, by strict interpretation is mandatory and thus should be a larger conversation.

 

 

The NRA only has the power of it's membership, which is many because there are a great deal of individuals who agree with their core mission as a civil rights advocacy group (and yes, it IS a civil right).  That many people *should* have significant political influence.  Democracy, remember?

 

Your interpretation of the words "well regulated" are a literalish re-interpretation that ignores the historical context of the meaning of the phrase.  The People bear arms so that the militias can be well regulated of their own accord, as opposed to an untrained rabble.  The Right to Bear Arms exists for The People to enable the well regulation of militia, even if the States have all but abrogated it.  The word "regulate" does not exist in the second amendment to grant the government the right to draw back a right it just acknowledged, and then follow it up with "shall not be infringed".  What you are suggesting is textual nonsense.

 

The conversation keeps coming up because we as different sides disagree, nothing more.  Making it up that the pro-civil rights side of the gun argument as being the perpetual initiators of this because you feel they have some obligation to compromise is simply inane.  If you don't like the debate, please stop having it.

 

 

 

Your first idea doesn't even stop this Muslim man (born in NY) and does nothing for Sandy Hook.

Your second idea is pretty flimsy, if you're going to seriously address a serious problem...is that it?

Part of being a member of society comes with an accepted limitation on personal freedom, such sacrifices for all should never be off the table.

 

Well, banning the ideology would have quite plausibly stopped this.  Had we, say, banned all ideologies that had even a tertiary connection to terrorism some time before 9/11 it would likely have prevented this.  Once again, a terrible idea.

 

My second devil's advocate idea is not flimsy, unless you choose to reject the well understood tendency for copy-cat crimes and the media's role in them.

 

And no, there are certain sacrifices that should never be on the table.  I reject the idea that the  "certain inalienable rights" ought to be re-bargained because of notions that it will decrease crime.  

[Steve J]

 

This.  I think what really gets me when a person won't sacrifice one iota of their privilege/freedom/right as a matter of principal, when their actual privileges and freedoms would utterly be unaffected.  

 

Reasonable gun control laws could literally have zero affect on most gun owners.  

 

 

I very much doubt that any "reasonable gun control laws" would leave privileges and freedoms unaffected, but throw out your ideas and I'll see if you are right.  many laws I've seen either infringe or would be worthless in their effect.

[Craig Arko]

I very much doubt that any "reasonable gun control laws" would leave privileges and freedoms unaffected, but throw out your ideas and I'll see if you are right.

Because you are the sole arbiter of right and wrong, now?

[Craig Arko]

I think my plan is going to incorporate some very heavy duty mental health screening as a prerequisite to gun licensure. Repeated on a well regulated basis.

 

I feel much less worry about tyranny coming from above than I do about the tyranny of those who appoint themselves judge, jury, and executioner.

[Craig Arko]

[DaveW]

Sounds like the shooter himself may have been gay, he visited pulse 40+ times in the last 3 years and often has to be escorted from the bar when he drank too much.

 

Apparently his father (who gives some bizarre interviews and claims he is the president of Afghanistan) would berate his son for being gay etc

 

It looks more and more like this isn't "Islam" or "ISIL" to blame, it's unfortunately another unstable, paranoid and violent person who then bought an AR-15 and took out 49 people in the span of minutes.

 

We can't control someone's religion, their mental state, their feelings, their motivations etc, but we certainly could control a persons ability to get a freaking semi automatic assault rifle. It's really mind boggling that some still say "we can't fix anything" or "if we enact common sense laws, it will lead to Obama and Hillary taking all of our guns" and it's not just a few people, it's close to 50% of the country.

 

Embarrassing.