It's a failure of addressing certain records in a background check. Is it a violation of your 4th amendment if your history of mental illness show up in a routine background check? I am going to guess there might be some HIPAA laws there to protect your privacy which make the issue more complicated in that regard.
I don't want to lose my right to a gun just because I used some anti-depressants. Or because I at one point was suffering depression and decided to ask for outside help. Mental health already has a bad stigma. Not all mental health issues deserve a loss of constitutional rights just as not everyone suffering mental illness need be locked in a padded cell in a straight jacket.
The FBI and law enforcement failed to act on reports of the shooters behavior and that behavior and record was not reported on the background check. There is possibility to strengthen that legislation and language but that isn't adding new regulations but addressing the pitfalls of existing regulation.
As it stands now it is illegal for a "mentally deranged teenager" from owning a gun. That doesn't mean the background checks adequately flag it. So, yes it was "legal" in the sense he passed a background check. No in the sense that the background check should have been able to account for those red flags. IOW, addressing current law is a better solution than adding new controversial gun bans to prevent a shooting like this and the one in Texas.
If the push was for strengthening that law. It woudln't be controversial. The NRA woudln't stop it. Because we already all agree on it.
Banning a bumpstock is about trying to get to the same existing law we have i.e. fully automatic weapons are banned that nearly everyone agree with. You aren't banning the gun that encroaches on the rights of law biding citizens.
because I'm a pot smoker. Still, handing a gun to me is a MUCH better idea than handing it to a deranged, violent teen.
I am going to guess you have a criminal record with pot is why you would bring that up. Go figure a criminal can't own a gun, are you saying they should? There are ways to reclaim rights after committing a crime. I would have to look into specifics for guns and specific for state law. It's like felony voting, Some allow it. Some don't. Some allow that right to be given back. You have demonstrated that common sense laws are already on the books.
It is already illegal for a "deranged violent teen" from purchasing a gun.
handing an AR-15 to a mentally deranged teenager with a history of threatening violence seems like a common-sense bad idea.
Good thing that is already against the law. Oh you mean that the FBI and law enforcement are failing to enforce existing law? Yes, it would be common-sense to think that the government should properly enforce the laws on the books. It would also be common-sense to get the government to enforce existing laws before proposing new ones. If the government is failing at enforcing existing common sense law how are they going to properly enforce any other common sense solution you come up with?
If the proposed law wouldn't have stop the last shooting how would it have stopped the next shooting?
Mass shootings from the mentally ill are rare and are damn near impossible to predict. At least we know that the FBI and law enforcement are doing a shit job enforcing existing law. There might be something to address there and that has the potential to "do something" more so than any gun ban that we hear paraded by media.
Something changed in our culture and it wasn't the guns.
You don't have to be a customer for someone to be able to use your land for a specific purpose. You don't have to be common carrier to have an easement claim. I have had wire buried in my neighbors yard. I didn't have to ask. They didn't have a right to stop me or the company laying the wire. If they destroy the wire the police can be called for destruction of property by the owner of the wire (telecom).
Or because humans pay premium for humans. As an example, human phone operators seem to have made some what of a comeback because automated voice messaging is unpopular and annoying.
Where will humans probably work? Service oriented jobs. Jobs that no matter the AI, people prefer people doing it and will pay for people to do it. Is my first guess. I don't know what industry will absorb displaced workers from general AI but I do know that there will always be a demand for human labor because humans will pay for human service. Even existing industry can be revolutionized and be top employers for a broad swath of people with varying skills, take Walmart. Not saying it is perfect but they were able to dominate the market though process, service, and reworking distribution. Amazon is another example one of the largest employers is spearheading AI development and automation.
When has automation or industrialization ever led to wide spread poverty through any kind of increased productivity? If the poor are getting wealthier and with better lives (which has been the norm for any industrialization and automation) they would be stupid to eat the rich just because the rich are richer. It would be the Reign of Terror all over again because someone is better off. The relationship between the upper and lower class has evolved. It isn't predatory as much as it is symbiotic.
To emphasize this. Purple or battleground states change over time. Many lessons were learned the last election and a big thing learned was that there are more battleground states than in 2012 or 2008 (PA anyone).
An opinion piece by Slate? I read it... He doesn't like what Trump says and Pence is quiet about what his boss says... FACISM!!!!
Give me a break.
Can't talk about safety or security because "Elevate fear and bury other considerations!!!". Does that mean the pro-gun control parroting safety and security are creating a fascistic state? After all, they are elevating fear with abused statistics while appealing to emotion and burying other considerations #DoSomething. Also, they are disarming the public and taking away their ability to defend against The Final Solution. Dun dun dunnnn...
The entire article screams confirmation bias. If you already believed what was written you'll probably nod away. "See! Trump is creating Fascist USA. I know because I read about online." Meanwhile in the real world, journalists are being killed and jailed. Let me guess, that is the same as being banned by Trumps twitter because you can't reply with #resist to gain followers? Talk about a bad joke. Fascism my ass.
That's 78,000 strategically based voters -- not even 1/10 of 1% of the total US votes cast -- and the Electoral College would have gone the other way....So you can't rule out Russian meddling by citing Clinton's (unquestioned) weaknesses as a candidate. They could *both* have been decisive.
Part of the issue is that knowing the strategically relevant districts before the election would be near impossible. Everyone thought Clinton would win. Everyone was basing their opinion on the matter on polls that had systemic problems in properly counting certain demographics. Russian meddling to effect those key strategic districts (only known after the election) and demographics is akin to a shotgun having the exact spread to draw a like A Sunday on La Grande Jatte. Again as you say, Clinton overly relying on those numbers and disregarding any warning signs because she was swept away in the hype surrounding her campaign.
The Russians could have swung a few votes I can accept but I don't think near enough in the strategic districts to swing the election. There were other more dramatic events that would have had much more impact than anything the Russians could do with fake American identities. Such as Comey. Such as not campaigning in those states. Such as having a lot of political baggage in the year of the Outsider (Sanders/Trump).
Yes that is bad. But note how those two counts make up for 6 pages of the 37 page indictment.
It's good that we are getting criminals but to dedicate an entire Special Investigation for a common occurrence like that... Is a poor use of federal resources. The FBI should have been able to address those crimes without the need of a Special Counsel. The bulk of the indictment is about social media trolling mentioning 5 pages about fraud and sprinkled with 2 paragraphs for identify theft.
The more I read this indictment the more pathetic it seems. Oh no! Russians pretending to be Americans trolled social media! They hide their Russian identity! They created social media groups! Why should I give two shits about social media trolling?
A British spy spreading Russian information to the media while concealing where it came from and who paid for it. That's different and a reasonable use of Russian information from a foreign national to influence the election. But Russians tweeting #MAGA requires special investigation. -.-
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.
If you really can't find examples of CNN being doing bad journalism you aren't looking or blind. Hell just Wikipedia gives a couple of recent examples.
Yes that video was Chris Cuomo. I am not sure why you have such an insistence of a link to a story when most of CNN is a broadcast. Are you saying when they lie during their broadcast it isn't the same as lying in an online article? Oh, I know. Because they can't retract their live broadcast. Because if I point out the Scaramucci affair, where people resigned over a lie published by CNN you can say "they retracted" so no harm no foul. Yet, if I point out the Cuomo gaffe then you can say "it's not a link to a story". But the damage is the same and that retraction is hardly enough to save face for allowing that kind of continual bullshit through.
Sorry but just because they issue a large number of retractions on their written stories doesn't mean they're trustworthy. It just means that I am not sure when a lie will be caught. I can point out instances where they have lied (as I did) but that will not satisfy your "post a link with a lie".
There has always and will always be some bias in news
True. But there has been a revitalized effort to abandon journalistic ethics and integrity. Yellow journalism has become popular again and more common place. Propaganda thrives in an environment where yellow journalism, lack of ethics, and lack of integrity are the norm.
that's why you need a brain and some education to read them, and I guess, a reasonably open mind
Not sure about open mind. That sounds like Spirit Science "Open your mind to shite". My mind is open but not so much that my brain falls out. The other two criteria has been achieved and there must be trust in the citizens to be able to determine and act in their own self interest.
If you can't distinguish NYT from Russian propaganda or even the National Enquirer, I've got sad news for you, you are missing one or more of those 3 things
No. The narrative that was/is being pushed is that Russia hacked the election and influenced the election. That is a failure of the media because they have become so distrusted and so hated (they have lower approvals than Trump) that transparency in a campaign (Clinton emails) is now Russian propaganda because how that transparency happened (Russian phishing link). That narrative poisoned the well to make any discussion about Trump-Russian collusion fertile grounds for fake news and fake narratives. Trust is easily lost and hard won.
Thankfully, we have a very stable genius in the white house,
Again, who has higher approvals than the media reporting on him. Seriously think about that for a second. The media is more hated than Trump.
Slashdot Mirror
Put me in a padded cell and lock the door! I am scared of life. Protect me bubble wrap.
I see. I think a lot of the laws around pot are dumb but the federal law in question seems like a "common sense" that we hear so much about.
"unlawful user and/or addict of any controlled substance".
Obviously pot isn't the same as crack or cocaine but do you want a crack head to buy a gun?
It's a failure of addressing certain records in a background check. Is it a violation of your 4th amendment if your history of mental illness show up in a routine background check? I am going to guess there might be some HIPAA laws there to protect your privacy which make the issue more complicated in that regard.
I don't want to lose my right to a gun just because I used some anti-depressants. Or because I at one point was suffering depression and decided to ask for outside help. Mental health already has a bad stigma. Not all mental health issues deserve a loss of constitutional rights just as not everyone suffering mental illness need be locked in a padded cell in a straight jacket.
The FBI and law enforcement failed to act on reports of the shooters behavior and that behavior and record was not reported on the background check. There is possibility to strengthen that legislation and language but that isn't adding new regulations but addressing the pitfalls of existing regulation.
As it stands now it is illegal for a "mentally deranged teenager" from owning a gun. That doesn't mean the background checks adequately flag it. So, yes it was "legal" in the sense he passed a background check. No in the sense that the background check should have been able to account for those red flags. IOW, addressing current law is a better solution than adding new controversial gun bans to prevent a shooting like this and the one in Texas.
If the push was for strengthening that law. It woudln't be controversial. The NRA woudln't stop it. Because we already all agree on it.
Banning a bumpstock is about trying to get to the same existing law we have i.e. fully automatic weapons are banned that nearly everyone agree with. You aren't banning the gun that encroaches on the rights of law biding citizens.
because I'm a pot smoker. Still, handing a gun to me is a MUCH better idea than handing it to a deranged, violent teen.
I am going to guess you have a criminal record with pot is why you would bring that up. Go figure a criminal can't own a gun, are you saying they should? There are ways to reclaim rights after committing a crime. I would have to look into specifics for guns and specific for state law. It's like felony voting, Some allow it. Some don't. Some allow that right to be given back. You have demonstrated that common sense laws are already on the books.
It is already illegal for a "deranged violent teen" from purchasing a gun.
No it's not. It's uninformed drivel. It's about as insightful as a potato.
Easement does not require common carrier status.
handing an AR-15 to a mentally deranged teenager with a history of threatening violence seems like a common-sense bad idea.
Good thing that is already against the law. Oh you mean that the FBI and law enforcement are failing to enforce existing law? Yes, it would be common-sense to think that the government should properly enforce the laws on the books. It would also be common-sense to get the government to enforce existing laws before proposing new ones. If the government is failing at enforcing existing common sense law how are they going to properly enforce any other common sense solution you come up with?
If the proposed law wouldn't have stop the last shooting how would it have stopped the next shooting?
Mass shootings from the mentally ill are rare and are damn near impossible to predict. At least we know that the FBI and law enforcement are doing a shit job enforcing existing law. There might be something to address there and that has the potential to "do something" more so than any gun ban that we hear paraded by media.
Something changed in our culture and it wasn't the guns.
Never heard of easements?
You don't have to be a customer for someone to be able to use your land for a specific purpose. You don't have to be common carrier to have an easement claim. I have had wire buried in my neighbors yard. I didn't have to ask. They didn't have a right to stop me or the company laying the wire. If they destroy the wire the police can be called for destruction of property by the owner of the wire (telecom).
Or because humans pay premium for humans. As an example, human phone operators seem to have made some what of a comeback because automated voice messaging is unpopular and annoying.
Where will humans probably work? Service oriented jobs. Jobs that no matter the AI, people prefer people doing it and will pay for people to do it. Is my first guess. I don't know what industry will absorb displaced workers from general AI but I do know that there will always be a demand for human labor because humans will pay for human service. Even existing industry can be revolutionized and be top employers for a broad swath of people with varying skills, take Walmart. Not saying it is perfect but they were able to dominate the market though process, service, and reworking distribution. Amazon is another example one of the largest employers is spearheading AI development and automation.
When has automation or industrialization ever led to wide spread poverty through any kind of increased productivity? If the poor are getting wealthier and with better lives (which has been the norm for any industrialization and automation) they would be stupid to eat the rich just because the rich are richer. It would be the Reign of Terror all over again because someone is better off. The relationship between the upper and lower class has evolved. It isn't predatory as much as it is symbiotic.
To emphasize this. Purple or battleground states change over time. Many lessons were learned the last election and a big thing learned was that there are more battleground states than in 2012 or 2008 (PA anyone).
More that just higher cable bills! CNN is at stake! Think of CNN!
I need a news organization to threaten memers with a dox.
An opinion piece by Slate? I read it... He doesn't like what Trump says and Pence is quiet about what his boss says... FACISM!!!!
Give me a break.
Can't talk about safety or security because "Elevate fear and bury other considerations!!!". Does that mean the pro-gun control parroting safety and security are creating a fascistic state? After all, they are elevating fear with abused statistics while appealing to emotion and burying other considerations #DoSomething. Also, they are disarming the public and taking away their ability to defend against The Final Solution. Dun dun dunnnn...
The entire article screams confirmation bias. If you already believed what was written you'll probably nod away. "See! Trump is creating Fascist USA. I know because I read about online." Meanwhile in the real world, journalists are being killed and jailed. Let me guess, that is the same as being banned by Trumps twitter because you can't reply with #resist to gain followers? Talk about a bad joke. Fascism my ass.
That's 78,000 strategically based voters -- not even 1/10 of 1% of the total US votes cast -- and the Electoral College would have gone the other way. ...So you can't rule out Russian meddling by citing Clinton's (unquestioned) weaknesses as a candidate. They could *both* have been decisive.
Part of the issue is that knowing the strategically relevant districts before the election would be near impossible. Everyone thought Clinton would win. Everyone was basing their opinion on the matter on polls that had systemic problems in properly counting certain demographics. Russian meddling to effect those key strategic districts (only known after the election) and demographics is akin to a shotgun having the exact spread to draw a like A Sunday on La Grande Jatte. Again as you say, Clinton overly relying on those numbers and disregarding any warning signs because she was swept away in the hype surrounding her campaign.
The Russians could have swung a few votes I can accept but I don't think near enough in the strategic districts to swing the election. There were other more dramatic events that would have had much more impact than anything the Russians could do with fake American identities. Such as Comey. Such as not campaigning in those states. Such as having a lot of political baggage in the year of the Outsider (Sanders/Trump).
Yes that is bad. But note how those two counts make up for 6 pages of the 37 page indictment.
It's good that we are getting criminals but to dedicate an entire Special Investigation for a common occurrence like that... Is a poor use of federal resources. The FBI should have been able to address those crimes without the need of a Special Counsel. The bulk of the indictment is about social media trolling mentioning 5 pages about fraud and sprinkled with 2 paragraphs for identify theft.
It is signed by Mueller at the bottom of the indictment as well.
You are complaining about spreading misinformation yet spread misinformation. Democrats commissioned the dossier. Stop spreading misinformation.
The more I read this indictment the more pathetic it seems. Oh no! Russians pretending to be Americans trolled social media! They hide their Russian identity! They created social media groups! Why should I give two shits about social media trolling?
A British spy spreading Russian information to the media while concealing where it came from and who paid for it. That's different and a reasonable use of Russian information from a foreign national to influence the election. But Russians tweeting #MAGA requires special investigation. -.-
Something seems wrong here.
Well Trump did start MAGA slogan and one example of these trolls were "#MAGA".. therefore Trump Russia collusion! \s
Battle of Athens in 1946.
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.
If you really can't find examples of CNN being doing bad journalism you aren't looking or blind. Hell just Wikipedia gives a couple of recent examples.
Yes that video was Chris Cuomo. I am not sure why you have such an insistence of a link to a story when most of CNN is a broadcast. Are you saying when they lie during their broadcast it isn't the same as lying in an online article? Oh, I know. Because they can't retract their live broadcast. Because if I point out the Scaramucci affair, where people resigned over a lie published by CNN you can say "they retracted" so no harm no foul. Yet, if I point out the Cuomo gaffe then you can say "it's not a link to a story". But the damage is the same and that retraction is hardly enough to save face for allowing that kind of continual bullshit through.
Sorry but just because they issue a large number of retractions on their written stories doesn't mean they're trustworthy. It just means that I am not sure when a lie will be caught. I can point out instances where they have lied (as I did) but that will not satisfy your "post a link with a lie".
There has always and will always be some bias in news
True. But there has been a revitalized effort to abandon journalistic ethics and integrity. Yellow journalism has become popular again and more common place. Propaganda thrives in an environment where yellow journalism, lack of ethics, and lack of integrity are the norm.
that's why you need a brain and some education to read them, and I guess, a reasonably open mind
Not sure about open mind. That sounds like Spirit Science "Open your mind to shite". My mind is open but not so much that my brain falls out. The other two criteria has been achieved and there must be trust in the citizens to be able to determine and act in their own self interest.
If you can't distinguish NYT from Russian propaganda or even the National Enquirer, I've got sad news for you, you are missing one or more of those 3 things
No. The narrative that was/is being pushed is that Russia hacked the election and influenced the election. That is a failure of the media because they have become so distrusted and so hated (they have lower approvals than Trump) that transparency in a campaign (Clinton emails) is now Russian propaganda because how that transparency happened (Russian phishing link). That narrative poisoned the well to make any discussion about Trump-Russian collusion fertile grounds for fake news and fake narratives. Trust is easily lost and hard won.
Thankfully, we have a very stable genius in the white house,
Again, who has higher approvals than the media reporting on him. Seriously think about that for a second. The media is more hated than Trump.
Fair enough.