The high price of freedom.

[heatedmonk]

It should be clear the one I was speaking to is the one to whom I followed up after they replied.

ETA: Just heard, the coroner has determined the shooter committed suicide and wasn't shot by police as some agencies reported.
God be with the families of all who lost loved one's in this horrific act of terrorism.

 

[AceHero]

Or we can stop the freedom nonsense, make it illegal to own guns.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

However, I'm a big fan of meeting in the middle.

If we have the same requirements for gun ownership as we do car ownership, we'd solve a lot of problems related to gun issues.

Require Registration, require ballistics registration of each gun so you can match a bullet with a gun in a national database, require licensing to own a gun (i.e. you have to pass a test), require screening (background checks and medical checks mental health check)...

The real culprit here isn't so much the gun, but the people who wield them. The root cause of the mass shooting problems isn't the gun but rather mentally unstable people. We need to focus on the root cause meaning we need to focus on how we identify and treat the mentally ill in this country.

It is normal to periodically get a physical, however, why isn't it normal to get a periodic mental health screening?
The vast majority of the populace has never had a real in-depth mental health screening. Mental health is one of those things that everyone just assumes they know all about.

What we really need as a nation is to rethink mental health and to take concrete steps to ensure a mentally healthy populace. Those who are not mentally healthy should not be allowed to own guns. And illegal guns should be regarded the same way that drugs are. Which brings us back to registration.

Registration and screening is only a partial solution. The real solution is to take steps to ensure a mentally healthy populace and identify those who are not mentally stable and ensure they aren't allowed to own guns.

No arguments here, but many gun rights absolutists want no regulations whatsoever.

When the dust has settled the innocent lives taken by the Oregon shooter are indeed part of the price of freedom in the U.S. The shooter had not violated any gun laws, and the only way he could have been prevented from doing this act was to have been committed to a secure mental institution under the pertinent laws of the State of Oregon.

Your empathy for the families of the dead is a beacon unto all of us.

"Well, gee, your kid is dead, but hey, at least you have freedom to buy a gun without meaningful background checks".

As Joe the Plumber once said, "As harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights."

 

[Rick Otto]

We have to work at turning theory into practice. Once upon a time, equal rights for women and minorities was "good in theory". Eventually through trial and error and growing pains we've turned theory into practice.

As a nation, we've got to do the same with mental health. We've got to get over the stigmas and taboo nature of mental health. And part of that is the severe lack of mental health education and the fact everyone thinks they are a defacto expert on their own personal mental health when the reality is most people aren't that mentally healthy.


What???

Please dont' convolute and twist this into some sort of right vs left Fox News talking points conspiracy theory.

This isn't about the lying government or public schools,.

This is about a mentally sick individual conducting mass murder. He wasn't a liberal, he wasn't a conservative, he was a looney crazy mother-bleeper who grabbed a gun and decided to express his depression and rage by killing innocent people.

Every single time we go on some politicized tangent we enable the next massacre and the next and the next. Both sides of the isle need to stop the politics and address the issue with concrete fixes.

Making guns illegal will never fly. As a tax paying law abiding citizen I REFUSE to surrender my guns simply because crazy people out there go on shooting rampages. To me, that is no more a fix than taking everyone's automobiles to stop all the drunk drivers out there.

We have all of this freaking technology. How about we use some of it along with the scientific method.

Develop metrics and correlations for mass shootings
Profile the people who commit these things
Use databases and A.I. programs out there to comb through all of our information
ID people who are "at risk" of committing these types of shootings and monitor them and get them mental help BEFORE they go on shooting rampages
Require registration and licensing for guns
Put GPS trackers on all guns
Require mental health screenings for all gun applicants

Anyways, we need to be more proactive about these things and stop trying to blame the left or the right for all the problems here.

I'm with you on the send amendment. You misunderstood me on my point about a monopoly on violence administrated by commercial code instead of common, constitutional law.
Our government is itself incorporated now.That means it is a person in a perversely legal sense.

Steven King could run with that much, lol.

 

[ananda]

Problem with that is that I don't consider the predatory crony capitalists who have captured our government by incorporation, are mentally or financial healthy enough to trust with a monopoly on violence.
The deceit and coercion that has been used to set up and maintain this victory of the UCC over the Constitution and common law naturally breeds violence. And when the lying gov/"public" schools have dumbed these shooters down enough not to know who to aim at, you get public massacre.

Join the Torch & Pitchfork Party.

The UCC is unfortunately legal and Constitutional since it is not "involuntary servitude".

 

[Rick Otto]

if your talking to me , first of all I wasn't making a joke. first thing this president does use it ! then the liberals here used it.. men do use many things to destroy all of society most of which is their pecker, then cars and bars and booze , drugs and and list goes on and on including the courts.. by courts they they have stolen lands and kill babies they are billions times more deadly than guns are.
violent crime goes up triple in England when they took away guns..
why is not all those other things which by themselves are a thousand time more miserable and deadly to all in society .. why are they not on the board of things to take away " TO save society "? especially from the abusers all of these things ?
no the liberals only want to take away the innocent peoples right to defend themselves against all abusers of all these things . because everyone want their freedom to do that to everyone else and to abuse all those things !
they don't want anyone to defend themselves against all that abuse from all those other things either ? their motives are clear a crystal . they are seeking who they can destroy, the weak the old and the young are most vulnerable in a society that can't or won't defend them.

I love reading your posts, but I gotta tell ya, they (the shooters) have a pathology that gives insight into why they are so motivated.
They can't tell the victims from the perpetrators because the criminals that leave people vulnerable are well respected business men, making a lot of money letting people and the environment be damned in the name of mammon... uh, I mean " profit".

 

[Rick Otto]

The UCC is unfortunately legal and Constitutional since it is not "involuntary servitude".

I have heard that theory.
Legal is not the same as lawful.
Fraud and coercion are abetted by deceitful legal redefinitions, both formal and casual.
So the misfortune is real, but in spite of the majestic facade of stability and order, the cliche' that it's a jungle out there, remains as true as any cliche'.

 

[ananda]

As Joe the Plumber once said, "As harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights."

In the historical American republic, harm (of whatever sort, including death) is supposed to be corrected and remedied after the fact (after the harm has been committed) through the system of law and justice. Also, in the American republic, the system of law and justice is supposed to protect the inviolable, unalienable Constitutional rights of the People, whether or not an exercise of those rights may or may not produce harm in the future.

• Protection of unalienable Constitutional rights disregarding future consequences as only potentials + remedy of harm after the fact = the American republic system as created in the 1700s. This is a system, IMO, great for mature, intelligent, self-controlled adults.
• Restriction of privileges in light of all potential future consequences + remedy of potential harm before the fact = the new fascist+communist hybrid that the American system is transitioning to. This is a system, IMO, great for immature children that need to be controlled.

If people here are arguing for "protection" before the fact (before harm has been committed), then it is no longer the historic American republic you guys are arguing for. Choose one or the other, you can't have both.

 

[ananda]

I have heard that theory.
Legal is not the same as lawful.
Fraud and coercion are abetted by deceitful legal redefinitions, both formal and casual.
So the misfortune is real, but in spite of the majestic facade of stability and order, the cliche' that it's a jungle out there, remains as true as any cliche'.

You are correct that "legal is not the same as lawful". What is lawful are the common rights of the People. That which is legal is that which is assented to through voluntary contracts.

Contracts are private laws made between individual persons, and are completely legal and lawful. Whether that is good or bad is another story.

But I agree with you in that in the legal system, they have their own definitions for words which "regular" people understand differently ... even for the word "understand"! lol A huge trap indeed, which most people do not understand ... or attempt to control.

 

[Ana the Ist]

no just make it illegal for those who think it should be made illegal. they are the problem.

Lol what?

I'm pretty sure they aren't the ones going around shooting people.

 

[Ana the Ist]

OK you can have our guns the minute you take the peckers off of every liberal first because they won't tell the truth or know it either. and then every man who has ever abused it , diseased it , and everyone who ever will do those things in the future !
or let us keep our guns!
because wild and nasty and aggressive ,sneaky lying peckers kill more innocent , harm more innocent and disease more innocent than anything else on the planet by far !
hell has ever only ever existed to date in between mankind right ear and left year.. the pit is for all who refuse to control their own hell.

It's conservatives who decided that we should stop keeping track of gun violence statistics.

If you want truth, all you have to do is write your conservative congressman and inform him that he won't be getting your vote until he supports lifting the ban on gun violence statistics and research.

 

[HannahT]

My father used to work in Chicago, and their corporate headquarters was in one of the more dangerous neighborhoods.

It's telling to me that its a war zone regularly there, and really no one gives to many heads up about it. More people died from shootings there during the same time period than this ugly circumstance.

Where is all the 'privilege' talk when it comes that reality? Hypocrites rule the roost I guess.

That's a much bigger issue when it comes to gun violence, and generations of decent people are effected - generation after generation there. What do we hear? Crickets. Obama has seen it up close and personal, and yet he isn't doing to much about that either - nor speaking out.

I suppose that's because majority of that area is getting shot with illegal weapons, the area has very strict guns laws, they have plenty of those stupid stickers with the gun and red circle with the line across it, and they are too afraid the gangs may come after them.

Granted, both kinds of gun violence are different...and yet they are the same too. One is based in poverty and hopelessness - the other mental illness.

Since we as a country realize those are both HUGE issues, and we don't have a government - or party - that can find ways of dealing those cores? Let's just get rid of all the guns. (snickers) Seriously?!

People laugh at Trump - and his constitutional amendment, and kicking out 14 million people right? It can't be done they say.

Yet, a constitutional amendment can be made now, and we can get rid of 300 – 310 million guns? (eye roll)

They need more than throwing money at poverty when they realize the results aren't happening, and they need to deal with the HIPPA laws so the mentally ill people that are dangerous can be tracked and denied firearms. Even if we do find very effective methods for both? It will never be perfect. That's just the reality of it, and chances are we will never snuff it out completely.

 

[Ana the Ist]

OH heck on second thought since about 90% +of men will use or have or abuse and disease their peckers and lets just take them all from all men right at birth and the 2 real sources of the problem . that will stop a lot of death and disease and abuse and save how many billions of lives , and horrid things done intentionally to others ? by those who are confused and crazy and out of control , control freaks and militant and aggressive. so how many lives will that alone save? no one may even ever needs guns again now that I think about it.

Your obsession with male genitalia has gone from weirdly off-topic....to just plain weird.

 

[heatedmonk]

No arguments here, but many gun rights absolutists want no regulations whatsoever.

The gun laws in place now didn't stop the latest action by a man who used legal weapons.
Drafting and passing more using this latest as cause, smacks of a cause to start taking our guns in small parcels. By making it harder to be a gun owner.
Therein government is not vacating the 2nd amendment. Rather, they'll excuse the effort as something necessary to keep us safe. Like it's always done when people are put in chains for their own good by law.

As Joe the Plumber once said, "As harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights."

And he's correct in my opinion.

 

[ananda]

The People's right to bear Arms is not infringed.

The problem exist when the People forget that they possess this right, and they instead bind themselves by applying for permit(s) and so voluntarily give up their right in exchange for a privilege, and acquiesce to follow rules associated with that privilege. The neoliberals in power know that they cannot restrict the People's right without a constitutional amendment, so they are focusing on restricting citizens' privileges instead, and few know or are educating the People about the difference.

Or, the People exchange their right to freely travel, for the privilege and rules of driving.

It's also similar to what Senator Harry Reid said about the IRS and paying income taxes as voluntary: The problem exist when the People forget that that they possess the right to barter with one another in gold and silver or public currency (e.g. u.s. notes) without having to pay income taxes, and instead bind themselves by voluntarily exchanging this right for the privilege of using a private currency (e.g. federal reserve notes), and acquiesce to follow rules associated with that privilege (such as income taxes).

 

[JGG]

Well, with respect,perhaps another avenue to stop this man who had in his possession guns he'd legally acquired was if those who read what he supposedly wrote on the social media site, 4Chan, as pertained to warning people to avoid the Oregon Campus the day of the shooting, had reported that posting to someone at the campus. Or to the police.

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. From what I read, there were vague warnings about colleges in the North Western states, and no school or state was named specifically.

 

[heatedmonk]

Couldn't the host site find exactly who or at least where such a poster was located?
I read this article and that as my prior point.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's conservatives who decided that we should stop keeping track of gun violence statistics.

If you want truth, all you have to do is write your conservative congressman and inform him that he won't be getting your vote until he supports lifting the ban on gun violence statistics and research.

One of the reasons we are unable or unwilling to properly deal with gun violence is because of those very statistics (There are Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics).

 

[Ana the Ist]

One of the reasons we are unable or unwilling to properly deal with gun violence is because of those very statistics (There are Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics).

We don't have any accurate statistics on gun violence. I think it was late 80s when the health department was doing a comprehensive study on the matter to help guide gun policy.

When the results started to become available to congress, the conservative majority passed a law banning any further research on the subject.

All you really need to ask yourself is, if you were telling people the truth...why would you suppress any hard scientific data that would back up your position?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We don't have any accurate statistics on gun violence. I think it was late 80s when the health department was doing a comprehensive study on the matter to help guide gun policy.

When the results started to become available to congress, the conservative majority passed a law banning any further research on the subject.

All you really need to ask yourself is, if you were telling people the truth...why would you suppress any hard scientific data that would back up your position?

I wouldn't trust statistics as a good source of information to form gun policy as they can be made to say things that aren't true. They are too often agenda driven, maybe that's why the conservatives rejected their 'findings'.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I wouldn't trust statistics as a good source of information to form gun policy as they can be made to say things that aren't true. They are too often agenda driven, maybe that's why the conservatives rejected their 'findings'.

Well let's suppose you were considering making it legal to conceal carry in your state. Would you be interested in finding out how that worked out for other states first? Would you want to know things like "how many people were killed by someone who was legally CC at the time vs how many crimes were stopped by someone legally CC at the time"?

If not...what would you base your decision on?