Arm the teachers...seriously?

So it's even worse than I thought. You are even against alerting people so they can take precautions.

If they are preventable, who cares? If you are trying to convince me that all firearm sales should be banned (or highly restricted), there's no need. I believe that. But I also understand that it's not going to happen. So I advocate what is possible.
.

You can focus on whatever you want. And anybody who wants to reduce the number of mass shootings, focuses on mass shootings. So what if reducing mass shootings won't reduce the number of... says... suicides?

This is not about making statistics look good. It's about saving human lives. It would have made a hell of a "measurable good" to a family of 4 that is now a family of 3 because one of them happened to attend Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, and people like you think that that fourth member was not "statistically significant"

You have made no rational argument. Much less a humane argument. And this is why gun-nuts will eventually lose this battle.

But they can be prohibited because they are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and are more appropriate in military service.

You go about expressing ideas in a long and tortured way. Using more words than necessary. I will cut down to the meat of your arguments, by excluding the superfluous.

,
Yes there is. The use as an item that profits a gun seller

And, as I predicted, you didn't answer the question.

.
That would be one of the many desired effects. But not even the main one.

Yes there is. Read my proposals again on the relevant thread.

"...there is no way of removing them..." but "those that would be removed.... " What kind of logic is that?

The owner of the main weapon used in Sandy Hook was not inclined to commit harm... and yet....

So we make it so not even firearm traffickers can get those firearms so easily in the first place. And, with the jails with not so many traffickers in them, there's a better chance we have space for the few that manage to get their hands on one.

Except in the instances where they have served a purpose, of course...

Then we don't ignore them. Read the thread I referenced.

I didn't. I introduced another topic on another thread. If you don't wish to discuss it, why are you here?

Here I wrote everything that is relevant to the question I was asked and to the title of this thread. Since it didn't covered everything, I opened a different one that does. It's that easy.

 

I don't care if the term is hyperbolic or catchy. I only care that it exists.

Why? On what basis would I question it? My only requirement is that it's low. And 10 is low enough.

It has nothing to do with "rationality" and everything to do with "convenience". If I used rationality alone, my number would be ZERO. But I understand that I'm not going to get that. It's not even on anybody's radar.

Yes. They might even need a tank, or a Stealth bomber, or a nuke to defend themselves. But, since that would put the life of others in jeopardy, it's not allowed. The same argument goes for allowing unlimited magazines. Self defense is importance. But the right to preserve more innocent lives is more important. If they are in conflict, more lives wins over one life every time. Ceteris Paribus, of course.

.
Yeah... "emotions". That's where many laws to protect people start. A Trump supporter, for example, wouldn't know anything about that. Trump is the best example of exactly the opposite: zero emotions regarding people suffering needlessly.

Uhmm... no it doesn't. It just proves that it's not a physical law of nature. Not that it won't ever save lives.

I'll stop you there. Because any argument whatsoever that you give that does not imply that more lives will be saved is, objectively speaking, morally invalid. And, for that very reason, it's invalid as it relates to any form of objective human reasoning. Any such argument... any whatsoever, would be equivalent to the argument "there should not be a restriction on the size of magazines because it would reduce the profits of bullet manufacturers" And I do mean any

 

Factually incorrect, as well as nonsensical. No such statement was made on the part of myself.

Mass shootings are not preventable, however. There is no profile that can be utilized in determining who may or may not become a mass shooter. Stephen Paddock certainly did not fit any particular pattern due to his age and financial stability. Even if a profile could be accurately constructed, it would do little good. The FBI has interviewed multiple individual who went on to commit mass shootings, and in each and every case, they concluded that the responsible individual posed no threat, and simply did not amount to a concern, even when they openly admitted that they wanted to kill people.

In the case of Nikolas Cruz, however, the FBI did not even get as far as the interview, because they did not follow up on the reports of his issuing terroristic threats online.

So explain. Exactly what can be done to prevent mass shootings, when no reliable profile exists, and when even the FBI itself is failing to identify multiple suspects? What more can be done?

Suicides are an entirely different subject, and is not being discussed, as nothing can prevent suicides from occurring. The subject is mass shootings. And focusing on mass shootings will have no measurable impact on the overall homicide rates experienced in the united states. More people are killed in the city of Chicago every single year, than in all the mass shootings experienced in a single year in the united states.

Pure emotional rhetoric.

Because it is not when the larger picture is looked at, rather than becoming bogged down in minute and irrelevant details.

Factually incorrect on the part of yourself. The argument presented by myself has been both quite rational, and far more humane than what is being presented on the part of myself. The argument being presented on the part of myself does not deny reality, nor lead the public to believe in some false notion that they can be made safe, and protected against the cold realities of the world. Realities such as the fact that society is full of individuals that will go on to kill others for no legitimate reason, and nothing can be done about it.

And what exactly makes the Parkland incident any different from any number of other school shootings that have shocked the nation, only to be forgotten about and bring about no legislative changes?

Factually incorrect on all counts. There is no litmus test in place to demonstrate that certain firearms can be prohibited from legal ownership on the basis that not enough of them are owned. A firearm must simply be available for sale on the private market to qualify as being protected by the second amendment, as per the ruling of Heller on the matter, when the united state supreme court concluded that the second amendment extends to all implements that constitute bearable arms, even those that could not have been imagined by the first congress at the time of the ratification.

More accurately, what will be done by yourself is editing what is stated to change the actual context of what is being stated.

Pray tell exactly what nonsense is being presented by yourself with the above statement. How to federally licensed firearm dealers, who are operating in compliance will all applicable state and federal laws, and making a profit in their line of work, doing anything to directly lead to the harm of others? Explain such.

Factually incorrect. An answer was indeed provided on the part of myself. It was simply not agreed with on the part of yourself, due to it not fitting the preconceived notion of what it should entail.

 

Look. This message is extremely long. Too long as compared to its content. And it looks like you are no longer even concerned for the logic. You keep making statements that you immediately contradict. I pointed one out on the previous message. Here is another.

If you really believe that mass shootings are not preventable, why do you care what the FBI did in the case of Nikolas Cruz previous to the shootings?

Again: you have abandoned all logic. This is sign that you haven't thought out your position, and are just making it up as you go.

You think that asking the same question over and over will change my answer, or spare you the effort of trying to rebut it?

Here is (one more time) what can be done:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/alternatives-to-arming-teachers.530975/

And, of course, that needs to be addressed in the proper forum. I know that the reason you don't want to do that is because if you answer here, all you have to do is say "It won't work". While there you would have to actually provide reasons.

BTW, it's funny that you use the expression "prevent mass shootings". I can't imagine an expression that could be more vague. This reveals your intention to confuse, rather than clarify. I use the most precise expression I can "reduce the number of shootings and the number of dead in each mass shooting" Which is more useful to clarify and the real objective.

There you go again. On the message I was responding to you said "Focusing on mass shootings does no measurable good," But now "suicides are an entirely different subject" Of course they are. And that was exactly the point I was making: my focus is mass shootings.

But see how you contradict yourself again and again? That makes it more than clear to anybody that you have not thought any of this through, and are just making it up as you go.

And this is the most important part. You consider saving lives "pure emotional rhetoric". That way you dismiss the moral imperative. Which is the first, (if not the only) thing that should be in our minds.

I got news for you. Remember that "Heller" case that you praised so vehemently before? This that you call "factually incorrect" is the Opinion of the Court. If you don't like it, you might want to consider calling your Congress representative and demand that they enact legislation to overturn Heller. I can get you their number, if you want. But, in the mean time, it's the Law of the Land.

Have you ever considered actually reading Heller? Just taking the word of the wingnut media on what it says doesn't make you look good.

No. It is very on-topic. In fact, it's the most on-topic and relevant part of this whole discussion. The reason why promoting that teachers bring guns to school as a way to minimize school shootings is unacceptable; is the same as why we don't allow people to buy tanks and nukes. Because it puts the life of others at risk.

Nothing in this long message of yours or mine is more on-topic or relevant than that.

Done. See two examples given about Arizona shooting (11th bullet) and Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. Your memory might be faltering.

The fact that more people die in mass shootings with large capacity magazines is proof. And the two instances that you so conveniently "forgot" is also a strong indicator.

 

You dishonestly left out the little tidbit:

Private Militias
Private militias are armed military groups that are composed of private citizens and not recognized by federal or state governments. Private militias have been formed by individuals in America since the colonial period. In fact, the Revolutionary War against England was fought in part by armies comprising not professional soldiers but ordinary male citizens.

Approximately half the states maintain laws regulating private militias. Generally, these laws prohibit the parading and exercising of armed private militias in public, but do not forbid the formation of private militias. In Wyoming, however, state law forbids the very formation of private militias. Under section 19-1-106 of the Wyoming Statutes, "No body of men other than the regularly organized national guard or the troops of the United States shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with arms without license of the governor." The Wyoming law also prohibits the public funding of private militias. Anyone convicted of violating the provisions of the law is subject to a fine of not more than $1,000, imprisonment of six months, or both, for each offense.

In states that do not outlaw them, private militias are limited only by the criminal laws applicable to all of society. Thus, if an armed private militia seeks to parade and exercise in a public area, its members will be subject to arrest on a variety of laws, including disturbing-the-peace, firearms, or even riot statutes.

Many private militias are driven by the insurrection theory of the Second Amendment. Under this view, the Second Amendment grants an unconditional right to bear arms for Self-Defense and for rebellion against a tyrannical government—when a government turns oppressive, private citizens have a duty to "insurrect," or take up arms against it.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. According to the Court in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951), "[W]hatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.

Some people have disagreed with the Supreme Court's definition of tyranny. Many of these people label the state and federal governments as tyrannical based on issues such as taxes and government regulations. Others cite governments ponsored racial and ethnic Integration as driving forces in their campaign against the federal and state governments. Many of these critics have formed private militias designed to resist perceived government oppression.

Some private militias have formed their own government. The legal problems of these private militias are generally unrelated to military activities. Instead, any criminal charges usually arise from activities associated with their political beliefs. The Freemen of Montana is one such militia. This group denied the legitimacy of the federal government and created its own township called Justus. The Freemen established its own court system, posted bounties for the arrest of police officers and judges, and held seminars on how to challenge laws its members viewed as beyond the scope of the Constitution. According to neighbors, the group also established its own common-law court system and built its own jail for the imprisonment of trespassers and government workers, or "public hirelings."

In the 1990s, the Freemen came to the attention of federal prosecutors after members of the group allegedly wrote worthless checks and money orders to pay taxes and to defraud banks and credit card companies. One Freeman had also allegedly threatened a federal judge, and some had allegedly refused to pay taxes for at least a decade.

In March 1996, law enforcement officials obtained warrants for the arrest of many of the Freemen. However, remembering the violence that occurred when officials attempted to serve arrest warrants on another armed group in Waco, Texas, in 1993, law enforcement authorities did not invade the Freemen's 960-acre ranch in Jordan, Montana. Although the Freemen constituted an armed challenge to all government authority, its beliefs and its military activities were not illegal, and most of its members were charged with nonviolent crimes, such as Fraud and related conspiracy. Two men were also charged with threatening public officials. In addition, several Freemen faced charges of criminal syndicalism, which is the advocacy of violence for political goals.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Private+Militias

 

So by your "logic", if a teacher goes off and brings a gun to school to kill, the sane teacher who is packing in the classroom is a defacto savior? Assuming what, his training will enable him to be a dead shot in a panic situation with no stray shot accidents?
And there is no chance of the 'sane' teacher who is sanctioned to be armed will ever lose it? Sorry, but your "logic" is just a circular avoidance of the points I'm making. See, my "policy" is that if you feel armed security is necessary, HIGHER A PROFESSIONAL(S).

 

You buy a car, you have a receipt of ownership...and that goes with any and all paperwork the seller had on it ...a "deed of transfer" if you will. After that, you can have it placed in your bedroom for all eternity.
A matter of fact, a matter of history.
All gun manufacturers by law have to have serial numbers on their products before they are sold to either commercial, gov't or private ownership.
A matter of fact, a matter of history.

I'll stop "calling names" when people stop being condescending, mocking or out and out hostile. Don't start none, won't be none.

 

I quoted US Code's definition of the term, not the totality of all the definitions on the web...

As far as our laws are concerned, 'freedictionary.com' has zero weight.

Keep tossing around 'liar' and 'dishonesty' so loosely and the term will lose all meaning.

Your attempts to attach an immoral intent to my counterpoint of your position are becoming less and less veiled. Keep it up.

 

Did I say that?

Refer to the NRA firearm safety rules. Or ask my sister -- who is a teacher, an expert marksman, and who would jump in front of gunfire to save her students. I'd prefer she would be able to shoot back rather than just be a bullet sponge. However if she brings her lawfully-concealed weapon to school as it stands today, she'd go to jail and ruin her career.

Quiz: If being shot at is is better to a) hide behind a desk and hope the shooter runs out of ammo before he gets to you? or; b) be able to shoot back when it is safe to do so?

Did I say that? You still didn't answer my question: Why will a policy or a "gun free zone" sign stop that person who "loses it" from shooting up the school?

Hello pot, this is the kettle -- I'm calling you black.

What happens when the shooter shoots your armed security? What happens when your armed security "loses it" and goes after the kiddos?

 

Both statements are factually correct, and do not contradict one another. Mass shootings, as a category of specific behavior, cannot be prevented from occurring, anymore than one can be stopped from picking up a random brick, and proceeding to beat another individual to death with it on a street corner. Legislative restrictions cannot prevent such incidents from occurring, especially when they are planned out months in advance, as is generally common.

In the cases of Parkland, the Pulse nightclub, and other incidents where the FBI actually bothered to interview the responsible party beforehand, the incidents occurred because the chief law enforcement division for the nation concluded that those who admitting to wanting to murder others, presented no credible threat to the public.

When law enforcement chooses not to heed the calls of the public to investigate suspicious activity, nothing can be done to prevent mass shootings. And when the guilty party does not talk to others about what they intend to do, nothing can be done to prevent mass shootings. It is a physical impossibility, and no proposed legislative restrictions will ever change such.

Every last proposal that has been presented by yourself has been read over, numerous times. And in all of it there is nothing that would amount to any good. Nothing that has been presented on the part of yourself would do anything beyond providing a false sense of security to the public, tricking the ignorant into believing that they are safe, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Beyond such, a good portion of what has been proposed by yourself would never pass constitutional muster. Therefore they are not worth discussing seriously.

The problem with such an approach is that it is impossible to demonstrate whether or not such has been achieved. There is no national average for the number of mass shootings committed in any given year, so it is impossible to determine if a specific restriction, or a combination of restrictions, had the desired effect of reducing what might have happened.

Beyond such, there is still the matter of Virginia tech. Thirty two murdered, all with magazines that held no more than ten rounds of ammunition, all with firearms that were procured after numerous background checks were performed.

Such does not make it accurate or appropriate, however. The focus on the part of yourself is limited to a category of incidents that is exceedingly minute overall, and amounts to the fewest number of deaths overall. The only reasons for such focus is due to such incidents grabbing headlines, and because it allows for self-delusion in appearing to be doing something, when overall nothing of meaning is being done. The overall firearm-related homicide rate will remain largely unchanged, with the one percent difference that would be made from such efforts going unnoticed. Even if all mass shootings could be immediately stopped by tomorrow, the firearm-related homicide rate of the united states would still remain significantly higher than any developed nation in the world. So ultimately what meaningful difference will such make, that would warrant such an investment of time, effort, and finite resources?

Explain the supposed contradiction that is being referred to by yourself.

Limiting constitutional rights in the name of attempting to prevent a few murders being committed with firearms, rather than any other available implement, is not a worthwhile goal to be pursuing. Constitutional rights are of greater importance than any individual lives that may be affected by those engaged in criminal activity for their own selfish desires.

The Heller ruling has indeed been read, numerous times in fact. And there is not a single passage, not so much as even a single sentence, that suggests commonly available firearms can be prohibited from private ownership, on the basis that not enough of them are owned to qualify them as being in common use. There is nothing that even gives lip service to the notion that congress or the states can look at the total number of firearms sold, or owned, and conclude that there are not enough of a particular type in circulation to qualify as being protected by the second amendment.

Even if such a notion did in fact exist, and was codified into law by the united state supreme court, it would mean nothing. Semi-automatic rifles, such as the AR-15, have been available on the private market since the early twentieth century, when they were marketed exclusively to the public and sportsmen. That is over one hundred years of uninterrupted sales, making the category widespread enough to qualify as being protected from prohibition by the second amendment.

Then why is the argument not being made by yourself, that the legal practice of concealed carry as a whole should be immediately ended throughout the nation, on the basis that those who are legally carrying firearms wherever they go, may potentially put the lives of others at risk as a result?

Virginia Tech. Thirty two dead. Magazine capacity was ten rounds each. Parkland. Seventeen dead. Magazine capacity was ten rounds each.

No matter how many incidents can be presented by yourself where magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition were utilized, it will not change the fact that these two incidents prove the argument wrong. Not simply factually incorrect, but wrong. Limiting magazine capacity will not do anything to save any lives. In fact the contrary can be proven, as it is possible to point to incidents where a higher magazine capacity has actually limited the number of lives lost.

Take the Aurora theater incident for example. The perpetrator utilized an AR-15 rifle equipped with what is known as a Beta-C magazine, which holds one hundred rounds of ammunition. These magazines are notorious for malfunctioning, and the one utilized caused the rifle to jam almost immediately, resulting in the AR-15 being abandoned in favor of a shotgun.

Factually incorrect. Columbine was committed during the time when no one could legally purchase magazines that held more than ten rounds of ammunition, and with firearms that were prohibited from ownership under federal law.

 

And as "category of specific behavior" neither can speeding, diving into the pool or stealing...

Not only did you not respond to the question I asked, but you keep making the same absurd argument. Here it is again. What's more, I'll rephrase it to match this particular instance of your argument: Can you name any law on any area of justice that has "prevented" any "category of specific behavior" whatsoever?

If you keep refusing to answer this question, it's useless to expect any rational arguments from you.

Legislative restrictions cannot prevent any type of incidents whatsoever from occurring. They can only reduce the likelihood that they occur, reduce the number, and reduce the number of people who are damaged by "such incidents".

If your argument is that that for that reason we should never enact any law making anything whatsoever illegal, then say it! If that is not your argument, then answer the question for once and for all.

And you have yet to explain what specific steps you believe law enforcement could have taken.

That's the easy way out for you, right? Easier to just say "they won't work" then go to the appropriate thread and commenting on them. Even commenting on one of them.

Requires too much mental effort, huh!

I could not have hoped for a more direct and clear validation from the gun-fanatic club.

A national average? Oh.... I can do much better than an average. I can give you the exact number, with number of dead and injured, weapon used, type of motive, location, sources .... every single detail you can think of. If you open the following link on Chrome, it will show all the data since 1982 in a spreadsheet format. Anybody with the most basic knowledge of spreadsheets can can use it to produce, not only the "average" (child's play) , but any statistical variation you can think of: median, main, totals... charts, per year, per type of weapon, per number of dead .... you name it!

I already did! Here it is again

Man!

Wrong! Protection of Human Life trumps any constitutional "right".

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”​

And, of course, those are the only two cases of mass shootings that have ever occurred. You have abandoned even the semblance of attempting to use sound logic.

So, clearly, this is a waste of time.

 

The difference, however, is that the rules, regulations, and restrictions regarding such behaviors are actually enforced.

It cannot, as laws exist only to define what specific behaviors constitute a crime being committed, and provide guidelines for what the sentence for such behaviors should be when the qualifying factors are met.

Is it possible for yourself to demonstrate just which firearm-related restrictions are actually enforced in the united states, and how often they are enforced? Because all available evidence shows that not only do most go unenforced, they are rarely enforced at all. Only one out of every fifty committed firearm-related offenses are ever actually pursued in the united states to the point of charges actually being brought against the accused, and making it to a court of law.

In the united states, the only firearm-related offenses that are actually taken seriously enough to warrant prosecution are those that run afoul of the National Firearms Act, and only because those violation interfere with the commerce-generating aspect of the law. The weapon offense is secondary compared to the fact the united states government does not get its two hundred dollars for the weapon being modified in some manner.

Pray tell, exactly how could it be proven that a reduction in mass shootings had actually occurred if the firearm-related restrictions being supported by yourself, were actually implemented into law? How would it be demonstrated that some measure of good was being had, when it is being admitted by yourself that mass shootings will continue to occur even with the restrictions in place?

Arrest the individual for the underlying illegal behavior that is being committed, rather than ignoring it and putting the public at risk in the process.

Challenge accepted.

Precisely where would you like to begin in observing your proposals being eviscerated? Shall we begin with how the no-fly list is devoid of anything due process, cannot be used as a basis for infringing upon constitutional rights, and would quickly be struck down in a court of law on such grounds? Perhaps how it is physically impossible for the federal and even state governments to enforce the requirement of a background check being performed for sales between private individuals? What part of the proposed policies by yourself should be the first to be ripped apart?

[QUTOTE]A national average? Oh.... I can do much better than an average. I can give you the exact number, with number of dead and injured, weapon used, type of motive, location, sources .... every single detail you can think of. If you open the following link on Chrome, it will show all the data since 1982 in a spreadsheet format. Anybody with the most basic knowledge of spreadsheets can can use it to produce, not only the "average" (child's play) , but any statistical variation you can think of: median, main, totals... charts, per year, per type of weapon, per number of dead .... you name it![/QUOTE]

Meaning it will be impossible to demonstrate that any particular firearm-related restriction played any part in the number of incidents that occurred in a given year. Meaning that the low number of mass shootings in one year cannot actually be attributed to certain restrictions being codified into law, as the next year may demonstrate a significantly higher number of mass shootings being carried out despite the restrictions.

In simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, the approach being supported by yourself ultimately boils down to playing fast and loose with the truth in order to push a political narrative at all costs.

Again, what is the contradiction being referred to by yourself? Explain such.

There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that firearm-related restrictions actually so anything to protect human lives from being lost due to illegal activity.

Even if such were the case, the united state supreme court ruled otherwise in both Heller and McDonald when they struck down the local handgun bans of the district of columbia, and the city of Chicago. The court acknowledge that handguns are the most commonly used firearm in the commission of all crimes, but such was still ruled as insufficient for infringing on the constitutional right of the citizens of the united states, by preventing them from legally owning certain firearms.

Explain how many firearms of a specific type must be owned by the public to amount to being in common use. Demonstrate where the united state supreme court implemented a set number, or otherwise indicated just what the phrase "in common use" amounted to in round, easily cited numbers.

The truth of the matter is that such cannot be done by yourself, because no such litmus test actually exists. Millions of AR-15 rifles are privately owned in the united states, meaning they would qualify as being in common use under such a standard, and protected against any prohibitions being implemented. The government cannot declare that a firearm can be prohibited from private ownership because not enough of them are owned by the public. If such were the case, the production of all newly developed firearms could be stopped before they ever made it onto the private market.

If such is truly believed by yourself, then there is no reason to prohibit the ownership of slidefire devices, as only one has ever been used in the commission of a criminal act.

 

Your opinion ?
Could be wrong, or clouded.

 

And they don't stop all instances. Are you flipping to my side? Or is it just that you lost track of the discussion again?

Yes! Like defining as a misdemeanor the sale of a gun without a background check. And as a felony if the gun is used in committing a criminal act..

Your argument was that the proposals I made would not prevent all the instances of shootings, and you have failed to mention any low in any area that has prevented all instances of the behavior defined in the corresponding legislation.

My case is made. I don't think there is anything left to say. But... let's see if there is anything worth commenting on this unnecessarily long post of yours.

,
That will be determined by the courts. If the courts decide its unconstitutional, then that's that. If not, then we don't allow them to buy guns either. I should remind you that the no-fly list was started in the Bush administration, and I'ts still going.

No. But it can be used to restrict gun sales to people on the list until the courts decide that it does, Look, I myself question the constitutionality of the No fly list. I'm 100% in favor of testing the constitutionality of the No Fly List in the Supreme Court. But in the mean time, we might as well use it for a good purpose.

Next?

 

Merely pointing out the fallacy of the comparison being made on the part of yourself.

Ultimately for what purpose? It is already a felony to provide a firearm to prohibited individuals. Even if such a requirement were put into place, there is no way of actually enforcing it, as the vast majority of firearms in the united states are simply not registered. Without the universal registration of every single firearm in existence, a background check requirement for private sales cannot be enforced, as there is no way of telling whether any particular firearm was acquired prior to the requirement, or after the requirement.

That matter aside, firearm traffickers who did provide registered firearms to known prohibited individuals are not being convicted for their actions. They are rarely even being arrested.

Demonstrating the logical fallacies of what is being presented by yourself, does not require actually proving myself to be correct in this discussion.

The case of yourself is that the restrictions being supported by yourself will make it more difficult for mass shootings to be committed. Nothing seen so far has amounted to proof that such will actually be the case. Nothing so far has even suggested that such will actually be the case. If is nothing more than baseless, politically motivated speculation based entirely on emotion, not on critical thinking or fact.

Which president of the untied states implemented the program is of no relevance to the discussion, as it changes nothing of fact. The only reason to program stands is because it applies exclusively to travel via airlines, and travel via commercial services is not a constitutionally recognized and protected right. Rather it is a privilege, and a service provided by the agency offering travel to the public, and often arbitrarily removing individuals who have already paid for their services without refund.

The same standard cannot be utilized for denying constitutional rights, however. The burden for being included on the do not fly list is incredibly low, and often your name alone is enough to be placed on the list. Once on the list, there is no way of ever getting off, as the government does not have to provide you with evidence of what you are accused of, meaning the charges against you cannot be fought.

For the simple reason that there is no good that can actually be had of the program. Not when your name alone is the basis for being included on the list. If these individuals have actually done something wrong, arrest them and charge them, rather than leaving them free in society where they pose the greatest threat. If they have done nothing wrong, then do not include them on the list to begin with.

Pick the proposal, any proposal, and it will be discussed in depth, and it will be explained why it has no merit in existing. That way there can be no accusation of "cherry picking" that can be leveled against myself.

 

So you are in favor of removing due process? For taking away someone's rights that got put on a do not fly list? Lol very communist of you..

And your other solutions have failed in the past and will fail again..

Banning "Assault weapons" (AR15 I'm assuming?) Will have the same effect as banning Bud light and thinking that will cut down on drunk driving..

 

You’re right. Let’s make it legal to drive drunk.Let’s take away licenses...everyone should drive or else we”re taking away their rights. That’s the trouble with extremists. They think if you want to take away the assault weapons it means all guns. Can’t think in moderation

 

No let's keep it illegal to drive drunk just like it's illegal to murder people with guns..
There is nothing extremest with that at all. But trying to take away someone's constitutional rights without due process would be the extremest point. Of view here..

If you are going to make a law that will limit people's consituonal rights the law damn well better work.. and again just banning "assualt weapons" like the AR15 will have no effect what so ever in trying to cut down on mass killings.. you are leaving other legal gun options that can shoot just as fast, hold just as much ammo, and balistically even more powerful.
So you have done nothing

 

Controlling rights is a good thing.... I have the right to free speech but I don’t have the right to yell fire in a theater. You don’t think the A.R. 15 will have an effect yet practically every measuring has been with one of these guns.

 

Making such a statement is not a legal exercise of the right to freedom of speech. Rather it is a deliberate act that causes harm and panic to others. It is little different from committing an act of assault, regardless of what the implement utilized might be.

The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference does such make?

 

yes even though you have free speech you cant yell fire in a theater (unless there really is a fire) just like you have the right to own a gun even though you cant go around murdering people..

Your idea of banning 1 type of gun and thinking it will stop shootings would be the same as me saying we should ban syfy movies to stop people from screaming fire in a theater.. both pointless..

no banning the AR15 wont have any effect at all.. the Virginia Tech massacre was carried out with hand guns limited to 10 rounds each and more then double the people where killed compared to the last school shooting..

all guns kill.. you dont get extra dead when you get shot by an AR15 compared to a hand gun.

 

ummm... no.

Sure you do. Nobody is preemptively preventing you from doing that at all. They don't slap duct tape across your mouth or gag you before you enter the theater. Although with some people I kind of wish they would. The only way you can get into any kind of trouble in doing the above is if it causes an actual panic and people are then endangered and hurt themselves. And that's all after the fact, not before.

The scary thing is that there are people that want to preemptively prevent law abiding people from exercising their 2nd amendment right by outright banning a certain rifle that is used in the least amount of gun crimes. If the anti gun people were consistent in wanting to prevent the most gun deaths, shouldn't they go after the guns that are most used in gun related crimes? Why don't they do that? Oh, wait... reasons.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

I believe that "measuring" was auto corrected from "massacre"
at least that was how I interpreted it

 

It is illegal to yell fire in a movie theater!. I want to open a restaurant and serve cheap horsemeat , should t that be my right? I don’t want to hire any black people, shouldn’t that be my right? I want to drive a car that pollutes, isn’t that my right? I want to sell cocaine on my street corner, shouldn’t that be my right? I am a teacher of sex education. Is it OK if I tell the children that being gay is a sin?
You keep fighting for military style weapons...that’s your right. It’s purpose is for mass killings.....as we have seen.