The UCSB shooters parents blame 2nd amendment.
-
typos don't mean shit. My posts have more than anybody elses more than likely.
WSS*************************************************
Yes, and I hate it when I make them. I just don't point them out because I'm biased,
and woody brags on himself like a weirdly programmed android in a cartoon. @@
-
Its also much easier than trying to come up with any facts or evidence to support your idea or refute mine.
Why bother... just point out the typo, pat yourself on the back, throw in some 3rd grade insults, and walk away.
-
Re: Mental Health
Therapy is only going to help those who want to help themselves. I read that this kid was cleared by a therapist a few weeks/months prior because he was able to game the system. The kid was intelligent, but so deluded that he was practically untreatable. The kid needed to be committed to a hospital, but if there's no prior criminal history, and he's unwilling to commit himself, there wasn't much evidence that would convince a judge to order him help. As a country, we've decided that the right to own firearms is covered by the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately, that means that people with a clean background who go off the deep end will occasionally do something like this.
That would be nice.
As for the rest of your post, I agree with it except that questions regarding the nature of the youtube videos (that sparked the initial phone call) should have been pursued. This would have ultimately led to somebody with some common sense (hopefully) in the police dept. viewing said videos and getting a warrant to search the apt. This combined with the police report of the kid trying to shove some frat bros off a porch the previous summer (no charges filed, but a police report on the matter still exists) would have been enough for a warrant demonstrating that the kid had some real, violent tendencies.
That would be nice.
As for the rest of your post, I agree with it except that questions regarding the nature of the youtube videos (that sparked the initial phone call) should have been pursued. This would have ultimately led to somebody with some common sense (hopefully) in the police dept. viewing said videos and getting a warrant to search the apt. This combined with the police report of the kid trying to shove some frat bros off a porch the previous summer (no charges filed, but a police report on the matter still exists) would have been enough for a warrant demonstrating that the kid had some real, violent tendencies.
Ha. That's putting an awful lot of faith into a bureaucracy.
-
Best Ive heard yet!
So there's a "mass shooting" that would have been a page three wet fire cracker in Compton but do it to some cracker kids from the burbs serving their four years at the Special Snowflake Warehouse & Indoc Center and the nation just loses its collective shit.
Apparently busting caps in three people's asses is a lot bigger deal if you do it out the window of a '08 Beamer instead of a '94 Caprice.
-
Woody, I gave you facts. Legit graphs about Australia and gun control and crime.
Naturally, you dissed it, because it doesn't fit your sissy, ignorant, pouty-puss, neurotic narratives.
-
Of course, there's still going to be violent crime. But if you have a guy with a baseball (or cricket) bat, it's a bit harder for him to go on a rampage than if he's got a gun.
I agree, plenty of people want to see guns banned - myself included, at least partially, and not immediately obviously, but as soon as feasibly possible.
People will commit crime, even mass murders using all sorts of means. Look at the Boston Marathon Bombings. No guns used. 9/11, no guns used. People will find a way to assault, commit crimes and murder with our without guns.
But I also believe that there should be a way, where we can legislate gun ownership to those who meet certain criteria. Background checks are the first step, but it's not the solution, just a part of it. And maybe there isn't an absolute solution. You can legislate morality. There will be evil and those who commit atrocities. Each time we try and prevent the smallest incidents, even in the playgrounds at school, we are taking our freedoms.
This country was founded on certain rights. And we are seeing our government ever slowly creep up on many of those rights. Government was to be small and serve the people. Each thing we give them, the more power and control they have.
People will commit crime, even mass murders using all sorts of means. Look at the Boston Marathon Bombings. No guns used. 9/11, no guns used. People will find a way to assault, commit crimes and murder with our without guns.
But I also believe that there should be a way, where we can legislate gun ownership to those who meet certain criteria. Background checks are the first step, but it's not the solution, just a part of it. And maybe there isn't an absolute solution. You can legislate morality. There will be evil and those who commit atrocities. Each time we try and prevent the smallest incidents, even in the playgrounds at school, we are taking our freedoms.
This country was founded on certain rights. And we are seeing our government ever slowly creep up on many of those rights. Government was to be small and serve the people. Each thing we give them, the more power and control they have.
I agree, there's plenty of ways to kill people without guns - so should we just not bother? I'm pretty sure North Korea and Iran have the traditional firepower to wipe out any nation they feel like outside of USA, Russia, China, and maybe a few of us europeans, but that doesn't stop us from trying to prevent them from having nuclear capabilities. I hope that parallel comes across like it does in my head!
The country was founded on a set of rules, the constitution. But guess what, over time people realised that these were not sufficient or correct, and it got amended - hence, the amendments. Now, the tricky part, do you hold the amendments as unequivocally right, without the possibility of changing them? I say no, if the constitution was amended what, 2 years after the constitution, does that not imply that an amendment itself may be out of date a few hundred years after it was put in to law?
Some say yes, these amendments should be held sacrosanct - if you start playing with on of the bill of rights, you have precedent to start playing with others, so if you take away the right to bear arms, for example, there's legal precedent for the government to take away the right to free speech.
However, being the utopian dreamer that I am, I can't see a country where freedom of speech is as widely allowed as America - more so than pretty much any country in the world, I reckon, probably for the worse sometimes but what can you do? - taking those rights away without there being some kind of political/economic/military intervention. Perhaps it's that scenario that people cling so to their right to defend themselves. But I can't ever imagine any president being able to pull that off. I mean, the amount of time it would take to put that bill through, there'd be another election and a different president would be elected in a landslide if someone tried.
-
That would be nice.
As for the rest of your post, I agree with it except that questions regarding the nature of the youtube videos (that sparked the initial phone call) should have been pursued. This would have ultimately led to somebody with some common sense (hopefully) in the police dept. viewing said videos and getting a warrant to search the apt. This combined with the police report of the kid trying to shove some frat bros off a porch the previous summer (no charges filed, but a police report on the matter still exists) would have been enough for a warrant demonstrating that the kid had some real, violent tendencies.
Ha. That's putting an awful lot of faith into a bureaucracy.
Ha. That's putting an awful lot of faith into a bureaucracy.
Indeed. Now you have an idea of why I typically choose not to.
-
Chris I'm not weighing in on what should or shouldn't be done. You guys can worry about that. I'm just pointing out that when someone says nobody wants to take your guns, well it isn't correct. There are plenty of people who would like to see guns banned altogether.
But sure, a society where everyone loves one another is certainly a lofty, if unattainable, goal.
WSS
Of course, there's still going to be violent crime. But if you have a guy with a baseball (or cricket) bat, it's a bit harder for him to go on a rampage than if he's got a gun.
I agree, plenty of people want to see guns banned - myself included, at least partially, and not immediately obviously, but as soon as feasibly possible.
Of course, there's still going to be violent crime. But if you have a guy with a baseball (or cricket) bat, it's a bit harder for him to go on a rampage than if he's got a gun.
I agree, plenty of people want to see guns banned - myself included, at least partially, and not immediately obviously, but as soon as feasibly possible.
classic lib thinking....People will commit crime, even mass murders using all sorts of means. Look at the Boston Marathon Bombings. No guns used. 9/11, no guns used. People will find a way to assault, commit crimes and murder with our without guns.
But I also believe that there should be a way, where we can legislate gun ownership to those who meet certain criteria. Background checks are the first step, but it's not the solution, just a part of it. And maybe there isn't an absolute solution. You can legislate morality. There will be evil and those who commit atrocities. Each time we try and prevent the smallest incidents, even in the playgrounds at school, we are taking our freedoms.
you mean can't right?
This country was founded on certain rights. And we are seeing our government ever slowly creep up on many of those rights. Government was to be small and serve the people. Each thing we give them, the more power and control they have.
and common sense thinking - careful you will be outed as a tea party patriot! and this board cant have that....
-
Of course, there's still going to be violent crime. But if you have a guy with a baseball (or cricket) bat, it's a bit harder for him to go on a rampage than if he's got a gun.
I agree, plenty of people want to see guns banned - myself included, at least partially, and not immediately obviously, but as soon as feasibly possible.
classic lib thinking....People will commit crime, even mass murders using all sorts of means. Look at the Boston Marathon Bombings. No guns used. 9/11, no guns used. People will find a way to assault, commit crimes and murder with our without guns.
But I also believe that there should be a way, where we can legislate gun ownership to those who meet certain criteria. Background checks are the first step, but it's not the solution, just a part of it. And maybe there isn't an absolute solution. You can legislate morality. There will be evil and those who commit atrocities. Each time we try and prevent the smallest incidents, even in the playgrounds at school, we are taking our freedoms.
you mean can't right?
This country was founded on certain rights. And we are seeing our government ever slowly creep up on many of those rights. Government was to be small and serve the people. Each thing we give them, the more power and control they have.
and common sense thinking - careful you will be outed as a tea party patriot! and this board cant have that....
classic lib thinking....Which, the wanting to have fewer guns around or wanting to not waste time in doing so?
-
And yes, I assume BK meant can't.
-
People will commit crime, even mass murders using all sorts of means. Look at the Boston Marathon Bombings. No guns used. 9/11, no guns used. People will find a way to assault, commit crimes and murder with our without guns.
But I also believe that there should be a way, where we can legislate gun ownership to those who meet certain criteria. Background checks are the first step, but it's not the solution, just a part of it. And maybe there isn't an absolute solution. You can legislate morality. There will be evil and those who commit atrocities. Each time we try and prevent the smallest incidents, even in the playgrounds at school, we are taking our freedoms.
This country was founded on certain rights. And we are seeing our government ever slowly creep up on many of those rights. Government was to be small and serve the people. Each thing we give them, the more power and control they have.
I agree, there's plenty of ways to kill people without guns - so should we just not bother? I'm pretty sure North Korea and Iran have the traditional firepower to wipe out any nation they feel like outside of USA, Russia, China, and maybe a few of us europeans, but that doesn't stop us from trying to prevent them from having nuclear capabilities. I hope that parallel comes across like it does in my head!
The country was founded on a set of rules, the constitution. But guess what, over time people realised that these were not sufficient or correct, and it got amended - hence, the amendments. Now, the tricky part, do you hold the amendments as unequivocally right, without the possibility of changing them? I say no, if the constitution was amended what, 2 years after the constitution, does that not imply that an amendment itself may be out of date a few hundred years after it was put in to law?
Some say yes, these amendments should be held sacrosanct - if you start playing with on of the bill of rights, you have precedent to start playing with others, so if you take away the right to bear arms, for example, there's legal precedent for the government to take away the right to free speech.
However, being the utopian dreamer that I am, I can't see a country where freedom of speech is as widely allowed as America - more so than pretty much any country in the world, I reckon, probably for the worse sometimes but what can you do? - taking those rights away without there being some kind of political/economic/military intervention. Perhaps it's that scenario that people cling so to their right to defend themselves. But I can't ever imagine any president being able to pull that off. I mean, the amount of time it would take to put that bill through, there'd be another election and a different president would be elected in a landslide if someone tried.
Some say yes, these amendments should be held sacrosanct - if you start playing with on of the bill of rights, you have precedent to start playing with others, so if you take away the right to bear arms, for example, there's legal precedent for the government to take away the right to free speech.
The 1st 10 Amendments are collectively known as The Bill of Rights (as you acknowledge here). They were written to explicitly specify rights and freedoms that were not explicitly specified in the Constitution. They were not and are not an admittance of fault in the Constitution as you seem to suggest. Let that sink in.
Rights and freedoms are not amendable. Sorry.
-
Chris -
Essentially - the Constitution framed the mechanics/logistics of our Government. The Bill Of Rights are a reminder of who the Government is working for.
-
classic lib thinking....
Which, the wanting to have fewer guns around or wanting to not waste time in doing so?
-
Is the Constitution set in stone? Is it completely infallible? Are you saying nothing has changed in over 200 years?
-
Is the Constitution set in stone? Is it completely infallible? Are you saying nothing has changed in over 200 years?
Is the Constitution set in stone? Is it completely infallible? Are you saying nothing has changed in over 200 years?
The Constitution is a framework. Plenty has changed in the world. Rights and freedoms do not.
Go read the Bill of Rights (I imagine it's been a while, if at all). Then propose what should change. Same with the Constitution. I really don't believe you have a grasp of what is contained in it. (hint: it's not 'Merica)
-
In terms of the second amendment, the part about an armed militia being necessary for a well run country - do we really need that in the 21st century?
-
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.
It's fairly open to interpretation. You could read it as "we need a militia, therefore the people need to keep and bear arms" or you could read it as "we need a militia, this cannot be infringed; separately, the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed"
Personally I read it the first way - since a militia is needed, obviously the people need to be armed. But then, do we (you) need a militia any more? It's not like there's a minutemen call to arms any more.
-
In terms of the second amendment, the part about an armed militia being necessary for a well run country - do we really need that in the 21st century?
Actually what would be different today? In revolutionary times the richest men in America decided to fuck the king out of his taxes. Decided that the way King George ran the joint wasn't to their liking and staged and armed take over.In terms of the second amendment, the part about an armed militia being necessary for a well run country - do we really need that in the 21st century?
So what's different today? Aren't there plenty of people who think they are being overtaxed and that tax money is spent on things they vehemently oppose?
I'm being the devil's advocate here of course but why is right and wrong today different than it was during the fairy tale period of the Revolutionary War?
WSS
-
Actually what would be different today? In revolutionary times the richest men in America decided to fuck the king out of his taxes. Decided that the way King George ran the joint wasn't to their liking and staged and armed take over.In terms of the second amendment, the part about an armed militia being necessary for a well run country - do we really need that in the 21st century?
So what's different today? Aren't there plenty of people who think they are being overtaxed and that tax money is spent on things they vehemently oppose?
I'm being the devil's advocate here of course but why is right and wrong today different than it was during the fairy tale period of the Revolutionary War?
WSS
Actually what would be different today? In revolutionary times the richest men in America decided to fuck the king out of his taxes. Decided that the way King George ran the joint wasn't to their liking and staged and armed take over.
So what's different today? Aren't there plenty of people who think they are being overtaxed and that tax money is spent on things they vehemently oppose?
I'm being the devil's advocate here of course but why is right and wrong today different than it was during the fairy tale period of the Revolutionary War?
WSS
Right and wrong aren't different, but the means of dealing with them are. If someone does you wrong in the 17th century, you challenge them to a duel and one of you dies (for example). Modern society has (in developed countries) moved on from there to the point that you don't just kill someone you disagree with.
-
First of all... dude, fuck off.
Second of all, you are saying it will never need to be changed? "Rights and freedoms" have already changed. We've already updated it once to remove slavery. How about the rights and freedoms regarding the internet, something the founding fathers could not even imagine would exist.
I would say the electoral college system is pretty messed up to start with. Then again we aren't 13 states anymore, our population is MUCH greater, and we have access to a wide array of technologies. I think there are some ways this could be updated, so swing states are less of a big deal, and so each vote actually matters more. Just the idea that this has to be written in stone and can never be changed doesn't make any sense.
The second amendment, for the reason Chris mentioned. The "well regulated militia" part really makes no sense in 2014.
A good amount of them could just be updated in their wording for the 21st century. Either in just the wording, or actually clarifying things (Ex, cruel and unusual punishment).
Again, I just don't see the rationale behind acting like it is written in stone. That it can never, ever be changed in any way. That it ridiculous, ignorant and dense. Shit changes, especially in 200+ years.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login