250th Mass Shooting in 215 Days

[WuzzaCBXRider]

Now now, ol Ben wasn’t talking about guns, he was talking about a tax dispute between the, well, read this,
And then answer my question, you too Road.

Ben was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.

 

[michael parris heuberger]

Then you know I addressed exactly what you suggested. You're right, most people aren't carrying, which is as it should be. Carrying isn't enough, training and experience are absolutely necessary for successful outcomes in any scenario.
I live in a rural area also, but I've lived in major cities and firearms were present in both settings.
We like to think we would act in a manner consistent with our beliefs, but the truth is, until an individual is placed in that situation we don't know how we will react.

Hi. You are so right Mr Brown. You do not know how you will react until you have been shot at. I have been in 283 hot LZs I have been shot I have been stabbed I know how I will react, but how many police have been shot at? The US is #11 in the world in mass shootings Death per million people is 0.089 The #1 is Norway with 1.888 per million We do need better gun laws with much more training. I think everyone should do 2yrs in the military! Every one who is not nuts that is. More good people armed. If a bad person sees a house with a sign that says GUN FREE ZONE or the house next door that says DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD? ENTER AND YOU WILL FIND OUT! What house would rob? More guns = less crime! The only thing that can stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. If they can not get a gun they will get a knife, hammer, rock or a bomb All I know is if I was in an active shooter I would want someone like me with me. That is all I have to say

 

[Jbaby1969]

Now now, ol Ben wasn’t talking about guns, he was talking about a tax dispute between the, well, read this,
And then answer my question, you too Road.

Ben was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.

Yeah that’s exactly right. It’s often taken out of context but it still says a lot for how these types of things can spiral out of control. I don’t trust anyone in government. To me if you give up the right to own an AR-15 and the next 10 mass shootings are committed using a shotgun, they will want the shotguns and on and on and on.

Same with free speech. The first amendment was written to protect UNPOPULAR speech. The media calls it “hate speech.” Well what happens when we give up the freedom to call someone we don’t like a bad name? Then they take a little more like government always does and they deem that talking negatively about government is “hate speech.” It’s a slippery slope that leads to authoritarian regimes and tyranny.

By the way, don’t mistake my tone as disrespect. I just enjoy a good debate and I respect EVERYONES opinion on any topic!

 

[Lodi]

Yeah that’s exactly right. It’s often taken out of context but it still says a lot for how these types of things can spiral out of control. I don’t trust anyone in government. To me if you give up the right to own an AR-15 and the next 10 mass shootings are committed using a shotgun, they will want the shotguns and on and on and on.

Same with free speech. The first amendment was written to protect UNPOPULAR speech. The media calls it “hate speech.” Well what happens when we give up the freedom to call someone we don’t like a bad name? Then they take a little more like government always does and they deem that talking negatively about government is “hate speech.” It’s a slippery slope that leads to authoritarian regimes and tyranny.

By the way, don’t mistake my tone as disrespect. I just enjoy a good debate and I respect EVERYONES opinion on any topic!

 

[ROADTOAD1340]

Is your right to bear arms , as written in the Constitution mean , US Citizens can assist their US Government and US Military against hostile invading force , and or , in extreme hypothetical situation , like even against their own Government if that same Government found derelict of duty of care etc. ?
In the second hypothetical instance , those that held office and accrued this power would normally enjoy full military support , so would those same US Citizens be hoping , even counting on each and every member of their military to support that same ideology outlook as themselves , so then act on a conscience type of non action in favor of the people ?
If you had good people vs bad government scenario , and if you didn't have the full support of the military , then you citizens are armed yes , and might do well at urban warfare with it etc. , but again all hypothetically , I can't help thinking you would be pushing up against what will still most likely be the most powerful military the world has ever known..., . Of course I think this is really out on the crazy fringe of any possible futures , just wonder what people think on this .

 

[Jbaby1969]

Is your right to bear arms , as written in the Constitution mean , US Citizens can assist their US Government and US Military against hostile invading force , and or , in extreme hypothetical situation , like even against their own Government if that same Government found derelict of duty of care etc. ?
In the second hypothetical instance , those that held office and accrued this power would normally enjoy full military support , so would those same US Citizens be hoping , even counting on each and every member of their military to support that same ideology outlook as themselves , so then act on a conscience type of non action in favor of the people ?
If you had good people vs bad government scenario , and if you didn't have the full support of the military , then you citizens are armed yes , and might do well at urban warfare with it etc. , but again all hypothetically , I can't help thinking you would be pushing up against what will still most likely be the most powerful military the world has ever known..., . Of course I think this is really out on the crazy fringe of any possible futures , just wonder what people think on this .

Look up the meaning of a “three percenter”

 

[ROADTOAD1340]

Look up the meaning of a “three percenter”

So , there exist only this militia organization to hold government accountable by force ? What are others doing , thinking on this .

 

[WuzzaCBXRider]

Is your right to bear arms , as written in the Constitution mean , US Citizens can assist their US Government and US Military against hostile invading force , and or , in extreme hypothetical situation , like even against their own Government if that same Government found derelict of duty of care etc. ?
In the second hypothetical instance , those that held office and accrued this power would normally enjoy full military support , so would those same US Citizens be hoping , even counting on each and every member of their military to support that same ideology outlook as themselves , so then act on a conscience type of non action in favor of the people ?
If you had good people vs bad government scenario , and if you didn't have the full support of the military , then you citizens are armed yes , and might do well at urban warfare with it etc. , but again all hypothetically , I can't help thinking you would be pushing up against what will still most likely be the most powerful military the world has ever known..., . Of course I think this is really out on the crazy fringe of any possible futures , just wonder what people think on this .

Road, thanks for the interest. This is very informative and an easy read. The often termed ‘right to bear arms’ was not part of the constitution, it was the 2nd amendment to our Bill of Rights ratified in 1791 by our congress. What is missing in our society today is the referred to, “well regulated militia” no matter how many groups of self described state militia organizations there are. The US military would definitely prevail as the protectors of the country.

The Second Amendment ‑ Definition, Text & Rights

The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, is one of 10 amendments that form the Bill of Rights. It establishes the right to bear arms and figures prominently in the long‑running debate over gun control.

www.history.com

 

[08BusaKY]

Yeah, suppose it depends on the shooter's intent. You was bout to get a pie in the face too! I heard on the radio that this guy was a complete idiot and was trying to show he could wear his guns where ever he want's. It was sort of a prank. That dude thought he had a right to carry, so he could dress up like a shooter and scare everyone then claim it's his right to wear his gun. We'll see. Did they announce a motive yet?

The idiot said he was trying to test the 2nd amendment and open carry law by loading up to the max. Not a smart move.

 

[Mr Brown]

What does everyone think of this statement? It was made by a Missouri defense attorney who was formerly a prosecutor. Remember now, the year is 2019.

“Carrying an assault rifle in public is not necessarily a crime.”

It's an accurate statement, and also speaks volumes about the state of society in the US. A lot of the people here seem to have forgotten that just because you can, doesn't mean you should. This applies to guns, reproductive rights, immigration, you name it.

 

[Mr Brown]

We’ve always had an armed citizenry.....never had a foreign invasion. Do those two things seem like a coincidence?

Now let me ask you a question. What rights are you willing to give up? Free speech? Search and seizure? Of course the answer is none of them. So why give up your right to keep arms?

I know the rebuttal will be “not all guns, just some of them.” So what rights are you ok with giving up partially? Fair trial? Of course not.

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety- Benjamin Franklin

The issue I see with this argument is that in order to maintain a civil society individual rights are infringed upon constantly. The rights provided by the constitution aren't absolute, and were never intended to be. The refrain sung in some circles about not giving up any rights because to do so is equivalent to giving up all rights is simply not true. While this type of rhetoric is seductive, and seems to work well in the electoral process, it's destined to fail as a governance strategy. A diverse society cannot function on absolutes.
While your statement about the armed citizenry and invasion is accurate, the causality you're implying is a stretch. It's not as if the armed citizenry has ever repelled armed Invaders, nobody has ever tried. This is likely due to external causes, not least of which is that after WW2 there was no other industrial nation left standing to develop the military resources necessary for such an invasion. How well do you honestly think the average American gun owner (this armed citizenry we're talking about) would fare in the face of an invasion by a sovereign nation?

 

[Bumblebee]

The issue I see with this argument is that in order to maintain a civil society individual rights are infringed upon constantly. The rights provided by the constitution aren't absolute, and were never intended to be. The refrain sung in some circles about not giving up any rights because to do so is equivalent to giving up all rights is simply not true. While this type of rhetoric is seductive, and seems to work well in the electoral process, it's destined to fail as a governance strategy. A diverse society cannot function on absolutes.

I see what you are saying...I served in a few "failed states" where human rights were not in existence and these people acted very primitive, if they wanted something someone had, they would take it by whatever force they needed. These people were of the same ethnicity, race and religion and that didn't matter at all.

Where I am going with this is, in order to maintain a society in which people can live in peace, individual rights at times have to be curtailed. For instance, an individual has the right to water and food, if someone is lacking these, can they break into a home to obtain them? The answer is obvious to most but I would wager there are some who see this as their right and that's that.

When you add in race, religion, ethnic beliefs into a single society, of course there will be many diverse problems crop up and people who are resistant to diversity.

Social Media creates a perfect platform in which these "extremists" can gain notoriety and followers.

 

[Jbaby1969]

The issue I see with this argument is that in order to maintain a civil society individual rights are infringed upon constantly. The rights provided by the constitution aren't absolute, and were never intended to be. The refrain sung in some circles about not giving up any rights because to do so is equivalent to giving up all rights is simply not true. While this type of rhetoric is seductive, and seems to work well in the electoral process, it's destined to fail as a governance strategy. A diverse society cannot function on absolutes.
While your statement about the armed citizenry and invasion is accurate, the causality you're implying is a stretch. It's not as if the armed citizenry has ever repelled armed Invaders, nobody has ever tried. This is likely due to external causes, not least of which is that after WW2 there was no other industrial nation left standing to develop the military resources necessary for such an invasion. How well do you honestly think the average American gun owner (this armed citizenry we're talking about) would fare in the face of an invasion by a sovereign nation?

They would fare a lot better than people armed with rocks and glass bottles.

 

[Mr Brown]

I see what you are saying...I served in a few "failed states" where human rights was not in existence and these people acted very primitive, if they wanted something someone had, they would take it by whatever force they needed. These people were of the same ethnicity, race and religion and that didn't matter at all.

Where I am going with this is, in order to maintain a society in which people can live in peace, individual rights at times have to be curtailed. For instance, an individual has the right to water and food, if someone is lacking these, can they break into a home to obtain them? The answer is obvious to most but I would wager there are some who see this as their right and that's that.

When you add in race, religion, ethnic beliefs into a single society, of course there will be many diverse problems crop up and people who are resistant to diversity.

Social Media creates a perfect platform in which these "extremists" can gain notoriety and followers.

Yes sir. We can't all do whatever we want, whenever we want. The consequence would be anarchy. Now, determining which rights should be infringed upon, and by whom, that's where things get a bit tricky. That's where the dynamics of power come into play.

 

[Mr Brown]

They would fare a lot better than people armed with rocks and glass bottles.

The cynical side of me notes that argument in effect validates the position that firearms are inherently more dangerous than rocks and bottles and thus should be subject to more regulation....

 

[Jbaby1969]

Take a look at Venezuela right now. They enforced strict gun laws to curb crime. That might not have been a bad idea for them except that now the government has become tyrannical and people are starving to death. Crime actually increased after the laws took effect and now the law abiding people are left defenseless to both the crime and the government. If it can happen there, it can happen here. Especially with the nutcases that are being presented as viable candidates for 2020 as they are pushing for a lot of the same things that Venezuela has done. (Free everything from birth until death)

 

[Jbaby1969]

On a positive note, Jeffrey Epstein just killed himself. The world has one less child rapist to worry about.

 

[Mr Brown]

Take a look at Venezuela right now. They enforced strict gun laws to curb crime. That might not have been a bad idea for them except that now the government has become tyrannical and people are starving to death. Crime actually increased after the laws took effect and now the law abiding people are left defenseless to both the crime and the government. If it can happen there, it can happen here. Especially with the nutcases that are being presented as viable candidates for 2020 as they are pushing for a lot of the same things that Venezuela has done. (Free everything from birth until death)

I'm not arguing that Americans should be disarmed. Even if I thought this was a good idea, it's impossible to operationalize. You can't un-ring a bell. What I'm saying is that the argument stating that to allow infringement of any rights is tantamount to infringement of all rights is disingenuous. We allow infringement all day every day, we have to in order for society to function.

 

[Mr Brown]

On a positive note, Jeffrey Epstein just killed himself. The world has one less child rapist to worry about.

Good. Wish he'd done it before he raped children.

 

[Jbaby1969]

I'm not arguing that Americans should be disarmed. Even if I thought this was a good idea, it's impossible to operationalize. You can't un-ring a bell. What I'm saying is that the argument stating that to allow infringement of any rights is tantamount to infringement of all rights is disingenuous. We allow infringement all day every day, we have to in order for society to function.

You’re right there has to be a little give and take. I agree with you on that. Just question the reasons is all I’m saying. There are those in power that don’t have good intentions for any of us. They want us divided and weakened by infighting. I am glad that we can have these discussions respectfully and I appreciate your view points my friend.