The Left is Rallying to Take Your Guns Again

[muichimotsu]

I dont think its a problem of resources, its a problem of resource management. The usa has a high enough police budget, it just isnt spent well.

It's excessive actually, we have more resources than we need dedicated to an institution that we unrealistically expect to solve all problems instead of reacting to the problems they're trained for, which don't generally include people have mental health crises, etc.

 

[muichimotsu]

I lived in a big Liberal city, where I was a coordinator of a neighborhood watch. We worked very closely with the police. I would report to, and receive training from the police; and I would act as a liaison to share information between members of the watch team, and the police. The gang members knew me well. One night a gang from another community came to get them. Some of them came frantically knocking at my door, begging me to help them; as screaming a shots echoed through the neighborhood. I told them to crouch down in my bushes; and that they would be safe here. I called 911, and told them who I was, and what was happening. Time elapsed, and no action. I called again. They said that help was on the way. More time elapsed. No action. I got on the phone with fellow members of the watch team; and told them to express the urgency of the situation. I didn't want to be distracted from watching over the guys in my bushes.They made numerous calls. Over an hour later, the screaming and shooting had stopped; then the police showed up.

I talked to two co-workers about this the next day. Both of them has parents who were LEOs. They both told me not to expect the police to go rushing into a gun fight. That they want to go home after their shifts; that they'll wait until the shooting is over, and clean up the mess.

Through the President of the Community association, I called a public meeting with the police, to discuss crime and response time.

During the meeting, the commander asked me to step outside with him. I did. He read me the riot act about embarrassing him in public. I respectfully explained to him that I put myself in danger, that I had become a target for gang members, by doing what I do; and that when I make a call, I expect a response; and that waiting over an hour is unacceptable. I mentioned that the guys in my bushes finally panicked and ran off. I told him that I would have taken them into my home for protection; but I knew who they were. He said, "No! don't take them into your home." I said that I would have brought my shotgun out on the lawn to protect them; but with shots being fired, and 911 called; I didn't want to be mistaken for the bad guy, and shot by police. He said that he didn't know whether or not I would have been shot; but I would have definitely gone to jail. I asked, "are you telling me that I can't defend innocent life on my own property?" He said that I couldn't have a loaded gun outside of my house, on my property, in that city, for any reason.

I finished my term of office, and and soon thereafter I moved out of the city. Later, I decided that it was better just to leave the state, and the backwards thinking that went along with it, behind me.

So you think the only solution to gang violence is more use of violent force? It can be a response, it isn't necessarily anything more than a short term fix and will just create a power vacuum. You can't be this naive unless you are still ultimately insulated from the situations that create gangs in the first place

 

[HARK!]

The problem is not the laws so much as the culture where guns are fetishized to the detriment of any consideration of safety or prudence. Just owning a gun gives someone an undue sense of power because we idealize the Revolutionary War when they had single shot rifle at best.

We are not in the same situation, we continue to grasp for a sense that we are like the founding fathers and then keep digging a deeper hole of self destruction because of these delusions of grandeur or persecution.

When we have as many guns as people, if not slightly more depending on statistics, we don't have a problem of gun control as much as a gun culture problem

They have the same problem in England with knives. It seems that the English prefer to murder with knives. You have to show ID to buy a pizza cutter. Is that a result of a pizza cutter culture problem?

 

[HARK!]

So you think the only solution to gang violence is more use of violent force? It can be a response, it isn't necessarily anything more than a short term fix and will just create a power vacuum. You can't be this naive unless you are still ultimately insulated from the situations that create gangs in the first place

Do you think that would be murders shouldn't be met with force? Do you really believe that if you let them kill you; that somehow they will begin to use their powers for good instead of evil?

I'd like to see the moral have the upper hand in the power struggle.

 

[HARK!]

I dont think its a problem of resources, its a problem of resource management. The usa has a high enough police budget, it just isnt spent well.

Are you speaking of the FBI; or are you speaking of the thousands of police forces that operate on a local level, with individual budgets, plans, protocols, and results?

 

[Goonie]

I do find this thread ironic. Given Trump's attendance at CPAC in a country where the leader has just passed an enabling law allowing him to rule without parliamentary scrutiny, or in regard to all previous law.

 

[muichimotsu]

They have the same problem in England with knives. It seems that the English prefer to murder with knives. You have to show ID to buy a pizza cutter. Is that a result of a pizza cutter culture problem?

No, it's a recognition that it can be a problem. Are you going to balk at the idea of licensure for owning a gun? Rights are not absolute, especially when they have a marked effect on society with no restrictions upon them.

 

[muichimotsu]

Do you think that would be murders shouldn't be met with force? Do you really believe that if you let them kill you; that somehow they will begin to use their powers for good instead of evil?

I'd like to see the moral have the upper hand in the power struggle.

Force and violence aren't the same thing, don't insult my intelligence here, or anyone involved in this.

Never said anything like that, I'm a martial pacifist, not a passive pacifist

The upper hand shouldn't be gained by stop gap measures that are the equivalent of chopping branches on a dying tree and expecting it to come back to life.

 

[HARK!]

It's excessive actually, we have more resources than we need dedicated to an institution that we unrealistically expect to solve all problems instead of reacting to the problems they're trained for, which don't generally include people have mental health crises, etc.

Some of the problems that they have been trained for is to stop murderers. The psychologically unstable are prohibited from owning guns; but there are plenty of other ways that they can break the law to execute a mass murder (which is also against the law) that would be far more effective than firearms.

We don't need any more laws to prevent murderers from murdering people. The existing laws are sufficient to use the force required to stop them. Let's get real. The gun grabbers are not attempting to pass more laws to keep guns away from people who break the law to acquire illegal guns. The gun grabbers are out to take away the rights of the law abiding to defend themselves against psychotic murderers. These are the same people who sent our children of to Viet Nam to be slaughtered. The same people who made deal after deal with the Native Americans, as they lied and lied, and continued in a genocide that almost wiped them out. Now all of a sudden we can trust them to take care of us? Yes, yes, it's all different now. Only the government should be trusted with arms. Time have changed since the times of out founders. Forget that throughout history, every time the people have been disarmed; that it didn't end well. This time it will be different. We just need to be optimistic, and keep trying, no matter how many the power hungry exterminate.

 

[HARK!]

Are you going to balk at the idea of licensure for owning a gun? Rights are not absolute, especially when they have a marked effect on society with no restrictions upon them.

I'm not sure that I understand the question. Before I answer, please define "license" and "unalienable right."

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm not sure that I understand the question. Before I answer, please define "license" and "unalienable right."

Wow, we're playing this game now? Do you just not know what a license is? No one claimed a right to bear arms was inalienable, because licensure and restrictions thereof (like you can't own a gun if you're a felon, among other factors) are a form of privation of that right based on the fact that said right, with none of that, would result in utter chaos

An inalienable right would be something like life, but the problem is that it is nonetheless always in balance against liberty and pursuit of happiness, the latter of which is especially prone to deadly outcomes in late stage capitalism where everyone is in a rat race to get what little is left

When you work on a flawed preconception, you're going to have flawed conclusions afterwards. A right to own a weapon is not absolute, because otherwise you would have people running roughshod over others more than they already do. If anything, you're just getting into a bigger problem of deterrence, not even the issue of recidivism so much

 

[muichimotsu]

Some of the problems that they have been trained for is to stop murderers. The psychologically unstable are prohibited from owning guns; but there are plenty of other ways that they can break the law to execute a mass murder (which is also against the law) that would be far more effective than firearms.

We don't need any more laws to prevent murderers from murdering people. The existing laws are sufficient to use the force required to stop them. Let's get real. The gun grabbers are not attempting to pass more laws to keep guns away from people who break the law to acquire illegal guns. The gun grabbers are out to take away the rights of the law abiding to defend themselves against psychotic murderers. These are the same people who sent our children of to Viet Nam to be slaughtered. The same people who made deal after deal with the Native Americans, as they lied and lied, and continued in a genocide that almost wiped them out. Now all of a sudden we can trust them to take care of us? Yes, yes, it's all different now. Only the government should be trusted with arms. Time have changed since the times of out founders. Forget that throughout history, every time the people have been disarmed; that it didn't end well. This time it will be different. We just need to be optimistic, and keep trying, no matter how many the power hungry exterminate.

Never said otherwise and merely being prohibited from doing something is not necessarily a deterrent to people still doing it

The problem is assuming a threat of punishment is actually going to deter people in a society where they don't have much to lose anyway. You're blaming the symptoms rather than the disease that is far more deep rooted

You assume they're trying to take all guns, that's not remotely the case, because not all guns are equal even if you want to place the equivocation based on a mistaken idea that ownership of a gun is an absolute right that would, by this logic of it being inalienable, mean that it's perfectly legal for a 5 year old to have a gun.

I seriously doubt the people who want to have reasonable gun ownership laws were the ones who thought it was fine to send our military out on a mission that was as much our business as going to Afghanistan under the mistaken belief they had WOMD

The government is not monolithic, you're speaking about people decades, if not centuries apart in terms of their experience and education, as well as their regard towards non white people, which was especially heinous in how dehumanizing they were to Native Americans, but the same arguably applies in the situation of sending soldiers off to Vietnam.

Disarming is not the goal, your paranoia is not borne out because you haven't demonstrated that the idea is that no one can own a gun, which has not been the platform of pretty much anyone except the far fringe left at best. Ownership of a gun comes with responsibilities and expectations, which includes particular licensure for types of guns and, most importantly but not taken that seriously, proper training in their use

 

[HARK!]

Wow, we're playing this game now? Do you just not know what a license is?

Game? Since you seem to be at a loss; let me help you out.


What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)
What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary) What is LICENSE In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort. State v. Hipp, 38 Ohio St. 220; Youngblood v.

Compare:

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Do you need permission to exercise a right?

Are you licensed to respond to this post?

 

[HARK!]

An inalienable right

I said unalienable.

Let me help you out.

UNALIENABLE

TheLaw.com Law Dictionary & Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.

The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. 2. Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable


Definition of UNALIENABLE • Law Dictionary • TheLaw.com


INALIENABLE

TheLaw.com Law Dictionary & Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.

This word is applied to those things, the property of which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are of this kind; there are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty, or of speech. Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; c. p., liberty.

Definition of INALIENABLE • Law Dictionary • TheLaw.com

The difference is subtle; but there is a very important difference.

Can you find it?

 

[HARK!]

NYC Mayor Eric Adams urges Senate and Supreme Court to reel in gun violence

The mayor urged the Supreme Court to “re-deliberate, think differently” as the conservative majority appears poised to strike down a state law requiring people seeking a permit for concealed carry to demonstrate a special need for self-protection.

NYC Mayor Eric Adams urges Senate and Supreme Court to reel in gun violence

...and why should the SCOTUS listen to the very people who have been violating the constitutionally protected rights of their victims?

 

[Brihaha]

I do find this thread ironic. Given Trump's attendance at CPAC in a country where the leader has just passed an enabling law allowing him to rule without parliamentary scrutiny, or in regard to all previous law.

It is ironic. It reads like a campaign slogan from Ted Cruz or someone who fear mongers votes. Republicans have used the talking point for decades.

 

[Brihaha]

Never said otherwise and merely being prohibited from doing something is not necessarily a deterrent to people still doing it

The problem is assuming a threat of punishment is actually going to deter people in a society where they don't have much to lose anyway. You're blaming the symptoms rather than the disease that is far more deep rooted

You assume they're trying to take all guns, that's not remotely the case, because not all guns are equal even if you want to place the equivocation based on a mistaken idea that ownership of a gun is an absolute right that would, by this logic of it being inalienable, mean that it's perfectly legal for a 5 year old to have a gun.

I seriously doubt the people who want to have reasonable gun ownership laws were the ones who thought it was fine to send our military out on a mission that was as much our business as going to Afghanistan under the mistaken belief they had WOMD

The government is not monolithic, you're speaking about people decades, if not centuries apart in terms of their experience and education, as well as their regard towards non white people, which was especially heinous in how dehumanizing they were to Native Americans, but the same arguably applies in the situation of sending soldiers off to Vietnam.

Disarming is not the goal, your paranoia is not borne out because you haven't demonstrated that the idea is that no one can own a gun, which has not been the platform of pretty much anyone except the far fringe left at best. Ownership of a gun comes with responsibilities and expectations, which includes particular licensure for types of guns and, most importantly but not taken that seriously, proper training in their use

Good post. Those founding fathers didn't know that bullets would be invented a few decades after our Constitution was written. They couldn't have possibly imagined the carnage Americans would later reap on each other. I doubt they would have wanted AR15s so easily distributed to anyone who could pay for them. Apparently some Americans believe in child sacrifice so they won't have to sacrifice themselves to a background check or mental health screen. Americans now sacrifice our children in the name of "inalienable rights". Ironic that so many of them profess to be "pro-life"!

 

[d taylor]

-​

What is boils down to, is there are Americas, who hate the idea that people can own guns. And simply want every private citizen to not have the ability to purchase a gun and own a gun or guns.

But to get to that state, they must start somewhere, they could not just go out and began taking guns away from people. That would cause anarchy/lawlessness, so it will began with government regulation for awhile, then more government regulation as stated is need. Then further government regulation till eventually guns are gone.

It is a plan that is meant to be carried out over time, slowly changing minds of the public to the acceptance of life without gun ownership. Kind of like how has been done with the homosexual/transgender agenda.

You will not own a gun and you will be happy.

 

[cow451]

Honestly if anything needs to be banned for civilian sale as a result of these last 2 mass shootings?

It's body armor.

There's no constitutional right to own body armor, nobody uses body armor to hunt, no homeowner straps up body armor if they're responding to the sound of someone breaking into their home at night (but reaching for a loaded firearm they will do)...

But 2 shooters wore body armor, and as a result, when armed security guards tried to stop them, they failed because of the body armor (and police and guards and military are trained to aim center mass, where body armor protects, and they don't expect a culprit to be wearing armor). Good guys with guns failed, because of body armor.
The only purpose body armor will serve, is making a criminal more likely to outgun responding police officers, with the shooter knowing the cop is likely wearing body armor and taking head shots, while the police assume the suspect is not wearing body armor and aim at the chest.

Frankly, the idea of someone breaking into my home at night armed and with body armor... is kind of a scary thought. Them being armed but without body armor, I still have the advantage, also being armed, and knowing my home's layout in the dark far better than a home invader. But in the dark, even with a weapon mounted flashlight? I'm going to aim center mass. Body armor would result in my shots being ineffective and blowing my advantage.

So go ahead, ban civilian possession of body armor, as owning it is not going to protect me, but it might protect a criminal that breaks in, it certainly protected 2 mass shooters and cost the lives of security guards and police officers.

Wow. You mean military weaponry can be a problem. Who would’ve thought it?

 

[Jamdoc]

I'm a bit surprised.. nobody caught what I said about Body Armor being the particular thing that made the last 2 shootings so deadly?
I guess it doesn't fit the narrative?