'We were bored and didn’t have anything to do, so we decided to kill somebody.' (Read 567 times)


Needs more cowbell!

    And then there's this...thankfully no one is injured or worse.

     

    I'm fucking sick of it.  Why can anyone get their hands on a goddamned assault rifle?!  Someone give me just ONE good reason why any private citizen NEEDS one.  Forget want.  I don't give a rat's ass about want and I'm tired of hearing Ted Nugent and his repulsive, impotent ilk go on and on about their "rights."  Gun-happy types need to get over themselves, already.  The rest of us have the right to never again have to see another story of a school shooting or an innocent runner shot in the back and killed.

    I shoot pretty things! ~

    '14 Goals:

    • 6 duathlons (1 Olympic distance)

    • 130#s (and stay there, gotdammit!)


    Feeling the growl again

       I'm tired of hearing Ted Nugent and his repulsive, impotent ilk go on and on about their "rights."  

       

      People who think like you really concern me about our country's future (Ted being a bit out there aside).

       

      I hear this all the time, that the Founding Fathers never conceived anything beyond single shot muzzleloaders.  Let's apply this thought to the FIrst Amendment.  Look at all the harm that has resulted from free speech with modern tools...teenagers killing themselves over online bullying, Twitter's use in Egypt, the circus around Zimmerman and the fact that states away from home, he still can't escape his every move making the news and putting him in danger.  I bet the Founding Fathers never conceived all of this.  Perhaps free speech should be limited to handwritten text, that printed with hand-set type, and yelling to the limit of your own voice?

       

      The problem is, the Bill of Rights was not granting specific, narrow-minded rights like that; it was recognizing larger concepts in recognizing rights not limited to such narrow interpretation.

       

      Unless you live in a ZIP codes concentrated in the urban ghettos, you have more to fear from drivers drunk or on their cell phone than being shot.  Yet you're not screaming to ban cars, alcohol, or cell phones -- and you have a right to none of those -- because that would affect YOU, despite the fact that each in reality more dangerous to your safety than a gun.  And people who talk like you are happy to take away rights, as long as it's not ones you personally care about.

      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

       


      MoBramExam

        I'm fucking sick of it.  Why can anyone get their hands on a goddamned assault rifle?!  Someone give me just ONE good reason why any private citizen NEEDS one.  Forget want.  I don't give a rat's ass about want and I'm tired of hearing Ted Nugent and his repulsive, impotent ilk go on and on about their "rights."  Gun-happy types need to get over themselves, already.  The rest of us have the right to never again have to see another story of a school shooting or an innocent runner shot in the back and killed.

         

        Prehaps "the rest of us" could post a full list those rights.  I am sure the sub-human pieces of trash (like the ones who shot the jogger) will be happy not to trample on any of them.

         



        JimR


           

          you're not screaming to ban cars, alcohol, or cell phones .

           

          What does this have to do with guns?

             

            What does this have to do with guns?

             

            ...By almost every measure, you're more at risk of being harmed by someone driving who's drunk or on the phone than of someone holding a gun.

             

            please learn to read.

            Know thyself.

             

              I hear this all the time, that the Founding Fathers never conceived anything beyond single shot muzzleloaders.  Let's apply this thought to the FIrst Amendment.  Look at all the harm that has resulted from free speech with modern tools...teenagers killing themselves over online bullying, Twitter's use in Egypt, the circus around Zimmerman and the fact that states away from home, he still can't escape his every move making the news and putting him in danger.  I bet the Founding Fathers never conceived all of this.  Perhaps free speech should be limited to handwritten text, that printed with hand-set type, and yelling to the limit of your own voice?

               

              The problem is, the Bill of Rights was not granting specific, narrow-minded rights like that; it was recognizing larger concepts in recognizing rights not limited to such narrow interpretation.

               

              Unless you live in a ZIP codes concentrated in the urban ghettos, you have more to fear from drivers drunk or on their cell phone than being shot.  Yet you're not screaming to ban cars, alcohol, or cell phones -- and you have a right to none of those -- because that would affect YOU, despite the fact that each in reality more dangerous to your safety than a gun.  And people who talk like you are happy to take away rights, as long as it's not ones you personally care about.

               

              That's a nice analogy to the first amendment, but it neglects an essential clause in the second amendment: "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," the equivalent of which doesn't appear in the first amendment. Somewhere in the "larger concept" of the second amendment appear notions like security and regulation.

               

              It's certainly not clear how the founders intended issues like assault rifles to be handled or gun control in general, but it also seems clear that they wanted to create some space for reasonable restrictions. I think we are usually better off arguing what's reasonable and what's not than trying to make the claim that the second amendment helps us decide what is reasonable or not.


              Feeling the growl again

                 

                That's a nice analogy to the first amendment, but it neglects an essential clause in the second amendment: "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," the equivalent of which doesn't appear in the first amendment. Somewhere in the "larger concept" of the second amendment appear notions like security and regulation.

                 

                It's certainly not clear how the founders intended issues like assault rifles to be handled or gun control in general, but it also seems clear that they wanted to create some space for reasonable restrictions. I think we are usually better off arguing what's reasonable and what's not than trying to make the claim that the second amendment helps us decide what is reasonable or not.

                 

                Your first paragraph was largely spoken to by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision, in addition to historical commentary by those who actually wrote the document describing the necessity of an armed civilian population to maintain a free state.

                 

                And if you are not using the content and context of the Constitution recognizing our rights to evaluate what are reasonable encroachments on those rights, you're doing it wrong.

                "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                 

                  Ok.


                  Closed for repairs

                    Ok.

                     

                    A new record for briefest Jeff/Spaniel discussion.

                     

                    JimR


                       

                      ...By almost every measure, you're more at risk of being harmed by someone driving who's drunk or on the phone than of someone holding a gun.

                       

                      please learn to read.

                       

                      I can read just fine.  But what does risk factors of cars have to do with risk factors of guns?

                         

                        Your first paragraph was largely spoken to by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision, in addition to historical commentary by those who actually wrote the document describing the necessity of an armed civilian population to maintain a free state.

                         

                        And if you are not using the content and context of the Constitution recognizing our rights to evaluate what are reasonable encroachments on those rights, you're doing it wrong.

                         

                        Andy, just one thing: I've read countless USSC decisions in which emphasized the context, yes, but contemporary context, not of the Fathers.  For example, Justice Kennedy writing for the majority in US vs. Windsor , 699 F. 3d 169 (June 26, 2013):

                         

                        DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.

                        "If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus


                        Feeling the growl again

                           

                          Andy, just one thing: I've read countless USSC decisions in which emphasized the context, yes, but contemporary context, not of the Fathers.

                           

                          Of course, I am sure that is more common than not.  But I am sure they would not claim that the Constitution did not help them decide what was reasonable or not.  One can't argue what is a reasonable infringement on a right without including the portion of the Constitution recognizing that right in the evaluation.

                          "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                           

                            What happened to the days when the distraction of cruising in a car,  or chasing other hot teenage girls + trying to find a girlfriend was about 10000% more important than random talk of killing folks?

                             

                            Nothing happened to those days. If you take all the teenage boys in the United States, put them into groups of three and give them nothing to do, 99.999% of them will not enter into a conspiracy to murder a random stranger.

                             

                            It's a very, very sad story but I don't think it's representative of anything except three bad kids.

                             

                            Over the long term, violent crime rates in the US have trended down for decades upon decades.

                            Runners run.

                               

                              I can read just fine.  But what does risk factors of cars have to do with risk factors of guns?

                               

                              Risk factors of cars....

                              When cars are being used by the wrong people or at the wrong time (impaired due to drugs, alcohol, sleep depravation), they can be used as a weapon that can kill and destroy.

                               

                              Risk factors of guns....

                              When guns are being used by the wrong people or at the wrong time (impaired due to drugs, alcohol, sleep depravation), they can be used as a weapon that can kill and destroy.

                               

                              For both products, they can be used for good.

                              For both products, they can be put in the hands of bad people or people who should not have them at that particular point in their life.

                              2014 Goals:

                              #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                              #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

                               

                                 

                                Of course, I am sure that is more common than not.  But I am sure they would not claim that the Constitution did not help them decide what was reasonable or not.  One can't argue what is a reasonable infringement on a right without including the portion of the Constitution recognizing that right in the evaluation.

                                 

                                I agree with you, man, and I can't find where anyone on this thread said that the Constitution should not be used to make the determination. I think the suggestion that a rule of reason should be applied.

                                "If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus