Oregon Community College Shooting

[steamboat1]

Who is calling for a gun ban?

DUH!!!

I think you just did.

You speak out of both sides of your ass.

[deadheadskier]

Did you leave every last brain cell of yours on the wall street trading floor before retiring?

You're just about the biggest idiot on the internet. Unless it's early onset Alzheimer's; in which case, my apologies.


I do not want a gun ban. Never said it and don't believe it. Wanting stricter gun control laws does not equal banning guns. It's an opinion shared by a majority of Americans.

[steamboat1]

Did you leave every last brain cell of yours on the wall street trading floor before retiring?

You're just about the biggest idiot on the internet. Unless it's early onset Alzheimer's; in which case, my apologies.


I do not want a gun ban. Never said it and don't believe it. Wanting stricter gun control laws does not equal banning guns. It's an opinion shared by a majority of Americans.

Says the tolerant libtard

Read the last sentence of Justice Bergers statement.

What does it say?

You posted it not me.

Talk about idiots

What's your excuse for being so stupid?

Never had a brain to begin with I'd say.

[deadheadskier]

Read it again moron. It does not call for a ban. It suggests restrictions on ownership; not every American is suited to owning a gun.

And since when did you become Mister Moose?

The question was directed at him because I wanted an intelligent, reasoned response; not your typical drunken, geriatric drivel. Go Away.......

[steamboat1]

You're so easy.

[deadheadskier]

Go on, pat yourself on the back gramps. Let yourself feel like you won something.

Not

[Mister Moose]

Thoughts Mister Moose?

The text of the 2nd amendment reads:

"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."

Seems clear to me that the right is granted to the people to bear arms. You can look back to the drafting to see some of the intent, or you can look at the Heller decision in 2008. "Shall not be infringed" is also pretty strong language. The lack of specificity in the type of arms indicates to me exclusions were not contemplated: Pistols, muskets, cannons, knives, swords were all weapons of the day.

Remember that the same minds that drafted our checks and balance type of government (to limit power) also drafted the Bill of Rights. The Government's use of unfettered power was a large concern of the founders in the wake of King George. Armed citizenry is another form of distribution of power. Armed citizenry was the very bedrock of the Revolution. Citizens did not go to a State armory to get a musket or a pistol, they had several already in their homes. It was already ordinary practice for individuals to own guns, the 2nd Amendment was not about enabling a brand new ability. It protects the existing private gun ownership at the time of the founding.


All this isn't new thought. It has been debated and presented countless times already. One man's opinion, even if he is a Supreme Court Justice, doesn't alter all that led to the present day. I'll also point out that other uses of firearms (self defense, hunting, collecting, sport shooting) other than a civilian militia, while not enumerated, are not excluded. I think that lack of exclusion is also important.

Cars weren't invented yet when the constitution was written. Neither were machine guns or nuclear bombs. Guns weren't even very dangerous back when the constitution was written. Hell they had to stand in wide firing lines to hit anything and only the best could fire 3 rounds a minute.

The typewriter, the telephone, radio, and the internet also did not exist at the time the Bill of Rights was written, therefore your right to free speech only extends to a quill pen and the town square. Please get off the internet.

[freeski]

DHS: You don't want a complete ban on guns; you just want to ban guns. There are already laws to prevent people in some circumstances from owning guns and you want to increase them. How this would prevent any school shootings in beyond me. Should we go back to the pre-Regan way to treat the mentally ill and lock them all up? I don't think that's the answer either. I think something needs to be done, but approaching it by taking away guns simply won't work. The best course is to educate kids for signs to watch out for i.e. other children making threats. Also, for society in general to do the same. Some attacks have been stopped this way. Most of the attackers have tipped their hand.

[deadheadskier]

I agree freeski, hence why I said in my very first comment on the subject that I feel that such intelligence gathering for when the sick tip their hands should fall under the jurisdiction of the ATF. Further education in schools sounds like a great idea as well. I'm fine with more armed security too.

Never said I want a gun ban. Think what you want.

[XtremeJibber2001]

If you agree and think the government needs to work harder to try and curtail gun violence then how about some ideas.

Here is my biggest issue with most of the pro second amendment crowd, they rarely offer solutions to this problem other than "more guns." If you're serious about fixing the problem, perhaps reaching across to other side and at least try and come to a compromise on some ideas.

IMHO, the number of guns already in the country and in the hands of its lawful (and not so lawful) citizens is the problem. The first stop in fixing the problem is fixing the issue we already have and then putting in place laws to prevent it from getting worse. I have no idea how to accomplish #1, but we spent $1 trillion fighting terrorism in Afghanistan as a result of ~3,000 people killed and much less than that on the ~30,000 people killed by a firearm each year. Even 25% of $1 trillion sounds like enough to figure out a solution to the problem.

[madhatter]

I agree freeski, hence why I said in my very first comment on the subject that I feel that such intelligence gathering for when the sick tip their hands should fall under the jurisdiction of the ATF. Further education in schools sounds like a great idea as well. I'm fine with more armed security too.

Never said I want a gun ban. Think what you want.

so you want a secret police force to monitor correspondence of americans ( free speech) and then you want to use info gained during monitoring that is deemed in appropriate to be used to take away a right guaranteed by the constitution? gee what could go wrong there?

nearly none of the cases from your nyt interactive post showed any kind of behavior that was illegal or clearly presented a danger until they actually DID do something illegal...some may have but most did not...

"He graduated from the Switzer Learning Center in Torrance, Calif., which teaches students with learning disabilities and emotional issues." you want THAT to be a reason for disqualification?


"Federal officials said Mr. Flanagan bought the gun legally from a licensed dealer. He had not been convicted of a crime or determined to be mentally ill." what is the disqualifier here?

"A judge ordered him sent to a psychiatric hospital." ok possibly here but again won;t that stigmatize the mentally ill and stop them from seeking treatment?

again most of the posts are would have, could have, should have, a few are a little more substantial...

[XtremeJibber2001]

I agree freeski, hence why I said in my very first comment on the subject that I feel that such intelligence gathering for when the sick tip their hands should fall under the jurisdiction of the ATF. Further education in schools sounds like a great idea as well. I'm fine with more armed security too.

Never said I want a gun ban. Think what you want.

so you want a secret police force to monitor correspondence of americans ( free speech) and then you want to use info gained during monitoring that is deemed in appropriate to be used to take away a right guaranteed by the constitution? gee what could go wrong there?

nearly none of the cases from your nyt interactive post showed any kind of behavior that was illegal or clearly presented a danger until they actually DID do something illegal...some may have but most did not...

"He graduated from the Switzer Learning Center in Torrance, Calif., which teaches students with learning disabilities and emotional issues." you want THAT to be a reason for disqualification?


"Federal officials said Mr. Flanagan bought the gun legally from a licensed dealer. He had not been convicted of a crime or determined to be mentally ill." what is the disqualifier here?

"A judge ordered him sent to a psychiatric hospital." ok possibly here but again won;t that stigmatize the mentally ill and stop them from seeking treatment?

again most of the posts are would have, could have, should have, a few are a little more substantial...

This is not a secret and is already being done, but the purpose of the data-driven analytic is not searching for shooters ... just terrorists (that's not really a difference, IMHO). In the same way the NSA and CIA score mobile and social media to identify trends in terrorist activity and act on it, the same assessment could be done to identify potential shooters. This is the same thing public companies are doing to score the internet for information on drugs (e.g., adverse events), automobiles, politics, etc.

Big data is the future and I see no reason not to apply it to detect mass shooters. How many mass shootings were, at least somewhat, predicated on electronic media? All of them?

[madhatter]

I agree freeski, hence why I said in my very first comment on the subject that I feel that such intelligence gathering for when the sick tip their hands should fall under the jurisdiction of the ATF. Further education in schools sounds like a great idea as well. I'm fine with more armed security too.

Never said I want a gun ban. Think what you want.

so you want a secret police force to monitor correspondence of americans ( free speech) and then you want to use info gained during monitoring that is deemed in appropriate to be used to take away a right guaranteed by the constitution? gee what could go wrong there?

nearly none of the cases from your nyt interactive post showed any kind of behavior that was illegal or clearly presented a danger until they actually DID do something illegal...some may have but most did not...

"He graduated from the Switzer Learning Center in Torrance, Calif., which teaches students with learning disabilities and emotional issues." you want THAT to be a reason for disqualification?


"Federal officials said Mr. Flanagan bought the gun legally from a licensed dealer. He had not been convicted of a crime or determined to be mentally ill." what is the disqualifier here?

"A judge ordered him sent to a psychiatric hospital." ok possibly here but again won;t that stigmatize the mentally ill and stop them from seeking treatment?

again most of the posts are would have, could have, should have, a few are a little more substantial...

This is not a secret and is already being done, if its being done w/o your knowledge or consent its "secret" enough for me...think gestapo,KGB etc everyone knew they existed but you never knew if you were a target til you were being hauled off...but the purpose of the data-driven analytic is not searching for shooters ... just terrorists (that's not really a difference, IMHO)and until snowden no one knew they were doing this to US citizens..... In the same way the NSA and CIA score mobile and social media to identify trends in terrorist activity and act on it, the same assessment could be done to identify potential shooters. so you are FOR the monitoring of free speech by citizens? under what legal premise? using what criteria to decide what is free speech and what is more than that? This is the same thing public companies are doing to score the internet for information on drugs (e.g., adverse events), automobiles, politics, etc. the difference is none of those are being used to deny a constitutional right....

Big data is the future and I see no reason not to apply it to detect mass shooters. How many mass shootings were, at least somewhat, predicated on electronic media? All of them?

[XtremeJibber2001]

so you are FOR the monitoring of free speech by citizens? under what legal premise? using what criteria to decide what is free speech and what is more than that?

It's done all the time, is there a law against it? Do police and federal officials avoid public demonstrations because they might hear free speech?

[madhatter]

so you are FOR the monitoring of free speech by citizens? under what legal premise? using what criteria to decide what is free speech and what is more than that?

It's done all the time, is there a law against it? Do police and federal officials avoid public demonstrations because they might hear free speech?

advocating for the monitoring of free speech by a govt agency ( which includes internet, email, chat and other "private" correspondence) and observing a public demonstration are two entirely different things...