Another mass shooting deserves a better answer.

Discussion in 'United States' started by kungfuliberal, Aug 3, 2019.

  1. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,203
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree you make some valid points, but self-defense can be a mixed bag. We like to say we have the right to self-defense, but when we actually do it in a way that results in someone's death, our own lives enter a stage that could only be described as a personal nightmare. I'm not contradicting your points. I'm simply saying there's more involved here than a simple right to self-defense.
     
  2. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,203
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Freedom of the press. The right of every citizen to vote. Support for Congressional responsibilities regarding oversight issues. The responsibility of any President to obey the law he has taken an oath to preserve, protect & defend.
     
  3. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,203
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If what you post were determined by genetics, or divine will, then we would all be doomed to suffer these conflicts forever. But they are bad choices made by us as individuals & societies, & because of that, are capable of being changed & even reversed. We just have to be determined enough to make the necessary changes in ourselves & the societies around us. We have that power. We need the will.
     
  4. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,203
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In many cases, your points may prove valid. But in some, they may not. In those, it is conceivable that lives could be saved by the delay, even if it's simply from those delays created by changing the magazines more often, add up to more time given the law enforcement people to arrive & act against the assailant. That could also save lives.
     
  5. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,203
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your post & mine, both demonstrate the complexity & challenge of the question. This implies to me, there may not be one simple answer that fits all needs. This is not an uncommon situation. Many issues qualify in much the same way. This is why it's so important for us to have in depth discussions that allow us to work toward workable solutions we can all support & abide by. We need answers that allow all of us to win to some degree.
     
  6. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,203
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your post illustrates the complexity of the issue, & the difficulty of finding workable solutions. Your question here is a good one, & one of many that must be discussed in depth, & resolved thru cooperative efforts involving all parties concerned with the issue. The tit-for-tat competition will end up resolving nothing. Instead it will simply continue dividing the parties from each other, & pushing solutions further away. These issues are resolvable. It is in our power to make that happen. We need the will.
     
  7. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,203
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good questions. I wish I knew an easy answer. The world needs that answer.
     
  8. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,203
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Constitution supposedly protects personal freedoms. Feelings are a part of anyone's personal freedom.
     
  9. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,092
    Likes Received:
    15,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Constitution doesn't protect feelings.
     
    SiNNiK likes this.
  10. SiNNiK

    SiNNiK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2014
    Messages:
    8,098
    Likes Received:
    2,827
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's exactly what I thought. Not one thing.
     
  11. DixNickson

    DixNickson Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,836
    Likes Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    The Ohio State University had an incident, when a male decided to use the motor vehicle as a criminal instrument of violence.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/11/28/ohio-state-assault-what-we-know-now/94560468/
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2019
  12. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,276
    Likes Received:
    7,129
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The deaths do not have to be murders in order to constitute a threat or a concern. Numerous motor vehicle-related deaths are the result of their operators simply not paying attention, either because they are intoxicated, or focused on electronic communication when they should be paying attention to the road. Yet the number of motor vehicle-related deaths is not being used as a justification for calls for restricting private motor vehicle use to try and lower that number of deaths.
     
  13. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,276
    Likes Received:
    7,129
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The aforementioned personal nightmare can take many forms for many individuals. For some it is the legal aftermath that comes after using deadly force for protection. For others it is the possibility of what may potentially happen to their loved ones if they are incapable of using that deadly force when it is needed.
     
    XploreR likes this.
  14. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,276
    Likes Received:
    7,129
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet it was the administration of Barack Obama that broke from historical protocol regarding reporters and journalists, and orders their private communications to be tapped.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...s-trump-is-very-bad-for-criticizing-newsrooms

    Those who reside in the country illegally are not citizens, and efforts to prevent them from participating in elections does not harm the citizens. To the contrary, efforts to ensure illegal aliens cannot vote serves to protect the right to vote held by the people, as it serves to ensure their votes are not diluted by outside influences.

    The same oversight issues being currently abused in the fanatical search for any trace of evidence to suggest Donald Trump was elected president of the united states due to working with the nation of Russia?

    The same responsibilities that Barack Obama himself chose to sidestep and ignore when congress refused to vote on particular issues? He is quite famously quoted for saying he has a pen and a phone for dealing with the deadlock and getting things done.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2019
  15. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,276
    Likes Received:
    7,129
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is an individual free to own any manner of firearm that is currently available on the private market without complying with the registration and licensing requirements? Or are they prohibited from legally taking possession of their private property unless it is first licensed and registered beforehand?

    There are countless politicians who have openly called for the forceful confiscation of firearms from the public, with the implied threat of force for failing to comply. There are no politicians who have been calling for the forceful confiscation of motor vehicles. That is why there is so much difference.

    Do try to keep up.
     
    DixNickson likes this.
  16. DixNickson

    DixNickson Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,836
    Likes Received:
    92
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    1.) You are endorsing (as an advocate for registration/licensing as explained above) the State holding a citizen responsible for the criminal act of another user downrange. I disagree with your position. 2.) Background checks (who can legally possess a firearm) have been going on for ages and have nothing to do with registration (government list of gun owners). 3.) Criminals and mental ill folks are NOT thinking twice about licenses/registration. If licensing and registration worked for ending unlawful homicides, Chicago would be the safest city in the USA

    How does registering (against any and all problems?) a car (or anything for that matter) keep that vehicle or operator from "any and all problems?" Does that mean you'll not be involved in an MVA? What are you trying to say?

    The 1934 (date?) NFA penalized law abiding citizens by taxing the opportunity of private ownership of an automatic firearm out of the reach for most Americans. The US Government has not raised the tax since the 1934 act was passed. Today many Americans can afford the tax but in the mid-1980's the US Congress outlawed private possession (for the common citizen) of automatic weapons manufactured after the date of the law.

    Once again the criminal should not be the standard that regulates the rights of the citizen.

    Here is my suggestion for the single, one and only gun control law; No one shall possess/bear a firearm with the intent of committing a crime with that firearm while in the actor's possession. Any one who commits a crime with a firearm will be guilty of violating this law and any other law that criminalizes the behavior/act of the bad actor.

    You will not stop evil doers from committing evil acts unless you can find a way to control free will.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2019
    Ddyad likes this.
  17. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,203
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
  18. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,203
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, but cars & their drivers are subject to many laws & restrictions. Guns aren't, but desperately need to be.
     
  19. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,092
    Likes Received:
    15,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where in the United States constitution does it say you have a right to own and drive a car?

    *crickets*
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  20. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,203
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. I read a large part of the link you provided, & was a bit shocked by the intensity of the attack against Obama in it. I was unfamiliar with the Washington Examiner myself, so looked it up on Google, to find (not surprisingly) that it was a well known conservative rag. I know neutral news sources are difficult to find today, but your article makes a grand effort to defend Fox News in its attack on Obama. But I have personally witnessed repeated examples of Fox lying or distorting truth on their broadcasts in an effort to support their own point of view. Of all the news broadcast stations I've watched, I find Fox News by far the most prejudiced in its political reporting, & the one I feel least comfortable with.
    2. I am in complete agreement that no non-citizen should ever be allowed to vote in a state or national election. However, I know of no example of that occurring in any notable size, & certainly not one capable of throwing an election. I have lived in 9 states during my adulthood, & have never encountered any place where I wasn't compelled to prove my identity & my place of residence using multiple sources. I can't imagine how anyone could possibly get to vote illegally under such scrutiny, though I hear it happens at times. I've never heard of it happening in such a way as to seriously threaten the outcome of any election anywhere. Based on these facts, I just don't see illegal voting as a serious problem.
    3. I don't really care if it's Trump or any other candidate, I don't want Russia, or any other foreign nation, having a serious impact on any American election outcome. I support investigations into any possibility of that happening--regardless of the candidate or their party. Investigating Trump was the responsible thing to do. I fully support that action.
    4. Every President has powers that share common ground with Congress. Every President uses those powers at times, when policies they favor are blocked by Congress. Trump is doing that now himself--repeatedly. His efforts to divert funding approved by Congress for improving the lives of military personnel & their families, & use it to fund his wall, is definitely the precise type of action you're blaming Obama for. In my mind, what Trump's doing is far worse than anything I remember Obama doing.
     
    kungfuliberal likes this.
  21. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,203
    Likes Received:
    2,375
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It doesn't, because cars didn't exist when it was written--which is a good example for why we need liberal judges, justices & lawmakers, to provide us with up to date interpretations & changes to keep the Constitution relevant.
     
  22. MolonLabe2009

    MolonLabe2009 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    33,092
    Likes Received:
    15,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where in the United States constitution does it say you have a right to own and use any form of transportation?

    *crickets*
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  23. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    2,413
    Likes Received:
    559
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    this is the second time you try to pull this lame and absurd tactic. You are given a detailed response that logically and factually disproves your assertions and questions, and you pretend it doesn't. If "yes" and "no" is all you understand, then find another discussion board at that level. The chronology of the posts reveals your insipid stubbornness to just concede a point. The OP stands valid.
     
  24. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    14,055
    Likes Received:
    9,502
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You think you can 'disprove' questions? Lol I think we might be getting somewhere now... That certainly explains a lot.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
  25. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,276
    Likes Received:
    7,129
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Have such laws and restrictions served to reduce the number of motor vehicle-related deaths in the united states?

    The majority of the aforementioned laws and restrictions pertain to issues of taxation, not public safety. Such is why even minor offenses and infraction carry such steep fines that can amount to thousands of dollars when court costs are factored in. Taxation is ultimately the reason for registration and licensing requirements, as possessing a valid license to operate a motor vehicle on a public right of way does not automatically translate into safety.

    Firearms are already subject to numerous restrictions that go far beyond motor vehicles. Individuals who are convicted felons, or who have been proven in a court of law to be mentally deficient, cannot legally purchase or otherwise possess firearms under any circumstances. There is an outright prohibition on using firearms for the purpose of either committing or otherwise threatening harm to other individuals.

    Pray tell, just what more can be done with regard to restricting firearms, that has anything to do with the notion of safety?
     

Share This Page