- Quickdraw McLaw
- 90 Comments
- 476 Views
Another heartbreaking mass shooting of innocent children in an elementary school.
The third mass shooting in a little over a week.
It doesn’t seem like thoughts and prayers are enough, but our hearts still go out to all the victims, families, emergency workers, and others who are suffering the dreadful consequences that our own community knows too well.❤
Below are five posts for you to comment on the justice court judicial primaries. Please use good sense and resist the urge to be petty and violate our non-defamatory, bully-free policy.
Donate blood. It won't do any good to the little chidren in Texas, but it may help when the scourge of school shootings finally reaches CCSD.
Unimaginable horror. I detest either side of the aisle using this to advance their case. I am a conservative and naturally did not like Biden's comments on gun control. But equally, and with as much fervor, I detest anyone from my ideological beliefs trying to use this incident.
This is dumb. Lawmakers are supposed to react to problems in society to try to solve or at least alleviate them. That's the point of Congress. If you think the Second Amendment trumps peoples' safety concerns then fine, just say that. But don't hide behind "people shouldn't politicize these incidents to advance their interests."
9:01 would you object to lawmakers enacting new laws on the engineering of roller coasters after a rash of roller coaster deaths? Or should they not use roller coaster deaths to advance their cause?
Not if you want to repeat the reich's talking points. Until heaven forbid its their kid who is decapitated on a water park ride.
I am a Republican. We do not allow someone to operate an automobile until they show that they can responsibly operate it. When someone has shown that they cannot responsibly operate it, we revoke their right to operate. Why is it so violative to have a background check to see if someone should be given the ability to own and operate a gun?
OP back. Sorry I was not as articulate as I should have been. My point is that after a national tragedy, the President should say something like "Let's unite and find a solution." When he hits a touchpoint so quickly (gun control) it ignites the other side to a knee-jerk reactions. My point is one of timing, not substance of one arguing their point.
"shall not be infringed"
If you criminalize drunk driving, then only criminals will drive drunk, so why bother?
I disagree with the top post. I am a Republican (sort of). But I think Republicans (like Democrats) have some stupid stances that really can't be squared with common sense. #1 for Republicans, in my opinion, is gun issues. I don't think the constitution justifies turning guns into an all-purpose sacred cow. And even if it did, I think the number of mass shootings over the last 25 years should tell us that a different approach is needed.
You might think I sound like a Democrat or a RINO. But I think Democrats are at least as non-sensical on many of their core issues. If anything, I'm a Republican because I'm an anti-Democrat.
The drafters of the Bill of Rights don't give a shit what you think about the sacred cow. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. Prove me wrong.
Yes, 11:37, this young man was clearly part of a "well-regulated militia."
It shall not be infringed but it shall be "well-regulated" which could easily include mandatory training, background checks, etc.
As I said below. Let me take you back to kindergarten. Clearly, "well regulated" directly references "militia". Likewise, "shall not be infringed" directly references "right to keep and bear arms". English 101. Try it, you will like it.
11:31 here. So I should be able to buy a tank and anti-aircraft weapons without any type of scrutiny? Tanks and missiles are "arms." Do I have an all-purpose right to use a tank? Of course not.
There are lots of regulations that limit what weapons people can have, either because of their criminal history, age, where they are, the type of weapon, and things like that. It's not too much to ask to make sure guns aren't in the hands of people that don't have the mental capacity to use them appropriately.
11:46. Here is some law from SCOTUS and the great Scalia.
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment right is not unlimited…. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
I am voting out incumbents. We need new blood in Congress
The only way to get any real change is to install term limits on Congress. Then maybe they'll actually do something instead of lining their pockets for 40 years.
Term limits would only increase congresspersons' incentive to act in lobbyists' interests. You know you have no future in Congress, so you have to make yourself as attractive as possible to future employers.
@ 9:01a, would you agree that something needs to change though? There is a laundry list of school shootings and innocent (sometimes very young) kids are being killed. Something has to give. This should not be normal, and obviously, "thoughts and prayers" is not the answer.
Gun control isn't the answer either.
Sure worked pretty well for Australia
With every mass shooting I become more and more pro-second amendment. Mass shootings will not stop. If I'm ever in the unfortunate situation of being in a mass shooting situation, I'd want nothing more than a person with a gun to stop it as quickly as possible.
Worked well for Australia until the people were interned in quarantine camps. Now? Not so much.
So what's the answer 10:37?? I dare you to tell the parents of those kids that died for no reason that "gun control isn't the answer either." We could regulate guns a lot better than we do without taking your precious 2nd amendment rights away.
Bully free policy? Then why does censorship on this blog only go one way (i.e. against Republicans)?
@9:01 "advance their case" as in DO something about the epidemic of mass shootings in this country? Or do you just prefer thoughts and prayers? Your post, your opinion, your complicity, and your actions are worth the paper they're written on…and yes, I said that with the full knowledge that this is a virtual forum and there is no paper. Thanks for nothing.
Solutions would be:
1) Bring back corporal punishment. Be able to spank your kids. (yes, there is a difference between disciplining and beating your kids)
2) Brink back prayer in school
3) Make kids recite the pledge of allegiance
Seriously you want prayer? Which religion should we put in place for everyone?
Don't feed the trolls
4) stop pumping kids full of Adderall and other psychotropic drugs at a young age. Let kids be kids.
9:46 is right. We should be reciting the Quran in all schools!
Texas allows school districts to decide whether to use corporal punishment. Some still use large wooden paddles on high school seniors.
If you care so much about guns that you refuse to talk about ways to at least ensure they are in responsible hands, you are part of the problem. If you think everyone should be able to just handle their mental health without the government trying to help, you are part of the problem.
"shall not be infringed"
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State": the Second Amendment anticipated that the rights to keep and bear arms would be subject to being well regulated.
@1042 Your interpretation defies logic and assumes a conclusion in the face of 1039 and 1043's (same poster?) quoted phrase. Which notably stands rather handily on its own. "shall not be infringed"
You don't get to cheery pick which words you like. The amendment says "well regulated" so let's have some regulation. CNN! CNN! CNN! I won!
Let me take you back to kindergarten. Clearly, "well regulated" directly references "militia". Likewise, "shall not be infringed" directly references "right to keep and bear arms". English 101. Try it, you will like it.
I love how certain people find abortion as an un-infringable "right" but refuse to acknowledge the ACTUAL words of the constitution regarding guns. Just funny to me.
Protect reproductive rights. Protect right to choice. I want gun control.
That is part of the language. Now read it in context with the rest of the language in the Second Amendment. I do not disagree with the notion that there is a right to keep and bear arms; however it is not an absolute right that does not have limitations. We do not allow prisoners to keep arms. We do not allow felons to bear arms. The concept of infringement anticipates that there is a line at which regulation goes too far but that there is also a line before which regulation is acceptable.
We don't need to cherrypick terms and can read the whole Amendment together. "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." The reason and rationale, the lengths and limits, of the right to keep and bear Arms, is that we want citizens to be able to maintain security of our free state through a well regulated militia. So we want to protect the rights to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. The rights are part of and read in the context of a well regulated militia.
Just because there are limitations (statutory and judicial), does not mean that they are Constitutional. "shall not be infringed" is unqualified and even with a contextual review, remains unqualified.
BTW, "militia" is qualified by the phrase "well-regulated".
@1206. Now try reading the history behind the drafting of the 2A.
You are dead wrong.
12:11 I wrote my Honors Thesis on the drafting of the Second Amendment but please, humor me with your websites that you assert support a contrary historical narrative.
Those that argue that the "well-regulated militia" is separate and distinct from the "right to bear arms" lack both the historical knowledge of the Amendment and the grammatical foundation. It is not two sentences that are separate and distinct; it is one sentence that modifies itself. Because a well-regulated militia is necessary for us to maintain the security of a free State, we protect the right to keep and bear Arms. Any regulation that would interfere with our ability to protect the security of the state would be deemed unconstitutionally infringing. The security of the state is not served by allowing 18 year old mentally ill people to freely have access to guns and ammunition.
@1223 Hyperbole much? Been a minute since I have seen the slippery slope used with such carelessness.
Well-regulated modifies militia not right to keep and bear arms. Period. BTW, its not "the security of the state" as you put it. Its the security of a free state.
This comment has been removed by the author.
What Steve Kerr said.
I believe that most solutions put forth by both sides are a joke. None of them address the fact that we already have millions of guns circulating in this country and that most perps of recent attacks would have passed (or did pass) most any background check you subjected them to and would not have been flagged by any red flag system. My solutions are as follows:
-A federal program which pays a substantial amount of money per weapon turned in. Something like $1,000-$3,000 for any working gun. Maybe even base it on the type of gun, x amount for handguns, y amount for rifles, z amount for semi auto rifles, etc. I would see many people taking advantage of this. I mean, I have clients who have 30+ guns. When they die, their kids would happy turn them into such a program for easy money. This would help get them out of circulation.
-Require each purchaser of a gun to put up a $10,000 bond with the FFL holder they purchase from. The FFL holder could earn money off of the interests these payments earn and this would make guns much more expensive which would limit the amount purchased. It would also stop people from turning guns into the program above and being able to just buy more. These bonds would be held by the FFL holder, or a successor, until the gun is turned back into the FFL. This would encourage people to keep control of their guns and turn them back in when they needed the money back, pass away, or want to buy other guns.
-Close the gun show loop hole by requiring that all transactions meet the same requirements that currently exist in gun stores and ban 3D printed guns. Alternatively, allow personal liability to attach to individuals who sell guns without being an FFL.
Problem solved. You're welcome.
Agree with all of the above. I would also raise the purchase age to 21, like alcohol, and (increasingly) cigarettes. The Buffalo and Uvalde shooters were both 18 and purchased their weapons legally. There's nothing magical about turning 21, but a few years of maturity might well make a difference. It is a matter of harm reduction not harm prevention at this point.
I love this idea! It makes sure that only the wealthy can own firearms, and keeps those undesirable, low income folks from being armed. The rabble should be disarmed in relation to their betters.
"shall not be infringed"
Both Australia and New Zealand had established gun cultures (just like we do) and they effectively banned guns even though they had a significant amount of guns already in circulation. So, yeah, they're in circulation. If we had politicians with the fortitude to pass regulations and then current gun owners chose not to either turn in their weapons or follow the new regs, it becomes a felony.
……And look what happened to Aus with lockdowns and authoritarian oppression.
Australia is in the top 10 highest countries on the US based freedom index. The US is not.
"US based freedom index" as in the one from the CATO and Fraser Institutes was made pre-pandemic. Try again.
It is not guns. It is a societal problem. From the 20's through the 50's guns were easy to obtain, there were no background checks. Everybody living out in the country had a shotgun and many city folk had hunting rifles. However, few felt the need to own a handgun and were not concerned with self protection. There were no school shootings. Students would never challenge a teacher, let alone strike one. Cops were respected. Coaches and referees were not battered.
So the question is what has changed? Why do so many now believe they need a weapon for self protection? I think you will agree that today people generally are willing to engage in impulse violence. Is it the breakdown of the nuclear family, or a decline in familial discipline, the desensitization of shock and horror by movie and video game shooting, Will Smith?
I am not smart enough to know. But the problem and issues run much deeper than "guns".
"shall not be infringed"
In the 20s-50s lots of black people were also burned alive, spousal rape was not a crime, and women and children were routinely subjected to physical violence in the home so let's not go getting all nostalgic for the "good ol' days".
The good ol' days sound pretty good to me.
People like those at 10:58 are why it's impossible to have a rational discussion.
9:46 has never ever given their partner an orgasm. Never.
I gave your wife 3 last night while you were at work drafting an MSJ. Your kid calls me dad.
Well…I'm single and child-free and I don't write MSJs so now you've made this really awkward.
Please stay single and child-free. One of you is enough.
I want gun control now. I want Roe v Wade affirmed
"shall not be infringed"
Why? How many abortions do you need before you learn how to use birth control or a condom?
11:36, you do not understand how women get pregnant.
Having had 2 children myself by my husband, I think I'm pretty well educated on the process.
You can pregnant with your Uber tubers tied. You can also get preggers with the shower cap. Take a sex Ed class
Not sure what sex-ed class you went to, but never heard of Uber tubers and shower caps.
Shall stupidly repeating phrases always be the only response? Grow the fuck up. Every right has limits.
#freethe"shallnotbeinfringed"
I just love the GOP — the hypocrisy is staggering. They scream about "the sanctity of life" but are also pro-death penalty and will support zero gun control measures of any kind. Right now, I am starting to believe that with the GOP in charge, the womb is the safest place for any of us. Once you enter the world, they have nothing for ya…
pro-death penalty is not the same as anti-abortion. Those on death row did horrendous things to earn their place on death row. The unborn are innocent and did nothing to deserve being murdered.
Anti-Death Penalty Republican here. Only because we cant administer it properly and we should have zero tolerance for "errors".
Also an Anti-Death Penalty Republican. Costs too much. We cannot figure out how to do it right. However if we ever went back to it, I would encourage it be re-branded as "behaviorial euthanasia", a term that is floating around the dog rescue community.
How does it cost too much? 1 bullet costs .25 cents. Or, we can bring back beheadings.
1131 here. I am pretty sure that 1211 was referring to the cost as currently applied to the DP.
We've had mass gun ownership in this country since its inception. There used to be less regulations regarding the purchasing of a firearm.
My question is simple, why is it only in the last 15 years that we've seen a mass proliferation of mass/school shootings?
By no objective metric can it be said that it is now easier to purchase guns in this country than it used to be (i.e. try buying a gun in Cali, NY, etc.)
Because your right wing talking point told you to repeat that its only proliferated in the last 15 years. Thats why.
This comment = Don't ask stupid questions. All questions that dare to question the progressive narrative are stupid.
Spot on, 10:12 above. The issue is not guns at all. My humble opinion believes today's societal problems leading to all gun violence (not just the highly publicized mass shootings) is the breakdown of the nuclear family, the non-prioritization if morals and religion, and the lack of punishment for one's actions (whether that be as simple as a parent "talking" to a child versus spanking or as troubling as the lack of criminal prosecutions happening all over the country). But, everything starts at home.
More punishment for ones' actions? You mean like taking more peoples' guns away? I think you have hit on a point that all sides seem to agree.
The solution is very simple. Many private schools in Las Vegas our gated with armed guards that patrol the halls. Send your children there. And demand that politicians start having armed police patrol the halls of all public schools. Problem solved.
@CCSD Police Department.