Family Research Center Shooting

[Pinky]

If guns had never been invented, baseball bats would have been used. In a world without guns but populated by the same people, kitchen knifes would be the weapon of choice, in an advanced society without guns antifreeze would have been slipped into the drinking fountain... So there you have it, let's control baseball bats, knifes and antifreeze and the world will be peaceful.

Criminals and the criminally insane will always find a way to hurt, maim or kill other people and no amount of 'law and order' is going to stop them from their deed.

Fact is you can take the deadliest assault rifle in the world and lay it on a rock and if were possible to return to that rock in 10,000 years, the remains of that rifle would still be laying there.

+1

Drunk drivers kill WAY more people than nuts with guns; shall we ban automobiles, or shall we just ban alcohol?!? 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

+1

Drunk drivers kill WAY more people than nuts with guns; shall we ban automobiles, or shall we just ban alcohol?!?

[SARCASM ALERT]

Neither.  You just make it illegal to drive an automobile after drinking alcohol, sheesh, that will definitely reduce the numbers of drunk driving accidents. 

[BridgeTroll]

We all seem to be on the same page with regards to the outrages of these mass shootings.  However the solutions always seem to focus on the weapon... and the limits many wish to place on the second amendment.  Perhaps we need to expand the conversation to include some of the other Bill of Rights.

We already know that certain restrictions to various rights are considered constitutional.  Certain aspects of gun controls have been used by various states and municipalities and have been legally vetted.  The same holds true for certain aspects of the first amendment.  Hate speech can be prosecuted... so can libel, slander, and graffiti as a few examples.  Maybe we should look at the role of violent (armed) video games (just an example).  We have banned the advertisement of tobacco... perhaps we could ban ads for guns.  Perhaps Freedom to assemble peacefully should be tightened up... restricting so called "hate groups"(NRA?)

The third amendment bans the quartering of soldiers in your home.  Perhaps that could be loosened
up to allow small garrisons of soldiers in every neighborhood... you know... to keep the peace.

The fourth amendment is ripe for some restricting.  In the matter of guns... perhaps we should loosen the ability of the government to enter into your house to search for offending weapons.

Hmm... the fifth amendment... Got it!  In cases of gun violence we could suspend double jeopardy, due process... and confiscate all the offenders properties.

I could go on but you get the point.  Simply restricting the second amendment rights of people is not doing the job.  We need a holistic approach that looks at the entire Bill of Rights and create restrictions accordingly to end this madness




Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

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

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.

[BridgeTroll]

so which guy would you rather have to deal with, in a crowded room, with your wife and family present, bridge troll?  The guy armed with a rock or the guy armed with a sub machine gun?

Why is this question so hard for any of you guys to answer?

A rock Stephen.  Were any of the recent crimes commited with a sub machine gun?  Just how many crimes are commited with sub machine guns?

[BridgeTroll]

Since you are going to go Constitutional on the subject, Bridge Troll, where in the Constitution does it even mention guns?

Im not "going constitutional".  I am expanding the discussion.  Short of banning weapons... this issue is not going to go away.  Lets look at other factors... like our violent society... violent movies... violent games... violent music... violent rhetoric.  We may be short sighted limiting the discussion to the second amendment.

[Ocklawaha]

so which guy would you rather have to deal with, in a crowded room, with your wife and family present, bridge troll?  The guy armed with a rock or the guy armed with a sub machine gun?

Why is this question so hard for any of you guys to answer?

The question can't be answered honestly without knowing the full geography, logistics and minute details involved. It is paramount to a question like: "You landed on the moon, and this giant bear... etc" There is simply no way to know how the situation would be handled, even a well trained and well armed squad of Navy Seals would tell you that every situation is unique and requires them to 'adapt, improvise and overcome.'

I too think the conversation is a bit nutty when the focus is on a tool and not the tool user. With a few century's of women being eaten by bears, a study was commissioned to learn why certain bears prefer women. To wit: Cushing (1983)  Reported that free-ranging polar bears detected and consumed food scent samples and used tampons, but ignored non-menstrual human blood and unused tampons. This suggests that polar bears are attracted to odors associated with menstrual blood.

Cushing, B. 1983. Responses of polar bears to human menstrual odors. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 5:270-274.

So tampons and menstrual pads are the tool that results in human death, but I think the bear carries more guilt. Bears, pads and tampons or women, which shall we legislate? Tampon control anyone?

Oh Lord, this ought to be fun!

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Does the guy with the rock have a sling (David and Goliath style), a slingshot (Beaver Cleaver style) or just a wicked 105mph fastball arm (Aroldis Chapman style)?

Is the gun loaded?  Does he have the safety on?  Is his trigger finger resting on the trigger, trigger guard or along the side of the weapon?  Is he nervous & shifty or is he calm and determined?

You, Mr. Dare, have some questions to answer yourself.  Or as you happily conject towards me, It's just a dumb question.

[NotNow]

No.  Have any democrat talking points to discuss?  Or are the instructions to just be quiet about this?

There was another shooting in America, because guns got into the wrong hands.  And in this case the victim was an uniformed police officer.

Its freaking ridiculous, but you seem to agree with this kind of shooting, so what would you like for people to say?

The victim was not a uniformed police officer.  He was an employee of the FRC dressed in a suit. 

Your statement about "agree with this kind of shooting" is just the kind of stupid crap that points out what kind of a person you are.  You are willing to say anything and attack anyone for the sake of your politics.  What a sad person you are.  You better run to the Huffington Post and see what you are supposed to say about this.

[NotNow]

No.  Have any democrat talking points to discuss?  Or are the instructions to just be quiet about this?

Most law enforcement management types do support some form of gun control simply because they think that it may reduce lethal violence directed at their personnel.

But not not now. He enjoys the swashbuckling excitement of street gun violence  not now I didn't know you had a thrill seeker personality type. 

Almost all of law enforcement feels exactly as I do.  We support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.  Just like the Constitution says.

[NotNow]

DC's former ban on firearms was struck down by SCOTUS 3 years ago, you can own firearms there legally now. With that said, the results are certainly different with a run of the mill pistol instead of assault weapons. One guy got shot and lived.

aint that the truth.

No.  The weapon used was the same as the Sikh Temple shooter who killed six.  The difference was a man's heroics and the opportunity he had to make the difference.

[NotNow]

Since you are going to go Constitutional on the subject, Bridge Troll, where in the Constitution does it even mention guns?

Um, yes, it does.

[NotNow]

turns out that there was a pretty famous case of an UZI being used to shoot up a whole bunch of people in 1984.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald's_massacre

But the sub machine gun is no longer legal.

Did you mention that there havent been any major crimes committed with a sub machine gun recently bridge troll?

Also, did you find the word 'gun' used in the Constitution?

A sub machine gun was not used in this shooting.  Do you even know what a sub machine gun is?  This is your chance to google.

As for your "question", I'll take on either one if they are trying to kill others.

Of course in your world, you will be fighting the sub gun with a rock, because you have given away your rights to a government.

And yes, it is a stupid question.

[NotNow]

My take on this event is that it is another example of the violence which can occur with the extreme polarization of our politics.  When political discourse gives way to name calling and demonization (sound familiar Dare!?) then it should surprise no one when the weaker minded in our society allow themselves to over emphasize and overdramatize the arguments.  It happens on both sides of the fence. 

The answer is to demand intellectual honesty from each other.  Remain logical and factual in our arguments.  In matters that are subjective and agreement can not be reached, then, within the bounds of law and public safety, we should each live our lives as we see fit and not worry about the opinions of others.  The current climate (common on this site) of saying or doing ANYTHING to make a political point is a direct contributor to these kinds of incidents.

[Midway ®]

Translation:

Don't disagree with Notnow; he knows whats good for you.

[NotNow]

He also knows what a uniformed police officer is, and what a sub machine gun is, and what the second amendment says, and....oh well, you get the point.