US Connecticut Shooting

[ledboots]

Interesting that no one wanted to go on and defend their position.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/david-gregory-pro-gun-rights-senators_n_2311559.html

Too soon, Calliegirl. The little children aren't even buried yet.

 

[das_nut]

I'm sure that Das_nut will be interested in arguing whether it's an "assault rifle", something resembling an "assault rifle", or whatever description he thinks is accurate, but the fact is that it's a weapon with high magazine capacity that can easily be used to maximize the number of people who can be killed in the shortest possible amount of time. And these are legal why?

He also had multiple magazines on him. Swapping between magazines didn't seem to have an effect on the deadliness of the attack, and the magazines he had held far less than the Aurora shooter.

The 10 years the federal assault weapons ban was active did not show any impact on gun crime rates. To ban them and expect an effect is like trying to ban all sports cars to reduce the amount of speeding. Probably not going to have the results you want.

Now, I'm a rather rational person, so I'd rather pass laws based on evidence than emotion. YMMV. Maybe doing something is more important to you than doing something effective.

 

[das_nut]

Interesting that no one wanted to go on and defend their position.

How many free-speech advocates jumped on the news to defend their position after the Mohammed youtube video became famous?

 

[mlp]

This is now a gun control debate, and has been for a few pages of this thread. I guess this specific tragedy is irrelevant except for using the emotions to further one's own politics.

That's obscene, but the world is obscene.

So I guess that your post #95 was just a little game playing on your part? Now that's obscene, both with respect to the people murdered at Sandy Hook and all of the other people murdered with guns. They, and the issue generally, deserve more.

I agree that the culture as a whole needs to change. I don't agree that recognition of the context of the second amendment and interpreting it accordingly will erode the Bill of Rights generally. After all, interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the way it has been interpreted in recent decades is just that - a pretty recent development, and bolstered by big money.

Cultural changes come about when certain attitudes and actions are no longer given official sanction. That has held true for women's rights, desegregation, and many other forms of discrimination. If there had not been such a vocal and concerted effort to legalize same sex marriage, would gay rights have progressed at the pace they have during the past decade? I think not. I have been extremely impressed by that movement - a couple of decades ago, I would never have guessed that I would live to see same sex marriage legalized in even one state. And while a lot of people still hold bigoted viewpoints with respect to homosexuality, the milieus in which they can be expressed without censor and disgust are narrowing, and the number of people who think such attitudes are acceptable is decreasing. That has happened with respect to women and with respect to people of color also.

It's not always the government's role to follow the wishes of the majority - sometimes government needs to lead by example.

 

[das_nut]

So I guess that your post #95 was just a little game playing on your part? Now that's obscene, both with respect to the people murdered at Sandy Hook and all of the other people murdered with guns. They, and the issue generally, deserve more.

I think you're confusing a nuanced position with something else.

I agree that the culture as a whole needs to change. I don't agree that recognition of the context of the second amendment and interpreting it accordingly will erode the Bill of Rights generally. After all, interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the way it has been interpreted in recent decades is just that - a pretty recent development, and bolstered by big money.

Could you go into some details?

Cultural changes come about when certain attitudes and actions are no longer given official sanction. That has held true for women's rights, desegregation, and many other forms of discrimination. If there had not been such a vocal and concerted effort to legalize same sex marriage, would gay rights have progressed at the pace they have during the past decade? I think not. I have been extremely impressed by that movement - a couple of decades ago, I would never have guessed that I would live to see same sex marriage legalized in even one state. And while a lot of people still hold bigoted viewpoints with respect to homosexuality, the milieus in which they can be expressed without censor and disgust are narrowing, and the number of people who think such attitudes are acceptable is decreasing. That has happened with respect to women and with respect to people of color also.

Legislation to increase the "rights" of people is a different kettle of fish than legislating to reduce the "rights" of people

I'd like to err on the side of rights.

It's not always the government's role to follow the wishes of the majority - sometimes government needs to lead by example.

Does this hold true even in cases when you disagree with what the government is doing, and it's against the will of the majority?

 

[mlp]

The 10 years the federal assault weapons ban was active did not show any impact on gun crime rates. To ban them and expect an effect is like trying to ban all sports cars to reduce the amount of speeding. Probably not going to have the results you want.

Now, I'm a rather rational person, so I'd rather pass laws based on evidence than emotion. YMMV. .[/quote]

Violent crime rates generally have been decreasing. I think that the relevant criteria with respect to the federal assault weapons ban would be the number of deaths resulting from use of the banned weapons during the period the ban was in effect versus the number of deaths resulting from use of such weapons after the ban expired.

And that comparison would have to be limited to the weapons actually affected by that ban. As you probably know, the ban did not impact many weapons that had the same functionality, but did not fall within the specific criteria set out in the legislation. I don't recall the specifics of that old legislation, but I don't believe that most semi automatic handguns were covered, and those are the weapons most frequently used in mass killings, with assault weapons coming in second.

IMO, the legislation was lacking, but the answer to poorly drafted legislation is not to throw one's hands up and say "Legislation doesn't work!"; the answer is to improve the legislation.

Maybe doing something is more important to you than doing something effective.

What, if anything, are you doing?

 

[das_nut]

I don't recall the specifics of that old legislation, but I don't believe that most semi automatic handguns were covered

Most semi-automatic handguns definitely weren't covered by the assault weapons ban.

Here's what was covered:

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
• Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
• A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

That does not cover most semi-automatic handguns.

 

[mlp]

I think you're confusing a nuanced position with something else.

What was the position, nuanced or otherwise, that you were setting forth in Post #95?

Could you go into some details?

The argument that the 2nd amendment protects a person’s right to own and carry a gun for self-defense, rather than the people’s right to form militias for the common defense, first popped up in the late 1960's, and wasn't widely held or discussed until the 1970's and the 1980's. For most of this country's history, the 2nd amendment received as much attention as the 3rd amendment, and just about as relevant to daily life.

Legislation to increase the "rights" of people is a different kettle of fish than legislating to reduce the "rights" of people

I'd like to err on the side of rights.

Well, we're back to the context in which the 2nd was written, and the nature of the rights it was intended to protect. Machine guns for everyone? How about tanks?

Does this hold true even in cases when you disagree with what the government is doing, and it's against the will of the majority?

Yes, assuming that I would ever be wrong about what is more ethical. Which of course is an impossibility.

 

[PiSis]

the memorial vigil service is just starting. (President Obama is there and will speak.)

not since 9/11 have i been so emotional. these deaths have affected me so much because of the ages of most of the victims.
and for the trauma of the surviving classmates who had to witness...

eta photos of some of the victims

 

[das_nut]

What was the position, nuanced or otherwise, that you were setting forth in Post #95?

That we have a decision in which direction to take this discussion. We can either use it to focus on this tragedy, or we can use it as a springboard to launch into our own personal politics.

The argument that the 2nd amendment protects a person’s right to own and carry a gun for self-defense, rather than the people’s right to form militias for the common defense, first popped up in the late 1960's, and wasn't widely held or discussed until the 1970's and the 1980's.

Isn't this a little bit of a red herring? To argue that 2nd amendment either has to protect people's rights to form militias, or it protects people's rights for self-defense.

And firearm case law at the SCOTUS level seems pretty vague before the 20th century. The cases I'm finding about the second amendment are more or less post-Civil War, and decided in favor of gun control because most of the Bill of Rights didn't apply to states in the judicial thinking of that time.

Found a reference pre-Civil War about the right to keep and bare arms - in the Dred Scott decision. Such a right was specifically cited as a reason why not to give black slaves citizenship - because then they could have guns! This isn't really exceptional, a lot of early gun control laws were about keeping guns out of the hands of "undesirable" people.

On a state level, the individual right to bare arms was reaffirmed in several cases.

It's pretty amazing that the interpretation of the 2nd amendment being an individual vs collective right wasn't settled until 4 years ago.

Well, we're back to the context in which the 2nd was written, and the nature of the rights it was intended to protect. Machine guns for everyone? How about tanks?

Good question. Where is the line drawn? How is it drawn?

Yes, assuming that I would ever be wrong about what is more ethical. Which of course is an impossibility.

It's rather convenient to think the government should act unilaterally only when it agrees with yourself.

 

[yakherder]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2012/12/16/20435151.html

Anonymous targets Westboro Church for planning Newtown picket
By QMI Agency

The infamous hacker group Anonymous has struck again.

On Sunday, it posted the names and addresses of members of the extremist Westboro Baptist Church after the hate group announced plans to picket Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Conn., where 26 people were gunned down Friday.
Anonymous posted the following two messages on Twitter on the weekend: "Dear WBC Site Admin, you should really work on securing your personal infos. Er, too late..."

Earlier, it tweeted: "It's so nice of #WBC to provide the internet with a list of their twitter handles.."
The list of the church members, which also includes email addresses and work numbers, can be easily accessed on sites like armywtfmoments.com.

At the bottom of a story that appeared on now.msn.com, one reader posted: "Good for you Anonymous....These are not people....They are sub-human trash....For them to target ANY of these innocent victims and their families, is just further proof of that....There should be a petition passed around to have people like this ARRESTED and PROCECUTED for planning and/or disrupting ANY funerals, vigils, etc.....If there is a hell, everyone associated with this 'church' would have a first-class ticket to it."

Media reports say that hours after the tragedy, the group's Shirley Phelps-Roper tweeted: "Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment."
On its website, GodHatesFags.com, the organization states its mission is to conduct peaceful demonstrations against "soul-damning, nation-destroying filth."
In the past, the vicious anti-gay group has picketed the funerals of U.S. soldiers and AIDS victims as well as the funerals of those who were killed in a shooting in Arizona.

Anonymous is also petitioning the U.S. government to recognize the Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group.
"Their actions have been directed at many groups, including homosexuals, military, Jewish people and even other Christians. They pose a threat to the welfare and treatment of others and will not improve without some form of imposed regulation," the petition reads.

 

[mlp]

That we have a decision in which direction to take this discussion. We can either use it to focus on this tragedy, or we can use it as a springboard to launch into our own personal politics.

At least try to be consistent and honest enough to acknowledge your own posts in this thread, which departed far from this particular tragedy long before post #95.

Isn't this a little bit of a red herring? To argue that 2nd amendment either has to protect people's rights to form militias, or it protects people's rights for self-defense.

And firearm case law at the SCOTUS level seems pretty vague before the 20th century. The cases I'm finding about the second amendment are more or less post-Civil War, and decided in favor of gun control because most of the Bill of Rights didn't apply to states in the judicial thinking of that time.

Found a reference pre-Civil War about the right to keep and bare arms - in the Dred Scott decision. Such a right was specifically cited as a reason why not to give black slaves citizenship - because then they could have guns! This isn't really exceptional, a lot of early gun control laws were about keeping guns out of the hands of "undesirable" people.

On a state level, the individual right to bare arms was reaffirmed in several cases.

It's pretty amazing that the interpretation of the 2nd amendment being an individual vs collective right wasn't settled until 4 years ago.

The intent underlying all of the various provisions of the constitution is at the heart of all constitutional argument, so it's no red herring at all.

But I guess we're talking about two different constitutional provisions - I wasn't even aware that the right to go sleeveless was addressed in the Constitution.

Good question. Where is the line drawn? How is it drawn?

Then maybe you should address it.

It's rather convenient to think the government should act unilaterally only when it agrees with yourself.

Ah, you fail to recognize a tongue in cheek remark.

It's actually somthing I give quite a bit of thought to with respect to abortion rights, but I don't want to turn this into another abortion thread.

 

[das_nut]

I think I used the wrong homonym.

As for drawing the line, I think a good place to start is to look at the current situation, and figure out how much of a line can be drawn and where, and how that line would impact other constitutional rights.

 

[Dedalus]

We live near a shooting range that routinely echos semi-automatic gunfire for hours and hours each weekend. This weekend it was eerily quiet. Why?

It's just a question. But one that bears thinking about.

 

[mlp]

As for drawing the line, I think a good place to start is to look at the current situation, and figure out how much of a line can be drawn and where, and how that line would impact other constitutional rights.

If my right to bear arms to potentially protect myself against some potential future attack upon my person comes at the expense of the murder of 20 six and seven year olds, or one six year old, or even one eighty year old, my decision to have those children, that one child, or that one senior citizen pay the price, with their lives, for my potential ability to protect myself from some potential future attack is an unethical one. It’s as simple as that.

 

[das_nut]

If my right to bear arms to potentially protect myself against some potential future attack upon my person comes at the expense of the murder of 20 six and seven year olds, or one six year old, or even one eighty year old, my decision to have those children, that one child, or that one senior citizen pay the price, with their lives, for my potential ability to protect myself from some potential future attack is an unethical one. It’s as simple as that.

But its not that simple - giving up your right to bear arms is not going to prevent a massacre.

You're talking collective rights to bear arms, as well as a concentrated attack on the Bill of Rights, which will probably have unintended consequences of its own.

 

[mlp]

Of course I'm taking about a collective right, which in each case is a potential ability to be able to potentially defend oneself against a potential attack, versus very real and very much recurring deaths. How do you justify that ethically?

And it's not as though we haven't changed the Constitution before, without the republic crumbling to the ground. To characterize it as "a concentrated attack on the Bill of Rights" is pure hysteria. Not that we even need to change the 2nd amendment - I think the problem would be largely resolved even if the members of each state's national guard (you know, that "well regulated militia") are permitted to take their service weapons home, just the way law enforcement personnel are.

 

[yakherder]

I think the problem would be largely resolved even if the members of each state's national guard (you know, that "well regulated militia") are permitted to take their service weapons home, just the way law enforcement personnel are.

Interesting idea, and I do understand the rationality behind it, but we're not talking about hand guns here. My service weapon is a fully automatic version of the one used in the shooting. Obvious issues with that aside, it would immediately make every guardsman a target for organized crime and, to that end, provide a source of black market assault carbines (sorry if that's not the correct term). Plus in my unique situation, I don't think Canadian customs would be too pleased with me for trying to bring it home between drills

 

[mlp]

Oh, I'm not talking about it being mandatory to take one's weapon home - for the reasons you mentioned, I think most rational people would choose not to.

Really, I think that the fact that we now have a standing army (which I think was not the case when the second amendment was enacted) kind of obviates the motivation behind the second amendment.

 

[das_nut]

Of course I'm taking about a collective right, which in each case is a potential ability to be able to potentially defend oneself against a potential attack, versus very real and very much recurring deaths. How do you justify that ethically?

Right or wrong, Americans justify actions every day that will result in the death of more people. Take high speed limits - keeping the speed limit at 55 mph on the interstate would reduce deaths, including the deaths of innocent children, but we judge that its more important to get places fast then to save a few lives.

And it's not as though we haven't changed the Constitution before, without the republic crumbling to the ground. To characterize it as "a concentrated attack on the Bill of Rights" is pure hysteria.

In the past, attacks against the second amendment used the same reasoning as attacks against other rights for people. Most specifically, ruling that the bill of rights only applied to the federal government. Limitations tend to broaden.

If its okay to limit one right to protect the children, who says other rights aren't sure to follow? This is why I like the ACLU - sure, they will defend neo-Nazi scum, but by defending the rights of scum, we defend the rights of everyone.