deadheadskier wrote:
deadheadskier wrote:Who is calling for a gun ban?
DUH!!!
I think you just did.
You speak out of both sides of your ass.
deadheadskier wrote:
deadheadskier wrote:Who is calling for a gun ban?
Says the tolerant libtarddeadheadskier wrote: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.
The text of the 2nd amendment reads:deadheadskier wrote:Thoughts Mister Moose?
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.Woodsrider wrote: 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.
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.deadheadskier wrote: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.
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?deadheadskier wrote: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.
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.madhatter wrote: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?deadheadskier wrote: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.
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 wrote: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....madhatter wrote: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?deadheadskier wrote: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.
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...
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?
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 wrote: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?
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...XtremeJibber2001 wrote: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 wrote: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?