Pro-Gun Russian Bots Flood Twitter After Parkland Shooting (wired.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: In the wake of Wednesday's Parkland, Florida school shooting, which resulted in 17 deaths, troll and bot-tracking sites reported an immediate uptick in related tweets from political propaganda bots and Russia-linked Twitter accounts. Hamilton 68, a website created by Alliance for Securing Democracy, tracks Twitter activity from accounts it has identified as linked to Russian influence campaigns. On RoBhat Labs' Botcheck.me, a website created by two Berkeley students to track 1500 political propaganda bots, all of the top two-word phrases used in the last 24 hours -- excluding President Trump's name -- are related to the tragedy: School shooting, gun control, high school, Florida school. The top hashtags from the last 24 hours include Parkland, guncontrol, and guncontrolnow.

While RoBhat Labs tracks general political bots, Hamilton 68 focuses specifically on those linked to the Russian government. According to the group's data, the top link shared by Russia-linked accounts in the last 48 hours is a 2014 Politifact article that looks critically at a statistic cited by pro-gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety. Twitter accounts tracked by the group have used the old link to try to debunk today's stats about the frequency of school shootings. Another top link shared by the network covers the "deranged" Instagram account of the shooter, showing images of him holding guns and knives, wearing army hats, and a screenshot of a Google search of the phrase "Allahu Akbar." Characterizing shooters as deranged lone wolves with potential terrorist connections is a popular strategy of pro-gun groups because of the implication that new gun laws could not have prevented their actions. Meanwhile, some accounts with large bot followings are already spreading misinformation about the shooter's ties to far-left group Antifa, even though the Associated Press reported that he was a member of a local white nationalist group. The Twitter account Education4Libs, which RoBhat Labs shows is one among the top accounts tweeted at by bots, is among the prominent disseminators of that idea.

Comments

SO... if we're going to pretend

[ckatko]

That Twitter bots from Russia are some super effective way to change public opinion then:

1 - Why is the anti-gun lobby so powerful and loud?

2 - If they're so smart at brain washing us, how are we sure they're not intentionally leaking the "Russian" bots so that the gun CONTROL lobby will be the one effectively empowered?

I mean, if we're going to talk about one of the worlds (if not THE) most effective propaganda organization on the planet. We're just supposed to take them at "opposite" of their words? They're smart enough to brainwash us, but not smart enough to intentionally get us to react to the opposite?

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you are confusing the agenda. Maybe it's not pushing an agenda rather than shit stirring. I've been under the impression Putin would like nothing more than America to have Civil War 2.0

And that doesn't necessarily mean a hot war, but a war of ideology, which we definitely have that right now, and thanks in some part to Putin and his troll army

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confused about the whole point of the Russian influence operation. They're not trying to shape policy, that's too difficult. They just want to fuck shit up.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[h33t l4x0r]

That's silly, how many people will read the politifact report vs see the tweets? Russia knows we're onto them, but they also know that they're still effectively manipulating us.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Anonymous Coward]

Be honest. It would take ALOT more power to the anti-gun lobby to stop an adult with no criminal record from buying a gun.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[gbjbaanb]

Its probably more like American groups have bought thousands of twitter bots from the cheapest bidder to tweet, like and whatever and it just happens that the cheapest (and technically savvy) people running these twitter bot farms are Russians. (you can search the internet yourself to see how much it costs to have an "internet marketing agency" run a social media campaign for you - its remarkably cheap)

So of course it looks like the Russians are coming - but they're not coming with their own pro-gun messages, they're simply providing the service twitter now relies on for profitability.

I guess the Russians had better invest in an American server to post their social media bots, then nobody would know.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Mike Van Pelt]

I think this is part of it... Putin's goal is to "mess with us", whatever stirs the pot.

However, my observation on my Facebook feed (with friends on both Right and Left) is that almost all of the chatter about this is of the "Ban Guns!!!" sort. The conservative types were almost a full day behind the leftist ones.

Doesn't stop the leftist types from shrieking "How **DARE** you **POLITICIZE** this **TRAGEDY**!!!" the moment anyone not so leftist demurs from their politicizing in favor of their solution of banning all guns.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[ShanghaiBill]

Indeed. The purpose of the Russian bots is not to change opinions nor be "pro-gun", but to sow discord and increase social and political polarization.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we are obsessed with seeing justice done for high treason.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[e3m4n]

why not? i am certain our alphabet agencies are guity of the exact same shit. I am not making excuses for russia, but lets at least own the kind of fucking bastards our intelligence agencies can be.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[easyTree]

This site has become the propaganda equivalent of high frequency trading - multiplayer shill-bots ftw.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Boronx]

I dunno, the only Republicans who seem to care about Russia are the civil servants and a handful of Senators on the intelligence committee, and it's their job to care. That's not enough to make even one splinter party.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[c6gunner]

I would much prefer to take the anti-gun side to it's logical conclusion; take away anything even remotely sharp or heavy from the general public, wrap everyone in a 2 foot thick layer of bubble wrap and kevlar, and require a licence for anyone who wants to leave their house. Think how safe we would all be!

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Maltheus]

You're under that impression, because of the people in this country stirring the shit, attempting to keep the left and the right distracted and at each other's throats, while they continue to loot what's left of America.

Just about every war we've ever gotten into has started over a lie. You'd figure people would have learned by now. Yet all you have to say is that country X is looking at us the wrong way to get everyone back into the fighting mood again. Pro-gun Russian bots.....give me a break!

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[nmb3000]

Doesn't stop the leftist types from shrieking "How **DARE** you **POLITICIZE** this **TRAGEDY**!!!" the moment anyone not so leftist demurs from their politicizing in favor of their solution of banning all guns.

Huh? The only group shrieking about politicizing a tragedy after a shooting is the gun lobby and their buddies on the right.

Without taking sides, if a public shooting and innocent dead people aren't a good reason to discuss the issue of gun control and public safety, when is a good time?

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Alypius]

I'd prefer to take it to the anti-gun's conclusion: anytime something is used for evil, the entire industry must be destroyed. DUI? Ban all cars, alcohol, and drugs (including medicines). Assault with a baseball bat? Ban sports. Cyberbullying? Ban computers. Works for a lot of things!

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[e3m4n]

i doubt the russian government would be labled pro gun. They have some strict gun laws. I think they are pretty pro-chaos. However, its not that they are super effective given their own devices, its that we let fucking assfucks like mark Zuckerfuck ruin society with their goddamn tools that our government thought was a great means of mass control. Unfortunately the russians figured out how to use it better than our government did. IF you want to stop russian tambering, start by storming Facebook and other social media and hang the executives in the street, and tear their server farms to the ground. Otherwise accept the mind control of the masses that the russians are doing a better job of manipulating.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[_Sharp'r_]

It's easier to make the argument that "If the pro-gun lobby was a little more powerful, those kids would be alive." as not only do more guns = less crime, but if the anti-gun lobby hadn't convinced the Feds to prohibit guns at schools, maybe a teacher would have been close enough and armed to stop the shooter before he shot so many people. There weren't nearly this many school shootings before guns were illegal on campus. If the government is going make some place a "gun-free" zone, then they need to be more responsible for keeping people safe there. Instead, they just create a "no defenders allowed" zone.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[ShanghaiBill]

Without taking sides, if a public shooting and innocent dead people aren't a good reason to discuss the issue of gun control and public safety, when is a good time?

Here's the problem: "Mass shootings" account for only about 0.1% of gun deaths, and are NOTHING like the normal quotidian killings that account for the other 99.9%:

* Mass shootings tend to be carefully planned and premeditated.
* Normal shootings tend to be impulsive and emotional.

* Mass shootings are often done by people with no prior violent criminal record.
* Normal shootings are usually by people with a history of violence.

* Mass shootings tend to be done with rifles.
* Normal shootings are mostly done with handguns.

* Mass shooters are usually crazy people.
* Normal shooters are usually stupid people.

So policies directed at mass shootings tend to be ineffective at actually reducing gun deaths. Because of the meticulous planning, mass shooters are difficult to detect. Because of their mental illnesses, they are difficult to deter. This is precisely where gun control will be least effective. The world's worst mass shooting was in Norway, not America.

Another problem with discussing gun control in the aftermath of a mass shooting, is that gun control advocates tend to let their emotions get away from them, and say a lot of silly things that are factually incorrect about "machine guns" and "automatic rifles" (both of which are illegal in America). This just exacerbates the feeling among gun owners that they belong to a different culture, and that there is no room for compromise or moderation.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[e3m4n]

its amazing how many millions of dollars HRC spent on advertizing and yet $150k in facebook ads elected trump. If you could EVER make a case that Killary was NEVER qualified to be president, you just did. Why elect some bitter turd who would spend hundreds of millions of YOUR tax dollars on shit that could be done for just $150 THOUSAND???? Totally not qualified if anything you say is even remotely true.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[e3m4n]

please explain what gun was used to kill 50 people in France on Bastille day? Im still waiting. You cannot legislate crazy.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly do more guns per capita affect anything

Golly it's difficult to think of any possible negative effects from an over abundance of guns sloshing around society. I mean things are just so tranquil these days, I've lost track of the number of mass shootings this year alone.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[c6gunner]

Yeah, you're right. It's crazy how guns manage to keep shooting people all on their own. Serves you right for giving them artificial intelligence.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Hallux-F-Sinister]

I'd prefer to take it to the anti-gun's conclusion: anytime something is used for evil, the entire industry must be destroyed. DUI? Ban all cars, alcohol, and drugs (including medicines). Assault with a baseball bat? Ban sports. Cyberbullying? Ban computers. Works for a lot of things!

Not sure which logical fallacy you're committing most here, reductio ad absurdum, straw-man, or what. There are people who would like to see weapons of WAR be illegal to posses by people not engaged in that profession, without banning ALL guns. Personally I'd love to see all guns banned, IF, IF, IIIIFFFFF you could somehow get ALL the guns off the streets and out of people's possessions, PERMANENTLY, which is physically impossible, so no, I don't actually want to see ALL guns banned, thank you very much. HOWEVER, civilians (and most police,) don't NEED to have or be able to have devices whose sole purpose is to kill LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE RAPIDLY. The COUNTERARGUMENT to this is that we NEED them because "freedom" and "murica". Well... then we ALSO need, by that same pair of, for want of a better word, argument, access, the right to have, keep, posses and bear, all manner of arms, too, besides just weapons of war, like assault rifles and machine guns. These include nuclear, biological, chemical, radiological, and energy weapons. Because... 'freedom'. Also, because... 'murica'. Will you be okay with everyone being allowed to grow anthrax and culture small pox, and walk around with things far more dangerous than these? Why is it just assault rifles that get this protection?

See how stupid that argument sounds? It goes both ways. But I digress... I actually came here to opine on Twitter, which is to say the following: if Twitter allows bots to post shit, what the fuck is the point of Twitter? If they let bots on, let bots keep it.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[ceoyoyo]

And yet countries with gun control have far fewer mass shootings. That one in Norway had a high death toll, but it was very rare.

The NY Times reprinted an article today going over the stats. The number of guns (total, per capita, whatever) correlates with the number of mass shootings. It also correlates with the number of gun deaths (and violent deaths in general), which you're correct, is a bigger problem.

Mass shootings get the press because they're dramatic. But if you can use that impact to do something about the gun problem, go for it. It will help all around.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[DamnOregonian]

I'm not entirely certain you should count yourself among those who speak English...

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[DamnOregonian]

Not that I support the position you're arguing against... But your argument is pretty absurd. You're comparing very dissimilar forms of advertising. The Russian trollvertising was rather brilliantly designed to go viral, amplify, and kill the immune system. The advertisement for of HIV.
Run-of-the-mill political advertising is really just annoying bullshit that most people roll their eyes at. The Russians built theirs to put us in ideological bunkers. They didn't want to change minds, they wanted to keep minds from changing.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[shilly]

Why is the anti-gun lobby so powerful and loud?

[my emphasis]
What now? How could you possibly think the anti-gun lobby is powerful? Powerful lobbies change policy! The anti-gun lobby has got nowhere for years. Are you confusing them in your head with the NRA?

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Alypius]

It's really not much of a fallacy when you consider that certain presidential candidates lamented the fact that gun manufacturers couldn't be sued just because evil people misused their product, the clear intent of which was that said manufacturers would be litigated out of existence. I was simply applying Her logic to other misuses. Anyway.

Your view that "assault rifles" have but one sole purpose is incorrect. The fact that military and police have a similar firearm does not mean that everyone else uses it the same way. I use mine for target competition. I know ranchers who use one for varmint control (prairie dogs, coyote, and the like). Korean shopowners used them to great effect in the defense of their property during the Rodney King riots. What we don't need is people deciding for us what we do or don't need.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[shilly]

Only in America would this argument be considered logical. Have you not noticed that no other country in the world has reported a mass school shooting this year? Do you know how many mass school shootings there have been in the UK, ever? 1. In 1996.

Unconscious incompetence...

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Mashiki]

Huh? The only group shrieking about politicizing a tragedy after a shooting is the gun lobby and their buddies on the right.

What western media outlets have you been watching/reading? It's been wall-to-wall coverage on every media outlet trying to politicize it. Vox, mic, nyt, wapo, usatoday, cnn, nbc, cbs, pbs, fox, etc were all the fuck over it. The first groups to jump up and down and screech were democrats demanding gun restrictions. The first groups to tell them to shut the hell up and the bodies weren't even cold were conservatives - not republicans.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly do more guns per capita affect anything? If I own 10,000 guns does that somehow make me more dangerous than if I only own one?

If you have 10,000 guns you aren't going to notice if ten of them goes missing.
If you only own one you will.

As opposed to what NRA claims gun control doesn't have to be "take all the guns from everyone".
A thing that would help immensely would be to require that gun owners invest in a proper storage for their guns to prevent burglars and children to get easy access to them.
When it comes to neighbor disputes it would also save a lot of lives. Every second that it takes you to go get your gun when the neighbor kicked your dog is a second you have to calm down.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Anonymous Coward]

Bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, revolvers, muzzle loaders, etc. were all used in wars. They are all "weapons of war".

All firearms are designed to accelerate a projectile. The purpose of the projectile is designated by the user (e.g. put holes in paper, ring steel, put holes in flesh).

In a civilian setting over the last hundred years vehicles have killed more Americans by accident than firearms have on purpose. Consider that for a second. Just about everyone owns a device capable of wreaking wholesale destruction, which criminals have full access too, and it isn't a firearm. "Oh but I like cars, they make transport super easy for me, so therefore they aren't really dangerous" does not cut it with me.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[serviscope_minor]

Doesn't stop the leftist types from shrieking

It also apparently doesn't stop the right from inventing something to get outraged about.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Kiuas]

Only in America would this argument be considered logical. Have you not noticed that no other country in the world has reported a mass school shooting this year? Do you know how many mass school shootings there have been in the UK, ever? 1. In 1996.

As a fellow European coming from Finland that has more guns than the UK per capita (we have a large rural population and a lot of stuff that's hunted) I'm gonna try to be the guy to see both sides here.

You're correct in that, with no guns there's almost no school shootings. We've had 2 in the whole of 2000s (with a total of 18 dead including the 2 perps) and we have to my knowledge the most guns per capita of the western nations after the US. But the thing is since the constitution in the states is different, it makes very little sense in these discussions to hammer say, the British model because it's should be clear that something quite like that will never fly in the US, which is where the discussion usually ends. However thing is there is middle-ground between 'ban all guns' and status quo of the US. The whole gun control 'debate' in the US from what I've gathered is more of a shouting match of 2 sides neither of which are actually willing to work together to do something to repair the situation but are both insisting that the magical answer is somehow 'more guns' or 'less guns'. It's not just about the absolute number of firearms, it's more about what methods are taken to try and prevent mentally unstable people from acquiring weapons.

It ought to be obvious that as long as it is possible for nearly anyone to walk into a store and walk out with a gun or guns without any background checks, the amount of gun-crime will stay high. The standard counter-argument for requiring a background check and/or a doctor's statement of mental sanity (as is the case in here for example) is that it will not help because criminals will always get guns from the black market, but that's not true. I mean, obviously some segment of criminals will always be able to acquire guns illegally, but the point is that most people who commit crimes are not criminal masterminds that have the will or the ability or the mental stability to do so, so requiring some checks before one can walk out of the store with a weapon does provably reduce the amount of gun crime and deaths without removing the option of gun ownership from law-abiding, sane people. But related to this problem is the fact that all of this is handled on a local level which is what makes it so tricky. I mean, any amount of background checks or sensible vetting makes little to no difference if one can drive 30 miles out of town and get one's gun across the state line without a check. For gun control measures to work they have to be nation-wide, which means involving the federal government which immediately drives many on the right in the US into full paranoia mode.

Cars are sometimes evoked as a comparison with people pointing out that you need to see a doctor and take part in training before you're given a license to drive a vehicle. People then point out that well, owning a car is not a constitutional right so the comparison is not valid, but that's not true. Think for a moment if it was the case that owning a car was a constitutional right. Would that mean it would make sense to make it legal to just sell a vehicle to anyone who walks through the door as long as they're of a certain age? Would that be something that would make sense for public safety overall? If not, then how come the same attitude makes sense for guns?

So to summarize; dear fellow non-american westerners: stop throwing the 'ït's so obvious, just get rid of all the guns and the problem will be solved, duh!' -card onto the table as it's not helpful in the context of the american legal landscape and overall attitude towards guns. And dear Americans: stop treating all discussion about gun control as if the advocates wanna get rid of the 2nd amendment altogether and consider the fact that there are methods of limiting the availability of guns to mentally unstable individuals that could be implemented without confiscating all of the weapons from everyone or removing the 2nd amendment.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[ShanghaiBill]

Mass shootings get the press because they're dramatic. But if you can use that impact to do something about the gun problem, go for it. It will help all around.

Not true. The polarizing arguments that follow mass shootings do far more harm than good.

You might want to read up on the history on the gun control movement in America. In the 1980s, there was a strong advocacy movement for restrictions on handguns (responsible for 75% of gun homicides and even more gun suicides), and HCI and the Brady Campaign made it clear that they were not after "long guns" used for hunting. Their influence was growing.

That came to an abrupt end on the morning of January 17th, 1989, when Patrick Purdy walk onto a school playground in Stockton, California, opened fire with an SKS semi-automatic rifle, killing five children and wounding 32 more. The advocates took advantage of the publicity and outrage to completely abandon their assurances of focusing on handguns, and called for bans on "automatic rifles" (already illegal), and "AK-47s" (also already illegal). They got their "assault weapons" ban, but alienated millions of hunters and others that had supported them. The backlash swept dozens of gun control advocates from public office in the 1994 Republican mid-term landslide. The ban was repealed. NRA membership ballooned. Trust was gone. Willingness to compromise was gone. Any sort of new restriction on gun ownership is unthinkable in today's political climate.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Freischutz]

Doesn't stop the leftist types from shrieking "How **DARE** you **POLITICIZE** this **TRAGEDY**!!!" the moment anyone not so leftist demurs from their politicizing in favor of their solution of banning all guns.

Seems to me it's the right wing that starts shrieking "How **DARE** you **POLITICIZE** this **TRAGEDY**!!!" the moment anybody suggests that allowing complete nutcases to own firearms might not be a good idea. Then, when they are done shrieking, they go back to handing out 'thoughts and prayers' which in their mind is the only real fix for the problem of mass shootings.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Cederic]

How many guns do you imagine I can fire simultaneously?

Seven. Although I'll pay money to watch you try eight.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Cederic]

yet he could buy an assault rifle, without even a responsible adult to agree to keep control of it most of the time, at age 18?

Average age of US combatants in Vietnam pisses all over that argument.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Gaxx]

Not the source mentioned but this article has a table that shows relative rates between the US and other high-income countries:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/h...

Their source dates back to 2010 but up-to-date and reliable studies are hard to come by and the stats are unlikely to have changed substantially. It is worth noting that the data covers homicide, suicide and accidental death and compares firearm and non-firearm rates (as a common misconception is that what you shave off one will appear on the other set of stats).

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Anonymous Coward]

"It ought to be obvious that as long as it is possible for nearly anyone to walk into a store and walk out with a gun or guns without any background checks, the amount of gun-crime will stay high."

US federal law requires a background check be performed on the sale of any firearm in a store through the National Instant Check System (NICS) and the buyer complete a Form 4473 to prove their identity (and show matching identification) and confirm they are eligible to buy a gun.

Form 4473 is available online if you want to read the questions asked, they're the same as the disqualifying conditions NICS checks for. State and local law may be more restrictive than federal law, but federal law is the minimum that must occur with any commercial sale.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Anonymous Coward]

Very nicely said. However, one other aspect of American culture, which seems to be more or less unique, is "if you're not with us, you're against us". For some reason, everything has to be completely binary - if you're not "pro" guns, then you want to completely repeal the constitution and spend the rest of your days eating babies. If you're not anti-guns, then you're obviously a psychopath who's just working out how to kill as many men, women and children as possible.

It's hard to have any sort of sensible conversation about anything at all when there can only be two highly extreme views on any subject. Even a well reasoned and considered post such as yours looks pretty inflammatory when viewed with your binary glasses on, and that's a real shame.

I'll just end by saying that I'm a Brit, and I'm really fed up with hearing about shootings in the US. It turns out this 'officially' the 18th mass shooting this year (yeah, so that's one every 60 hours), and yet the first I've heard about - and even that's enough to piss me off. How on earth anyone in the USA isn't frothing at the mouth and having involuntary ticks by now is beyond me.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Highdude702]

If you're going to shoot your neighbor for kicking your dog, you have mental issues. And I can understand kicking his ass, but not shooting him. Now the way to combat your train of thought, lets reverse your dream. Lets say everybody is mandated to CARRY a gun. Now neighbor kicks dog, owner thinks... I could just kick his ass, or I could pull out my gun.. Oh wait he has a gun too, now I also chance losing my life and the life of my loved ones. I think I'll go have a talk with my neighbor about why its not good to kick dogs.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[jcr]

guns are made for killing

Yes, they are. The 20th century showed us why individuals had damned well better maintain the means to kill people. When people are disarmed, governments go berzerk.

-jcr

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[shilly]

I appreciate that you're trying to be reasonable and all, but the problem in the US really really isn't about mentally unstable people acquiring guns. The evidence is unequivocal on this: many mentally stable people acquire guns in the US and use them to kill people -- themselves, other individuals, mass shootings.

You really need to look the evidence in the eye, and the evidence is: two things differentiate the US from other countries -- a disproportionately high rate of gun violence compared to everywhere else, and a disproportionately high number of guns in the country.

Let's be clear: many gun proponents *have* looked the evidence in the eye. The NRA certainly has. They know exactly what it says, they understand the truth of it, and -- like Big Tobacco before them, and many other allied causes -- they've decided "fuck it, we'll conspire, and obscure, and lie, and tug at constitutional heart strings, and shift the Overton window, and do many many other things besides". And they've been very successful in bringing a chunk of the American public and a larger chunk of American politicians along with them for the ride.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Anonymous Coward]

Realistically, gun control is all or nothing. We had our rights taken away in the early 1900s, then each tragedy either banned stuff or added stupid stipulations which meant nothing. A gun owner is always facing a defensive battle, as they have everything to lose. Someone who hates guns has nothing to lose, and every small thing, be it a magazine ban, a ban of a color of rifle stock, is a victory, as the ultimate goal is disarmament, as once one set of laws is passed, it is only a matter of time before the battle starts again to take more rights away.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[e_pluribus_funk]

If that was the case, then Hillary and Obama would be in prison.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Oxygen99]

This is a fascinating piece on one of Putin's inner circle.

[Vladislav] Surkov turned Russian politics into a bewildering, constantly changing piece of theater. He sponsored all kinds of groups, from neo-Nazi skinheads to liberal human rights groups. He even backed parties that were opposed to President Putin.

In typical fashion, as the war [In the Ukraine] began, Surkov published a short story about something he called non-linear war. A war where you never know what the enemy are really up to, or even who they are. The underlying aim, Surkov says, is not to win the war, but to use the conflict to create a constant state of destabilized perception, in order to manage and control.

Sound familiar...?

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Nidi62]

Without taking sides, if a public shooting and innocent dead people aren't a good reason to discuss the issue of gun control and public safety, when is a good time?

Here's the problem: "Mass shootings" account for only about 0.1% of gun deaths, and are NOTHING like the normal quotidian killings that account for the other 99.9%:

* Mass shootings tend to be carefully planned and premeditated. * Normal shootings tend to be impulsive and emotional.

* Mass shootings are often done by people with no prior violent criminal record. * Normal shootings are usually by people with a history of violence.

* Mass shootings tend to be done with rifles. * Normal shootings are mostly done with handguns.

* Mass shooters are usually crazy people. * Normal shooters are usually stupid people.

So policies directed at mass shootings tend to be ineffective at actually reducing gun deaths. Because of the meticulous planning, mass shooters are difficult to detect. Because of their mental illnesses, they are difficult to deter. This is precisely where gun control will be least effective. The world's worst mass shooting was in Norway, not America.

Another problem with discussing gun control in the aftermath of a mass shooting, is that gun control advocates tend to let their emotions get away from them, and say a lot of silly things that are factually incorrect about "machine guns" and "automatic rifles" (both of which are illegal in America). This just exacerbates the feeling among gun owners that they belong to a different culture, and that there is no room for compromise or moderation.

So then why won't the Republicans even entertain sane gun laws, such as requiring proof of attendance of a free class that teaches basic firearm safety, laws, and handling/marksmanship before purchasing a firearm/getting a carry permit, along with a yearly recurrent training covering those same topics? We already require a test/license to drive a car (a potentially deadly tool, same as a gun), and many states require or at least suggest taking a hunter safety/law course before getting a hunting license, so this is a logical step. It won't stop mass shootings, but it will prevent a lot of accidental shootings as well as reduce other gun crimes. And I say all this as someone who owns multiple handguns, several shotguns, an AR-15, and various other firearms.

And if you argue "who's going to pay for those classes", well, many of the gun ranges around me already offer free basic courses, just certify those to count. And the NRA rakes in millions each year and is at least nominally about firearm safety, so make them literally put their money where their mouth is. Shortfalls in funding can be made up through local and federal funding which should be available as gun crimes reduce.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[cayenne8]

...both through homicide and suicide and we want to do something about this.

Take suicides out of the numbers...if someone wants to 'off' themselves, they'll find a way.

And, if you take suicides out of the gun death numbers, you basically now have gun deaths less than car deaths annually.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[penandpaper]

guns without any background checks

Background checks happen when you purchase a gun in the US. As an example the Texas church shooting, the shooter was an ex-military (navy?) who was discharged for behavioral problems. The military didn't notify the proper agency (DHS?) to prohibit him from purchasing guns during a background check. the gun he purchased and used was illegally purchased but at not fault of the store because the background processes didn't flag the shooter properly. That example was an example where there was legislation that could help by ensuring that the government properly maintain and update those background records.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[cbraescu1]

that as long as it is possible for nearly anyone to walk into a store and walk out with a gun or guns without any background checks

That's not possible in the United States. So it's a standard case of straw man fallacy.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[quantaman]

...both through homicide and suicide and we want to do something about this.

Take suicides out of the numbers...if someone wants to 'off' themselves, they'll find a way.

Have you ever seen someone stumble, stay upright, and then heard them say "oops, I attempted to fall down but failed"?

If you're 100% committed suicide is incredibly easy to do, but unsuccessful suicide attempts are a thing because even people who really want to die find it really hard to take the act of killing themselves.

Guns make suicide terrifyingly easy, and that's the reason that every study that seriously looks at the question finds guns make suicide way more likely.

In fact, I just had a hunch, remember how Australia restricted gun ownership after 1996? What do you supposed happened to the suicide rate?

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Charcharodon]

That is because you can't count higher than say 3. (public school education)

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Charcharodon]

The anti-gun lobby in places like Chicago reigns nearly supreme.....and the number of children killed with guns in those places leads the nation. Don't give up coming up with a logical argument is hard.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[mpercy]

If a dealer sells at a gun show, he still has to do background check and process Form 4473.

Private citizen to private citizen sales at a gun show do occur, but most private gun sales are between friends and family and many are not even sales, e.g. grandpa passing down a hunting rifle. Lots of other private sales are criminal-criminal sales, for which no new "universal background check" laws would do anything to prevent.

Plus, it is already a felony to give or sell a weapon to someone you know or should have known was not allowed to possess it.

18 U.S.C. 922 (d):

        It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

And also

(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun

As an NRA Life Member, I would have no issue with requiring private sales to require background check, as long as there was an exception for family. Also need to consider actual transfers...Oregon's law is written such that if I say "Hold my rifle while I climb over this fence, then hand me both rifles, then you climb over the fence." we would both have committed illegal transfers.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[painandgreed]

As a fellow European coming from Finland that has more guns than the UK per capita (we have a large rural population and a lot of stuff that's hunted) I'm gonna try to be the guy to see both sides here.

You're correct in that, with no guns there's almost no school shootings. We've had 2 in the whole of 2000s (with a total of 18 dead including the 2 perps) and we have to my knowledge the most guns per capita of the western nations after the US.

Wow. If that's correct, then Finland is 6 times worse than the US per capita for school shootings.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Reverend Green]

HFS - high frequency shilling

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[houghi]

OK. Let's take that train of thought even further.He could call a friend and now they have 2 guns against one. The other one calls in a friend as well. This goes on for a bit. You now have two armies.

They then start to get bigger guns. And as long as they are equal this should even out in peace. So if that is such a good idea, why should we not give the same weapons to all countries? Because that would make it sure there is peace, right?

What? Somebody crazy will abuse them? But that could happen with the person kicking the dog as well. He just could start shooting just for fun while kicking your dog and he does not even care if he gets shot as well. Perhaps not having a gun would mean that you still could go over to him and talk to him and walk away when you notice he is crazy.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Shark]

Knowing history and trying to learn from it? What are you, some kind of weirdo? Arguments are won through knee-jerk emotional responses and narrowing down reality to your own limited perception, not rational thoughts.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Reverend Green]

Suicide is a human right.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Reverend Green]

Bots made me fart.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[mapkinase]

In other words, Russian bots amplify our intrinisic idiocy.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[bugs2squash]

yes - that's what keeps gang members from shooting each other.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Green Mountain Bot]

Absolutely! Just look at the atrocities committed by the governments of places like Australia and Canada!

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Green Mountain Bot]

...both through homicide and suicide and we want to do something about this.

Take suicides out of the numbers...if someone wants to 'off' themselves, they'll find a way.

That's not actually true. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, and the urge often passes as quickly as it comes. A gun makes it quick and easy, so it's a method that allows a person to strike while the iron is hot. Jumping off of something high, or into traffic, or taking pills, etc all take a lot of time and effort, which gives the person time to change their mind.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Green Mountain Bot]

You do realize that you're agreeing with him, and reinforcing his point, right?

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Green Mountain Bot]

While I agree that an amendment is in order, for most of the gun control options that are being put forward don't actually require it. For example, background checks are already allowed, so expanding them to private sales and gun shows would also be allowed. An assault rifle ban was on the books for a decade and never overturned. Allowing the CDC to study gun violence would require only an act of congress, as it was only banned by an act of congress. Silencers (suppressors) are banned already, so banning bump stocks and high-capacity magazines would be allowed.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Dr_Terminus]

The only types I see shrieking "How dare you politicize this tragedy" every time theres a shooting is rightwingers.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Attila]

Likewise, no one ever commits crimes because they chance going to jail.

Right.

In real life, people are more impulsive and don't think realistically about future consequences. This is why arming everyone makes things worse. It's the ones who fly off the handle that win the draw, not the rational "good guys."

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[painandgreed]

Checking into it, because there is a large meme from Onion about "only country it ever happens in", it seems that Sweden and Norway are both much more dangerous per capita than the US for school shootings, Germany was about equal with the US before this week's shooting, and Canada, France, and some Baltic states also have some incidents. This is tracking since 2000.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Dr_Terminus]

Nobody is calling for the industry to be destroyed though. What people are calling for (and vast majorities of Americans support) is some sensible laws that prevent guns from falling into the hands of people that shouldn't be handling guns, as well as limits on the types of guns and magazines available.

Your other analogies don't really hold - cars, baseball bats, computers, etc are all used for other useful things except killing. Even looking at cars, we've had a huge reduction in deaths over time due to an increase of safety regulations imposed on manufacturers. Why can't the same be done for guns, which are made for one thing only - killing.

Now don't misunderstand me, I'm a gun owner, hunter and I go to the range regularly, so I have no problem with guns being owned and used for hunting/sporting purposes. But an AR-15 style rifle has absolutely no place in civilian hands. Similarly, magazine sizes greater than about 5-6 rounds should be restricted - if you need more than 1-2 shots to take down an animal, you need to go spend more time at the range.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Dr_Terminus]

Please explain how you can drive a truck through hallways and classrooms in a school.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[CrimsonAvenger]

So then why won't the Republicans even entertain sane gun laws, such as requiring proof of attendance of a free class that teaches basic firearm safety, laws, and handling/marksmanship before purchasing a firearm/getting a carry permit, along with a yearly recurrent training covering those same topics?

I dunno, maybe it's that Second Amendment thing? You know, the one that has "shall not be infringed" in it? You do know that "requiring proof of attendance" is an infringement, right?

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[eheldreth]

You can't walk into a store (or a gun show even though that's a popular misconception) in the US and buy a gun without a background check. All gun dealers in the US are required to perform a NICS background check before the sale. There is only one exception to this rule and that is in some states a private individual selling his gun to another private individual is not required to perform any sort of background check. He is still responsible for only selling to someone who can legally own a gun. In fact no federal mechanism for them to do so currently even exists.

As to the car analogy, that's pretty much how it is. In the US you can own a car without any testing, licensing, or registration. You can drive that car on your own property and in fact many farms do just that with trucks that are "Farm Use Only". What you can't do is drive a vehicle on public roads without the testing, licensing, and registration. Depending on the state/city there may be additional tax issues at play. The gun control equivalent would be carry permits not ownership. Gun laws are currently very similar to the aforementioned car laws in that you can own a gun, keep it in your house, and shoot it on your property (assuming you have enough property) without any sort of permit (in most states). You may need to have a license (constitutional carry states not withstanding) to carry it in public.

In the end the biggest issue is that we are running into the limits of what the constitution will allow. If we want to enact actual gun restrictions the 2nd amendment must either be repealed or updated. Many experts believe the 1994 gun ban would have been overturned by the supreme court had it been left in place long enough. Fear of that precedent is one of the forces that kept it from being renewed. The lowest hanging fruit still available to us is to enable and require background checks for private sales and perhaps to improve reporting from states and the military to NICS. That would require some sort of publicly accessible background check portal for NICS or a requirement that FLL licensed dealers support checks on private sales for a minimum fee.

Mental health checks will be a no go because of a fear that they would be abused to limit ownership for political reasons rather than actual mental health concerns. This sort of abuse has been documented by some police with broad control over carry permits. They refuse to sign off on anyone because they are politically against private gun ownership. Likewise registration will never happen because of a prevailing fear of the sort of abuses California and New York perpetuated after their registration efforts. First they registered, then they banned. I don't think I'm overstating the issue when I say registration at a federal level would likely cause a civil war. Just look at the mass non compliance in Vermont for an example of peoples reactions to it since CA and NY.

Beyond closing holes the background check system there simply isn't much left that can be done without constitutional changes.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[pnutjam]

If your going to list a narrative, provide some links. Educate us.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[apoc.famine]

Then, when they are done shrieking, they go back to handing out 'thoughts and prayers' which in their mind is the only real fix for the problem of mass shootings.

What's wrong with that? It's worked so well in the past! Think of all the shootings that didn't happen because of their thoughts and prayers. And here you are, blaming them when they miss one.

Nobody is perfect.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Nidi62]

So then why won't the Republicans even entertain sane gun laws, such as requiring proof of attendance of a free class that teaches basic firearm safety, laws, and handling/marksmanship before purchasing a firearm/getting a carry permit, along with a yearly recurrent training covering those same topics?

I dunno, maybe it's that Second Amendment thing? You know, the one that has "shall not be infringed" in it? You do know that "requiring proof of attendance" is an infringement, right?

If we are going old school on it, the local militia were required to show up every now and then for drill on the town square. Guess we should just bring that back then.

But you know, heaven forbid we actually hold those people with "gun control means using both hands" bumperstickers to their promise and make sure they actually know how to control a gun.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[randallman]

And the guy that would consider shooting someone for kicking his dog is going to "think it through". Right. Hotheads don't think, they just react.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[apoc.famine]

Exactly. It's why Chicago and Baltimore are so serene and peaceful.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[david_thornley]

Why is the anti-gun lobby so powerful and loud?

I don't know. Why are horses all purple with pink spots?

If the anti-gun lobby was that powerful, you wouldn't be able to buy a semi-automatic rifle with large magazine anywhere in the US. Since you can, you're being paranoid. This is not currently a good subject to be paranoid about.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[david_thornley]

Um, so far this year we're running something like an average of two school mass shootings a week. If we had to wait two weeks before a school shooting to say anything about it, we'd never get a chance.

What the pro-gun types need to do is come up with something halfway reasonable to do about the shootings, and push it. What people are seeing is children being murdered in schools, and pro-gun people being afraid for their guns rather than trying to help. The NRA could earn a lot of good karma right now by pushing for restrictions that would cut down on mass shootings.

If nobody offers good solutions, people are going to adopt bad ones. You probably wouldn't like that.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[david_thornley]

If that's the way you feel, make some useful suggestions. Right now, you're fueling the demand for the "all" part of all-or-nothing. If you gun nuts could push for something that would reduce school shootings, a lot of the demand for additional gun control would go away.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Reverend Green]

They're certainly less free.

Aussies are great people. I hope they get their country back.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[cayenne8]

That's not actually true. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, and the urge often passes as quickly as it comes. A gun makes it quick and easy, so it's a method that allows a person to strike while the iron is hot. Jumping off of something high, or into traffic, or taking pills, etc all take a lot of time and effort, which gives the person time to change their mind.

But, that is a totally different thing. That is that person's choice...bad or otherwise.

As a lawful citizen and gun owner, I should not be lumped in or even have stats on folks like me associated with someone who has mental problems and is wanting to kill themselves.

Jumping off a bridge is quick and easy too...should we be worried about common sense bridge laws when that becomes popular?

A gun is just a tool like any other to a person wanting to commit suicide. It isn't special and should not be lumped in with gun deaths, a statistic that is bandied about as a reason to remove the right of the majority of gun owners in the US.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Freischutz]

Then, when they are done shrieking, they go back to handing out 'thoughts and prayers' which in their mind is the only real fix for the problem of mass shootings.

What's wrong with that? It's worked so well in the past! Think of all the shootings that didn't happen because of their thoughts and prayers. And here you are, blaming them when they miss one.

Nobody is perfect.

https://pics.me.me/excellent-n...

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Green Mountain Bot]

As a lawful citizen and gun owner, I should not be lumped in or even have stats on folks like me associated with someone who has mental problems and is wanting to kill themselves.

Just because you don't have mental problems now doesn't mean you won't have them at some point in the future, or that someone in your household won't. And the urge to kill oneself is not a constant urge. It passes.

Jumping off a bridge is quick and easy too...should we be worried about common sense bridge laws when that becomes popular?

It takes time to get to a bridge, get out of your car, and climb the barrier (assuming you can), and there are likely to be people on that bridge who will try to stop you. I live somewhere where the is a bridge known for being a suicide bridge. The authorities have taken steps to make it harder to use.

A gun is just a tool like any other to a person wanting to commit suicide. It isn't special and should not be lumped in with gun deaths, a statistic that is bandied about as a reason to remove the right of the majority of gun owners in the US.

It absolutely should be included with gun deaths, just like accidental discharge. 3/4s of all suicide attempts are by women. 3/4s of all successful suicides are by men. The reason for the difference is that men use guns and women don't. Those who don't use guns are far more likely to fail in their attempt and never try again.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[_Sharp'r_]

It turns out this 'officially' the 18th mass shooting this year

I'm not saying you aren't sincere in what you've heard, but it's also difficult to have a sensible conversation when one side is constantly spreading lies and propaganda. There haven't been 18 shootings this year, unless you count things like an accidental discharge from a cop's pistol which hurt no one.

The reality is that the U.S. Homicide rate is at a 51-year low, gun homicides are down 49% in the last 20 years and gun crime has also been cut in half over the last 20 years.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[ceoyoyo]

The US seems to be an odd outlier in that regard. Other countries in the world, notably the UK and Australia, have used the aftermath of mass shootings to enact strong gun control and slash their violent crime and shooting rates.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[bongey]

Only if you leave out the millions killed by governments.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Mashiki]

Um, so far this year we're running something like an average of two school mass shootings a week. If we had to wait two weeks before a school shooting to say anything about it, we'd never get a chance.

No, you've had two. That's it, one involving 4 people. The other yesterday.

What the pro-gun types need to do is come up with something halfway reasonable to do about the shootings, and push it. What people are seeing is children being murdered in schools, and pro-gun people being afraid for their guns rather than trying to help. The NRA could earn a lot of good karma right now by pushing for restrictions that would cut down on mass shootings.

Sure, but you're not going to like it. Because we're now going to bring back the mental health hospitals that the left started destroying and fully destroyed by the 1980's. We're also going to revoke the rights of individuals to refuse medication, this is where most of the problem stems from. The complete destruction of mental health care in the west. In Canada we have stabbings, the US it's guns. UK stabbings. Aus stabbings. And so on, it all falls into the same category as to why these people snap in a particular direction.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Mashiki]

You do realize that you're agreeing with him, and reinforcing his point, right?

Re-read what I wrote in context, you're only half-right.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Hognoxious]

if someone wants to 'off' themselves, they'll find a way.

That's a lie. It's not a mistake, because you've said it before and I've called you on it.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Hognoxious]

Jumping off a bridge is quick and easy too...should we be worried about common sense bridge laws when that becomes popular?

Some of us don't live near a bridge (though some perhaps should be under one).

But did you even read the post you're replying to? The bit about the time to reflect & cool off?

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Hognoxious]

N-n-n-n-nineteen?

Man, that song sucked.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Hognoxious]

Oh wait he has a gun too, better sneak up on him.

FTFY.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Hognoxious]

if you need more than 1-2 shots to take down an animal, you need to go spend more time at the range.

Guy: You're hunting deer with a minigun?

Other guy: I fancied some venison burgers and my mincer's broken.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Hognoxious]

Which is even more amazing when you consider the ancestry of most Australians.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Hognoxious]

Yeah, I don't think GP flies very often. Maybe he's not allowed to?

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Hognoxious]

3/4s of all suicide attempts are by women. 3/4s of all successful suicides are by men. The reason for the difference

Stop! I hope you don't work for Google!

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Hognoxious]

It's a silly metric. The relevant number isn't guns per capita, it's gun OWNERS per capita.

In terms of a random housebreaker getting his grubby hands on one I agree. But unless there's a few dozen guys with their houses literally full of them the US probably scores pretty high on that measure too.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[cayenne8]

But did you even read the post you're replying to? The bit about the time to reflect & cool off?

But, that's not MY problem.

I should not have my rights infringed upon, just because some slim minority has mental problems.

I"m getting tired of having to fit everything into the lowest common denominator.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Ol Olsoc]

If you're going to shoot your neighbor for kicking your dog, you have mental issues. And I can understand kicking his ass, but not shooting him. Now the way to combat your train of thought, lets reverse your dream. Lets say everybody is mandated to CARRY a gun. Now neighbor kicks dog, owner thinks... I could just kick his ass, or I could pull out my gun.. Oh wait he has a gun too, now I also chance losing my life and the life of my loved ones. I think I'll go have a talk with my neighbor about why its not good to kick dogs.

How is your dream situation working in Afghanistan, where even little kids carry?

The problem with Everyone owns a gun, and is always at the ready and willing to kill anyone who disagrees with them is that yes Virginia, there are nuts in this world, and yeah some of them are actually interested and looking forward to end other people's lives. And even more so, they intended to evade justice by killing themselves. This latest second amendment party is unusual in that the patriot didn't intend to kill himself after expressing his freedom.

If you are worried about your neighbor gut shooting you and watching you flop around or vice versa, and that is the only reason you co-exist, then you know one of you is going to fuck up and the other will demonstrate his right by making you dead and that's okay, right?

The problem is that firearms are a huge force amplifier. And if there is universal carry and implied "fuck with me and you're dead" approach. the nuts are still going to have and happily use them.

I enjoy, own and use firearms. But this setup we have now? It just isn't working.

But it is hard to say how this is going to turn out. At least the NRA has Russia on it's side.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Ol Olsoc]

Another problem with discussing gun control in the aftermath of a mass shooting, is that gun control advocates tend to let their emotions get away from them, and say a lot of silly things that are factually incorrect about "machine guns" and "automatic rifles" (both of which are illegal in America).

Don't you know it. Parents of dead children say the silliest damn things.

The premise you bring up is correct, but utterly pointless and signifies absolutely nothing.

The point is, the Politicians who are owned by the NRA just don't want people saying anything at all, ever. And they won't do anything anyhow. Voters can scream and yell all they like, but the politicians don't work for the voters.

And recent revelations are looking more like they are getting laundered money from another government.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[jakob.stengard]

Its always hard to take things away. Better not grant permission in the first place. Like in college, if professors let students stay in the lecture halls after class for studdy, and then suddenly they want to start locking doors again, the students will feel like their rights has been violated even though this was not a fundamental right to begin with.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Highdude702]

The problem with Everyone owns a gun, and is always at the ready and willing to kill anyone who disagrees with them is that yes Virginia, there are nuts in this world, and yeah some of them are actually interested and looking forward to end other people's lives. And even more so, they intended to evade justice by killing themselves. This latest second amendment party is unusual in that the patriot didn't intend to kill himself after expressing his freedom.

Every reply I have gotten to this post seems to reply with an argument basically saying that "bad" people cant get guns and if my mandated "everybody carry" law were in effect they would all of a sudden have a gun. I never said "implied "fuck with me and you're dead" approach.". Its more of an implied "think before you do something stupid" law.

I don't own a firearm, the man says I'm not allowed to(felon and all). BUT believe me, and I have changed my ways I do nothing illegal but smoke weed(legal in my state) and I no longer associate with the people I once did. back to the BUT! Say I wanted to kill my neighbor, chances are I wouldn't need a gun.. However I could go get one rather cheap, without any sort of background check or anything within a few hours. So disarming law abiding citizens is a criminals wet dream, you're talking to a former criminal. Guns are very easy to get no matter the place you live.

Fun Fact: The states with the harshest gun laws are often the easiest place to buy guns for criminals.

I hope this pours some insight from the other side of the fence onto you. I really wish people would stop assuming if we outlawed guns, or even fully automatic(illegal in most places without special permitting) they would "disappear". Semiautomatic weapons are very easy to turn full auto. and surprisingly most of the guns gang members use that are full auto, weren't manufactured that way.

Re: SO... if we're going to pretend

[Ol Olsoc]

Every reply I have gotten to this post seems to reply with an argument basically saying that "bad" people cant get guns and if my mandated "everybody carry" law were in effect they would all of a sudden have a gun.

Huh? While I never ever said or implied such a thing, First off, you gotta define what bad is. So we'll start with a few questions I'll ask and then give my answers.

Should this kid have been allowed to purchase a weapon?

To me, the answer is an obvious No. The boy had a record of serious mental issues.

This seems to be a common thread among these shootings.

Should a rifle designed specifically designed for killing humans be available to people who exhibit the likelihood of using that tool to kill other humans?

No

I never said "implied "fuck with me and you're dead" approach.". Its more of an implied "think before you do something stupid" law.

A couple points here. I've spoken with people who have left no question in my mind that they are hoping to kill someone. Ever seen that gleam in someone's eyes when they no longer look quite human? And yeah, actual background checks with information from actual mental health pros won't prevent everything. Many opponents of any sort of restrictions argue that point. That's making perfect the enemy of good. Do you figure the Republican wall will stop every single Mexican rapist from entering the USA?

Say I wanted to kill my neighbor, chances are I wouldn't need a gun.. However I could go get one rather cheap, without any sort of background check or anything within a few hours. So disarming law abiding citizens is a criminals wet dream, you're talking to a former criminal.

It kinda already is a criminal's wet dream. And you somehow managed to accuse me of saying I want to disarm law abiding citizens. Stop that. I never said that, and I don't want to. I don't want mentally ill people to own and use.

Unfortunately, the NRA and politicians who have been bought with Russian money, Russian trolls and some citizens who love guns more than life itself have so far demanded and insured that the mentally ill have a right to own guns, and are perfectly happy with the mentally ill killing people.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Plumpaquatsch]

yet he could buy an assault rifle, without even a responsible adult to agree to keep control of it most of the time, at age 18?

Average age of US combatants in Vietnam pisses all over that argument.

Yeah, because a ton of them shot themselves in the foot after extensive training proves that every idiot should have one without any training.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Plumpaquatsch]

but if the anti-gun lobby hadn't convinced the Feds to prohibit guns at schools,

Apart from the anti-bear guns of course.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Plumpaquatsch]

People then point out that well, owning a car is not a constitutional right

Well, there only is an individual's constitutional right to bear arms if you look at the NRA-edited version of the 2nd amendment. You know, the one without the "well regulated militia". https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856?o=0

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[david_thornley]

Sorry about the error. What I wrote was incorrect. It also seems to be a fairly prevalent belief, and I got it from enough sources that I didn't bother checking it.

What we on the Left wanted was treatment for mental illness, not just warehousing. This required funding, which Reagan disliked. Many of the problems we've got nowadays are because people have nowhere to go, not because they're trying to dodge the loony bin.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Plumpaquatsch]

The entire premise of this is bizarre. The Russians want Americans to have more freedoms?

No, they want them to have more guns. Americans can't kill each other with freedoms.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[Plumpaquatsch]

Why is the anti-gun lobby so powerful and loud?

[my emphasis] What now? How could you possibly think the anti-gun lobby is powerful? Powerful lobbies change policy! The anti-gun lobby has got nowhere for years. Are you confusing them in your head with the NRA?

Well, doesn't the NRA keep telling us that you need a good guy with a gun to stop the bad guys with guns? So obviously the NRA are the anti-gun-gun lobby.

Re:SO... if we're going to pretend

[flygeek]

Requiring gun owners to have some level of training is not a bad idea, and could probably be implemented even at a federal level once enough states adopt the idea (many states already do require this in order to purchase a gun). However, the problem is that such legislation has been used as a stalking horse for gun control policies far beyond mere education - all you do is pass the law requiring training, and then make training almost impossible to get ("oh, sure, we'll put on the wait-list for the gun class that starts two years from next Thursday, after you pay the $1000 fee"). This is not a theoretical risk; New York City is notorious for this kind of behavior with their gun permit system, for example.

Any federal legislation along those lines will have to have very clear fall-through provisions such that if the necessary education mechanisms are not put into place, the law would become void.

Would this be an "infringement" of the Second Amendment? Maybe, maybe not: "infringement" is a broad term in law but it has limitations, too. As long as the law is non-discriminatory (anyone meeting the criteria can get a gun) and the bar is not set too high (difficulty, cost, etc.) then there's a good chance that the courts would not consider it to be an infringement, given that many of the laws already on the books have passed that test.

Prior to conquest...

[Anonymous Coward]

... one must divide.

You ain't seen propaganda yet

[Anonymous Coward]

You ain't seen propaganda until the NRA starts rolling.

Re:Russians!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Americans have not yet implemented Unicode support, comrade.

Didn't take long for you to blame the victim.

[bit trollent]

LOL What?!

You think it's the left's fault that a gun worshipping Pro-Trump neo-Nazi shot up a school?

You fucking morons and Russian collaborators never stop sinking...

Get fucked, Nazi.

Re:Didn't take long for you to blame the victim.

[PopeRatzo]

Is it any wonder he decided to fight back?

In the mind of this "patriot", killing classmates is "fighting back".

Re:Didn't take long for you to blame the victim.

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's bad when a "niigger" does it, right? They're just supposed to sit down, shut up, and know thier place right? Even your vicitimization is racist-- only white people can be oppressed.

Re:Didn't take long for you to blame the victim.

[Boronx]

No, but they're a large minority and at the moment they're the only ones with motivation to speak up.

Re:Didn't take long for you to blame the victim.

[whoever57]

Re: GP post: Poe's law, perhaps?

Re:Didn't take long for you to blame the victim.

[e3m4n]

no, he tried to say this was a right wing nazi militia dude... its the whole undertones of trying to tie it back to a particular group. It turned out to be fake news that he was in that white supremist group. I wanted to point out that before someone jump to some right-wing-gun-toting conclusion, this county is overwhelmingly democrat. The chances of him being a right wing nut are not good so best not go there. The point is the dude was off his rocker, just like the columbine kids. BTW he was 19, so you might want to catch up here. He was old enough to vote and was old enough to buy his rifle nearly a year ago. His dad died a few years ago and he just lost his mom to pneumonia. He picked VALENTINES day for a very specific reason. We dont yet know why, but rest asured it was significant. He got expelled a while ago and it wasnt on valentines day. It _could_ be that his ex-girlfriend had a new boyfriend that ended up beating him up (maybe he had it coming) but that is still to be determined. My point is "Gun Toting Pro-Trump" is about as unlikely as it will get in Broward County.

Re:Didn't take long for you to blame the victim.

[e3m4n]

yes it has

http://www.tallahassee.com/sto...

"Local law enforcement: No ties between militia and Florida high school shooter"

thats like someone doing something and then claiming alegience to Al Queda. Its not the same thing.

Re:Didn't take long for you to blame the victim.

[e3m4n]

I thought a nazi was anti-jew not anti-muslem.

Re:Didn't take long for you to blame the victim.

[mentil]

This for some reason reminds me of the suspected connection between suicide bombers and polygyny. I wonder if here, there's a connection between mass shootings and some perceived reduced availability of women. Aside from the NIU shooter, I can't recall any that had girlfriends at the time; and it always seems to be a guy who does this.

Re:Didn't take long for you to blame the victim.

[dwillden]

He is 19 years old, he most certainly can vote.

Re:Didn't take long for you to blame the victim.

[Kaenneth]

I think the lack of girlfriend comes from being unstable; not the other way around.

Don't wrap your taco around crazy.

Re: Didn't take long for you to blame the victim.

[Reverend Green]

Yes, violently neo-puritan feminism causes mass shootings. Does this surprise anyone at all?

Re: Didn't take long for you to blame the victim.

[Reverend Green]

Vlad, Vlad, Vlad.... don't you know, there are ZERO Nazis in the United States. Find something less obviously false to propagandize.

Re:Didn't take long for you to blame the victim.

[david_thornley]

I wanted to point out that before someone jump to some right-wing-gun-toting conclusion, this county is overwhelmingly democrat. The chances of him being a right wing nut are not good so best not go there.

The county is also overwhelmingly not going into schools and shooting them up. The shooter is likely to differ from county norms in other ways, so it would be a mistake to think his political orientation is probably the same.

Re:Didn't take long for you to blame the victim.

[david_thornley]

Depends. The Third Reich was not anti-Muslim, because they could get a little help out of the Muslims, but I don't think they'd have maintained that, any more than they'd have continued to consider the Japanese honorary Aryans. Neo-Nazis can pick their own hates, and being anti-Muslim sells even better among their recruiting pool than being anti-Jew.

#NotABot

[sexconker]

I don't want any gun control legislation. I don't care what tragedy occurred. It's unconstitutional. All of it.
If you want to restrict guns do it legally - amend the constitution first, then create laws that don't violate the constitution.

As it is, every single law, regulation, etc. that interferes with US citizens keeping and bearing firearms is unconstitutional. If you disagree you're incorrect. If you don't like that right guaranteed by the constitution, you're free to work to change the constitution. Any restriction at any other level is illegal.

Re:#NotABot

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun control laws were passed to suppress African American civil rights groups. Anyone who supports civil liberties for everyone ought to support gun rights.

Re:#NotABot

[Anonymous Coward]

The SCOTUS disagrees with you. They are the ones we've entrusted to decide which laws are "legal" and constitutional, and they would find your position laughable and quaint.

Re:#NotABot

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, well regulated militias that defend and promote civil rights such as the Black Panthers had their guns legislated away. Gun control is a tool of oppression, it first targeted disenfranchised minorities. America is civil liberties, patriotism is protecting them.

Re:#NotABot

[kqs]

I completely agree with you. The right to bear arms for anyone in a state-sanctioned militia must not be infringed.

So, just curious: which state militia was this nutjob in? Or do you hate the constitution so much that you plan on misrepresent what it says?

I'm a liberal. Liberals don't care about what guns you own. All liberals want is to reduce the crazy number of violent deaths in the USA.

So what is your plan for reducing the violent deaths? Because all I've heard is "well, 100 million guns hasn't reduced the killing, so we clearly need 300 million!"

Re:#NotABot

[LynnwoodRooster]

Quote the whole fragment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

You cannot have a free state without a militia, and to guarantee that,

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

You block the rights of people to keep and bear arms, you defeat the ability to have a militia and thus guarantee a free state. In other words - remove arms, you necessarily eliminate freedom. You do not need the militia to be standing, but to be able to organize it, you must first have armed citizens. Why do you hate freedom, why do you hate the Constitution?

Re:#NotABot

[angel'o'sphere]

Perhaps you should read the constitution.
There is no point in your constitution allowing arbitrary citizens to bear arms.

Strange, that foreigners know that and US citizens don't.
Don't you think so?

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:#NotABot

[msauve]

Ahh. A sophist. "Militia" doesn't mean what you think it means, and a prefatory clause isn't binding.

As a self professed liberal, do you also support other laws which would restrict civil liberties? How about the 1st A? It starts with "Congress shall make no law...". So, that means that the States (which definitely aren't "Congress") can make laws establishing religion, restricting speech and press, etc. Right?

Living in a system with the fundamental principles of freedom and liberty means you accept more risk. Fortunately for you, you can move to almost anywhere else and trade that freedom and liberty for less risk and more security. Your choice.

Re:#NotABot

[friedman101]

Really? Which well regulated militia was Nikolas Cruz a part of?

Have you read the entire amendment?

Re:#NotABot

[Ichijo]

As it is, every single law, regulation, etc. that interferes with US citizens keeping and bearing firearms is unconstitutional.

Not just U.S. citizens but illegal immigrants also.

Re:#NotABot

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, it can't. Nothing in there even hints at the need for a standing militia. Nothing. It does say you need a militia (NOT standing - that is non-existent) to guarantee a free state, and that the rights to own arms shall not (not should not) be infringed. If you want to tie the two phrases together, the ownership of arms is a necessity for a militia. And a militia is the only way to guarantee a free society. Nothing about standing, nothing about required.

Re:#NotABot

[PopeRatzo]

I don't care what tragedy occurred.

And that surprises no one.

Re:#NotABot

[PopeRatzo]

Really? Which well regulated militia was Nikolas Cruz a part of?

According to his own Instagram profile, he was part of the #MAGA army.

https://www.snopes.com/did-sho...

Re:#NotABot

[BitterOak]

At one time they considered segregation and slavery legal. The SCOTUS was wrong. They are also wrong on several other things, too...

Actually, the SCOTUS was right. Slavery was legal at the time and it said so in the Constitution. Then the 13th Amendment was passed abolishing slavery. That's the point the original poster was making: if you want gun control, amend the Constitution.

Re:#NotABot

[Smidge204]

The Constitution also says that Congress how the power to conscript the Militia to enforce laws, repel invasion and suppress insurrection. Upon doing so, the called-upon Militias are placed under direct command of the President.

So any notion that the militias are there to fight back against the government is right out the fucking window considering the government has explicit authority to use those same militias to fight against any such attempt. I can think of two historical examples where this has happened; The Whiskey Rebellion, and the Civil War.

And it's not about "free society" either. Among the enumerated powers that Congress has, it's also explicit that a federal army can't be funded for more than two years. The founding fathers were justifiably wary of a perpetual, professional army. Instead, the idea was clearly to use militias of armed citizens, trained and organized at the state level, to be the first line of defense against invaders and insurgents (aka threats to the free state). The militias would hopefully either be able to resolve the conflict, or buy enough time for Congress to fund and organize a proper army.

Just sayin' - if you're not willing to pick up your weapons and fight upon orders of the federal government, you are not part of a militia in the way the Constitution talks about them. You are at best a gun enthusiast, and at worst a potential domestic terrorist.
=Smidge=

Re:#NotABot

[sjames]

As a member of the left, I am well aware that in the language of the time the Constitution was written, well regulated meant (more or less) able to hit the broad side of a barn without shooting people on your own side, and the militia meant everyone old enough to defend the country (realistically, they pictured men since they didn't see women as able with a weapon).

State sanctioned had nothing to do with it.

What we need is proper universal health care and it needs to include mental health. I would like to agree that people with mental illness that includes violent ideation should be able to have their right to own guns suspended by the courts after due process, but we need to make sure to prevent the abuse of mental health care like the Soviet Union did with "sluggishly progressing schizophrenia"

Re: #NotABot

[e3m4n]

have you read the constitution? did you know that the constitution says we cannot have a standing army? Did you know that we can have a navy but not an army? That's why we are supposed to have a militia. you might be young. During hurricane andrew, there were a lot of devastation in miami. As a result there was a lot of crime. Neighborhoods would organize and barricade their neighborhoods and organize armed patrols to protect their neighbors. This is the very definition of a militia. Its not always the crazy rednecks wanting to overthrow the government.

Re:#NotABot

[e3m4n]

when it was drafted, being a member of a colony and being a man immediately made you a member of a militia. All free men were required to have two flintlock rifles, a bag of powder and X number of pounds of shot. This was a mandatory requirement. there was no volunteer military. Where you a male? check. Are you alive and does blood flow through your veins? check. Welcome to the militia.

Re:#NotABot

[e3m4n]

you do realize that this is because there was not supposed to be a standing army. We didnt have a standing army until after WWI. It is entirely unconstitutional.

Re:#NotABot

[e3m4n]

yes, in fact, there is nothing unconstitutional about me having some sort of alient blaster as its not a firearm. However the supreme court, in 1938 did rule that the 2nd amendment was intended to give the people access to the same weapons of the 'military of the day' meaning the exact same type of weapons the military uses.

Re:#NotABot

[e3m4n]

untrue, liberals always target 'scary looking guns'. If they really gave a flying fuck about reducing numbers they would use statistics. Statistically murders by rifles is less than 1 percent of all gun deaths. Liberals would be banning fucking 9mm pistols sold in the price range of $200-$350 and ban pawn shops from selling used 9mm if they gave a fuck about reducing deaths. There is a reason why the DNC, at this very moment, is circulating a petition that requires you to DONATE if you want to add your fucking name. They dont give a flying fuck about your opinion, they just want your money. Become a libertarian, you'd be surprised how much in common you have with them without the two-faced nature of self-proclaimed liberals.

Re:#NotABot

[e3m4n]

try to keep up...

http://www.tallahassee.com/sto...

turns out to be fake news yet again.

Re:#NotABot

[quantaman]

I don't want any gun control legislation. I don't care what tragedy occurred. It's unconstitutional. All of it.
If you want to restrict guns do it legally - amend the constitution first, then create laws that don't violate the constitution.

As it is, every single law, regulation, etc. that interferes with US citizens keeping and bearing firearms is unconstitutional. If you disagree you're incorrect. If you don't like that right guaranteed by the constitution, you're free to work to change the constitution. Any restriction at any other level is illegal.

Fine, you have the right to bare arms (lets forget about the militia qualifier since the courts have).

It doesn't follow that you the right to bare any arm you wish. You don't have the right to own assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons, bump stocks, high capacity magazines, etc, etc.

A low capacity, low power, handgun is perfectly sufficient for self-defence. A single shot rifle is perfectly adequate for hunting. Fancier guns locked up at a shooting range are good for recreational shooting. Mandatory background checks for any purchase cut down on some of the illegal weapons. Maybe even mandatory training would pass muster.

You'd still have the right to bear arms, but you'd cut out a lot of the mass shootings, and maybe you put a dent in the gun culture that kills so many people.

Re: #NotABot

[c6gunner]

Strange, that foreigners know that and US citizens don't.
Don't you think so?

No, I don't think there's anything strange about hubristic, condescending foreigners thinking they understand the second amendment better than US citizens.

Re:#NotABot

[ScentCone]

The right to bear arms for anyone in a state-sanctioned militia must not be infringed.

It seems unlikely that you're actually as ignorant as you're pretending to be. But you seem to think it's rhetorically important to pretend you're unfamiliar with the constitution, so, sure, let's play.

The phrasing of the 2nd Amendment means the OPPOSITE of what you're transparently pretending it means. The people who wrote the Bill of Rights had just freed themselves from living under a regime that disarmed individuals, arguing that the crown's soldiers were all the law enforcement anyone in the colonies would need. Which was nonsense, of course. But the founders were absolutely dead set against allowing their new government to, for example, take a farmer's personal weapons away, or allow a local governor or other figure to have a monopoly on the ownership of weapons. The founders were very uncomfortable about there even being a standing army of any kind, even at the local militia level. But the realized it was going to be necessary, and - knowing there would be people like you - used some of that precious space in the Bill of Rights to explicitly pre-empt exactly the sort of thing you'd like to do.

If they were to write the amendment in today's conversational language, it would go like this: "Because a standing professional military, even if just local in scope, looks like an inevitable necessity, nobody with government power should use that as an excuse to infringe on a citizen's right to personally keep and bear their own arms."

You know, just like the 1st Amendment says that nobody in government can prevent you from speaking, assembling, etc. The Bill of Rights doesn't establish some standard for your right to speak, or your right to defend yourself. It anticipates people like you with a totalitarian mindset looking to use government power to control others, and they identified some potential hot spots (speech, self defense, privacy, etc) that merited specific language in the country's charter.

Of course you know all of this, because you've also read the many letters, transcripts, and papers authored by the people who wrote the Bill of Rights, who come right out and explain to you that you have it exactly wrong, and they tell you why they said what they said. So quit with the theatrics, and just admit that you're hoping nobody will notice when you're trying to mislead on the subject because you don't have the energy to try to amend the constitution in your effort to return the monopoly on the keeping and bearing of arms back to the way the British crown liked it.

Liberals don't care about what guns you own

Ah, that explains why we keep hearing so many liberals shouting,"Who needs an AR-15? They should be banned!" Please, now you're just embarrassing yourself. The country is littered with laws - written and passed by liberal legislators and governors - that explicitly DO care. States like California and Maryland prohibit, for example, any handgun that they haven't expressly listed (by make and model) as being acceptable. They consider things like 11 rounds to be illegal, but 10 or 8 to be less so, and so bits of sheet metal bent into different sizes to hold the ammo are very much what liberals care about. Which, again, you know, and are trying to pretend you don't.

So what is your plan for reducing the violent deaths?

Enforce existing laws. It's too politically incorrect in liberal circles to call crazy people crazy, so liberals would rather allow crazy people to buy guns than be forced to act all judgey and hurt a crazy person's feelings. Because people who are documented as being crazy are immediately stopped during their federal background checks from buying guns. While on that subject: the NICS system blocks tens of thousands of people from making gun purchases every year. The very act of submitting their federal paperwork to attempt such a purchase IS A FELONY. And yet

Re:#NotABot

[e3m4n]

finally someone else who understands that we are all the militia whether we like it or not. and someone who gets there was to be no standing army. why the hell did you post AC?

Re:#NotABot

[ScentCone]

Really? Which well regulated militia was Nikolas Cruz a part of?

Nice attempt to pretend the second amendment means the exact opposite of what it actually means.

Re:#NotABot

[e3m4n]

yes it does, see United States vs Miller 1938. IT clearly does state that. If you dont want me having them, see to it that my police and government also do not have them. its about balance of power. The SCOTUS said in that case that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that the people had access to the same weapons as 'the military of the day'. And because mr miller had a sawed-off shotgun, something the military did NOT use, allegedly, his 2nd amendment was not violated. Lets be clear, I dont think i should have nukes, but I also dont think my government should have them either. They are never supposed to have more power than the people. THAT was the point. IF you want me to only have flintlocks and revolvers, disarm the police like they did in england.

Re:#NotABot

[ScentCone]

No. You've got it exactly wrong, and the founders who wrote the Bill of Rights explained it at length - and you can read it for yourself in copious papers, transcripts, and letters that explain their thinking. They reluctantly recognized that a standing military (a "well regulated militia") was going to be inevitably necessary. But - just like the rest of the big ones in the Bill of Rights - they recognized that some people would try to use the existence of a professional military as an excuse to deny citizens their rights to personal self defense. They had just shook OFF a government (the British crown) that did exactly that: took away all personal weapons from colonists, with the excuse that those red coats could be relied on to handle any reason someone might feel the need for one.

The second amendment says, essentially, "Well, it turns out that we'll probably need a standing military of some sort. People with government power may not use that as an excuse to infringe on citizens' personal rights to keep and bear arms."

I'm not sure how people keep getting this wrong.

Re:#NotABot

[Snotnose]

A low capacity, low power, handgun is perfectly sufficient for self-defence.

Yeah, that's why cops carry low power Glock .40s that can only hold 15+1 rounds.

Re:#NotABot

[markdavis]

>"It doesn't follow that you the right to bare any arm you wish. You don't have the right to own assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons, bump stocks, high capacity magazines, etc, etc."

I understand your point, but you undermine it with misinformation.

1) People don't generally have any access to "assault weapons". Those are AUTOMATIC fire, and HIGHLY restricted. If you are talking about something "scary looking" like an AR-15, that is just a modern rife, and is no more powerful or dangerous than any typical hunting rifle.

2) No right to semi-automatic? You do realize that ALL modern self-defense guns are semi-automatic, don't you? I mean, what, you want just revolvers? Do you know that revolvers fire almost as fast as semi-automatic guns? So you think people should defend themselves against bad people with semi-automatics using what, a flint-lock? A single shot, bolt-loading gun? You think you can just make semi-automatics disappear from the streets?

3) What do you define as a "high capacity magazine"? 5 shots? 10? 15? 20? 30? A typical full-sized handgun is 15 to 17 shots. Do realize it takes only a second to swap in a fresh magazine? Do you think laws limiting magazines to some arbitrary number like maybe 10 will stop a crazed person from obtaining and using something bigger, or 4 smaller ones instead?

Re:#NotABot

[markdavis]

>" Slavery was legal at the time and it said so in the Constitution."

Actually, that is not technically correct. The pre-13th-amendment-Constitution does not say slavery was legal. But it didn't say it wasn't, either. Slavery is only mentioned twice, in one place saying that slaves counted as 3/5ths of a "person" for representation, and in another saying that the laws of one state cannot excuse a person from "Service or Labor" in another state. It is more of an acknowledgement that it existed. Nowhere does it define what a slave is or is not, or that slavery was any sort of right. It is too bad it wasn't going to be possible at that time [when it was created] for it to make slavery illegal.

But I do agree with you that if you want real gun control, it would require an amendment to the Constitution to do so, legally. Meanwhile, the language of the 2nd Amendment is extremely strong- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Few Constitutional rights have such powerful and specific language behind them. Technically, ANY law that restricts ANY free citizen from owning/carrying/transporting/using ANY arm [weapon] in ANY way at ANY time ANYwhere would fail the test of Constitutionality, if using a literal interpretation.

Re:#NotABot

[pots]

"Militia" doesn't mean what you think it means

If you think there's only one plausible way to interpret the word as it was used in the second amendment, then you are making the same mistake.

In fact, with the way you're throwing around the word "freedom" I suspect that you're making a similar mistake there as well. Let's put this in non-gun terms: Which of the GPL or MIT license is more "free"? I don't want you to answer this question, rather I would like you to recognize that the answer isn't simple. There is more to freedom than individual rights.

Re:#NotABot

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell you're a liberal. You don't know what Militia means. Hint: YOU are in it.

And we don't have guns to reduce killing. We have guns to prevent Tyrants from taking power and slaughtering disarmed masses.

You'd think that those liberals who believe Trump is Satan/Hitler/Dracula would be buying as many guns as possible.

Re:#NotABot

[Mashiki]

Have you learned anything yet? Why do you think 4chan keeps trolling the media like this.

Re:#NotABot

[quantaman]

Ahh. A sophist. "Militia" doesn't mean what you think it means, and a prefatory clause isn't binding.

As a self professed liberal, do you also support other laws which would restrict civil liberties? How about the 1st A? It starts with "Congress shall make no law...". So, that means that the States (which definitely aren't "Congress") can make laws establishing religion, restricting speech and press, etc. Right?

Living in a system with the fundamental principles of freedom and liberty means you accept more risk. Fortunately for you, you can move to almost anywhere else and trade that freedom and liberty for less risk and more security. Your choice.

Except you're not actually accepting of more risk in exchange for more freedom, at least not if you're like most people who oppose gun control.

People generally try to maintain a certain level of risk. If your car gets a seat belt you speed up, if you hit wet pavement you slow down. Guns and gun control are no different.

Ever notice the other things people who favour gun rights tend to believe? They think law enforcement should have a much freer hand to enforce order. They want to get rid of Mexicans, Muslims, and other outsiders who seem dangerous. They try to repress LGBTQ and people who live alternative lifestyles. This isn't a coincidence, they correctly realize that guns are dangerous, so at the same time they're trying to make guns more available they're trying to reduce the number of people whom they find threatening (particularly if they have a gun).

It's the same thing that's happening now, neither side wants school shootings. So one side wants gun control to reduce the number of shootings, the other wants guns in the classroom so the teachers can enforce greater order and they want those weird loner kids made normal so they're less likely to become a shooter.

Gun rights people don't have a greater belief in freedom, they're just willing to live with a higher perceived risk from firearms by accepting a lower perceived risk from other sources.

Re:#NotABot

[AmiMoJo]

The bad wording of that clause in the 2nd amendment is part of the problem. Even if we accept your interpretation of it, "arms" is vague and was probably never intended to allow individuals to own WMD.

The US is uniquely unable to deal with mass shootings because of this, and because politically it is impossible to properly fund mental healthcare.

The US also has a problem with the far right, particularly supremacists. Elliot Rodger was probably the first young man to be radicalized by the far right on the internet, and since then we have seen a string of similar murderers and terrorists attacking schools. Again, the US seems to be finding it very hard to deal with, because any attempt to even study the problem is met with howls of "mah free speech!" and censorship. The marketplace of ideas has failed to deal with this problem, just like marketplaces always do.

Re:#NotABot

[serviscope_minor]

I don't want any gun control legislation. I don't care what tragedy occurred. It's unconstitutional. All of it.

Says you. I see it saying the right to bear arms (groooowwllll) (in the context of a well regulated militia?), but I see no mention of cannon.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about you might want to consider how the meaning of words has drivted in the last few hnudred years.

Re:#NotABot

[Atomic Fro]

He was in this one.

Re:#NotABot

[ArylAkamov]

Sorry, anonymous posters on 4chan are not a reliable source. Fake news.

Re: #NotABot

[dwillden]

Ever heard of the Minutemen? Mujahedeen, Free French resistance, I could go on. Militia is not a bunch of old paranoid grey beards wearing camo and running around in the woods ready to stand off the government.

A militia is armed members of the community that help to defend that community and their nation against invaders and tyranny. A disarmed people cannot provide a militia. In the language of the late 1700's well regulated meant functional or working. A disarmed people cannot be a functional or well regulated militia. Only an armed populace can form an effective well regulated (functional) militia.

Thus the 2nd amendment to ensure that when and if needed the minutemen could respond to defend. That has not changed.

Re: #NotABot

[dwillden]

Yes Bin Laden did fight with the Mujahedeen in the 80's. He didn't turn against the US until the Saudi Government chose to let us help save Kuwait from Iraq in the first gulf war. Bin Laden took offense at letting the infidel west into Saudi Arabia and lead the fight against Iraq. At that point he started targeting us. But in the 80's he was an ally against the common enemy the Soviet Union. (as was Saddam Hussain for that matter).

Bin Laden did not create or significantly fund the Muj, he joined them a few years into the fight and lent his money to support but mostly he was there as a foreign Muj fighter, and yes we trained him as well as many other Muj fighters.

If you are going to try to cite history to make an argument you should know what you are talking about.

Re:#NotABot

[dwillden]

He was a resident of the US over the age of 18. Under the militia act he was by definition a member of the unorganized militia of the United States of America and the Militia of the State of Florida.

And no where does it say "state sanctioned" militia. The wording is Well Regulated Militia. Which in the parlance or terminology of the late 1700's meant a functional militia. A disarmed people cannot form a functional militia. Only with a populace that can respond with their privately owned weapons and ammunition can you have a functional (or Well Regulated) militia.

What is our plan, actually as firearm ownership has increased, violent crimes of all kinds have decreased. The Homicide rate has dropped since the Shall issue laws started spreading across the country in the late 80's. Remove a few democratically controlled counties (all gang battle zones with strict gun controls) and our homicide rate drops dramatically.

Re: #NotABot

[Kaenneth]

Welcome to purge night forever then.

Re:#NotABot

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Sure, you want your guns in the 21st century because you're paranoid. I don't know, I guess it's an American thing. I won't argue with that.
But do you really need this?
Do you have to make it so easy for anyone to get military-grade automatic weapons? Why?

Re: #NotABot

[dave420]

Well, if you guys would stop tying your hands while your children are getting murdered to fuck, maybe you'd get less condecension? "I'm sorry, parents, your children simply had to die, as some paragraph from 1789 written by onmiscient superhumans decreed that from that moment on, regardless of what problems society has, everyone is allowed to have guns. Have more kids and try again."

Re:#NotABot

[fropenn]

Taking guns out of the hands of mentally ill, out of the hands of children, decreasing the number of bullets that can rapidly be fired by a gun, and limiting the types of guns that you can own hardly seem to be meaningful limitations of your liberty.

We require children to go to school. What about their right to not be shot while at school? What choice do they have about where they live? What choice about their level of risk were they able to make?

Choosing liberty or choosing mass school shootings is an artificial dichotomy. It's not one or the other.

Re: #NotABot

[tinkerton]

Saddam an ally against the Soviets eh? Thought not.

Re:#NotABot

[painandgreed]

you do realize that this is because there was not supposed to be a standing army. We didnt have a standing army until after WWI. It is entirely unconstitutional.

I don't think it's unconstitutional, but you can see evidence that it wasn't desired as funding for a national army is limited by the constitution to two years, while it is not for the navy.

Re: #NotABot

[dwillden]

That's not what I said. I said Saddam was also an ally of ours in the 80's. Against Iran.

Again learn some history.

Re: #NotABot

[T.E.D.]

have you read the constitution?

This is the kind of statement made by people who seem to think reading is some difficult chore that people don't want to do, so this will immediately shut up everyone. It always befuddles me. Just because you don't like to read doesn't mean EVERYONE is like that. Of course I've read it multiple times, and will do so again whenever the mood strikes me. If you are unwilling to read up on a topic, you have no business talking about it.

did you know that the constitution says we cannot have a standing army?

Nope. It says no such thing. Which one would think you'd know if you had read the document.

I does have a clause that no Army appropriations can last more than 2 years, the idea of which appears to have been to keep any US Army beholden to (elected) Congress for its continued existence. But in fact it explicitly ALLOWS Congress to create an Army.

The Congress shall have Power To ... (long list of other powers) ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Re: #NotABot

[tinkerton]

(?) lost my post.
Here is what you wrote.
But in the 80's he was an ally against the common enemy the Soviet Union. (as was Saddam Hussain for that matter).
Learn to write. Also, dont confuse me with anonymous. I don't post anonymously.

Re:#NotABot

[Green Mountain Bot]

I'm sure you can point to court rulings that support your assertion that "every single law, regulation, etc. that interferes with US citizens keeping and bearing firearms is unconstitutional."

Re:#NotABot

[Green Mountain Bot]

You know, just like the 1st Amendment says that nobody in government can prevent you from speaking, assembling, etc. The Bill of Rights doesn't establish some standard for your right to speak, or your right to defend yourself. It anticipates people like you with a totalitarian mindset looking to use government power to control others, and they identified some potential hot spots (speech, self defense, privacy, etc) that merited specific language in the country's charter.

And yet we still have laws against libel, slander, and inciting riots, and we allow cities and states to define "free speech zones" and protest routes. Inalienable rights are not unlimited rights.

Re:#NotABot

[Holi]

Militia is defined in law: as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.(Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)

Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.



As such, we do not have a regulated militia today as no state maintains both their National Guard forces and a purely state militia.

Re:#NotABot

[Thelasko]

If they were to write the amendment in today's conversational language, it would go like this: "Because a standing professional military, even if just local in scope, looks like an inevitable necessity, nobody with government power should use that as an excuse to infringe on a citizen's right to personally keep and bear their own arms."

This is a good interpretation. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent a fall into military dictatorship, or similar breeches of the social contract.

The question is, how do we balance the risk of falling to tyranny, versus the risk of random violence? I never hear a rational discussion on this topic. It's either, "you don't need guns because military and police..." or "Everyone needs guns because the military and police can't save you..."

Re:#NotABot

[david_thornley]

As a self professed liberal, do you also support other laws which would restrict civil liberties? How about the 1st A? It starts with "Congress shall make no law...". So, that means that the States (which definitely aren't "Congress") can make laws establishing religion, restricting speech and press, etc. Right?

That used to be true. The Fourteenth Amendment is what made those restrictions apply to state governments, which I consider an excellent idea.

Re:#NotABot

[david_thornley]

Show me where in the Constitution it forbids a standing army. Congress has explicit authority to raise an army, provided no appropriation bills are for more than two years, and to spend on the common defense.

Re:#NotABot

[slashdotiscompromisd]

It's not bad wording.
It's your illiteracy.
Not a coincidence though, the english language has been warped purposefully to make the weak minded like you confused about pure and simple statements due to ambiguous definitions of key words used in narrow contexts.

Re:#NotABot

[slashdotiscompromisd]

The solution to the mental health problem is to STOP MAKING PEOPLE MENTALLY ILL by destroying their freedoms and opportunities and handing them off to third world immigrants and/or domestic leftists who did not earn and do not deserve them.

Basically the solution to the mental health crisis is to drive the leftist population into a completely separate state and let them melt down in their containment zone while the sane people rebuild civilization.

You just can't have this insane subjectivity and rampant double standards in a society. Leftists are useful idiots who are enabling some very rich, very evil people to crack our society open and suck out the marrow.

Re:#NotABot

[angel'o'sphere]

While the answer might look complex, it is actually super simple: MIT style licenses make you as a software developer/copy right holder more free ... it is hard to find a case where GPL makes you more free.

Re:#NotABot

[AutodidactLabrat]

No need to amend the constitution
Just impeach the 4 remaining Right Wing Scotus Judges who ignored "a well regulated militia..."

Re:#NotABot

[AutodidactLabrat]

There are no prefatory clauses anywhere in the bill of rights.
There IS a conditional on the 2nd Amendment
230 years of precedent declares this
Heller will be overturned just like Dred Scott

Re:#NotABot

[LynnwoodRooster]

So, just how easy is it in the US to get military-grade automatic weapons? You realize it's incredibly difficult, highly regulated by the Federal Government, and if you CAN find one and get the tax paperwork ironed out, it's going to cost you tens of thousands of dollars to just buy the weapon in the first place.

Re:#NotABot

[CrimsonAvenger]

"arms" is vague and was probably never intended to allow individuals to own WMD.

Does the word "privateer" have any meaning for you? The Second Amendment was accepted as allowing civilians to own cannon-armed ships at a time when cannon were the most powerful weapons that could be made.

Re:#NotABot

[Agripa]

A low capacity, low power, handgun is perfectly sufficient for self-defence. A single shot rifle is perfectly adequate for hunting.

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about self defense or hunting. It refers to arms suitable for a militia; the subordinate clause means something and that is it. Even U.S. versus Miller said this.

At a minimum, that includes any arms that law enforcement uses which now includes short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, machine guns, destructive devices, etc. Many would argue that it includes arms that a soldier would carry but because of the militarization of law enforcement, that is now a distinction without a difference.

Re:#NotABot

[ScentCone]

Hey, look! Anonymous coward who can't address the actual subject attempts to distract with unrelated material and tosses in some of the usual juvenile ad hominem, too, just make it clear he's a coward. Thanks for your consistency! Good work.

Re:#NotABot

[ScentCone]

Liberals don't care about what guns you own.

Oh, and as a case-in-point follow up, liberals are holding rallies now, led by Democrat legislators, calling for the confiscation of all guns. "No more guns!" goes the chant, coupled with calls for election victories to that end, and please send money to help us do that, blah blah blah. Your sense that liberals don't care about gun ownership is incredibly, fantastically the opposite of the truth. They are calling for an end to the protections of the 2nd amendment, and the removal of guns from private ownership - and this is being uncritically nodded to by those in the media that carry that liberal political water. So, please stop pretending you don't know this, and attempting to keep that agenda in stealth mode. This is exactly what the NRA talks about, of course: liberals do, literally, want to take away people's guns. Period. So quit playing coy about it, and just own up to the Democrat position on this.

Re: #NotABot

[angel'o'sphere]

Why don't you continue reading the thread here?
There are plenty of americans who point out your mistake, and from them I learn, so it is super easy as a foreigner to follow a forum and learn frm the posts.
Obviously more easy than for a nativve :)

Re: #NotABot

[Ol Olsoc]

A militia is armed members of the community that help to defend that community and their nation against invaders and tyranny. A disarmed people cannot provide a militia. In the language of the late 1700's well regulated meant functional or working. A disarmed people cannot be a functional or well regulated militia. Only an armed populace can form an effective well regulated (functional) militia. Thus the 2nd amendment to ensure that when and if needed the minutemen could respond to defend. That has not changed.

So do you have SAMS and tanks and pilots at the ready, when teh guvmintz gonna try to take over?

We've seen what the American armed forces can do against lightly and even WW2 level armed populations.

Because unless you have a lot of first class ordnance at the ready, the revolutionaries are gonna be decimated. Russia may be willing to help. Good tanks and fscking awesome fighter jets.

Re:#NotABot

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yes, if you want to break the law, you can do it! How do you stop people breaking the law? It's already illegal to take any firearm onto school property, and it's definitely illegal to commit murder...

Re: #NotABot

[c6gunner]

Well, if you guys would stop tying your hands while your children are getting murdered to fuck, maybe you'd get less condecension?

Oh I don't mind the condescension; it's hilarious. The only way it could be funnier is if you were a North Korean haughtily lecturing a westerner about how the right to criticize the state leads to anarchy and destruction.

Re:#NotABot

[Uberbah]

f the government is tyrannical and the people rise up and use their dick extenders to secure a free state then it isn't a "rebellion"

That's the definition of a rebellion. It doesn't matter how virtuous or depraved the rebels or the government are, if you're rebelling against the government.....it's a rebellion.

Russians? Pro-gun?

[PPH]

Doesn't pass the stink test. They have been funding the West Coast Wall for years.

Re:Russians? Pro-gun?

[nonBORG]

so Russia is pro-trump? Did you know all this false crap in the Trump Dossier is from Russia, kind of anti Trump. You know the setup where the Russians came to meet with Trump and met with Jr? This was a setup and he could smell the stink, so were these russians also on Trump's side trying to set him up. And now is Trump Pro-Russia? Trump is Pro US. The Dems including the media (most Dems and media) is anti US, or maybe they do not care about the US in a utilitarian way. Now this army of bots for hire is pro gun? does it make a difference? Will Trump get the blame for anything that is not looking like your point of view? Just blame Trump for everything happening in the world you don't like. These bots are probably controlled by a 14yo in his basement. Or quite possibly they are controlled from Clinton's server sited at the FBI which is being run by a DOJ intern trying to make news for the NYT who is hacked into some Russian PC and slaving it to control the bot army. Any decent hacker will try and lay the blame on an obvious target that is not them.

Re:Russians? Pro-gun?

[AmiMoJo]

Russia's goal is to create division in the US, not to promote any particular ideology.

Re:Russians? Pro-gun?

[grep_rocks]

It appears the Russians promote anything and anyone who will cause increased mistrust of institutions, American government or fear of personal safety -Trump is ideal since he pretty much hits every one of their objectives - their goal is a paralyzed or completely dysfunctional US with a sympathetic oligarch in charge - barring that a civil war with a devastated US would be just fine - good news for them we are pretty much on track for one or the other

Re:Russians? Pro-gun?

[tinkerton]

The way that theory arose is because the theory about onesided propaganda was not tenable. So there was a switch to backup theory: it's just to divide. And it has the bonus that everyone who is involved in any kind of opposition becomes divisive and therefore suspicious: they could be funded by the Russians! There has even been a next level model: when you can't even make sense of the division model, just switch to 'they try to build up trust' model. Kittens!
It's textbook conspiracy thinking: it can never be proven wrong.

The dynamics of what people want you to believe is much more important than what the Russians have or haven't been doing. Alliance for Securing Democracy is a proven propaganda outlet, and there nobody seems to care. Certainly you don't.
This just out, it talks about the people behind this 'Alliance': https://www.alternet.org/grayz... .

I don't know if these authors have already been accused of being paid by the Russians. It's always safe to call them useful idiots though.

Re:Russians? Pro-gun?

[PPH]

So you think supporting a principle ensconced in our constitution will cause increased mistrust? Whereas undermining that principle and placing the rights practiced a significant portion of the population up for argument and in the hands of some petty local politicians is good for trust?

And that bit about a civil war; Are you really going to start one if you don't get your way? That sort of threat sounds like the promotion of instability to me. And if so, what are you going to fight it with?

Re:What. Ever.

[Narcocide]

(Because it's full of liberals.)

Re:That didn't take long

[kqs]

You want to know who's at fault for Parkland? The left, for alienating white men and making them feel like they have nothing to lose, and for disarming the populace. If there had been a good guy with a gun there would only have been one dead person, but because of the left's hatred of self defense, 17 people are dead. That blood is on their hands. I hope they can sleep at night.

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, and in this case (like all others) the person responsible is Obama.

I think you are saying that white men are so fragile that they will be triggered unless they are in a safe space?

AI assisted video editing would be next

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Given the success of AI assisted video editing in swapping faces, it would be easy for state actors to create very convincing doctored video and spread them very fast. At some point the entire internet based news would be discredited.

But there is no alternative news source one can trust outside the net either. We have killed the print newspapers....

Wonder if Democracy can survive without a reliable news source ...

Re:AI assisted video editing would be next

[93 Escort Wagon]

I, for one, would never believe that Gal Gadot shot up a school...

Re:AI assisted video editing would be next

[e3m4n]

nope... the 10 amendments appear in an order for a reason. you cant have a 1st amendment and keep the government out unless they have a 2nd amendment to deal with them if they refuse to stay out of the 1st... they all reinforce themselves in some manner. What stops government for forcing you to stable soldiers like the sheriffs brother-in-law?? the fact he might wake up dead if he pulled some shit like trying to sleep in your house. I lost all faith in the printed media when we learned, not even debatable regardless if it was russian hacking, they conspired with the clinton campaign to rig the democratic primary election. Thats when I wanted to burn them all to the ground. This isnt propganda, they didnt fucking deny it, they are just pissed that some russians hacked his [podestas] email (his goddamn password was revealed via click-bate) and now we know how every american was disenfranchised.

Re:AI assisted video editing would be next

[mentil]

Like nukes, they only get to do this once. Then they lose all credibility and may as well have never used them.

Re:AI assisted video editing would be next

[HornWumpus]

Wait a fucking second...you claim to know a reliable news source? Let me guess, your favorite echo chamber? (Fox or MSNBC/CNN?)

Re:AI assisted video editing would be next

[david_thornley]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Armed civilians can't oppose the government if the government decides to get serious. What enforces the Third? The courts. Shoot someone entering your house in defiance of the Third and you will face murder charges.

Also, the DNC didn't rig the Democratic primary election because there wasn't one. There were dozens, with other states selecting delegates through caucuses. You'd expect the caucuses to be easier to rig, but Sanders did better in caucus states. More people voted for Clinton in the primaries than for Sanders, and she got more delegates not counting superdelegates. Finally, it's not possible for the DNC to disenfranchise people. The Democratic Party is a private institution, and can have its own rules for nominating candidates.

Regulation.

[msauve]

What we need is news control laws. When the Constitution was written, there were no high speed presses, no electronic news, no way people could be flooded 24/7 with "news" and commentary.

It's clear that these school shootings are driven by crazies wanting to "copy-cat" other school shooting they're heard about, sometimes just to get their own 24 hours of fame. Yet, the modern media irresponsibly continues to glorify these events and saturate every media channel with them, just encouraging more copy-cats. That clearly needs to change.

We have to do something. We already have lots of gun laws. We now need some reasonable, common-sense, media control laws. Just as an private citizen can't get and has no reason to have a machine gun, no media needs a high speed Internet web site - when the "right to a free press" was created, it was in reference to Gutenberg presses. Same with radio/tv/cable. Such powerful methods of communication, so easily abused, should be highly regulated for private use. Only the government is responsible enough to be allowed to use them. Journalists should be licensed, subject to a background check to make sure they're not mentally ill, and don't have a criminal history. Photocopy machines should be registered. Scented magazine inserts should be outlawed. Cheap, Saturday night special, smartphones should be outlawed. A license should be required to carry a concealed smartphone.

As a bonus, such restrictions would also solve all of this "Russian facebook/twitter" cruft.

None of these reasonable, common-sense actions would infringe on 1st Amendment or natural rights in any way, but would go a long way to ending the bloodshed. Think of the children.

Re:Regulation.

[Mike Van Pelt]

I've made this modest proposal for years, but nobody listens.

cf. Dean Ing's story "Very Proper Charlies." That posited responsibility on the part of the news media, so it was, of course, science fiction. Or, perhaps, fantasy.

Re:Regulation.

[JustNiz]

> We now need some reasonable, common-sense, media control laws.

Yeah that was also EXACTLY how the Nazis positioned the redical censorship they imposed on Germany in the 1930's.

My point is... who gets to define what "reasonable, common sense" actually means?

Re:Regulation.

[Mashiki]

You do know that Germany had censorship like that *prior* to the rise of the Nazi's right? And it was the censorship, hate speech laws and blocking of their speech that helped them gain a foothold in the first place.

It's like you want to recreate the past, and refuse to learn anything.

Re:Regulation.

[AmiMoJo]

It's clear that these school shootings are driven by crazies wanting to "copy-cat" other school shooting they're heard about

It's already been reported that this guy was trained by supremacists and appears to have been radicalized by them. The chief supremacist confirmed it.

Maybe he was more vulnerable to their brainwashing because of existing mental illness, but he's just the latest in a long line of radicalized young men to go on murder sprees.

Just like the young men that are radicalized by Islamists.

Re:Regulation.

[RedK]

It's already been reported that this guy was trained by supremacists and appears to have been radicalized by them. The chief supremacist confirmed it.

And that was later confirmed to be a hoax, confirming that jumping ahead of the news to be "first to report" is a problem. You wouldn't want to spread fake news now would you ?

Maybe he was more vulnerable to their brainwashing because of existing mental illness, but he's just the latest in a long line of radicalized young men to go on murder sprees.

Maybe we should look into this whole "acceptance" and "ableism" virtual signaling then, and start to treat mental illness as mental illness again, instead of "accepting their differences" and just medicating them into compliance.

Re:Regulation.

[nitehawk214]

Yeah, make sure our state sponsored news is the only news source allowed by law.

I can't see anything possibly going wrong with that.

Re:Regulation.

[JustNiz]

Censorship of free speech is not good.You not liking what someone else is saying is no excuse to shut them up by force.
You're free to not listen, walk away, and avoid them in future. Or if you feel others need an alternate view, get on your own soapbox.... Something that the laws you want would prevent.

One question,

[rsilvergun]

do you support ending all weapons regulations? After all, arms are arms. I've got gun nut friends who want to own grenade launchers and rocket launchers and RPGs and mortars and artillery pieces (cannons were 'arms' in the 1700s weren't they?).

Is there a line (short of chem weapons, since they're not arms)?

Re:One question,

[msauve]

The founders recognized the right to private ownership of all arms. Heck, they even commissioned privateers who owned private warships (yes, like the 600-ton, 26-gun ship Caesar of Boston), to help support their cause.

And, they expected that to continue. The Constitution specifically provides for it in Article I, Section 8, where Congress is given the power to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal."

Re:One question,

[PopeRatzo]

The founders recognized the right to private ownership of all arms.

They also recognized the right to own slaves.

The Constitution is not sacred. Treating it as such is the result of people being conditioned by authoritarians.

Re:One question,

[msauve]

"They also recognized the right to own slaves."

That was corrected with a Constitutional amendment. Your point?

Re:One question,

[e3m4n]

it wasnt a LAW that freed slaves.. it was a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Thats the OPs entire point Making a law would be unconstitutional. You would need an actual constitutional convention to change the constitution.

Re:One question,

[PopeRatzo]

That was corrected with a Constitutional amendment. Your point?

My point is that for most of US history, the Second Amendment was not interpreted as an absolute right of private citizens to own guns. For most of our history, reasonable gun regulations were enacted by states and municipalities across the United States. Only with the rise of radicalized NRA in the 1980s did this change, and with it came the rash of school shootings and mass gun slaughter.

We don't need to amend the Constitution. We only need to change the makeup of the Supreme Court by a vote or two. It will happen, thank god. And I say as someone who has owned guns in four decades.

Re: One question,

[c6gunner]

Hell, in the 50s/60s they used to have gun clubs at most schools. And go look at a magazine from the era; they're chock full of rifle advertisements aimed at kids.

"Gee, pop, a Winchester!" - that ring a bell?

The OP is nuts if he thinks that regulations were tighter in the past, or that people were more opposed to private gun ownership.

Re:One question,

[msauve]

Welcome to our universe. Here, whatever happened in your alternate universe isn't necessarily true, and saying it doesn't make it so.

For most of our history, reasonable gun regulations were enacted by states and municipalities across the United States,

Fact is, for most of our history, there was very little interpretation of the 2nd at all. And very little regulation until the Gun Control Act of 1968. And, over time, those "reasonable" laws and regulations have only been made more restrictive. Concealed carry was legal until after abolition, when racially motivated laws were implemented to prevent freedmen from carrying.

The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.

-Watson v. Stone

So what makes current law and regulation in any way unreasonable? For some reason, I don't think you're arguing that we should go back to the regulations we had for most of our history. Automatic weapons were completely unregulated until 1934, which would be "most of our history."

Re: One question,

[kenai_alpenglow]

Heck, in the 80s we had guns *in* the schools (at least in the trucks). And nobody thought anything about it.

Re:One question,

[msauve]

You dumb fuck. You've never heard of a Maxim gun.

Re:One question,

[e3m4n]

not if you accept the SCOTUS decision in 1938, United States vs Miller. They concluded that the 2nd amendment gives 'the people' to own the same weapons as the 'military of the day', and because miller had a sawed off shotgun instead of an automatic machine gun, he was still in violation of the 1938 national firearms act. So you can interpret that to mean that because the military has stinger missiles, I should be able to buy them too. Im not advocating that, but thats the last interpretation on the subject.

Re:One question,

[ScentCone]

The Constitution is not sacred.

Sure it is, in this context. And one of the sacred things about it is its baked-in mechanism for amending it. Hence, slavery is no longer allowed, but free speech, assembly, self defense, and other things still are.

Re:One question,

[PopeRatzo]

You dumb fuck. You've never heard of a Maxim gun.

The Maxim gun was only used by the military, and it was only used in the US after 1908, so we're still only talking about 26 years where automatic weapons were unregulated. Twenty-six years is not "most of our history".

If you need me to walk you through the math, let me know. I'm happy to help.

Re:One question,

[markdavis]

>"For most of our history, reasonable gun regulations were enacted by states and municipalities across the United States. Only with the rise of radicalized NRA in the 1980s did this change..."

That statement is not really correct at all. The first sentence is mostly correct, depending on your view of what is "reasonable." The second sentence isn't- the NRA started to become more powerful BECAUSE more and more *unreasonable* gun regulations were being put forward, and more citizens joined, seeking protection of their Constitutional rights from further erosion. The NRA as a non-lobby is interested in ACTUAL gun safety (like training, handling, information), information and sports.

>"...in the 1980s did this change, and with it came the rash of school shootings and mass gun slaughter."

How ridiculously inaccurate and inflammatory. Gun violence has been DECREASING for decades. What has changed mostly is the emotional, hyper media coverage of such shootings, making it SEEM like it is the end of the world. When in reality, while unreasonable gun control laws have been taken down more and more, things have been getting better. And although overall gun violence is down, I believe that same hyper-sensationalist and slanted media coverage has absolutely encouraged more nut-cases to perform copy-cat mass shootings to get their day of "fame." So the cycle feeds on itself.

Re:One question,

[msauve]

Point to any regulation of automatic weapons before 1934. Go ahead, prove your point.

Re:One question,

[PopeRatzo]

Concerned with authoritarians but ready to give up the one thing that would be needed to free himself of tyranny.

Since the advent of the modern military, can you think of a single instance where armed civilians freed themselves from tyranny using their firearms?

Re:One question,

[ceoyoyo]

It might not be a terrible idea to amend your constitution. There are only three countries in the world where owning a gun is a right to be infringed rather than a privilege to be possibly earned. Those are the US, Mexico and Guatemala.

Re:One question,

[Mashiki]

Since the advent of the modern military, can you think of a single instance where armed civilians freed themselves from tyranny using their firearms?

Ireland? How about the cases when the USSR fell and people formed militias to fight back against new communist governments trying to setup? Of course, sometimes they also "free themselves" into tyranny. See the fall of Rhodesia, and the rise of Zimbabwe. You can also see it in South Africa, prior to the end of apartheid, and now you can see the fast-rush of people trying to defend against the new anti-white apartheid.

Just study some damn history once and awhile.

Re:One question,

[PopeRatzo]

The facts remain though: it wasn't really until 1934 that any real restrictions were placed upon ownership.

In 1873, Wichita, KS outlawed the carrying of revolvers within municipal limits. The sheriff would confiscate your gun at the town border and give you a check, like a coat check. You could get your gun back when you left.

In 1879, the town of Dodge City, Kansas had a billboard at the town limits that said, "The Carrying of Firearms is Strictly Prohibited". You can google a photograph of the town taken back then that shows the sign.

Tombstone, AZ in the 1880s had a law against carrying firearms.

There were more gun control laws in the Wild West than there are in 2018 America.

Re:One question,

[Oceanplexian]

They absolutely did not recognize it as a right, that's not historically accurate. The sections dealing with slavery are specifically Article 1, Section 9, which banned congress from passing legislation barring states from importing persons until 1808, the three-fifths compromise (Which would eventually spark the civil war), and the fugitive slave clause.

At the time of the nation's founding several states had already made slavery illegal, and thus it was not a right. Most of the New England states banned slavery in the 1700s; Vermont in particular had laws against slavery on the books before it was recognized as a state. Without the compromises made between the free states and slave states, the union may have never been formed in the first place.

Re:One question,

[dwillden]

Gatling gun anyone? Of course we can go earlier though I haven't seen much reference to it ever being used in the US but the Puckle Gun was by definition an automatic and it predated the Constitution.

Re:One question,

[dwillden]

Nope, it was the 13th amendment. During the Civil War, as a tactic to aid the north and weaken the South, Abe Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring slaves freed in the states rebelling against the Union. He didn't declare slavery illegal, he didn't free all slaves, there were slave states that stayed in the Union whose slaves were not freed. Later Emancipation was extended to all slaves but it was still not illegal.

It wasn't until after the war had ended settling the secession question that the 13th Amendment was passed making Slavery Illegal.

Please if you are going to try to champion Republican values and the role of the Right in the battle for civil rights try to get your facts straight. Using falsehoods to support your argument is not effective.

Re:One question,

[jabuzz]

Great so presumably their are no restrictions on me owning a M109 howitzer with some W48 rounds then? Frankly I can't imagine for one femtosecond that the founders would have thought that was a good idea. Heck I doubt given a demonstration of say a M61 or M134 would have thought it was a good idea for everyone to have the option of owning one. Their idea of arms would have been a long rifle and a muzzle loading cannon.

Re:One question,

[jebrick]

And Justice Antonin Scalia recognized that States and the Federal government can regulate the sale and ownership of firearms. Just like they regulate the ownership of machine guns. I see no problem with them regulating semi-automatic rifles in the same way.

If the NRA ( i.e. the gun manufacturers) would get out of the way to allow background checks for every purchase of a fire arm that would help. I would also strengthen the ATF and the straw sales laws. The person who committed the crime in Florida bought his weapons illegally. He needed to be 21 to buy assault rifles. The person who sold him the rifle should be held accountable for the crimes.

Re:One question,

[penandpaper]

Battle of Athens in 1946.

Re:One question,

[PopeRatzo]

You know how many clowns like you are too afraid to engage in oppressing people themselves because they fear "crazy rednecks" with guns?

Uh, none?

Re:One question,

[eheldreth]

To address two of your posts. First the supreme court has recognized the 2nd as an individual right since at least 1857. It was always an assumption but that assumption is documented in the majority opinion of the Dred Scott case in which the court reasoned that Mr. Scott did not enjoy this constitutional protection to own and carry a weapon because of his race. In 1886 presser vs. Illinois the court explicitly ruled that the 2nd was an individual right and in the 1939 miller case the court only limited this in saying that protected weapons should be of military value. The 2008 Heller case affirmed this historical interpretation and farther left out the limitations from the Miller case, likely because it makes no since to protect M-16's but limit hunting riffles.

As to your earlier point, you are correct the constitution is not sacred. The institution of the constitution must however be held sacrosanct. If we want to limit gun ownership we must update or repeal the 2nd. Pretending away it's protections only servers to weaken the rest of the amendments. Just look at how willing sitting US senators where to eviscerate the 5th amendment with the no fly no buy idea. Do you really doubt that without strong constitutional protection the Republicans would hesitate to outlaw abortions again or to try and restrict the practice of Islam?

If that's the world you want then please keep working toward it as you have been. Otherwise educate yourself and act from a position of rational thought instead of emotional outrage.

Re:One question,

[PopeRatzo]

1) You're wrong about Presser v Illinois and Miller. Heller (2008) was the first time the Supreme Court affirmed the individual right to own (and carry) guns.

2) In the United States, guns in the hands of civilians have been used much more often to oppress liberty than to preserve it.

Re:One question,

[WolfgangVL]

Since the advent of the modern military, can you think of a single instance where armed civilians freed themselves from tyranny using their firearms?

Google for "successful insurgency"

The list is very long. Educate yourself.

Re:One question,

[PopeRatzo]

Google for "successful insurgency"

In the United States, guns in civilian hands have been used much more often to suppress liberty than to preserve liberty. You can look it up.

It's not the blood of tyrants that ends up watering the tree, it's the blood of school children. The tyrants continue to do just fine.

Re:One question,

[eheldreth]

Your simply wrong.
Presser: (Obviously the last sentence is invalid with the 14th and incorporation)
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.

Miller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Guns can be used for good or ill and yes have at times been used for oppression. They have often been used to defend against oppression as well. My own state fought a literal shooting war to free itself from the oppression of a corrupt state and it's corporate owners. Gun control in this country however has been historically rooted in racism. Most early gun laws only gained traction because of a fear of "Them" having guns, who ever them may be at the time.

Re:One question,

[angel'o'sphere]

Do you have some examples for your theories about Ireland and former USSR states?

Re:One question,

[Mashiki]

IRA among the various splinter branches for one thing. Former USSR states? Kazakhstan, Lithuania(limited) both had factional fighting between the military, public, and governments trying to force in a new communist government. I think Warsaw did, but again limited. The transitional phase from the collapse of the USSR wasn't smooth despite what they try to push in western history classes.

Re:One question,

[Mashiki]

Also, Rhodesia never existed outside of the fantasies of a bunch of fragile whites who knew they couldn't compete against other folks, so had to try and set up an ethnostate to preserve their fragility. Nobody recognizes it anymore.

You should tell that to Ian Smith then, who over those 10 years managed to make the country into something which was fully destroyed by the ZANU, and is now yet another landlocked country which is an effective 3rd world shithole that once produced so much raw food that it fed Africa and part of Europe.

Re:One question,

[angel'o'sphere]

IRA, is North Ireland, part of UK, not Ireland.
Your points about communist regimes after the break up of the USSR are wrong.
No idea how you come to such thoughts.

The transitional phase from the collapse of the USSR wasn't smooth despite what they try to push in western history classes. Of course it was not smooth ... but there were no civil wars, and especially no 'communist attempts of supression' besides the break up of Yugoslavia, where it is difficult to decide if it was a civil war or a war amoung countries. Or the war in Tchetchenia ... and now Ukraine.
The break up of the USSR is not tought in 'western history classe'. What ever you mean with that. It just happened recently, it is not 'history' yet.
Depending on country you will hardly find anything in a history class that is younger than WWII.

Re:One question,

[PopeRatzo]

There ought to be a qualified majority to do it then, wouldn't it?

I don't know how they're done where you are, but in the Unted States, Constitutional amendments aren't enacted by plebescite.

Re:What. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that like how everyone the repubs hate is a "TERORIST" unless they're white xtians?

Melania Trump

[Narcocide]

Well, you're not wrong, but you're stupid and your argument is even stupider. If you were smart, you'd have brought up some solutions. Or even a diagnosis of the problem. Here, let me try for you:

Melania Trump is right about something you've completely lost perspective on. The biggest problem facing our nation right now, if you boil it down to the root cause, is actually bullying. That's right, I said it; Guns didn't cause this tragedy - bullying did. Maybe she's smarter than she looks. She's clearly smarter than you and this poor tard that just shot up his school. Maybe she's smarter than all of us... now that's a truly horrifying thought.

Re:Melania Trump

[e3m4n]

the kind of 'gun control' I will get behind is dealing with these 'gun free zones'. Not just in public schools but private places like theaters etc. IMO, and purely IMO, there should be a law that states that ANY establishment that restricts ones constitutional right to bear arms, they MUST, without question, provide ARMED security for the entire portion of time that said citizens are denied their rights. Failure to comply is an immediate forfeiture of the establishments defense against Wrongful Death civil prosecution. In other words, if you tell someone they cannot carry a weapon to assist in their defense, the establishment fails to provide security, and it results in death, the family members can sue for 1 BILLION in wrongful deaths and it will be a default judgement against the establishment. It might have once been named Cinemark Enterntainment, but after their negligence, it is now labled the Bob Jones movie theatre because he owned their asses.

Re:Melania Trump

[Narcocide]

Well, some of this is hyperbolic, but the general concept I think is surprisingly sound if we can figure out how to apply it relatively universally. For example, in large cities it's almost unheard of for paid parking structures to be able to be held liable for thefts or vandalism that happens to your property while they are being paid to watch it for you. This is also wrong, but fairly ubiquitous. So how do we fix society's perception of how to share the liability as it is deserved?

Re:Melania Trump

[e3m4n]

speaking of malania, she is eastern european. Never underestimate the intelligence of a lot of those girls. They dont spend all day on facebook, they actually get a decent education. I would never make an assumption just because she does happen to be very attractive.

Re:Melania Trump

[msauve]

"if you boil it down to the root cause, is actually bullying."

I disagree. It's the whole - "Here's a participation medal, kid," entitlement society, you're not personally responsible thing.

Why more shootings? Guns haven't really changed in the last 70 years. Society, and the immediate pervasiveness of news has. I knew kids who would take their .22 rifle to school and put it in their locker so they could go "plinking" with friends after school. No one freaked out, and there were no problems. But they were raised to have personal responsibility. Do or do not. There is no try.

It's not the bullying, it's the intolerance (on both sides) and the inability to says "sticks and stones..." and walk away. Of course, it doesn't help that our government's first response to any threat is "shock and awe" force.

Re:Melania Trump

[Narcocide]

(Lots of parents are horrified at the thought of armed guards guarding schools but as someone who was frequently bullied by peers and teachers alike, I would have been hugely relieved to have gun-toting government employees shadowing my every move.)

Re:Melania Trump

[e3m4n]

its not uncommon for high schools in a lot of places to have at least 1 or 2 assigned police. Broward county is one of those extremely rich and liberal counties in florida. However, gangs and/or the trafficking of Opiates has cause a lot of high schools to assign permanent officers to these places. My small city (maybe half a million population) recently had a couple students involved in shootings and death (off campus) over drugs. By drugs we all know we dont mean weed. People dont shoot each other over weed unless its a ton of money, and then its really over money. Opiates are an entirely different kind of animal/addiction. Knowing how much of an epidemic opiates are becoming, what kind of parent would oppose more police influence in schools for more reasons than just mass shootings.

Re:Melania Trump

[e3m4n]

breaking into a car is not life or death. Assisting in the ultimate affirmative defense of your life is, IMO, one of those inalienable rights. denying someone the ability to prevent their death should come with consequences. The only offset should be the defense of 'reasonable effort'. Not having armed security in a gun free zone is not a reasonable effort. Just like making people park in your structure but not bothering to have a security guard and cameras is negligent. I think we have similar rules for medical liabilities when it comes to reasonable effort vs negligence. My hope is that they make the law have enough teeth that people will decide that if they are going to insist on patrons being unarmed, they take very seriously the idea of providing skilled and armed security. Then the 1 billion dollar payout would be the 'you just dont want to be that guy' scenario.

Re:Melania Trump

[swb]

There's something about the nature of life in America that's causing people to go off the rails with anger and frustration. I don't know what it is, economics, politics, smartphone/internet-focused social relationships, and/or the rotten synergy of all that and other things.

My most recent thoughts (just before I heard about this shooting in fact) was how little tolerance modern life has for even minor issues -- make a mistake at any stage in your life and you run the risk of personal and financial ruin, or if you're young enough and don't have much yet to lose, you just get eliminated from any chance at improving your life and get slotted into a perpetual second rate life of low-wage employment at best. It's not hard to see how this kind of zero-sum, no-second-chances kind of structure makes people go TILT.

I think the role of institutions in this is important. I think institutions are increasingly authoritarian (it seems like every government-based institution these days has its own armed police force, from school systems to transit systems to many Federal agencies), increasingly lacking in transparency and accountability, prone to issuing their own rules and regulations which lack any kind of democratic feedback and are enforced by kangaroo court âoejudicialâ systems lacking most every component considered vital for fair due process.

I think this alone might account for a lot of these situations. People feel trapped in Kafkaesque institutions, and its not just government.

It would almost be comforting to have some kind of grand conspiracy explain it, instead I fear there is no conspiracy "in control" and that it's actually some kind of emergent phenomenon of modern life. There may be actual conspiracies or forces in control of elements that lead to the emergent phenomenon but they are more basic (making the rich richer, etc) and people going off the rails is just a higher order byproduct, not an intended outcome.

Re:Melania Trump

[dave420]

Holy generalisations, batman! Your grasp of logic is hilariously troubling.

Re:Melania Trump

[HornWumpus]

That would have left you an even _bigger_ baby.

The way to deal with a bully is _hurt_ them. You can lose the fight, but you have to hurt them. Goes for teachers too, just done in different ways.

None of this matters

[rsilvergun]

because the people who oppose all gun regulation have a lobby (the NRA) telling them how to vote, they listen, they vote and above all they're single issuer voters.

Gun control is a dead issue. It doesn't matter that 94% of Americans support Universal Background checks when that's just one issue out of many for them. The gun lobby is made up of people that will vote for _anyone_ so long as they promise to let them have their guns. You can't beat that strength unless you match it, and I don't see that happening.

They won. Drop it. You can't win this. The reason is simple. Gun nuts are Otaku. They're nerds. But they're a different kind of nerd than what everybody thinks about. They're extroverted nerds. Folks are used to seeing the introverted nerd; the kind that doesn't want to be around people. But they forget about the extroverts. They _want_ to be around people, but they're weird or ugly or tactless or something else that regular people don't like. So this kind of nerd seeks a community that accepts them no matter what. And a lot of the wash up on the shores of the NRA. The reason why there are so many strange gun nuts, heck the reason the phrase gun nut exists is that their an accepting community. It's like a religion. If you buy into it everybody has to at least be polite to you. It's a community. And if you make the slightest motion to take away that community they will react with a fear and hate you can't even imagine because, well, it's all they've got.

I suppose we could work to build a society that doesn't need such communities, but this is a site for nerds, and we all know how likely _that_ is to happen.

Re:None of this matters

[Snotnose]

because the people who oppose all gun regulation have a lobby (the NRA) telling them how to vote, they listen, they vote and above all they're single issuer voters.

You have that backwards. I know how I want the NRA to vote, they listen, and (mostly) lobby in my interest. As long as they do that I send them money (voluntarily, I might add). As for "single issue"? I don't know anyone who is a single issue voter. Then again, I don't hang out in churches, poetry readings, SJW meetings, nor white pride meetings.

Re:None of this matters

[djinn6]

None of this matters because the people who oppose all gun regulation have a lobby (the NRA) telling them how to vote, they listen, they vote and above all they're single issuer voters.

That's just wrong. Some of us prefer the highest law in the nation to be upheld as it's written. There are plenty of other rights enumerated in there that I don't want to see trampled on. Giving the government ability to ignore any part of it is a dangerous precedent and must be fought against at every step of the way.

If you want to get rid of the 2nd amendment, then do it the proper way with another amendment. If you think that's unreasonably hard, then hold a constitutional convention and write a new constitution that's easier to amend. And if you think that's too hard, then the only option you have left is to gather your fellow anti-gun folks, pick up your weapons and conquer everyone who disagrees with you.

Re:None of this matters

[njvack]

That's just wrong. Some of us prefer the highest law in the nation to be upheld as it's written. There are plenty of other rights enumerated in there that I don't want to see trampled on. Giving the government ability to ignore any part of it is a dangerous precedent and must be fought against at every step of the way.

We accept limitations on enumerated rights all the goddamn time, and have done so for ages. For example:

• First amendment (free speech, religious establishment): Trademark, copyright, libel, slander, state secrets, trade secrets, dangerous speech ("Fire" in a crowded theater), hate speech, incitement to lawlessness. Religious charter schools.
• Second amendment (arms): The state does try pretty hard to keep a lot of "arms" out of the hands of civilians, even those that might be useful in resisting a tyrannical state.
• Third amendment (housing soldiers): You know, I don't think this one has ever come up.
• Fourth amendment (search and seizure): Asset forfeiture, the amount police can "encourage" you to allow a search
• Fifth amendment (self-incrimination): The amount and tactics the police can use to "encourage" you to incriminate yourself are pretty obscene. Miranda is very weak protection. Pleading the fifth in court is quite limited.
• Sixth amendment (fair and speedy trial): Aaron Schwartz? Gitmo?
• Seventh amendment (right to jury trial): I'm not familiar with this one.
• Eighth amendment (cruel and unusual punishment): Deliciously uses the word "excessive," leaving this important right to be subjectively interpreted.
• Ninth amendment (non-denial of other rights): Dunno
• Tenth amendment (non-delegated powers reside with the states): Seems to be basically completely ignored in practice.

I'm not saying whether these restrictions are good or bad — there are some I agree with, some I don't. But the common theme here is that where the constitution, as written, has conflicted with how we want to conduct ourselves as a nation, we have accepted that these rights have limitations rather than rewrite them.

Re:None of this matters

[Plumpaquatsch]

Hey, there is some good news: 'The Trump slump': Remington files for bankruptcy as gun sales tumble - now that they are sure nobody is going to take their guns away, at least they don't buy new ones.

Re:None of this matters

[djinn6]

You're right that these unwritten exceptions exist in practice, but I oppose almost all of them, as should you or anyone else who values living in a civilized society.

First amendment (free speech, religious establishment): Trademark, copyright, libel, slander, state secrets, trade secrets, dangerous speech ("Fire" in a crowded theater), hate speech, incitement to lawlessness. Religious charter schools.

All of these are tools a despot can use to silence their opponents. Trademark might be the only exception, but that's already handed at the state level. Copyright, meanwhile, is enumerated in Section 8 as a federal power, so that's not a free speech issue (though I still oppose its ridiculous term length).

Fourth amendment (search and seizure): Asset forfeiture, the amount police can "encourage" you to allow a search

Asset forfeiture is literally turning police into highway robbers. This exception should've never existed.

Fifth amendment (self-incrimination): The amount and tactics the police can use to "encourage" you to incriminate yourself are pretty obscene. Miranda is very weak protection. Pleading the fifth in court is quite limited.

Again, I oppose all of those exceptions. Confessions should never be admissible in court as it's too easily extracted with scare tactics, drugs or "enhanced interrogation techniques".

Sixth amendment (fair and speedy trial): Aaron Schwartz? Gitmo?

Ditto. Guantanamo bay never been allowed to exist as a prison and labeling people "enemy combatants" is just bullshit. They are PoW and should be treated as such.

I'm not going to go through the rest of your comment, but I think it suffices to say that almost all of those exceptions make the lives of government officials easier while screwing over the average people.

Re:None of this matters

[Hognoxious]

It doesn't matter that 94% of Americans support Universal Background checks when that's just one issue out of many for them.

Didn't the latest shooter have injunctions against him? Had he been checked, that should have shown up.

Re:None of this matters

[Hognoxious]

Third amendment (housing soldiers): You know, I don't think this one has ever come up.

It was that or "No borrowing somebody's bike without asking first", and they'd already decided that ten was a nice round number.

The real question:

[Gravis Zero]

If they can detect these bots then why isn't Twitter immediately wiping them out?

Re:The real question:

[bluegutang]

Because Twitter is interested in making money, not doing good.

The bear

[AndyKron]

If a Bear shits in the woods and nobody is around to smell it, what difference does it make?

Only a lobotomizee could believe this story

[slashdotiscompromisd]

Why is it exactly that Russia supposedly has the monopoly on propaganda bots?

Why is it exactly that Russia's propaganda bots are the only ones supposed to be effective?

We need to start facing the fact that the leftist side of the population is literally mentally defective. They cannot handle having the same rights as sane people. All that giving them civil liberties does is cheapen the value of liberty for all of us, because the first thing they do with their liberty given a chance is self-destruct it to sabotage other people's liberties, because a leftist has no idea what to do with freedom because they are the product of brainwashing. Their free will has been stamped out.

We need a schism immediately. If you're so docile as to not see or care about the divide in mental stability and integrity, you are going to fall on the wrong side. You have to take a stand and say enough is enough, "equality" does not work and never will, and the "progress" of "progressivism" in the last 100+ years was really just a complete farce and a brazen attack on western civilization and all of its citizens.

Re:Only a lobotomizee could believe this story

[AHuxley]

Re "Why is it exactly that Russia supposedly has the monopoly on propaganda bots?"

The US thinking on that goes back to the 1950's and some science gap.
The what was the NSA, GCHQ took the US science funding and went for spy planes, spy subs, big new spy satellites, expanded collection sites globally, set junk crypto standards and finally funded global collect it all.
Human spies used by NATO, the UK, the USA kept on getting detected in the Soviet Union.
The West used its mil funding to spy on every part of the EU, Warsaw Pact, Soviet Union, later Russia. Every day, all day for decades of collect it all.

The story is that the Soviet Union did not have "tech' and past Commonwealth "geographic" locations to do its own advance global collect it all on the scale of the NSA, GCHQ for decades.
So the Soviet Union and later Russia focused more of its smaller budget and science efforts on the "mind" of the average UK and US voter.
Why spend billions on collect it all when a UK or UK party politics could be swayed with a few well placed spies and people of influence.
The friend, the musician, the celebrity, the cult leader, person of faith who could talk direct to a US, UK politician. All Soviet and later Russian spies, every decade.
That idea kept the FBI, MI5 in over time and hunting amazing Soviet plots.

Now in the internet age the CIA, MI5, FBI want their human budgets back from the tech only NSA, GCHQ and have found the Russian story works well again on US politicians with mil budgets to spend.
Super smart charming cyber bots sent out from some super secret Russian science city are roaming US networks.
The US mil and clandestine services really like to present that Russian anthropologists, psychologists, psychiatrists have worked with Russia's best experts in mythology to present some version of the USA back into the USA that is politically fun, addictive and charming.
A potent, charming Russian backed counter culture to reflect back on the controlling and chilling US elite SJW, political correctness, virtue signalling.

Once the average person in the US/EU reads a few well crafted Russian sentences about freedom and fun on line and that citizen becomes totally beholden to a Russian political outlook for decades.
The USA and UK spent billions counting Soviet tanks parked in rows.
Russian spent millions understanding US culture and can now alter politics in real time....
Great news for a FBI, NSA, MI5/6, GCHQ budget request. Russian bots are linguistically self aware and have to be countered with more US/UK staff.
To better understand Russian effort, US staff want to spend time in the really nice parts of the EU.
To better understand Russian effort, other 5 eye nation staff want to spend time in the USA.
The more Russian bots stories that get published, the more US/UK security service staff get to request international travel to help counter the super smart Russian bots.
Why drive down to New Jersey to cyber upgrade a US mil camp/fort in the cold rain for a week when a good Russian "story" could get 2 years of well paid cyber work in the UK, EU protecting the West from Russian super bots?
Why stay in the UK when years of full pay and further education on Russia "methods" in the USA awaits?
So expect to see a lot more really amazing stories from the clandestine services about the amazing wonders of super sized Russian cyber bots been given to the tame media.

Russian Trolls Have Also Invaded Slashdot

[Sherman Peabody]

Remember the days when it was just linux nerds in here instead of bots and trolls?

Re:Russian Trolls Have Also Invaded Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I is to remember, that was when anti-gun leftism was raging here and liberals run the show. You are only angry because those of us who are Americans who are conservative Republicans and proud have taken over site with logic and morals and you types have none of the reply possibles.

Re:Russian Trolls Have Also Invaded Slashdot

[Sherman Peabody]

Dear anonymous Russian troll, please learn English grammar before you make yourself even more unintentionally hilarious.

Commander Taco help us!

Re:Russian Trolls Have Also Invaded Slashdot

[Howitzer86]

The thing about these people is that not only do they believe the foreign trolls, they eagerly do their dirty work as well. It affirms who they are as a people to see so much undue influence everywhere.

That's bad, but until we tie accounts to identity, they would do it all themselves if we did anything about the foreigners.

Re:Russian Trolls Have Also Invaded Slashdot

[Maltheus]

Yes I do. Back then they had the smarts to understand that state sponsored hackers would never attack a target, without routing through some other country first.

Re:Russian Trolls Have Also Invaded Slashdot

[hyades1]

Sadly, I do...though not for so long as you.

Re:Russian Trolls Have Also Invaded Slashdot

[ayesnymous]

As if this community has any influence on anything, LOL.

Re:Russian Trolls Have Also Invaded Slashdot

[AmiMoJo]

It's all GCHQ's fault. Kinda. Their guide to trolling leaked out and people realized that it could be used as a powerful weapon.

Maybe it was inevitable but that leak is when trolling went from relatively benign to being used for political purposes.

It's a technical problem, like spam. Unintended, unwanted use of the systems we built.

Re:Russian Trolls Have Also Invaded Slashdot

[Hognoxious]

Yeah, it's true. There was no such thing as propaganda until those eggheads in 'nam invented it.

Let's all remember...

[argStyopa]

The CIA director talked about them 'disrupting' the election.

I know to those on the Left, this is synonymous with "got Trump elected."
I don't know that's necessarily what he meant.

The fact is, whatever they can dump onto American social media to enhance outrage, to enhance division, to gin up anger - that all counts as 'disrupting'.

Re:Let's all remember...

[e3m4n]

not saying you are wrong, but shouldnt we start insisting our agencies stop doing the same fucking thing in other countries too? I get tired of hearing the left whine about this and pretend we dont have fucking blood on our hands. We get what we deserve, and if thats russian meddling, well we probably earned that honestly too.

Re:Let's all remember...

[JudgeFurious]

Ultimately I think "Did they cast votes? Did the Russian Twitter-bots or whatever actually cast votes in the election?" and that's all I personally think matters because if the American people are so stupid that they can't tell the difference between the shit people mail around to one another that's obviously just pure rubbish and the truth or bother to double check any of it then they get what they deserve.

Re:Let's all remember...

[T.E.D.]

He was just being careful. From the CIA's perspective its the attack on the USA itself that's important. Figuring out what would have happened without it is an issue for academics, not them.

Yes, its true that there was Russian interference from the left too. Most of that was in the service of promoting Sanders, and promoting the idea that he got cheated somehow. The one thing they did NOT do was help Clinton in any way. She was viewed as an enemy since the State Department (under her leadership) took several actions that were viewed as politically hostile to Putin.

So basically the goals here were 1- Destabilize the USA and 2 - Prevent their least favorite candidate from getting elected.

There's nothing new about this. Destabilizing strong neighbors is diplomacy 101. Its also an inherently hostile act though. Countries get invaded for far less. So the question here is, is there any way to get Russia to stop it short of military action? Or is the USA just gonna lay back and take it?

Re:Let's all remember...

[HornWumpus]

Every democrat was all for Obama interfering with Israel's election. You don't get to rewrite recent history.

Re:Let's all remember...

[bongey]

Russia doesn't need to really do anything , we already have CNN and Fox News.

Seems like the exact opposite actually

[JustNiz]

If you look at Hamilton 68 (http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/) which only tracks the known Russian twitter bots, the very top (i.e most frequent) hashtag is gunreformnow, and at #8 is guncontrol, and there's zero sign of any pro-gun hashtags.
I'm not seeing anything that actually justifies the Wired article's obviously liberal-biassed claims.

Re:Seems like the exact opposite actually

[nitehawk214]

Stoke both sides, get them fighting each other.

Re:Seems like the exact opposite actually

[JustNiz]

That'll be the brainwashing kicking in.

Russian bots are wimpy

[bryanandaimee]

Looking at the sources linked in the article there were 57 tweets linked to Russian backed accounts with the hashtag #guncontrolnow.

57 tweets? Seriously?

All that from only 600 tracked accounts. I hope the bots get a day off because that is some serious tweeting. I think Wired might want to review the definition of the word "flood". The bots have learned the lessons of communism well, Russia pretends to pay the bots and the bots pretend to work.

Re:That didn't take long

[h33t l4x0r]

Please don't feed the Russian trolls.

my tweets

[Skapare]

so does this mean my tweets could be tracked as if from Russia?

Re:America is fucked. - For the guntards out the

[e3m4n]

why is it that idiots like you always talk about GUN violence and not just VIOLENCE. People have been slaughtering each other longer than guns have been around. How many people died on Bastille day in France last year? Was that a mass shooting? No fucktard,, it was a fucking truck. This kid was highly intelligent. He fucking used a fire alarm to lure people into the hallway to create a shooting gallery. Do you really fucking think a lack of guns would have stopped this massacre? He could have used IED's or just about anything else available. But feel free to post as the anonymous pussy that you are. Spineless coward should be your title.

"Old" article still relevant

[bryanandaimee]

The article Wired seems to be criticizing the politifact article because it's old but the article is still valid. Current articles are also quoting the same source, using the same stats to paint the same misleading picture. Just because Everytown for Gun Safety has published new statistics since the critical article was published does not mean their updated stats are any better.

From a recent CNBC article on the Florida shooting entitled "17 school shootings in 45 days — Florida massacre is one of many tragedies in 2018",

            "Everytown has been tracking shootings in schools and universities since 2013. It reports any time a firearm is discharged within a school building or on campus, whether accidentally or intentionally and whether or not anyone has been harmed."

Is that what you think of when you see a headline that says "17 school shootings in 45 days " ?

You can find a breakdown of the types of shootings included in the Everytown data in the aforementioned old article at politifact.

Re:"Old" article still relevant

[tippen]

Here's a current article about how misleading the Everytown stat is: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re:"Old" article still relevant

[fropenn]

We can argue about what constitutes a "school shooting" or how to calculate this number all day. But as long as it != 0 we have a problem that needs addressing.

I fully agree

[gweihir]

It would have been massively more interesting if this had been a massive "everybody is confused and everybody is trying to shoot everybody" situation, instead of a plain old, low-casualty one-shooter snoozefest. So I am all for arming everybody, and best also put some mines and some auto-guns on hair-triggers in schools. Honor students could be rewarded with a few grenades (give them WP for extra fun, frags are so boring) or maybe even a flame-thrower. Kids deserve some excitement in their lives!

In other news, there is not much more ignorance, arrogance and general stupidity to be found in the gun-nuts that actually believe there would be real-world situations where carrying a gun would give them a real advantage. I don't mind the ones that just like to shoot their pieces for fun, gun tech is pretty nice. But thinking that carrying a gun gives you actual power is a very dangerous (and seductive) thing indeed.

Re:That didn't take long

[Camel Pilot]

The left, for alienating white men and making them feel like they have nothing to lose

Oh dear gawd... White men are snowflakes? That if they don't have their needs fully met they are going to go on a rampage.

and for disarming the populace

I don't think anyone would characterize the US as disarmed.

Did Dr Poe write this?

How party political

[AHuxley]

Every comment a person feels is party political is now "Russian"?
Stand up for Second Amendment rights and get called "Russia".
A very chilling way to shape any freedom of speech and freedom after speech in the USA.

Re:America is fucked. - For the guntards out the

[Boronx]

Goddam, have you ever used a gun before? The reason guns took over the world is that their so simple even an idiot can use them. This same asshole would have never figured out how to build a bomb, and if he did, probably would have killed himself doing it.

Truck attacks are indeed extremely dangerous. Do you think we should do nothing to prevent Truck attacks? Trucks at least are harder to use than guns, more expensive, and are harder to get into schools.

Re: America is fucked.

[c6gunner]

The EU has 60,000 suicides out of 551 million people.
The US has 43,000 suicides out of 323 million people.

Which perspective are we supposed to get?

Re:Proof

[Maltheus]

Pretty much anybody posting on Slashdot is capable of making an attack or tweet look like it came from whatever country they'd like. Or at least, the people who used to post on slashdot were capable of this.

Re:That didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, its a sad state of our society that kids are not allowed to open carry at school. This is totally the fault of people who oppose that.

Easy solution ...

[CaptainDork]

... ... recognize that social media is a computer game, intended to entertain.

Taking social media seriously is totally fucked up.

And news?

Who the simple goddam in hell gets their news from within the social bubbles?

Twitter is a depressing rabbit hole.

Use it for the lulz.

meh

[cascadingstylesheet]

So once again, we have this "Russia" narrative that prevents having to face that there are millions of people who do not agree with you.

Re:meh

[david_thornley]

I see the Russians are succeeding with you. Let's remember that we're all Americans and figure out what to do.

Re:meh

[cascadingstylesheet]

I see the Russians are succeeding with you. Let's remember that we're all Americans and figure out what to do.

And there it is; the hermetic seal.

Anyone who disagrees with you is a dupe of the Russians, not a fellow American who disagrees with you.

Re:meh

[david_thornley]

It's entirely possible do disagree with me and not be a Russian dupe. I believe there are well over three hundred million people in the US alone who disagree with me on some significant points. However:

So once again, we have this "Russia" narrative that prevents having to face that there are millions of people who do not agree with you.

doesn't look like any sort of informed or reasonable disagreement to me. It's completely not what I'm thinking, and by casting me as irrational it removes the need to consider my ideas. That's the sort of thing the Russians are apparently trying to foment.

Re:America is fucked. - For the guntards out the

[e3m4n]

I am a 6yr veteran of the first gulf war. Yes i have used many of the same guns you are talking about. This guy WAS smart enough to build a bomb. For fucks sake there are uneducated jihadists in Iraq building IEDs every day and their education extends to addition, some multiplication, and fucking their sisters. He was smart enough to use a fire alarm.. where do kids congregate after a fire alarm is pulled... in a parking lot. So yes a truck would have been a very effective tool for mass murder.

Re:That didn't take long

[Alypius]

Conservatives != Republicans.

Re:Another question,

[e3m4n]

only if the police and military are also restricted to flintlock rifles. See the SCOTUS decision of United States vs Miller. 2nd amendment gets us the same tools the military of the day uses.

Learn from Israel

[Dog-Cow]

In Israel, you see teen-agers (18+) and up walking around with semi-automatic rifles. People claim Israelis are racists, yet Israel has not had a mass-shooting like this since the psycho Baruch Goldstein, some 30 years ago. If the most rabid Settlers don't do it, then Americans have a lot to learn about gun safety and consideration for life.

Re:Learn from Israel

[ceoyoyo]

Mmm. Those are maybe on-duty military or police? Isreal has pretty strict gun control laws (as well as compulsory military service). They even started restricting access to firearms for off-duty military personnel and saw suicide rates fall.

Re:Learn from Israel

[Mashiki]

They also train their police and various other people who are in sensitive areas with kinesics. There are tells when a person is going to be violent, agitated, and so on. Police in Canada get a crash course in it, which has helped lower police shootings across the board for example. But in the US, using kinesics to "single out individuals" is considered racist or some other bullshit. Which is why democrats fought so damned hard against TSA agents having it as a requirement to be hired.

Re:That didn't take long

[e3m4n]

then you should at least appreciate what Rand Paul said calling them out for not being the fiscal conservatives they claim to be.

Re: America is fucked.

[e3m4n]

i think the overdose numbers are more scary than suicide, or are we counting them as suicide now? We lose more to suicide than car accidents, heart attacks, and homicides (all kinds) combined.

Re: America is fucked.

[c6gunner]

Some overdoses are suicides, some are accidental deaths. The accidental overdose deaths are usually lumped in with poisoning deaths, while the intentional ones are lumped in with suicides.

Accidental deaths overall make up about 150,000 per year, with some 40,000 of those being poisoning. Overdoses overall contribute 50,000 deaths.

The breakdown of the overdose deaths are hard to quantify but it seems likely that around 15-20,000 are suicides, and the remaining 30-35,000 are unintentional. Which would put unintentical OD on the same level as falling and car accidents, at 30,000 each.

Yes, drug deaths might be a problem, but apparently they're roughly as big a problem as accidentally falling down.

Re:America is fucked. - For the guntards out the

[ceoyoyo]

Just gonna leave this here...

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy...

Russian?

[superwiz]

So everything anti-Communist is Russian now? I get it that Russia became a country through a rebellion against USSR, but don't people realize that there are others who don't like what Communists stand for?

Re:A sad day for humanity

[shilly]

It really is about people and guns.

There are lots of sad stories of people being abused and neglected by their parents in France, Germany, the UK, etc. Some of those people grow up bad and do bad things. But they don't take a rifle and shoot kids at their former school, because they can't get their hands on a rifle.

So you're trying to spin this as a conspiracy

[Ayano]

I don't see why you got voted 'interesting' The leader of the 'Republic of Florida' Militia which advocates for white civil rights and an ethnostate confirmed we was a member but insisted he acted on his own. That same leader then walked those statements backward as the law enforcement agency that monitors the group can't confirm his membership either. For those not researching into it look up the 'Republic of Florida' Militia and decide for yourself before you believe an internet troll. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/f...

Strawman argument

[a_claudiu]

So policies directed at mass shootings tend to be ineffective at actually reducing gun deaths. Because of the meticulous planning, mass shooters are difficult to detect. Because of their mental illnesses, they are difficult to deter. This is precisely where gun control will be least effective. The world's worst mass shooting was in Norway, not America.

How many mass shooting are in Europe and how many in US? (according to definition of 4 or more victims). USA have already 30 and it's just the beginning of the year. I will not go over your arguments because ALL of them are false and based on false dichotomies premeditate/impulsive, rifles/guns, crazy/stupid, not criminal/criminal.

Gun control works. And please do not bring the subject of Switzerland which is sooo different than US including gun legislation.

Usefulness of the object

[DrYak]

Maybe life on our side of the Atlantic pond is a tiny bit different than in the US, but...

I'd prefer to take it to the anti-gun's conclusion: anytime something is used for evil, the entire industry must be destroyed.

...I see quite a bit of difference between gun and all the example you cite.

In the past couple of decade I've never been through any situation where I've been thinking I'm lucky/happy to have a gun because it really saved the situation, or thinking that I wish I could have had one.
Guns don't seem fundamentally important and useful objects in everyday life. They mostly bring in a danger and useless risk without bringing much benefit.

DUI? Ban all cars,

Yup. Cars kill people (Well technically, irresponsible drivers do, whatever, bla bla...)
But cars are tremendously useful, (even though our more densely populated city tend to enjoy better public transportations).
Lots of services and people could not get their job done without one.

There are risks to car, but the huge amount of benefits largely outweigh them.

drugs (including medicines).

Medecine can kill people (errors, side effects, addiction to prescription drugs, development of drugs-resisting microbes due to industrial over-use and over-prescription, etc.)
Still, they save lives. A lot of them. Think the drastic reduction of death since the discovery and development of antibiotics.

There are risks to medecine, but the huge amount of benefits largely outweigh them.

Assault with a baseball bat? Ban sports.

Do I really need to mention the health benefits of sports ?
Every day, countless of times bats get swung, and most of the time it's to hit a ball as part of some healthy outdoor sport.
(Then a tiny proportion is to hit a ball in front of a camera as part of a heavily corrupted televisual event in order to make money,
and a couple of times it's on someone else head).

There are risks to sports equipment, but the huge amount of benefits largely outweigh them.

Cyberbullying? Ban computers.

You're writing on one. I don't think I even need to explain how my above logic applies also to this of your examples...

Works for a lot of things!

Yup, works even for kitchen implements:
knife kill people ! let's ban kitchen.

And again my argument works too :
- How many time did someone got stabbed with a kitchen knife in your neighborhood ?
- How many time did you yourself use your kitchen knife to make you a sandwich, cut some cheese, or any other common use to feed your self.

Yup, there are risks of having knife in your home. But the vast amount of time, they're mostly used to prepare food.

alcohol, and drugs

Here the situation is a bit different :
- the usefulness is a lot lower (mainly entertainment, and some social use)
- the risk aren't that great (there are long term risk on the health due to excessive use. But occasional and reasonable use isn't lethal).

End result ? These are heavily regulated.
Not everyone is allowed to acquire these (e.g.: minor aren't)
etc.

And now let's look at the gun :
like knifes they can be used to kill people.
But unlike knives, we're not in the situations (at least in our corner of the world) where everyday million of rounds are fired and thus making the life of everyone much easier.
There's no tremendous benefit in everyone of the population happily shooting each other.

Again, I've reached my current point in life without ever being in a situation where a gun was necessary, unlike any other of your example.
It seems to me that there are no obvious everyday use for guns for the vast majority of the population.

Thus in my opinion, it should go the same route as drugs :
it should be regulated.

Some professions (police enforcement) might n

Re:Usefulness of the object

[phantomfive]

In the past couple of decade I've never been through any situation where I've been thinking I'm lucky/happy to have a gun because it really saved the situation, or thinking that I wish I could have had one. Guns don't seem fundamentally important and useful objects in everyday life. They mostly bring in a danger and useless risk without bringing much benefit.

This is basically the center of the argument. People who use guns oppose gun control, and people who don't use them favor gun control (generally speaking). We come up with a lot of reasons to justify our opinions, but that's what it boils down to.

Re:Usefulness of the object

[Green Mountain Bot]

People who use guns oppose gun control, and people who don't use them favor gun control (generally speaking).

That's not entirely true, and not just because of exceptions to the generalization. A majority of gun owners do actually support several gun control measures. Specifically, 89% favor preventing people with mental health issues from buying guns, 77% favor requiring background checks on private sales and at gun shows, 82% favor banning people on the no-fly list from buying guns, and 54% favor creating a federal database for tracking gun sales. Additionally, significant minorities favor banning assault-style weapons (48%) and high-capacity magazines (44%).

Re:Usefulness of the object

[Anonymous Coward]

context is important when analyzing the US constitution's second amendment. in particular, people seem to keep forgetting that the newly seceeded nation was still fighting a long and bloody war with the British, a nation that, at least in the eyes of the US forefathers, was tyrannical in their governance of its colonies.

Guns are legal in the US because the founders recognized their *need* should tyranny once again return to the highest levels of government and once again *need* to be quelled.

Re:Usefulness of the object

[apoc.famine]

It should not be something that could metaphorically be bought in the store at the corner of your street (I'm over exagerating, but that's how you USAmerican seem to us).

No, you're not.

The town I grew up in was about 5,000 people, and we had a gun store on main street. It wasn't on the corner, however. It was mid-block. Between the hardware store and the post office. Sold hunting and fishing equipment and licences to hunt and fish too. But not gun licenses, because while you need a license to hunt, fish, drive a car, and for your dog, you don't need one to own a gun.

So no, not an exaggeration at all.

I grew up around guns, target shooting and hunting. Dad still has his small collection in the house, and still goes hunting. I've grown away from that, and it doesn't really interest me anymore.

Despite that background, I'm firmly in the camp of serious gun control. The current situation is unsustainable, and has been for some time. It's so beyond what should be happening in a civilized country that it's frankly insane.

If you want to lay blame for America's excessive guns, you can point your finger at King George. If he hadn't tried to disarm us, we wouldn't have written the right to bear arms into our bill of rights. That presents a major hurdle in regulating arms in the US, as it's a foundational right built into our country from the start. It's not an insurmountable barrier, but until more than half of the public is willing to make it a voting issue over the course of several years, it's not going to get dealt with.

Re:Usefulness of the object

[phantomfive]

Well, if you want to say "support any gun control measure" then yes, you can select measures that 90% of Americans will support. Unfortunately the measures in that survey would be less effective (notably the gun show loophole. Criminals don't seem to buy their guns at gun shows for some reason......probably because they are able to pass a background check or get them from someone who can).

Re:Usefulness of the object

[Hognoxious]

in particular, people seem to keep forgetting that the newly seceeded nation was still fighting a long and bloody war with the British, a nation that, at least in the eyes of the US forefathers, was tyrannical in their governance of its colonies.

Oh, we know it. But we know it was a couple of centuries back and the world has changed since then.

Re:Usefulness of the object

[e_pluribus_funk]

Better to be a warrior in a farm than a farmer in a war, and better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have one.

Re:National Russian Association?

[Cederic]

Every decent person in America should be down at their local NRA office and riding the people inside out of town

You're advocating violence against people because of their political views, and yet also want to remove their ability to defend themselves against you?

Nice way to justify their entire fucking position.

That is the eternal question isn't it ?

[aepervius]

Is the US constitution relevant to this day and age (I am not even speaking on the process of changing it - just whether it is relevant) ? It was written for a certain of world and that world evolved, well beyond the parameter the writer could ever see, to the point of (IMO) obsolescence for certain amendment. Many western country around the world severely limited or restricted gun ownership, the US still is holding onto it, even if the power of the weapon and their relevance to any militia isn't that obvious anymore.

Anyway it is a moot point. I view this in horror as a foreigner, but it is obvious after sandy hook that if shooting down 20 about 6-7 year old do NOTHING then nothing else will.

Whom Does Your Constitution Belong To?

[phantomflanflinger]

That's what the rest of the world asks, every time this happens. We can all see you are being held hostage by a few gun nuts, why can't you?

It's YOUR constitution, change it (if necessary) and save yourselves. Right now, another shooter is planning to kill American children. Eventually you will realise they are YOUR children.

The NRA could increase it's funding by 1000% if it put up billboards saying how many innocent Americans have died from guns - as long as they were in Arabic and on the other side of the world.

But hey, I don't live there and my two daughters don't have to learn how to run in zig-zag lines to avoid fatal shots, what do I care? I do care and I know someday the gun nuts will fall.

Re:Whom Does Your Constitution Belong To?

[eaglesrule]

It isn't the will of a few 'gun nuts' that prevents a fundamental shift of the basic rights of a U.S. citizen. Spare us the hyperbolic and breathless 'think of the children' concern trolling.

Furthermore, those who let their emotions and authoritarian leanings decide what was best for society, and failed to consider the unintended consequences, brought us Prohibition and the Drug War. The Drug War, which is still ongoing, where the massive amount of funding is spent for paramilitary police forces and strain legal and prison systems to the benefit of NO ONE. This money could have been used for mental health care and school counselors to help prevent exactly this type of event.

The solution will never be stripping people of their rights in order to treat the symptoms of a problem.

That's what bothers me the most- talked least

[dfenstrate]

Everyone knew the shooter was a problem. Everyone saw something, everyone said something- to the police, to the FBI, to the school administrators- and nobody did anything. They just let it happen.

Re:That's what bothers me the most- talked least

[Mashiki]

Everyone saw something, everyone said something- to the police, to the FBI, to the school administrators- and nobody did anything. They just let it happen.

So where would you like to place blame? The police didn't have anything to go on because it apparently wasn't reported to them. The school suspended, then expelled him. But that could also have been a trigger for it. Let's not forget that the school was in an upper-class area, so you should think on that one a little bit too. He however wasn't in the same social/financial standing. The FBI didn't do any followup apparently, possibly because the regulations internally didn't allow for it. The person he was staying with, who kicked him out after his parents died didn't do anything on the other hand. Seems to be a case of overlapping bystander effects doesn't it?

Of course you can't forget that he was also on SSRI's apparently, which seems to be an overlapping theme in many of these cases too.

Re:That's what bothers me the most- talked least

[david_thornley]

Of course you can't forget that he was also on SSRI's apparently, which seems to be an overlapping theme in many of these cases too.

So, you're saying that depression is a major cause of shootings? Maybe we should try treating it more, then, instead of cheaping out and only providing meds.

Re:That's what bothers me the most- talked least

[ceoyoyo]

That's been looked at, actually. Various measures of mental illness don't explain the preponderance of mass shootings in the US. People really have looked carefully at a lot of possible explanations. The only one that really works is the availability of firearms.

Re:That's what bothers me the most- talked least

[Mashiki]

So, you're saying that depression is a major cause of shootings? Maybe we should try treating it more, then, instead of cheaping out and only providing meds.

It's already well known in psychology that people who are on a rebound are more likely to commit suicide after they start climbing out of the pit. That's because they don't want to re-enter that depressive pit again.

What I'm saying is SSRI's have several problems. One of which is being used in cases where it shouldn't be used. Improper dosing is another. On top of that there's no shortage of lawsuits and settled suits where people who were taking SSRI's simply 'snapped' and went on a killing spree either. As well, if you want to try "treating it" then you have to start bringing back mental health facilities, that the left and courts across the west basically killed off fully by the 1980's. Instead of the revolving door system we have now, where police are generally the first line of response to someone wigging the fuck out.

Re:That's what bothers me the most- talked least

[Mashiki]

Mental illness does. Firearms make the problem worse, but in Canada we see mass-stabbings. So does the UK, so does Australia. The UK and AUS have very restrictive gun rights. Switzerland on the otherhand has lax gunlaws compared to the rest of Europe. But also has a strong mental health system.

Re:That's what bothers me the most- talked least

[ceoyoyo]

The lethality of crime (and also suicide) in the US is far above any other western nation, and the only reasonable explanation anyone's ever found is that the availability of guns makes that happen. The NY Times article included an example: a Londoner and a New Yorker are at fairly equal risk of being robbed. But the New Yorker is 50 times more likely to die in the encounter.

Surprisingly, the rate of mental illness in the US, including the rate of untreated mental illness, isn't really much higher than it is in other western nations. That's why it doesn't explain the gun deaths.

Re:Russians!!!

[temcat]

They failed to do it because of Russians! Somehow.

Ban expired, not repealed

[mpercy]

"The ten-year ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, following a close 52–48 vote in the Senate, and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment, and it expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision."

Re:Grammar Here So Bad Can't Tell Who is Russian!

[HornWumpus]

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

Reddit is that way. Don't come back.

Re:National Russian Association?

[eaglesrule]

One day "NRA" will be consigned to the same category as "KKK", that other organisation that spouts garbage about protecting freedom when what they mean is the right to kill at will.

I imagine that is quite possible, given how intent the opposing side is at censoring speech, policing wrongthink, and enforcing blasphemy laws. Revising history such as that would be expected, just as I'd expect Eric Clanton would be annointed to martyrdom status for his bravery in fighting the nazis of his day.

With that in mind I think I'll go donate to the NRA right now.

Re:Russians!!!

[david_thornley]

C'mon. There's other languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet. I think it's the fault of the Serbs and Bulgarians, myself.

Everybody always seems to forget

[rsilvergun]

the 'well regulated' part. _Nothing_ in the Constitution is there by accident. The Constitution _does_ allow arms to be regulated.

Any violence is _not_ the only option. That kind of thinking is exactly what makes a single issue voter. There's zero room for compromise or even common sense in that kind of thinking. _Anyone_ who opposes unlimited access to firearms is an enemy who's one step away from killing us all.

Among the pro-gun lobby it's impossible to imagine a control advocate who doesn't immediately resort to violence. I can think of several reasons why the pro-gun lobby is like this (none of them good) but I can't think of anything that can be done about it. I'd rather see the left drop the issue and, like that comic says, live with the occasional horrific civilian massacre.

Re:Everybody always seems to forget

[djinn6]

Everybody always seems to forget the 'well regulated' part. _Nothing_ in the Constitution is there by accident. The Constitution _does_ allow arms to be regulated.

Nobody who studied the Constitution, the Revolutionary War, or the founders themselves, would ever read it to mean the federal government is allowed to regulate private arms ownership. The regulation applies to the militia, not the arms. A well-regulated militia is better than an unregulated one at fighting off the British, and with the entire populace armed, it'd be hell for anyone trying to conquer the US by force or rule it with an iron fist.

You might argue that the cause for the 2nd amendment no longer exists, that Americans are no longer in danger of being conquered by another nation, and that no despot can possibly take control of the federal government. That would be a reasonable argument to make. But even if the argument is right, the correct process for eliminating the 2nd amendment is still with another amendment.

I'd rather see the left drop the issue and, like that comic says, live with the occasional horrific civilian massacre.

Of all the reasons to ban guns, mass shootings are by far the worst. The total number who die from it would be easily made up by better enforcement of drunk driving laws or better funding of suicide prevention programs. Not to mention trucks and fertilizer bombs are perfectly valid ways to kill people, even if some people on the left would like to pretend they're not. People who are intelligent, motivated and crazy are impossible to stop. Even if you got rid of guns, that only makes it more of a challenge for them, and some people like challenges.

I haven't seen any leftists say that

[rsilvergun]

Every leftist I know is saying we _SHOULD_ politicize this tragedy. One of the common memes on the left it that it's always "too soon" to talk about gun control and if it's too soon to talk about it after this mass shooting how about use the last one?

Also, I don't know _anyone_ on the left who wants to ban all guns. Even the really left wing nutters I know gave up on that. And not just for politics, but because with 300 million guns in America it's virtually impossible. Remember, we don't want to lock folks up for no good reason. We support legalizing drugs for fucks sake. Hell, a lot of us support legalizing _all_ drugs like parts of the Neatherlands did (albeit also with nationalized healthcare that treats drug addiction as a serious illness). The last thing we want is to ban guns and start locking folks up for owning one. We want _less_ people in prison, not more.

financial testimony

[clintonbarkley02]

Hi, My name is Clinton Barkley and I have being hearing about this blank ATM card for a while and i never really paid any interest to it because of my doubts. Until one day i discovered a hacking guy called MAX. I inquired about The Blank ATM Card. They told me that its a card programmed for random money withdraws without being noticed and can also be used for free online purchases of any kind. This was shocking and i still had my doubts. Then i gave it a try and asked for the card and agreed to their terms and conditions.. seven days later I received my card and tried with the closest ATM machine close to me, to my greatest surprise It worked like magic. I was able to withdraw up to $3000. I just felt this might help those of us in need of financial stability. blank ATM has really change my life. If you want to contact them, Here is the email address (atmcardservice43 @ gmail. com) And I believe they will also Change your Life.

Re: What. Ever.

[Hognoxious]

True. Some just pretend to be.

Re:America is fucked. - For the guntards out the

[Hognoxious]

Yes i have used many of the same guns you are talking about.

Like he said, even an idiot can.

Good summary of why itâ(TM)s nearly impossibl

[BobBobster]

https://thefederalist.com/2018...

"Tampering" equals ...

[eric_harris_76]

"Tampering" equals "advertising"?

Good to know.

Good News

[Doctrinsograce]

Any port in a storm! Thank you, Ivan.