1. Save 40-80% on great soccer jerseys. Shop today at BigSoccer Shop!

Time for a new "Mass Shootings" thread

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by argentine soccer fan, Feb 5, 2013.

  1. roadkit

    roadkit Greetings from the Fringe of Obscurity

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Location:
    Fornax Cluster
    Country:
    United States


  2. American Brummie

    American Brummie Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Florida
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Country:
    United States
  3. y-lee-coyote

    y-lee-coyote Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Club:
    --other--
    I am not trying to get back in this thread minerva, I just felt compelled to inform you that your rhetorical analysis was wrong. It is not an if/then statement.

    First your arguing from a theoretical position of what you think the rhetoric means when the supreme court has clearly ruled exactly what it means. It is very clear that the citizens do indeed still have a right to own a handgun since the state cannot protect every individual citizen.

    You blamed the interpretation of the constitution on the NRA, when SCOTUS does that. The argument you offer regarding context does not mean the right no longer exists. It still has to be repealed for " the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" Stands alone. My understanding of the recent ruling.

    I would further offer that your argument assumes individual rights to be subordinate to the rights of the state. This is not always the case. I think within the context of the present interpretation of the amendment there is a suggestion that reasonable regulations (vague) might be acceptable.

    The lack of political will to be able to get some type of federal regulation passed that might withstand a challenge is a product of the NRA. The NRA is a miniscule fraction of the Military Industrial Complex. As for the standing army, well they need to stand the hell down.
     
  4. roadkit

    roadkit Greetings from the Fringe of Obscurity

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Location:
    Fornax Cluster
    Country:
    United States
    You're not even correct there. But thanks for keeping your post short - I know how tough that is for you to do.
     


  5. American Brummie

    American Brummie Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Florida
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Country:
    United States
    Really? Which part was wrong?


    So we're "better" than 2006, but we're still letting in people who can't pass an aptitude test or have criminal backgrounds, we're shrinking the size of the army, and we're still giving huge bonuses to soldiers. And our recruitment goals are still just barely met.
     
  6. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Location:
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    United States
    There's no "might" about it.

    Scalia's majority opinion explicitly states:
    He then goes on to say....
    And in a footnote at the end of this sentence, he adds....
    In other words, even the majority agreed that the Second Amendment allows much leeway for regulations as long as they are not outright bans, as the District of Columbia law at issue was.
     
    luftmensch and GiuseppeSignori repped this.
  7. American Brummie

    American Brummie Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Florida
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Country:
    United States
    Anybody else feel like the quality of y-lee's writing has increased substantially in the past two days?
     
    Auriaprottu repped this.
  8. stanger

    stanger BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Location:
    Columbus
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States
    Sock upgrade. He is now 2.0.
     
  9. minerva

    minerva Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Country:
    United States
    my analysis wasn't rhetorical and it isn't wrong.
    I was simply looking at the plain meaning word and looking at only the four corners of the document and came up with the obvious interpretation. indeed, I hesitate to even call it an "interpretation" in the true sense, since the words, the meaning, and the intent are so clear, that no interpretation is really required. what the SC has done is "re-interpret" the law so as to come up with a meaning and a ruling that they wanted, that is different form the meaning that is obvious in the plain reading of the words.
    the SC doesn't have a monopoly on being correct.
    the SC has the authority to interpret the Constitution, so for practical purposes, their interpretation is the one that matters. but that does not necessarily make it correct. the SC has to look at modern realities, the political and social landscape, practical matters, etc. in their interpretation of the law.
    I don't. I have the luxury (because my interpretation has no practical value) to read the words and and not try to read into them but rather take them at face value and come up with the obvious meaning.
    the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about individual rights versus the rights of the state, so my interpretation of the 2nd amendment doesn't make any assumptions about that either. the 2nd amendment doesn't address the right of an individual to bear arms outside of the confines of a well regulated militia and in order to ensure the security of the state.
     
  10. minerva

    minerva Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Country:
    United States
    this isn't going to end well. it already hasn't ended well for several people.
    my guess is he's suicidal and homicidal. dangerous combination. he'll take as many down with him as he can, elude the police as long as he can, and when he's cornered, he'll take his own life.
     
  11. minerva

    minerva Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Country:
    United States
    from my facebook timeline...
    [​IMG]

    um, sort of - but probably not in the way the person who posted this on their facebook page understands it. the 2nd amendment was created to ensure the security of the new state (it says it right in there, if you care to read it), and NOT to enable people to overthrow it or to "gain their freedom" from it.
     
  12. Funkfoot

    Funkfoot Member+

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Location:
    Manassas, VA
    So getting a gun could be made as difficult as getting an abortion.
     
  13. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Location:
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    United States
    Just to play devil's advocate here.....the Supreme Court's opinion also claims to be merely interpreting the plain language of the Second. But Scalia's (and the majority) interpretation is that the first part of the amendment is prefatory and doesn't constrain/limit the second part. If you have the time, you should read the opinion to see if you find his reasoning in that regard persuasive.
     
    minerva repped this.
  14. Minnman

    Minnman Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2000
    Location:
    Columbus, OH, USA
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States
    I suppose this theme has been around for some time among the gun-worshiping class, but - to me, anyway - it's become far more evident post- the CT school shooting. This idea that the founding fathers, who worked pretty damned hard to create a new form of government, inserted the 2nd amendment into the Constitution in order to potentially allow its citizenry to destroy the entity that they'd just created is, to say the least, an ironic conclusion.

    It was some time before the country had a national military force strong enough to protect the country from even modest threats. In the years immediately following the ratification of the Constitution, the federal government had no capacity to deal with Indian uprisings in the western edges of the country.

    Well, to say the least, times have changed, and they changed a long time ago. Yet we remain saddled with a rigid 2nd amendment that is pathetically ill-suited for current circumstances. I assume this is really NOT so a much a 2nd amendment issue but, rather, an issues related to the fact that the US is a rare example of a country that treats its original constitution as something not to be tampered with. Other democracies have governmental structures that allow for the updating and rewriting of their constitutions, based (presumably) on the belief that as times change, foundational governing documents need to change, as well, lest they become calcified, immobile relics.
     
    Boloni86 and soccernutter repped this.
  15. MattR

    MattR Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    Location:
    Reston
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    I absolutely agree. The first thing you do when you overthrow a government and make your own, is to make it illegal to overthrow the government. Treason is punishable by death for a reason.
     
  16. Crimen y Castigo

    Crimen y Castigo Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Location:
    OakTown
    Club:
    Los Angeles
    Country:
    United States
    So the U.S. is Fight Club?

    I guess I buy that....
     
    JeremyEritrea repped this.
  17. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    I couldn't agree more. I think I should push for the repeal of the 2nd and 3rd amendments as arcane relics of our military history. Let's clean up the whole document.
     
  18. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Cascarino's Pizzeria Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2001
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    Sorry, old Latina lady. We thought you were the LAPD killer delivering papers in the wrong make & color truck. You know how hard it is to tell y'all apart. Get well soon.

    Emma Hernandez, 71, was delivering the Los Angeles Times with her daughter, Margie Carranza, 47, in the 19500 block of Redbeam Avenue in Torrance on Thursday morning when Los Angeles police detectives apparently mistook their pickup for that of Christopher Dorner, the 33-year-old fugitive suspected of killing three people and injuring two others.

    Hernandez, who attorney Glen T. Jonas said was shot twice in the back, was in stable condition late Thursday. Carranza received stitches on her finger...

    About 25 minutes after the shooting, Torrance police opened fire after spotting another truck similar to Dorner's at Flagler Lane and Beryl Street. No one was reported hurt.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/dorner-manhunt-shootings-newspaper-carriers.html

    Man, these sucky cops f-ing peppered the poor ladies:

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    So police officers can corner a 71 year old Latina and her 47 year old daughter, spray their vehicle with gun fire, and only end up with "stable condition" and "some stitches?" And a single Barney Fife at a school is supposed to take out a heavily armored gunman? Yeah, that will work.
     
  20. GiuseppeSignori

    GiuseppeSignori Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Country:
    United States
    Great quote from the victims lawyer...

    "The problem with the situation is it looked like the police had the goal of administering street justice and in so doing, didn't take the time to notice that these two older, small Latina women don't look like a large black man," Jonas said."
     
  21. Crimen y Castigo

    Crimen y Castigo Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Location:
    OakTown
    Club:
    Los Angeles
    Country:
    United States
    Again -- trained police officers, in a high-pressure situation but not even under fire.

    And cue the fantasy of armed teachers and firemen and ticket-takers and bartenders all making calm, cool and perfect shooting decisions while pinging the bad guys right between the eyes.

    I am so very, very thankful those women were not killed.
    And I do understand the crazy circumstances for those cops who lit up that truck. But that is just so wrong.

    From what I understand, they were guarding one of the police targets that was named by Dorner. And just hours prior to that incident Dorner drove up and fired on guards at a similar target site; and then Dorner drove off and shortly thereafter killed two nearby cops in their patrol car.

    So those trigger-happy cops were clearly on edge when this truck started creeping slowly along the street with no headlights -- the women were simply extra considerate and turned off their headlights as they delivered their papers so that they did not disturb people in the wee hours as they pulled into driveways.

    What a nightmare.
     
    Auriaprottu repped this.
  22. raza_rebel

    raza_rebel Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2000
    Club:
    Univ de Chile
    Wow. talk about shoot first and ask questions later. Hell, looks like the cops are out for blood.

    This whole thing is strange. In the site I read Donner was mocking the way he got his weapons.

    http://www.takepart.com/article/201...ost-unlikely-gun-control-advocate?CMPID=tp-fb

    This will not end well.
     
  23. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Location:
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    United States
    Well, the FFs wouldn't have characterized it as allowing the citizenry to destroy the new government. To the contrary, they (or at least many of the anti-federalists) would've said it was a means by which the citizenry could defend themselves against unconstitutional government tyranny. So while I agree with you that there's nevertheless some irony in that thinking, the records that we have about the ratification debates show that there was at least some concern (it's hard to quantify how much) that a tyrannical government could disarm the citizenry unless the constitution specifically prohibited it from doing so. Examples of such evidence can be found in the references to the actions of the Stuart kings disarming dissidents, leading up to the codification of a right to bear arms in the English Bill of Rights, etc. Again, I don't think this was a primary concern of the FFs, but there's evidence that this sort of thing, as well as British regulars disarming colonial citizens, was at least discussed.
     
  24. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2000
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Nothing the NRA or gun supporters say ever makes sense, except "It's my Constitutional right." Everything else is ludicrous; their case would be stronger if they simply STFU.

    Yes indeed.
     
  25. Funkfoot

    Funkfoot Member+

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Location:
    Manassas, VA
    On the bright side, the woman can retire off the lawsuit money she's going to get. If she lives, that is.
     

Share This Page