Cable Forum - [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

Page 5 of 6

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33706394)

Hugh	10-06-2018 12:25

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35949981)

whimsical: "playfully quaint or fanciful, especially in an appealing and amusing way"

I do not find the notion of banning sales of semi-automatics capable of killing people at long range in the hundreds "whimsical".

Well I tried. Let try a different tack: why do you *need* to own an AR-15? Not want one, need one.

I’ve had this conversation with US friends, and it becomes circular reasoning, along the lines of "the 2nd Amendment says I can, therefore I will have one, and by having one (or 5), I am supporting the 2nd Amendment, which allows me to have one"...

ianch99

10-06-2018 14:05

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35949985)

I get the "I just want one so I can pretend to be Rambo" argument but I have seen no-one, not least on this forum, explain why they *need* one.

I mean it is not hard, right? Just a single sentence why they need a semi-automatic, just one ... I mean if you can cite the Constitutional Amendments, you should be able to articulate why you need an AR-15.

Hugh	10-06-2018 16:23

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

This article by an AR-15 owner may clarify things.

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/119758...-owner-orlando

I have no issues with someone owning guns, I just think they should be responsible, trained, and "well regulated".

ianch99

10-06-2018 19:00

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35950019)

Thanks for this. This owner seems just to want to own, as he puts it, a "military-grade combat weapon" then tries to justify his choice:

Quote:

This is all part of the reason why I, a civilian, own a military-grade combat weapon. I don't want to shoot and miss; I don't want the gun to jam because it's dirty or cold; and when I'm hunting game I don't want to hit my target and then have it run off into the woods and die lost and wounded because I didn't "bring enough gun." Like my grandpa with his "military-grade" lever action rifle, I want a modern firearm that's popular (which means parts and training are cheaply and widely available), ergonomic, rugged, accurate, and reliably effective, so that none of the aforementioned bad things happen to me when I'm shooting.

But, you'll argue, isn't the AR-15 uniquely deadly? Unlike the lever action rifle, isn't the black rifle a weapon of godlike power, suitable only for putting as much lead on the battlefield in as short a time as possible? And in their desire to own one of these turbocharged weapons of mass slaughter, which is clearly overkill for anything but mowing down herds of humans, aren't today's AR-15 buyers uniquely twisted and callous? Isn't it time that gun buyers settled for second or third or fourth best, for the "good of the their fellow citizens"?

The short answer to all of the above is "no."

Chloé Palmas

12-06-2018 03:11

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35949981)

whimsical: "playfully quaint or fanciful, especially in an appealing and amusing way"

Well, it is nothing serious anyway. Not the way that you are approaching it, anyway.

Quote:

I do not find the notion of banning sales of semi-automatics capable of killing people at long range in the hundreds "whimsical".

Yet you can't seem to come up with a single serious rreason for banning / restricting it.

Quote:

Well I tried. Let try a different tack: why do you *need* to own an AR-15? Not want one, need one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35950004)

Okay, you said to start again, so let's. I have never said I needed one - that clear up that point for you?

Secondly, the constitution does not give rights - the creator does. The constitution limits what the government can do.

So with that in mind, you need to figure out that the burden is not upon anyone to justify whatever their desires are, to anyone absent any restriction from the constitutional confines that we all know of. Follow?

As for why someone may wish to need one, why does anyone have to disclose that to you?

Their choice at the end of the day, the system works. You don't have to justify your behavior to them, they don't to you.

Hugh	12-06-2018 08:58

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35950202)

Well, it is nothing serious anyway. Not the way that you are approaching it, anyway.

Yet you can't seem to come up with a single serious rreason for banning / restricting it.

Okay but first you show me where I said I need one, first. (FYI I have never owned an AR - 15 when I lived in the US).

So where did I say that I needed one?

---------- Post added at 02:11 ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 ----------

Okay, you said to start again, so let's. I have never said I needed one - that clear up that point for you?

Secondly, the constitution does not give rights - the creator does. The constitution limits what the government can do.

So with that in mind, you need to figure out that the burden is not upon anyone to justify whatever their desires are, to anyone absent any restriction from the constitutional confines that we all know of. Follow?

As for why someone may wish to need one, why does anyone have to disclose that to you?

Their choice at the end of the day, the system works. You don't have to justify your behavior to them, they don't to you.

a) not sure what you mean by that - could you clarify, please?

b) when schoolkids, and others, are killed and maimed on a regular basis, not sure that could be defined as a "system working" - and we forget, in this country, all those injured will often have huge medical bills arising because of these frequent mass shootings.

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/arti...NEWS/171229940

Quote:

It's also spotlighting serious gaps in insurance coverage for medical and long-term care. Hospitals in Fort Worth, Texas, Las Vegas, San Bernardino, Calif., Aurora, Colo., Orlando, Fla., Newtown, Conn. and other areas have had to help shooting victims cope with major uncovered costs. Such costs include inpatient care, follow-up surgeries and other treatments, mental healthcare, rehabilitation and skilled-nursing care, durable medical equipment, personal care, and living costs while the patients are not able to work.

The needs have been exacerbated by the proliferation of health plans with high deductibles and coinsurance requirements, leaving patients exposed to many thousands of dollars in cost-sharing. Severely injured patients needing repeat surgeries may hit their out-of-pocket spending limits multiple years in a row, forcing them into bankruptcy. On top of that, even insured patients may face big balance bills if they are treated by out-of-network providers.

"There are enormous costs involved in living with a gun injury," said Dania Palanker, an insurance expert at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute. "For many people those costs, such as personal care support, are not considered medical care by our insurance system."

ianch99

12-06-2018 09:34

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35950202)

Well, it is nothing serious anyway. Not the way that you are approaching it, anyway.

Yet you can't seem to come up with a single serious rreason for banning / restricting it.

Did you miss the "it kills large numbers of people at high speed at long range" bit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35950202)

Okay but first you show me where I said I need one, first. (FYI I have never owned an AR - 15 when I lived in the US).

So where did I say that I needed one?

---------- Post added at 02:11 ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 ----------

Okay, you said to start again, so let's. I have never said I needed one - that clear up that point for you?

Excellent, progress. You accept that you do not need one, good. I will also venture that no one else needs one either. If they do, please explain, in rational terms, the need for ownership?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35950202)

Secondly, the constitution does not give rights - the creator does. The constitution limits what the government can do.

So with that in mind, you need to figure out that the burden is not upon anyone to justify whatever their desires are, to anyone absent any restriction from the constitutional confines that we all know of. Follow?

You are wrong here. The US constitution is the supreme law defined as the will of the people. The constitution defines the legal rights, not just limits them.

Sorry, I do not "follow" ... :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35950202)

As for why someone may wish to need one, why does anyone have to disclose that to you?

Their choice at the end of the day, the system works. You don't have to justify your behavior to them, they don't to you.

In a civilised society, if you want to own a weapon that has such lethal capabilities then I suggest that you do need to justify to your fellow citizens why you must have this military grade weapon.

Chloé Palmas

13-06-2018 19:56

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35950227)

Did you miss the "it kills large numbers of people at high speed at long range" bit?

So a bunch of serial killers do harm, your response is to excoriate the weapon / ownership of it?

That doesn't fit as to any possible reason to ban the weapon, IMO.

Quote:

Excellent, progress. You accept that you do not need one, good.

I didn't need your gratification for that. If ever I did need or want one and it was lawful to purchase it in my locality, I would buy one.

Quote:

I will also venture that no one else needs one either. If they do, please explain, in rational terms, the need for ownership?

Why? I mean, they don't answer to you nor do they have to justify their desire to buy one, to you or anyone.

Quote:

You are wrong here. The US constitution is the supreme law defined as the will of the people. The constitution defines the legal rights, not just limits them.

Quote:

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties. For example, the Founders saw the ability to speak and worship freely as a natural right protected by the First Amendment. Congress is prohibited from making laws establishing religion or abridging freedom of speech. The Fourth Amendment safeguards citizens’ right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in their homes through the requirement of a warrant.

https://www.billofrightsinstitute.or...ill-of-rights/

The second amendment is one of those 10 amendments, it restricts the government's ability to infringe on gun ownership.

This is basic civics 101. I don't have the time to go through this and explain it to you bit by bit right now but you are categorically wrong on this issue - it has gone through appeal after appeal, courts have affirmed it - decades of fighting and so on. There is no legal or constitutional basis for the government to infringe on the rights of the populace to bear arms.

Quote:

Sorry, I do not "follow" ... :confused:

Hopefully the above has explained some of it. If you do have more questions, I'll answer them in time but Hugh seems to have a pretty good grasp on this. He and I may differ some on the philosophy of all this but his understanding of the technical mechanism of how it all works / the levers and the pulleys etc is accurate. It is difficult for people who do not understand this from a grade school level (being taught it) to pick it up later but your interpretation is not correct on the structure of government.

Quote:

In a civilised society, if you want to own a weapon that has such lethal capabilities then I suggest that you do need to justify to your fellow citizens why you must have this military grade weapon.

Yeah again you don't seem to understand how the US system works - you do not need to justify anything when you exercise a right - not in the slightest. The US may not be a civilized society in your opinion but that is all it is - your opinion. And your opinion does not allow you to infringe upon the rights of others.

ianch99

13-06-2018 20:20

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35950444)

So a bunch of serial killers do harm, your response is to excoriate the weapon / ownership of it?

That doesn't fit as to any possible reason to ban the weapon, IMO.

I didn't need your gratification for that. If ever I did need or want one and it was lawful to purchase it in my locality, I would buy one.

Why? I mean, they don't answer to you nor do they have to justify their desire to buy one, to you or anyone.

https://www.billofrightsinstitute.or...ill-of-rights/

The second amendment is one of those 10 amendments, it restricts the government's ability to infringe on gun ownership.

This is basic civics 101. I don't have the time to go through this and explain it to you bit by bit right now but you are categorically wrong on this issue - it has gone through appeal after appeal, courts have affirmed it - decades of fighting and so on. There is no legal or constitutional basis for the government to infringe on the rights of the populace to bear arms.

Hopefully the above has explained some of it. If you do have more questions, I'll answer them in time but Hugh seems to have a pretty good grasp on this. He and I may differ some on the philosophy of all this but his understanding of the technical mechanism of how it all works / the levers and the pulleys etc is accurate. It is difficult for people who do not understand this from a grade school level (being taught it) to pick it up later but your interpretation is not correct on the structure of government.

Yeah again you don't seem to understand how the US system works - you do not need to justify anything when you exercise a right - not in the slightest. The US may not be a civilized society in your opinion but that is all it is - your opinion. And your opinion does not allow you to infringe upon the rights of others.

I am not sure if you mean to patronise but that is how you certainly come across.

I was answering your assertion:

Quote:

Secondly, the constitution does not give rights - the creator does. The constitution limits what the government can do.

I was not referring to the 2nd Amendment specifically. You asserted that the "constitution does not give rights" and I suggest that you are wrong in this assertion.

Ironically, you referred to the Bill of Rights, I guess the clue is in the title?

You clearly do not accept the basic premise that selling weapons of mass murder on the open market is wrong and so let's agree to differ?

Chloé Palmas

13-06-2018 20:45

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

Yeah we can agree to differ though the way you word it is like "look the mass murdering weapons are something that I do not like but you do so let us just discuss this no more" which is way too much cringe. How would you like it if I said "yes we can agree to disagree that you believe that the rights afforded in the bill of rights should be trampled upon, and I don't". Wording it like that would make vomit / I would feel so dirty that I would probably need to take a bath.

The bill of Rights are the amendments to the constitution btw - the second amendment is a part of the bill of rights. The constitution is to do with limitations on government power, the bill of rights are what rights that individuals have.

As for meaning to patronize...yeah okay I'll cop that one. It was a rather condescending and patronizing post (talking about grade school / civics 101 etc) and yeah, maybe I did mean it even to be patronizing / come off as a school teacher. I will try not to be a bitch about it all. :)

Hugh	13-06-2018 20:51

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

I’m all for the 2nd Amendment- a well regulated militia...

Of course, the 2nd Amendment wasn’t so contentious until the 70s/80s.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...endment-106856

Quote:

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.

Quote:

Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.

Quote:

Cut to 1977. Gun-group veterans still call the NRA’s annual meeting that year the “Revolt at Cincinnati.” After the organization’s leadership had decided to move its headquarters to Colorado, signaling a retreat from politics, more than a thousand angry rebels showed up at the annual convention. By four in the morning, the dissenters had voted out the organization’s leadership. Activists from the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms pushed their way into power.

The NRA’s new leadership was dramatic, dogmatic and overtly ideological. For the first time, the organization formally embraced the idea that the sacred Second Amendment was at the heart of its concerns.

The gun lobby’s lurch rightward was part of a larger conservative backlash that took place across the Republican coalition in the 1970s. One after another, once-sleepy traditional organizations galvanized as conservative activists wrested control.

Quote:

Then, starting in the late 1970s, a squad of attorneys and professors began to churn out law review submissions, dozens of them, at a prodigious rate. Funds—much of them from the NRA—flowed freely. An essay contest, grants to write book reviews, the creation of “Academics for the Second Amendment,” all followed. In 2003, the NRA Foundation provided $1 million to endow the Patrick Henry professorship in constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University Law School.

This fusillade of scholarship and pseudo-scholarship insisted that the traditional view—shared by courts and historians—was wrong. There had been a colossal constitutional mistake. Two centuries of legal consensus, they argued, must be overturned.

tl:dr - until the 70s, the current viewpoint didn’t have any traction; a new leadership took over the NRA, and then the lobbying, articles, and legal challenges began...

(or, as it’s called nowadays- the National Guard/Air National Guard)

;)

Chloé Palmas

13-06-2018 20:54

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

Btw Hugh I still have to reply to post number 66 to you but the double post feature makes it look all messy so I'll leave it a couple hours and then hit a message back on that one, soon to you. :) (Thanks for your patience!)

ianch99

14-06-2018 22:18

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35950462)

Fascinating answers from US Gun Owners to the question:

Is there a valid justification for individuals to own assault rifles?

Some of them echo the point you are making i.e.

Quote:

Free people don’t need valid justifications for owning things. The government needs a valid justification for preventing them from owning things.

Quote:

The real question though, is there any reason to forbid the person who can afford to buy such a weapon from owning it? I'll take it further, if a person has the kind of disposable income that enables him to purchase military grade weapons, can congress or anyone else prevent him from buying or making them?

Quote:

Why do you need a justification from someone who chooses to exercise a Constitutionally protected right ? My answer to you is " I choose to" that is enough justification

Quote:

Why would someone need a justification to own an object that is legal? If someone wants one and has the means to purchase it they need no justification. If I want to buy a Rolex GMT Master II for $8,500 why would I need to justify it to you or anyone else? Yes I could buy a Timex for $29.00 that tells time but that’s not the watch I want.

Fascinating ... but what these people and I suggest you also, Chloé, are missing is that these people already have a line drawn in the sand that precludes them from buying certain gun types.

As you pointed out, you cannot buy or own a fully automatic weapon. People seem to accept it and the "militia" are not building barricades in the street to protest?

So we have the concept of a line over which you must not step. There is a boundary, it exists. All that is suggested is that the boundary is adjusted in light of gun evolution and the uses of said guns in mass killings.

If you apply the logic of the arguments made in this article to their logical conclusion then all guns should be legally available since, as one of them puts it:

Quote:

Ummm… how about the FACT that owning the most effective firearm you possibly can is a moral obligation?

Our founders realized that, in the end, all that really mattered was that the new citizens of the new country must be able (if, and almost certainly, when) to take control of the country should our government turn out like any previous governments—

That is only possible if the citizen is as well-armed as the soldier—hence you can not be a good citizen without making yourself available/useful to the ‘militia’ if that event were to occur…

Incidently, the huge number of privately held semi-autos and scoped/hunting rifles in this country renders it essentially impossible to invade—another excellent reason to assume your place in the protection of America by owning very serious guns…

Do your job—it’s part of being a correct American.

Quote:

This is the sort of parity that the founders had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. Those who spout the sophistry that the founders couldn’t have anticipated modern weapons entirely miss the point: The armed body of the public was supposed to have weapons on par with the military.

The founders trusted their neighbors with weapons more than they trusted professional soldiers. The unruliness of the militia was its strength. Where professional soldiers were ultimately loyal to their chain of command, the founders believed that the militia (the armed body of the public) would always be loyal to the people of the United States, because they are the people of the United States.

That’s the Constitutional justification for owning assault rifles (and yes, I realize that semiautos are not really assault rifles).

It seems to me that you accept lines in the sand and then a consensus can be sought on where this is drawn or you accept the inexorable conclusion of the 2nd Amendment and accept that citizens should have the right to own any weapon that is available to the Military.

The assertion that:

Quote:

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.

only has meaning if said militia is capable of parity, in military terms, with the Armed forces of the Government it is there to insure against.

To do this, it needs to own and deploy commensurate levels of weaponry which is clearly ridiculous so, in my opinion, justifying the need to bear arms capable of more than reasonable levels of self defensive capability is an historical anachronism.

The Prosecution rests ..

Hugh	14-06-2018 22:55

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

The militia was to defend their home States against foreign enemies or internal insurrection, not it’s own forces - fighting against the US Government /Armed Forces would be treason, so why would they need parity for an illegal reason?

In Article I, Section 8 (the Militia Clause) of the US Constitution, it states:

Quote:

“Congress shall have the power to: provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

ianch99

15-06-2018 00:32

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35950587)

I disagree, the reading I have done implies the opposite. Any foreign enemies or internal insurrection would be, correctly, dealt with by the National defence forces.

Here's an interpretation of what I and the Gun owners alluded to:

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

Quote:

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

Quote:

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:08.

Page 5 of 6

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page