Should schools teach students how not to be killed by police?

Renee: On guns. What laws would you like to see passed re gun control in the US? You ask why anyone needs an automatic weapon ... but we already effectively outlaw automatic weapons, along with heavier armament. [The armed citizen in the US is NOT the equal of the state in firepower or, more crucially, the ability to organize and direct its purposeful application.](Mass shooters use semi-automatic weapons: one trigger pull, one shot. Automatic weapons are: hold the trigger back and the weapon will keep discharging until the magazine is empty -- generally a waste of ammunition, by the way: you want aimed shots.) Anyway, what laws would you like to see?

On Russian interference: From 1936 onward, the Communist Party USA, directed and financed from Moscow, actively supported the Democratic Party against the Republicans -- with the exception of 1948 when Stalin made a 'left turn' in policy. (They did run token candidates for the publicity but their line was to support the more leftist of the two major parties.)

And their support was not negligible in some places, because they had several tens of thousands of very dedicated people, concentrated in a few states, and led11 national unions -- about a third of the CIO -- until the post-war Red Scare.

But mention this now, and I promise you'll get a barage of hysterical accusations about being a 'red-baiter', McCarthyite, etc.

(By the way, their support then doesn't bother me now. I would have been supporting the Democrats too, probably, in those days.)

And of course, the American government has been interfering in foreign elections since the end of WWII -- and occasionally even overthrowing elected governments it didn't like.

America particularly intervened in Russian elections in 1996, to support Boris Yeltsin, who let his country be looted with the help of American banks. Look at the cover of Time Magazine.

Hey, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Of course, the Russians -- and I don't believe for a minute this was just a project of a bunch of Russian individuals, with no connections to the state -- were foolish to do this, from the point of view of their own interests. It's just made them objects of suspicion and hatred in the US, on both the Left and the Right. They should check out how the US is regarded in Iran, even by Iranian liberals old enough to remember that he US brought them the Shah, who paved the way for the theocracy they're saddled with now.

 

Muskets would never do the job if we were invaded or if the government were tyrannical and needed to be overturned. Why does anyone need anything? Why does anyone need a pickup truck if they don't live on a farm? Why does anyone need a car that goes faster then the speed limit?

 

Give them time, they will, when terrorists figure out how unprotected they are from armed assault and start using it. Right now they are just using the hide and attack method but they will figure it out sooner or later.

 

They don’t have armed assaults....When guns are unavailable, illegal ones become very very expensive. Aren’t you proud that you think we are going to be a great role model for these countries?

 

Muskets changed...so should the laws.
When you got your pick up truck you had to take a test. When you got your pick up truck you knew you had to wear a seatbelt. When you got your car you knew that it was illegal to go faster than the speed limit so your examples are kind of silly

 

He also had to take a test to make sure he knew how to use it, get insurance in case he did something stupid, get a license and renew it every few years, register his truck, his truck was heavily regulated in the way it was built and designed for what he does with it (otherwise he would buy a Mack which requires even more licensing and tests), his truck is very easily traced by both VIN and registration, police and government know if his truck is used in a crime, he cannot hide his truck in a bag or pocket to run people over unaware and there is no black market for trucks.

 

The provision in the US constitution assuring the right to have and drive a truck is: ___________________________ (you fill in the blank)

 

The 9th and 10th Amendments.

 

No they don't, not in any way.

 

Renee: On guns. What laws would you like to see passed re gun control in the US? You ask why anyone needs an automatic weapon ... but we already effectively outlaw automatic weapons, along with heavier armament. [The armed citizen in the US is NOT the equal of the state in firepower or, more crucially, the ability to organize and direct its purposeful application.](Mass shooters use semi-automatic weapons: one trigger pull, one shot. Automatic weapons are: hold the trigger back and the weapon will keep discharging until the magazine is empty -- generally a waste of ammunition, by the way: you want aimed shots.)

Anyway, what laws would you like to see?

 

Then you don't understand the Bill of Rights or you never read the Constitution.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

For your reading comprehension, the 9th Amendment protects all rights not explicitly mentioned by the rest of the Constitution (e.g. the right to have and drive a truck). But for another source:

https://legaldictionary.net/9th-amendment/

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

For your reading comprehension, the 10th Amendment prohibits the federal government from seizing or exercising powers not specifically granted to it by the Constitution (e.g. violating the right to have and drive a truck).

But you certainly have the protected right to try to contradict the above backed by any valid supporting evidence. Just making claims from thin air does not qualify as valid or supported.

 

Why does anyone need an ar-15? Why are they legal? I don’t know my guns But I do know that hundreds and hundreds of people are killed by them ... no other country in the world has this despicable problem. The nra cares more about guns than children. Why does anyone need a gun that can kill 17 people in a couple of minutes? Or 65 people like in Las Vegas? Why is it men have this fixation for guns?

 

Wow, you actually think the federal government issues license plates and drivers licenses to truck drivers? Or are you claiming people have the right to commit murder and rape since such is not prohibited in the Constitution?

Which one is it?

There is no constitutional right to drive a truck any more than there is to fly an airplane without government permission. There IS a SPECIFIC constitutional right to have a firearm.

 

I should have also added the 5th Amendment since you said the right to have a truck. Once you have a truck, it can't be taken away from you (be deprived of property without due process of law).

 

So you are another Democrat wanting the USA to have the murder rates of Mexico.

A person does not have to show a NEED for a RIGHT. A person does not NEED protection from a school coach saying a prayer before a ballgame. A person has an infinitely greater need for a firearm to protect against an attacker, than a NEED for protect against a coach saying a prayer over a loudspeaker.

If you say the blame is the gun, why were there no such mass shooting before 1936 when anyone could buy any firearm, fully automatic, 50 rd tommy guns, full auto anything, any military weapon, even full auto 20mm cannons - mail order on the street or in a store not even having to give a name? Why are there no instances of someone going into a school with a 50 round tommy gun or vastly more deadly than an AR15 full auto Browning M1918 or any of the other full automatic cheap military surplus weapons anyone could buy?

Do you have an answer to that?

 

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I never said any of the above nor does it have anything to do with trucks and the federal Constitution, which is what your original question is about.

Irrelevant to your specific question. You implied the federal Constitution.

 

So, accordingly, no one's firearm they now have could be taken away and all the AR15s and all the high capacity magazines - probably a billion - can not be outlawed under the 5th amendment, nor could firearms of any kind be outlawed under the 9th and 10th according to you.

 

What constitution are YOU talking about?

 

Stick to trucks, that's what you asked for. Not according to me, according to the Bill of Rights (5th, 9th and 10th Amendments) and the 14th Amendment, absent due process of law.

The federal Constitution, the one YOU implied. You do know every state also has a state Constitution, right?

 

Because guns are so available now,, A better question is why are we the only country in the world that has these astronomical school shootings and mass murders with high power guns?
I do not know my guns. But I will ask you why does anyone need an A.R. 15 or any of these guns that can kill 17 people in a couple of minutes?What is the purpose other than to hunt human beings? Obviously you cling to your guns and don’t give a damn about the hundreds and hundreds of dead people.We just have different values.

 

When you get your gun you know it is illegal to shoot people with it. Just because someone using it to kill people with does not make it evil. People have used cars and trucks to kill people as well and they are not evil and no one is trying to ban them.

 

More like "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

 

Renee: Why men have a 'fixation' on weapons, and women do not, is something that is probably explained by evolution. Most people, even secular humanist liberals, don't really believe in evolution, or rather, don't believe that we, like other animals, are its products, not only in the length of our fingernails and location of hair, but also, to some extent at least, in our behavior. But we must be ... to some extent.

I'm always skeptical of the 'just-so' stories of the evolutionary psychologists, but it's a plausible explanation for a lot of differences in the behavior of normal males and females. In brief, men who didn't 'fixate' on weapons, and what they are used for, had fewer descendants than those who were kind and gentle and peaceful. First of all, because the gentle ones got killed off, and second of all, because most women are not attracted to weapon-averse, gentle males.

Of course this assumes behavior which is as complex as 'fixation on weapons' can be mediated by genes, which may be a stretch. In any case, the behavior is a reality. (I say 'a stretch' because social pressure -- laws and customs -- can also influence behavior enormously -- Vikings become peaceful Danes -- and it's probably impossible, at the moment, to separate the influence of these two behavior-influencing causes.)

All I can say is, most men I have known, Left and Right, enjoy shooting. Most women I've known, not so much, despite Rudyard Kipling's assertion about the Female of the Species being Deadlier than the Male..

Perhaps it's the feeling of power and domination you get when you burn up a magazine of 5.56 rounds and see them impacting on the target. And as for fully automatic fire ... running through a belt of M60 ammo where every fifth round is a tracer -- dear Lord! Only comparable to ... to .... er ... never mind. [Okay, for you former 11-Bravos and 0351s ready to leap to the keyboard to correct me, I know you're supposed to get off three- to five-round bursts, and not burn out the barrel.But I'm talking pleasure here, not business.]

No doubt these feelings stem in some way from the darker aspects of human nature, coming from way down deep where the reproductive instinct lives, which we mostly don't talk about. Or used not to.

But let me point out to you that by implicitly endorsing the idea that there are deeply-rooted differences beween male and female, you are challenging one of the central dogmas of our age of Political Correctness. Among my pals, that would be no problem -- it's just taken for granted. But in the circles in which I suspect you travel, you'd best keep that opinion to yourself.

Now, I notice that you didn't propose any actual gun laws in response to my question. But the only way you can stop us brutes from wanting to own guns is to be able to plausibly threaten to put us in prison if we do, or at least impoverish us through heavy fines backed up by prison if we don't pay them. And of course these gun laws must be enforced by ... er ... men with guns. (You see? They give you power.) The disapproval of our social betters just has no impact on us Deplorables. In fact, we sort of revel in it. So prison it must be.

Since you didn't set out the laws you'd like to imprison us for violating, let me propose some. Remember that automatic weapons, 'destructive devices' of all sorts (grenades, Claymore mines, mortars, rocket-launchers, etc) are already effectively outlawed in the US. The sickos who go down to thin out the numbers at their local elementary school, or take out country-western music fans, or reduce the Republican numbers in Congress, all use semi-automatic weapons at worst. As do the boyz-in-the-hood every Saturday night, or the Salvadoran 'refugees' from MS-13.

Anyway, do you think something like this would cut the murder rate:

Private citizens will be generally restricted to semi-automatic handguns or revolvers of a caliber no greater than .380 (for home defense), .22 caliber rifles, and shotguns no greater than 12 gauge (for hunting and shooting when a member of a club). Anything bigger than those calibers will be for the exclusive use of the military and strictly forbidden for civilian possession. You can get them with a license, but it will be very hard to get a license. Only one shop per state will sell guns. So you really really have to want one, to get one (legally).

Do you think that might do it? Seriously alter the homicide rate, so that we would become like countries that have a law like this?

 

What would you propose for all the weapons already owned by everyone especially the gangs and hardened criminals? Do you think all of them would just be given away to the government freely? I understand you were talking to Renee and this suggestion would probably appease her but I just don't think it would be easily carried out or even make it safer when we have hundreds of millions guns in this country. I think we as a nation should be looking to fix the many many reasons people desire to kill others and not worry much about the tools they use to do this.

 

So you don't mind if an attacker uses a knife to kill several people and terrorize communities? Would you rather see someone take a sword to a school and start hacking kids up? I still think our efforts would be put to better use trying to correct the many reasons, there are many, people kill other people.