Arapahoe HS Shooting

[Mumbles140]

Rights and Privileges are not the same thing. Privileges can be taken away, rights can only be unjustly denied.

I understand the difference. Driving is a privilege, voting is a privilege, owning a gun is a privilege.

 

[Mumbles140]

I never said the military would lead the charge on Washington. That was a different poster.

My apologies - I did not mean to wrongly attribute that to you.

 

[Mumbles140]

Let’s stay on this tangent of nuclear weapons for a second. Every time I tell people that I believe private citizens should be able to possess the same weapons as the military and police, they always bring up the nuclear weapon argument.

So, let’s say tomorrow the government suddenly made a law that private citizens could possess any weapon they wanted, including nuclear weapons, what do you think would happen?

Maybe someone like John McAfee decides he wants to buy one. Maybe a rich foreign investor with dual citizenship wishes to buy one. Maybe the KKK decides to all chip-in and buy one as a group. If possession is legal, and we assume some sort of mobile-nature to the device, what would stop them from driving into the middle of a parade of some group they disagree with and detonating the thing? What if someone tried to take down Wall Street and the majority of Manhattan while they are at it?

We put these devices in the hands of trained people who we hold publicly accountable for their actions because we do not trust ourselves with the same responsibilities.

 

[Mumbles140]

I pointed out that if I had the means and resources to acquire a nuclear weapon, the laws of this country could not stop me.

No, but you would be hunted down and prosecuted (if not executed) for this. It would not be legal for you to do so. If you have a gun and went to shoot someone, the laws of the country aren’t going to stop you. Some agent of the state may prevent it, but shootings happen every day. Then people are prosecuted, sentenced, etc if the shooting was a criminal act.

 

[Mumbles140]

I imagine with a nuke your liberty would definitely nullify their authority to infringe on it.

Or would get you a sniper’s bullet the moment your head came into view…And call me naive, but I imagine you’d be on the government’s radar if you attempted to buy a nuclear weapon. I don’t think it’s the same as calling your fraternity brother and getting a bag of weed from him.

 

[Mumbles140]

You say you’re not arguing that government knows best but then you say that they should restrict ownership of certain firearms. Which is it? I know what’s best for me, not the government. I’m not saying what’s best for you. If you don’t want to own a firearm, fine, that’s your choice. But how do you have the right to say what firearm I can and cannot own? Ben Franklin warned us about this whole “giving up essential liberty for temporary safety” stuff. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers were very wary of standing armies. I highly doubt they would have supported agents of the state possessing weapons that private citizens could not.

I never said the government needs to decide what firearms should be withheld from public ownership, and I’m sorry if that was the implication. The point I have repeatedly made is that a real debate needs to occur by the citizens about what is OK and what is not. I imagine things being ‘not okay’ when the probable threat to public safety far exceeds the benefit of ownership. I would put a grenade launcher in this category. I would put an uzi in this category. I would not put any weapon commonly (or even infrequently) used in hunting or home defense so long as a valid case can be made.

And you keep making arguments about the government saying this, the government saying that. Why does the government tell me I can’t drive drunk? I can legally drink, and I can legally drive? The path you are going on ultimately gets to the point that the government cannot restrict the actions of others unless it immediately has a negative effect on other citizens. Seatbelt laws, age restrictions on tobacco and alcohol, bans on narcotics, they all go out the window with this line of reasoning. You try and talk just about guns, but the logical extension goes well beyond that.

Also, at least the government is a collective group elected by every able citizen. Who are you to decide what is best for the country? And who are you to decide that every person can decide what is best for society, since that is what government does - protect society, not 300 million individuals.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Like I said, learn what a “right” is.

And while you are at it, Take a course in Civics 101.

A “right” is something you can do and the government can’t deny you, unless…
…you decide not to remember that the flip side of a “right” is responsibility for your exercise of it. You have the right to yell “Fire!,” you do not have the right to yell it in a situation in which your exercise of free speech infringes upon another’s right or places other citizens in danger (crowded theater).

As for the 2nd Amendment, if the people who wrote it did not envision some sort of government involvement or regulation, it would have read “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” not “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.”

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I never said the government needs to decide what firearms should be withheld from public ownership, and I’m sorry if that was the implication. The point I have repeatedly made is that a real debate needs to occur by the citizens about what is OK and what is not. I imagine things being ‘not okay’ when the probable threat to public safety far exceeds the benefit of ownership. I would put a grenade launcher in this category. I would put an uzi in this category. I would not put any weapon commonly (or even infrequently) used in hunting or home defense so long as a valid case can be made.

And you keep making arguments about the government saying this, the government saying that. Why does the government tell me I can’t drive drunk? I can legally drink, and I can legally drive? The path you are going on ultimately gets to the point that the government cannot restrict the actions of others unless it immediately has a negative effect on other citizens. Seatbelt laws, age restrictions on tobacco and alcohol, bans on narcotics, they all go out the window with this line of reasoning. You try and talk just about guns, but the logical extension goes well beyond that.

Also, at least the government is a collective group elected by every able citizen. Who are you to decide what is best for the country? And who are you to decide that every person can decide what is best for society, since that is what government does - protect society, not 300 million individuals.

-The comparison to driving isn’t a good one. Driving isn’t a protected right. A better comparison would be voting (age restrictions, criminal history restrictions, etc) or free speech (public safety, public interest, liable/slander not protected, etc).

-Your point about the government being composed of citizens by citizens is a very valid one. The idea that the government is somehow foreign/a part from the populace would be odd for the guys who wrote the framework for it. The “of the and by the citizens” aspect of our governmental system is one of the basis from which the government draws its power to regulate (which includes restricting and/or revoking) protected rights. A review of American legal history will show that the question really isn’t “does the government have the power to regulate/restrict/revoke protected rights,” but that the question really is “where is the line drawn in regards to the government regulating/restricting/revoking protected rights.”

 

[Cricket2]

-The comparison to driving isn’t a good one. Driving isn’t a protected right. A better comparison would be voting (age restrictions, criminal history restrictions, etc) or free speech (public safety, public interest, liable/slander not protected, etc).

-Your point about the government being composed of citizens by citizens is a very valid one. The idea that the government is somehow foreign/a part from the populace would be odd for the guys who wrote the framework for it. The “of the and by the citizens” aspect of our governmental system is one of the basis from which the government draws its power to regulate (which includes restricting and/or revoking) protected rights. A review of American legal history will show that the question really isn’t “does the government have the power to regulate/restrict/revoke protected rights,” but that the question really is “where is the line drawn in regards to the government regulating/restricting/revoking protected rights.”

Oh come on. We need laws that protect people, and the right of gun ownership has taken a very bad turn. I do believe in "a government of, for and by the people, but that has been on the back burner for a long time and replaced by special interest groups, lobbyists and those with money. Everywhere I go people are asking and wanting better gun control.

I agree we should have a right to bear arms, but in this day and age things are a bit different than they were 200 years ago. I don’t want my community with every home owner having a machine gun in it. I do think there needs to be some lines drawn. We have too many people going around solving all their issues by blowing peoples heads off.

I am for background checks and wait times. I do not think that every mental health issue should be a source of banning someone from owning a gun…because truth known none of could then. I do think we need to be more aware and proactive in mental health care. Once the back ground check is done the owner should also be trained in how to use a gun safely, should have to keep it locked up and away from minors and if they every misuse the gun lose their right to have one.

We can hear people shooting off guns all the time around here, in the city, for no other reason than to do it. We have had houses shot up in drive buys, and friends killed while in their own front yards by stupid, mindless idiots who want to be initiated into a gang. Frankly I am sick of it. You want a gun fine, but it is time for some control.

 

[Mumbles140]

-The comparison to driving isn’t a good one. Driving isn’t a protected right. A better comparison would be voting (age restrictions, criminal history restrictions, etc) or free speech (public safety, public interest, liable/slander not protected, etc).

-Your point about the government being composed of citizens by citizens is a very valid one. The idea that the government is somehow foreign/a part from the populace would be odd for the guys who wrote the framework for it. The “of the and by the citizens” aspect of our governmental system is one of the basis from which the government draws its power to regulate (which includes restricting and/or revoking) protected rights. A review of American legal history will show that the question really isn’t “does the government have the power to regulate/restrict/revoke protected rights,” but that the question really is “where is the line drawn in regards to the government regulating/restricting/revoking protected rights.”

Thank you very much for the insight. Glad to see you back in the conversation, as well!

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Oh come on. We need laws that protect people, and the right of gun ownership has taken a very bad turn. I do believe in "a government of, for and by the people, but that has been on the back burner for a long time and replaced by special interest groups, lobbyists and those with money. Everywhere I go people are asking and wanting better gun control.

I agree we should have a right to bear arms, but in this day and age things are a bit different than they were 200 years ago. I don’t want my community with every home owner having a machine gun in it. I do think there needs to be some lines drawn. We have too many people going around solving all their issues by blowing peoples heads off.

I am for background checks and wait times. I do not think that every mental health issue should be a source of banning someone from owning a gun…because truth known none of could then. I do think we need to be more aware and proactive in mental health care. Once the back ground check is done the owner should also be trained in how to use a gun safely, should have to keep it locked up and away from minors and if they every misuse the gun lose their right to have one.

We can hear people shooting off guns all the time around here, in the city, for no other reason than to do it. We have had houses shot up in drive buys, and friends killed while in their own front yards by stupid, mindless idiots who want to be initiated into a gang. Frankly I am sick of it. You want a gun fine, but it is time for some control.

Reread my posts. I’m not against government regulation or restriction of gun ownership. I’m against unreasonable regulation or restrictions (federal registration; registration should be dealt with by at the state level), idiotic regulations (like outlawing/restricting a magazine that holds X rounds because doing so somehow makes it impossible for someone to figure out how to send the same number of rounds down range using smaller magazines and combat reloading), and penalties (like Cross’s idea of making gun owners solely responsible for paying for gun crimes) for simply exercising the right to own a firearm.

 

[Cricket2]

Reread my posts. I’m not against government regulation or restriction of gun ownership. I’m against unreasonable regulation or restrictions (federal registration; registration should be dealt with by at the state level), idiotic regulations (like outlawing/restricting a magazine that holds X rounds because doing so somehow makes it impossible for someone to figure out how to send the same number of rounds down range using smaller magazines and combat reloading), and penalties (like Cross’s idea of making gun owners solely responsible for paying for gun crimes) for simply exercising the right to own a firearm.

I can only partly agree with you. I think the magazine load should be limited. On the other hand the idea of making gun owners solely responsible for paying for gun crimes would not be appropriate. There is simply too much variation and probably scenarios involved to simply hold one group responsible.

I could be a very conscientious gun owner, have my house robbed and in the process have my gun(s) taken by force. The guys who do this are the one’s that need to pay not the gun owner. You can’t punish the law abiding as an answer to deal with the fools who use weapons to simply terrorize,rob, kill and maim people.

Though different I know, I think it is wrong to punish a bar tender for example, because some fool decides to drink and drive. It is very possible for the bar tender to serve someone who has had two or three drinks at home or else where and not know that they are already under the influence. The only one responsible for the havoc of drinking and driver is the one doing the drinking and driving.

So we may agree more than apparent, but not totally. I guess this is why it is so important for all the people to vote on this, not just a handful. Sadly, we had representatives do as the people asked and they got recalled, which should not happen either.

The only reason a public official should be recalled is if they are doing something illegal, being bought off, are proven to be corrupt or continuously ignore the wishes of the people.

 

[Geist]

1. The flaw is that no citizen should have the right to possess nuclear weapons. Hell, it takes multiple approvals for the government to utilize those types of weapons, so we want to let one person have that on their own?

Doesn’t bother me.

1. Guillotines could be historical artifacts, etc. Let’s focus on the chemicals used in lethal injection. Should the average citizen have the right to possess deadly chemicals? And if you think they do, why is it necessary that they should? You keep talking about restrictions and whether they are evil by nature or evil by the sake of being prohibited, but you are missing the common sense “WHY” portion, and that’s why gun control debates with people like you who don’t ask or answer the ‘why’ is pointless

I did not bring up guillotines. I merely pointed out one may wish to own one and there is nothing inherently evil about it; ditto for weapons.

As for these deadly chemicals, I could pour what is found in the cleaning supply aisle of your local store into a well and kill whoever drank from it. Why not ban cleanliness? Do you know how many kids die each year from getting into cleaning supplies? Isn’t it worth just one life?

This is the commonsense “why” portion people like you don’t get.

1. Distrusting standing armies makes sense if you believe a group of untrained, unorganized citizens could band together and defend our country from attack. There is a huge target on America’s back, and I’m glad we have troops, domestic and abroad, prepared to respond when danger comes. Heck, even the Vatican has a standing army (Go Swiss Guard! And yes, this is a joke, I fully acknowledge the Swiss Guard are not a ‘standing army’ but rather a protective service).

Having been in the US Army myself, it is very much a flawed institution with many flawed people in it. Myself included naturally.

But you are still avoiding the point that someone could legally own one, slap it on a truck, drive it somewhere, and raise Hell. Unlikely, certainly, but this is the logical extension of the argument, so please address whether you think an ordinary citizen should be able to own something this powerful used for maximizing casualties?

It’d certainly deter any type of raid on ones property; bet the Branch Davidians wish they had a few at Waco. In any event my true answer to your question is they can do whatever they please with it and deal with the consequences.

Such is freedom.

 

[Geist]

I agree we should have a right to bear arms, but in this day and age things are a bit different than they were 200 years ago. I don’t want my community with every home owner having a machine gun in it. I do think there needs to be some lines drawn. We have too many people going around solving all their issues by blowing peoples heads off.

If I were to use a heavy rifle round inside my home the bullets would definitely enter into someone elses home; this is why I would not use it instead opting for a shotgun or handgun loaded with hollowpoints. Since I have no plans of firing my rifles in my house, what concern is it of yours if I have them in my home?

I am for background checks and wait times. I do not think that every mental health issue should be a source of banning someone from owning a gun…because truth known none of could then. I do think we need to be more aware and proactive in mental health care. Once the back ground check is done the owner should also be trained in how to use a gun safely, should have to keep it locked up and away from minors and if they every misuse the gun lose their right to have one.

If you ever find yourself in immediate danger (like your psycho ex-husband you testified against just got paroled-surprise!) those wait times can be a literal killer.

We can hear people shooting off guns all the time around here, in the city, for no other reason than to do it. We have had houses shot up in drive buys, and friends killed while in their own front yards by stupid, mindless idiots who want to be initiated into a gang. Frankly I am sick of it. You want a gun fine, but it is time for some control.

Already laws against discharging firearms in populated areas; do tell how more control would work to stop it?

 

[Mumbles140]

Doesn’t bother me.

I did not bring up guillotines. I merely pointed out one may wish to own one and there is nothing inherently evil about it; ditto for weapons.

As for these deadly chemicals, I could pour what is found in the cleaning supply aisle of your local store into a well and kill whoever drank from it. Why not ban cleanliness? Do you know how many kids die each year from getting into cleaning supplies? Isn’t it worth just one life?

This is the commonsense “why” portion people like you don’t get.

Having been in the US Army myself, it is very much a flawed institution with many flawed people in it. Myself included naturally.

It’d certainly deter any type of raid on ones property; bet the Branch Davidians wish they had a few at Waco. In any event my true answer to your question is they can do whatever they please with it and deal with the consequences.

Such is freedom.

1. The fact that it doesn’t bother you is why neither of us will progress in this debate.
2. Since when did something being ‘evil’ have to do with it being ‘illegal’. It isn’t ‘evil’ of me to drive without a seat belt, but it sure is illegal.
3. With cleaning chemicals, you are talking about the abuse of something other than its intended purpose. That’s like trying to ban cars because some drunk idiot suffering from a fake syndrome used one to drive into a crowd of people. THAT is the common sense ‘why’ portion that people like you don’t get.

Anything can be weaponized - you look at the purpose, and whether the proper use exceeds the likelihood of illicit use (and the harm caused by such). Probably every household in America used some form of Windex, so while the number itself may be high, the percentage of people abusing it is probably pretty low. Take some of these high-powered or highly-destructive military weapons and ask what their purpose is - death or severe injury of another human being is probably the most typical answer. So why should ordinary citizens have the rights to own these weapons?

Shotgun, that’s perfectly reasonable for hunting, home defense, and sport shooting. People use them for wrong - a tragedy, but don’t hold it against the guns because the main purpose of a shotgun is not to kill someone. Can you say the same about some of the weapons the military possesses and uses in war?

1. The Catholic Church is comprised of sinners, therefore flawed, so let’s just disband that institution also. Throw in any government (especially the DC government!) since they all have corruption of some sort, pretty much all Fortune 500 companies (come on, at some level, they must be doing something), and pretty soon, we are living in an anarchist society. If an institution is flawed, you bring transparency to it, you hold it accountable, you prosecute those held to a higher standard who fail to act according to that standard. Why do you have the need to instead stockpile arms against it in case it ever turned on its citizens?
2. Your thoughts that you can do as you please and deal with the consequences later means we should be a solely reactionary state. We don’t need to guard the President - if someone assassinates him, we’ll just catch them and punish them later. We don’t need to screen at the airport - if someone tries to blow up the plane, we’ll start a war in a foreign country where his terrorist group is known to operate. We don’t need to have the Coast Guard patrol for drug boats - we’ll let all the users OD and fill up our prisons arresting those who don’t die.

 

[Mumbles140]

If you ever find yourself in immediate danger (like your psycho ex-husband you testified against just got paroled-surprise!) those wait times can be a literal killer.

I believe the psycho ex-husband would be the literal killer. The waiting period simply delays someone buying a gun, but there are other ways to defend oneself (not to mention fleeing from someone) without the use of a firearm.

 

[freeRadical]

I understand the difference. Driving is a privilege, voting is a privilege, owning a gun is a privilege.

Owning a gun is a right. The Second Amendment says so. The Supreme Court says so. The Founding Fathers said so.

 

[freeRadical]

Maybe someone like John McAfee decides he wants to buy one. Maybe a rich foreign investor with dual citizenship wishes to buy one. Maybe the KKK decides to all chip-in and buy one as a group. If possession is legal, and we assume some sort of mobile-nature to the device, what would stop them from driving into the middle of a parade of some group they disagree with and detonating the thing? What if someone tried to take down Wall Street and the majority of Manhattan while they are at it?

We put these devices in the hands of trained people who we hold publicly accountable for their actions because we do not trust ourselves with the same responsibilities.

Do you know how much an nuclear weapon costs? Do you the materials required, the technology and knowledge required to construct one. If nuclear weapons would be so easy to get as you say then why doesn’t every terrorist organization have one? If possession if nuclear weapons was legal, you act like private organizations would suddenly start selling them like hotcakes.

 

[freeRadical]

No, but you would be hunted down and prosecuted (if not executed) for this. It would not be legal for you to do so. If you have a gun and went to shoot someone, the laws of the country aren’t going to stop you. Some agent of the state may prevent it, but shootings happen every day. Then people are prosecuted, sentenced, etc if the shooting was a criminal act.

Exactly, the laws of this country would not stop me from shooting someone. So why do you think more gun control laws would stop school shootings?

 

[freeRadical]

Or would get you a sniper’s bullet the moment your head came into view…And call me naive, but I imagine you’d be on the government’s radar if you attempted to buy a nuclear weapon. I don’t think it’s the same as calling your fraternity brother and getting a bag of weed from him.

Why would I be on the government’s radar? How would they know? You think I would shout to the rooftops that I’m trying to get a nuclear weapon?