OT: what in the world is going on?

[ultraman6970]

Is this parents at fault??? ···???????????? cr@p like this makes me really question that I might be in the right track being a PITA parent with my kids. WTH? :/


http://news.yahoo.com/boy-11-reportedly-shoots-dead-211512315.html

[Louis]

Absolutely the girl's parents are at fault - they should have provided her with her own shotgun, so she could have protected herself.

After all, the only way to stop a bad boy with a gun is to have a good girl with a gun.

[dave thompson]

Louis, you're such a provocateur.

[Louis]

Ultra lobbed a fat pitch in, I had to take a swing at it.

[pbarry]

A little class please. Yes, it's too soon.

[ultraman6970]

Love you too ;D

Ultra lobbed a fat pitch in, I had to take a swing at it.

[RonW87]

They arrested the 11 year old on first degree murder charges. Strange. I doubt there is requisite intent. My wife said that they should have arrested the parents for making the gun available. I responded that, on that basis, they should arrest the USA.

[ultraman6970]

You guys had stuff like that in canada?

[avalonracing]

Absolutely the girl's parents are at fault - they should have provided her with her own shotgun, so she could have protected herself.

After all, the only way to stop a bad boy with a gun is to have a good girl with a gun.


Well played, sir.

[RonW87]

You guys had stuff like that in canada?

Yes, but much rarer. The most recent comparable event was in 1989:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

So, that's 26 years ago now.

Almost goes without saying that gun control is much stricter here. To have a firearm, you must be licensed. We're also in the middle of an election now. Believe me when I tell you that no candidate is advocating a less restrictive firearms policy.

R.

[nesteel]

They arrested the 11 year old on first degree murder charges. Strange. I doubt there is requisite intent. My wife said that they should have arrested the parents for making the gun available. I responded that, on that basis, they should arrest the USA.

Everyone's a critic. Don't like the policies, don't live here.
And yes, they parents should be charged. Total negligence on their part.

[kramnnim]

People are crazy.

This was linked to in the first link...

http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/12021-cops-man-disemboweled-his-girlfriend-after-she-screamed-out-exs-name-during-sex

[Rada]

Everyone's a critic. Don't like the policies, don't live here.
And yes, they parents should be charged. Total negligence on their part.

Don't like the policies live here and change the policies. It is still a democracy...of sorts.

[RonW87]

Everyone's a critic. Don't like the policies, don't live here.


ummm, I don't (and I don't).

[unterhausen]

the tide will eventually turn, it really has gotten ridiculous. At least the cops didn't say it was an unfortunate accident, unlike other incidents of recent memory. 87000 Americans have died since Sandy Hook due to guns. We really are being terrorized by a terrorist organization made up of sleeper cells. The NRA and the ammosexuals will lose their power. Not sure how long it will take, but it will happen.

[Louis]

87000 Americans have died since Sandy Hook due to guns

I haven't seen a breakdown of the statistics for this, but I bet that a significantly disproportionate % of those dead are young black men in the 'hood, so the folks in power in this country really don't care that much.

Had that been young white men in the suburbs shooting each other up, I think things would be different.

[bigmatt]

87000 Americans have died since Sandy Hook due to guns

I haven't seen a breakdown of the statistics for this, but I bet that a significantly disproportionate % of those dead are young black men in the 'hood, so the folks in power in this country really don't care that much.

Had that been young white men in the suburbs shooting each other up, I think things would be different.

2/3 of that number is suicides by firearms. The remaining third I'm sure has a largely disproportionate percentage due to black on black crime from inner cities.

[Louis]

2/3 of that number is suicides by firearms

I didn't realize suicides were such a large proportion of the total.

[rustychisel]

I didn't realize suicides were such a large proportion of the total.

Sad, but reinforces, without a doubt, the simplicity of the argument of using what is at hand for lethal ends.

When cutthroat razors went out of fashion in the UK suicide by that means plummeted from what was, until then, quite commonplace.

[Bruce K]

And it still won't stop

If you are a careless, reckless, etc owner, you should lose your right to own a gun and face criminal charges for the consequences.

Most gun deaths are by illegally owned guns in the hands of criminals but there is no real push to deal with that issue.

Background checks with sensible guidelines should not be an issue but when one visit to a marriage counselor disqualifies someone as having mental health issues you get push back.

There are better ways to deal with the issue than the extremes that both sides are pushing.

And just to be "the nut" - how many deaths are caused by cell phone use while driving? Are we trying to ban cell phones or really enforcing hands free laws?

Some common sense needs to apply here but until people actually start talking to each other again instead of the current polarized "if you don't agree with me then you are a whacko I won't listen to" we will get nowhere on many key issues affecting our country.

Rant over

BK

[AJM100]

I didn't realize suicides were such a large proportion of the total.

check out the suicide rate for vets and you will choke. Presumably a large percentage would be by gun. Sad.

[oldpotatoe]

And it still won't stop

If you are a careless, reckless, etc owner, you should lose your right to own a gun and face criminal charges for the consequences.

Most gun deaths are by illegally owned guns in the hands of criminals but there is no real push to deal with that issue.

Background checks with sensible guidelines should not be an issue but when one visit to a marriage counselor disqualifies someone as having mental health issues you get push back.

There are better ways to deal with the issue than the extremes that both sides are pushing.

And just to be "the nut" - how many deaths are caused by cell phone use while driving? Are we trying to ban cell phones or really enforcing hands free laws?

Some common sense needs to apply here but until people actually start talking to each other again instead of the current polarized "if you don't agree with me then you are a whacko I won't listen to" we will get nowhere on many key issues affecting our country.

Rant over

BK

It doesn't disqualify you. A court decision is required before it goes into the national data base.

NRA has 1/2 of congress or more in their pocket. Probably the same number in a variety of other industries, like Big Pharma, tele-communications, and don't forget big oil. 30 minutes on social media showed the last shooter was mentally unhinged. YET, he had 13 guns(some provided by 'relatives-huh??, they ought to be prosecuted) and the rest 'purchased legally'...

How many of the mass shooters were mentally ill? 100%. How many had documented evidence of this, either by a health care person or on social media? 100%..

A rant on facebook may not disqualify from gun ownership but it ought to be investigated.

[rugbysecondrow]

the tide will eventually turn, it really has gotten ridiculous. At least the cops didn't say it was an unfortunate accident, unlike other incidents of recent memory. 87000 Americans have died since Sandy Hook due to guns. We really are being terrorized by a terrorist organization made up of sleeper cells. The NRA and the ammosexuals will lose their power. Not sure how long it will take, but it will happen.


Hmmm, to make this political or not make this political, that is the question.

The larger issue is that people purposefully politicize these issues to gain an advantage. The simple and unfounded knee jerk answer is gun control, but we say that without actually resolving or speaking to the root cause(s) of the problem. Is availability of guns really the problem or are there greater issues at play which we could deal with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rugbysecondrow]

And it still won't stop



If you are a careless, reckless, etc owner, you should lose your right to own a gun and face criminal charges for the consequences.



Most gun deaths are by illegally owned guns in the hands of criminals but there is no real push to deal with that issue.



Background checks with sensible guidelines should not be an issue but when one visit to a marriage counselor disqualifies someone as having mental health issues you get push back.



There are better ways to deal with the issue than the extremes that both sides are pushing.



And just to be "the nut" - how many deaths are caused by cell phone use while driving? Are we trying to ban cell phones or really enforcing hands free laws?



Some common sense needs to apply here but until people actually start talking to each other again instead of the current polarized "if you don't agree with me then you are a whacko I won't listen to" we will get nowhere on many key issues affecting our country.



Rant over



BK


I agree Bruce


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[avalonracing]

I knew some of my friends and acquaintances were gun, uh, "fans" but I really didn't know how nutty some were. In the light of this last massacre some of them have been on Facebook talking about how they have ten or more guns and concealed carry (in their upper middle class suburban communities) so they can "be ready" for any threat.

Many therapists would say that anyone who thinks that someone is always out to get them might have a mental illness.

[SPOKE]

Profiling???? do you think this should be part of a he solution??

[Ray]

Anyone can easily argue that any single gun-related atrocity wouldn't have been stopped by more stringent gun restrictions. That's what Rubio and a host of other politicos (on both sides, to be fair, but it's nearly unanimous on the GOP side) reflexively do after every one of these events.

What I don't think you can argue is that more stringent gun restrictions will result in fewer gun deaths. There is enough data out there showing that every other "advanced" country has greater gun restrictions than the US and significantly fewer gun deaths (proportionate to the population). And that even within the US, the states with greater restrictions generally have lower rates than those with fewer restrictions.

We can argue the details of what would be more effective measures and less effective measures all day long, but I don't think you can meaningfully argue the macro point that gun restrictions reduce gun deaths. You can never stop all of them - to me that's no reason not to reduce them to the extent possible.

I feel that "my side" has lost this issue in this country, at least for my lifetime. If a bloody massacre of 20 innocent little baby first and second graders at Sandy Hook didn't move the needle, none of these shootings of adults are gonna do a damn thing. I'm down to just hoping beyond hope that none of these crazies ever randomly decide to walk into a school, hospital, office, whatever, where any of my loved ones happen to be.

And, no, I don't believe that arming my loved ones is any part of the solution. That's the common argument, but with all of the guns out in circulation today, mostly legally, how is it that NONE of these atrocities have ever been stopped by one of the potential victims pulling out a gun and taking the shooter down? Even at a military recruiting office, where those guys have actually been trained in that sort of action... It may happen someday, but anyone who thinks this is any sort of policy is out of their mind, IMHO...

-Ray

[ntb1001]

You guys had stuff like that in canada?
Not like in the US. There really is not a gun culture here, I have only known a few people who have owned small firearms, and they had to jump through hoops to get a permit....and that was to own a handgun, not carry one.
Guns, however are being used in gangbanger type crime more and more...it's not uncommon to hear about shootings in drug deals and gang shootings almost on a weekly basis in Toronto. I think I just read a stat. that there have been 18 deaths by shooting this year so far in Toronto.

[velomonkey]

Everyone's a critic. Don't like the policies, don't live here.


Someone should tell that to Kim Davis.

[tumbler]

Everyone's a critic. Don't like the policies, don't live here.

Yep, nothing in America has ever been improved upon or needed fixing.... :confused:

[velomonkey]

And just to be "the nut" - how many deaths are caused by cell phone use while driving? Are we trying to ban cell phones or really enforcing hands free laws?


30k automobile deaths per year.

11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000), 21,175 by suicide with a firearm.

You do know it was just a few years ago we had MORE deaths from guns than from cars, right?

Out of the deaths in autos, I dunno, 1/3 with a cell phone would seem erring on the high side.

And, yea, states are only increasing their laws on cell phone use while driving.

[bcroslin]

Thank goodness people on the Internet are tackling this important issue! We should have this whole gun thing solved once and for all by this afternoon.

[soulspinner]

Yes, but much rarer. The most recent comparable event was in 1989:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

So, that's 26 years ago now.

Almost goes without saying that gun control is much stricter here. To have a firearm, you must be licensed. We're also in the middle of an election now. Believe me when I tell you that no candidate is advocating a less restrictive firearms policy.

R.

Hmmmm it is working there, whats so different here??? Oh yeah gun culture including violent movies, videos and now regular mass murders.............

[soulspinner]

thank goodness people on the internet are tackling this important issue! We should have this whole gun thing solved once and for all by this afternoon.

:p:p

[PQJ]

I would like to see more gun control legislation but I'll be candid in saying that I don't think it will really help. The problem is a cultural one and the fact is that guns and violence are deeply embedded in American culture and have been since the country's founding. Unless you can change that - and I don't think you can - it's a problem we are going to have to continue live with, sadly.

I thought this article was interesting, for whatever it is worth: http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkcgc.html.

[rugbysecondrow]

Anyone can easily argue that any single gun-related atrocity wouldn't have been stopped by more stringent gun restrictions. That's what Rubio and a host of other politicos (on both sides, to be fair, but it's nearly unanimous on the GOP side) reflexively do after every one of these events.



What I don't think you can argue is that more stringent gun restrictions will result in fewer gun deaths. There is enough data out there showing that every other "advanced" country has greater gun restrictions than the US and significantly fewer gun deaths (proportionate to the population). And that even within the US, the states with greater restrictions generally have lower rates than those with fewer restrictions.



We can argue the details of what would be more effective measures and less effective measures all day long, but I don't think you can meaningfully argue the macro point that gun restrictions reduce gun deaths. You can never stop all of them - to me that's no reason not to reduce them to the extent possible.



I feel that "my side" has lost this issue in this country, at least for my lifetime. If a bloody massacre of 20 innocent little baby first and second graders at Sandy Hook didn't move the needle, none of these shootings of adults are gonna do a damn thing. I'm down to just hoping beyond hope that none of these crazies ever randomly decide to walk into a school, hospital, office, whatever, where any of my loved ones happen to be.



And, no, I don't believe that arming my loved ones is any part of the solution. That's the common argument, but with all of the guns out in circulation today, mostly legally, how is it that NONE of these atrocities have ever been stopped by one of the potential victims pulling out a gun and taking the shooter down? Even at a military recruiting office, where those guys have actually been trained in that sort of action... It may happen someday, but anyone who thinks this is any sort of policy is out of their mind, IMHO...



-Ray



I view gun control in a similar way as I do illegal immigration: create policies that can actually be understood, mandated and enforced.



An example is the waiting period, already on the books but not able to be adequately enforced: http://smartgunlaws.org/waiting-periods-policy-summary/



There is no federal waiting period. As described below, federal law allows a dealer to deliver a firearm to a purchaser as soon as a background check is completed, or after three business days even if a background check has not been completed. Each year, over 3,000 ineligible persons receive firearms through this default provision. The FBI has determined that in 2012, the number was as high as 3,722.1 The average time it takes for the FBI to determine that illegal purchasers are ineligible to receive firearms is 25 days.2 As a result, the FBI has recommended extending the research time to complete background checks to reduce the number of prohibited people who are able to purchase firearms by default.



The issue is that even at the federal level, where the FBI does the checks, they are not given adequate resources to do the job. In the next breath you have the POTUS saying that something has to be done. (scratch my head). Well, how about we start by funding the people who are the first line of defense, those who are validating and performing background checks. Each year over 3,000 ineligible people get guns because of this unfunded policy.



So, here is a basic idea, fund and support the ongoing laws. Determine the root cause whilst also implementing some best practices regarding training, ownership cards or waiting periods from some successful states, states which have reduced the rate of gun violence while also not impacting the citizens right to own their gun.

[goonster]

The problem is a cultural one and the fact is that guns and violence are deeply embedded in American culture and have been since the country's founding.

Yes, it's cultural, but that culture is very different from the founders'.

Founders: Frontier society
Today: Urban/suburban society

Founders: Flintlocks
Today: Selfloading, high velocity, etc.

Founders: Local ban ordinances widespread (well into 20th C)
Today: McDonald v. Chicago, shall-issue

Yes, we have a deeply ingrained gun culture, but that culture bears no resemblance to anything before, say, WWII.

[velomonkey]

Let's just ignore the full sentence and punctuation of the II amendment

Defeating of tyrannical governments = 0

Murders and Mass murders = A poop ton

The idea that the population could somehow overthrow and keep in check the US military is laughable. Also, the intent was much like Switzerland where homes do have full automatic weapons with ammo, but the citizens receive training. Yea, they had a recently had a guy lose his lid, but their mass murders and murders are far lower and yet they have plenty of homes with far more powerful weapons.

[redir]

Let's just ignore the full sentence and punctuation of the II amendment

Defeating of tyrannical governments = 0

Murders and Mass murders = A poop ton

The idea that the population could somehow overthrow and keep in check the US military is laughable. Also, the intent was much like Switzerland where homes do have full automatic weapons with ammo, but the citizens receive training. Yea, they had a recently had a guy lose his lid, but their mass murders and murders are far lower and yet they have plenty of homes with far more powerful weapons.

One A-10 or attack helicopter would have taken the Cliven Bundy group out in an instance.

Seriously if you want a litmus test for who should not own guns then take them away from anyone who thinks they need guns to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Those people are clearly nuts in plain sight.

And for the record I'm very much in support of guns for personal defense and of course as a tool for hunting.

[goonster]

Switzerland where homes do have full automatic weapons with ammo
They can't use them for personal defense, and as of 2008 they no longer have ammo.

[velomonkey]

They can't use them for personal defense, and as of 2008 they no longer have ammo.


Well then, seems they took the Chris Rock approach.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II)

The Swiss store their ammunition in munitions which are accessible should it be required . . . .you know, much like those dudes who, um, wrote the constitution. but punctuation and details like this matter not.

[Mark McM]

I didn't realize suicides were such a large proportion of the total.

There are more suicide deaths each year in the US than motor vehicle related deaths. And the most common method of suicide in the US is firearms (more than half of all suicides).

One of the common reasons given for firearms ownership is personal protection. But, while most firearms are never actually fired at a person, of those that are, the most common person fired at is the firearm owner themselves - usually for purposes of suicide.

[brockd15]

Having a gun debate here will get nowhere. It's been done before and people just get super emotional and start insulting anyone who doesn't agree with them (I don't know what an ammosexual is supposed to be, but that sounds like a new low).

So putting that aside, I'd be curious to hear what people here think is the root cause? Not the root cause of getting to a gun, but the root cause of a kid who will kill another kid because they don't get their way? Same question for other violent acts we hear about.

[avalonracing]

Seriously if you want a litmus test for who should not own guns then take them away from anyone who thinks they need guns to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Those people are clearly nuts in plain sight.




This ^

[goonster]

I don't know what an ammosexual is supposed to be

It's like a leche-fusile, but younger and less inhibited.

but the root cause of a kid who will kill another kid because they don't get their way?

The root cause is that he's 11 years old, doesn't understand the consequences of his actions, and shouldn't have access to firearms for the same reasons he shouldn't have access to bulldozers.

[rugbysecondrow]

It's like a leche-fusile, but younger and less inhibited.



The root cause is that he's 11 years old, doesn't understand the consequences of his actions, and shouldn't have access to firearms for the same reasons he shouldn't have access to bulldozers.

Agreed

[drewski]

One A-10 or attack helicopter would have taken the Cliven Bundy group out in an instance.

Seriously if you want a litmus test for who should not own guns then take them away from anyone who thinks they need guns to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Those people are clearly nuts in plain sight.

And for the record I'm very much in support of guns for personal defense and of course as a tool for hunting.


The frontier attitude of not having a age requirement for a rifle is
not the sole reason for a problem, but is part of the problem.
30 states have no min. age requirement for owning a long gun.

As an aside, I personally think this analogous to states where 16 old are allowed to drive. The biggest cause of death of teenagers is wreckless driving.

[brockd15]

It's like a leche-fusile, but younger and less inhibited.



The root cause is that he's 11 years old, doesn't understand the consequences of his actions, and shouldn't have access to firearms for the same reasons he shouldn't have access to bulldozers.

You don't think 11 years old is old enough to know better than to not shoot somebody? Maybe a 5 year old wouldn't understand, but 11 I think is old enough. I could be wrong though.

But you don't think it goes any deeper than that? What about the other acts of violence that have happened?

[tumbler]

You don't think 11 years old is old enough to know better than to not shoot somebody? Maybe a 5 year old wouldn't understand, but 11 I think is old enough. I could be wrong though.

But you don't think it goes any deeper than that? What about the other acts of violence that have happened?

It's more complicated than knowing that they shouldn't shoot somebody. It's entirely possible for an 11 year old to know something is wrong, even very wrong, but not fully understand all the reasons why it is wrong and the full repercussions of an act. As a result, they may fall victim to an impulse at age 11 that they would not indulge at age 30. Shooting someone is obviously an extreme impulse that we hope no child would indulge, but given the right kid and the right circumstances, I can see how tragedies like this can occur.

This is not to take the blame off of the shooter or his parents, just to point out that knowing right and wrong is only one aspect of our behavior.

[bcroslin]

This is making the rounds on social media - explains things perfectly

Jim Jeffries: "there is one argument and one argument alone for having a gun: F off, I like guns!" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZIOE6aMBk)

[kramnnim]

People who say "You don't need guns!" remind me of the drivers who complain about cyclists clogging up the roads. "Go ride on the bike paths!" etc.

[Tin Turtle]

There is no federal waiting period. As described below, federal law allows a dealer to deliver a firearm to a purchaser as soon as a background check is completed, or after three business days even if a background check has not been completed.


So how does a waiting period stop the kid from shooting the girl? How does it stop the idiot in Oregon a few days ago? It doesn't, there are no laws that will stop either of these two except a ban on firearms and that isn't going to happen.

When someone successfully sues the parents insurance company for a tens of millions that will create a change in homeowners policies. And/or changes in health insurance. When owning a gun voids a person's coverage completely it will create a change based off of financial consideration. Corporations will drive the change, not laws from elected/bribed/self centered officials.

[bcroslin]

So far in 2015, we've had 274 days and 294 mass shootings (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/01/2015-274-days-294-mass-shootings-hundreds-dead/)

[bcroslin]

30k automobile deaths per year.

11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000), 21,175 by suicide with a firearm.

You do know it was just a few years ago we had MORE deaths from guns than from cars, right?

Out of the deaths in autos, I dunno, 1/3 with a cell phone would seem erring on the high side.

And, yea, states are only increasing their laws on cell phone use while driving.

From Nicholas Kristof's column (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-a-new-way-to-tackle-gun-deaths.html?_r=0):

"Actually, cars exemplify the public health approach we need to apply to guns. We don稚 ban cars, but we do require driver痴 licenses, seatbelts, airbags, padded dashboards, safety glass and collapsible steering columns. And we致e reduced the auto fatality rate by 95 percent.

One problem is that the gun lobby has largely blocked research on making guns safer. Between 1973 and 2012, the National Institutes of Health awarded 89 grants for the study of rabies and 212 for cholera and only three for firearms injuries."

[bigmatt]

-snip-

And, no, I don't believe that arming my loved ones is any part of the solution. That's the common argument, but with all of the guns out in circulation today, mostly legally, how is it that NONE of these atrocities have ever been stopped by one of the potential victims pulling out a gun and taking the shooter down? Even at a military recruiting office, where those guys have actually been trained in that sort of action... It may happen someday, but anyone who thinks this is any sort of policy is out of their mind, IMHO...

-Ray

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.vr61j77vp

Let's just ignore the full sentence and punctuation of the II amendment

Defeating of tyrannical governments = 0

Murders and Mass murders = A poop ton

The idea that the population could somehow overthrow and keep in check the US military is laughable. Also, the intent was much like Switzerland where homes do have full automatic weapons with ammo, but the citizens receive training. Yea, they had a recently had a guy lose his lid, but their mass murders and murders are far lower and yet they have plenty of homes with far more powerful weapons.

This often gets brought up when someone talks about the 2nd amendment. You can't defeat the U.S Military, right. Lets remember to gain independence our forefathers fought against the British. A bunch of average citizens talking up arms to fight a trained military and we all know how that turned out.

Anyone in the U.S. Military takes an oath to uphold the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. If a tyrannical government orders the military to fire/fight on its own people will they follow orders?

[rugbysecondrow]

So how does a waiting period stop the kid from shooting the girl? How does it stop the idiot in Oregon a few days ago? It doesn't, there are no laws that will stop either of these two except a ban on firearms and that isn't going to happen.

When someone successfully sues the parents insurance company for a tens of millions that will create a change in homeowners policies. And/or changes in health insurance. When owning a gun voids a person's coverage completely it will create a change based off of financial consideration. Corporations will drive the change, not laws from elected/bribed/self centered officials.


Maybe it stops a suicide, a depressed spouse, a mournful father, a jaded lover, an angry coworker etc etc.

There is no policy or law which prevents people from doing bad things. If you try to create one, it will fall short repeatedly.

[Ray]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.vr61j77vp

OK, I stand corrected. But that's NINE out of how many hundred or thousand. I don't know the figures but I know we're approaching 300 for this year alone. I think the exceptions prove the rule.

This has been making the rounds lately - I like it a lot, but I would...

"How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion -- mandatory 48-hour waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he's about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, an ultrasound wand up the ass (just because). Let's close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun. Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.

It makes more sense to do this with young men and guns than with women and health care, right? I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?"

-Ray

[EDS]

Everyone's a critic. Don't like the policies, don't live here.
And yes, they parents should be charged. Total negligence on their part.

Um, that is like saying women in the USA pre 19th amendment should have been o.k. with not being able to vote, or an African American living in the USA pre-civil rights should have been o.k. with separate but equal.

[rugbysecondrow]

OK, I stand corrected. But that's NINE out of how many hundred or thousand. I don't know the figures but I know we're approaching 300 for this year alone. I think the exceptions prove the rule.

This has been making the rounds lately - I like it a lot, but I would...

"How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion -- mandatory 48-hour waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he's about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, an ultrasound wand up the ass (just because). Let's close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun. Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.

It makes more sense to do this with young men and guns than with women and health care, right? I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?"

-Ray

I agree with waiting periods and reasonable conversation, but you can do better than this Ray.

[brockd15]

OK, I stand corrected. But that's NINE out of how many hundred or thousand. I don't know the figures but I know we're approaching 300 for this year alone. I think the exceptions prove the rule.

I think there's something to this story...http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/02/umpqua-community-college-shooting-oregon-mass-shooting-fbi-statistics-column/73199052/

This has been making the rounds lately - I like it a lot, but I would...

"How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion -- mandatory 48-hour waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he's about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, an ultrasound wand up the ass (just because). Let's close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun. Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.

It makes more sense to do this with young men and guns than with women and health care, right? I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?"

-Ray

Gun ownership and abortion are not remotely the same and shouldn't be treated as if they are. That really just sounds like someone who is bitter about people thinking it's wrong to kill babies.

[Ray]

I agree with waiting periods and reasonable conversation, but you can do better than this Ray.

I didn't write it - it's hit my Facebook feed about five times from different people in the past few days, so I'm passing it on. And while it's obviously not a calmly reasoned argument on the technical merits and demerits of gun control or abortion, I don't think the basic sentiment of the comparison is out of line...

I respect your right to find that it is...

-Ray

[soulspinner]

OK, I stand corrected. But that's NINE out of how many hundred or thousand. I don't know the figures but I know we're approaching 300 for this year alone. I think the exceptions prove the rule.

This has been making the rounds lately - I like it a lot, but I would...

"How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion -- mandatory 48-hour waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he's about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, an ultrasound wand up the ass (just because). Let's close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun. Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.

It makes more sense to do this with young men and guns than with women and health care, right? I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?"

-Ray

Bam and there it is..........

[Tin Turtle]

Gun ownership and abortion are not remotely the same and shouldn't be treated as if they are. That really just sounds like someone who is bitter about people thinking it's wrong to kill babies.

It was a great analogy, and the bitter person in that exchange is totally obvious.

[brockd15]

It was a great analogy, and the bitter person in that exchange is totally obvious.

Care to elaborate, please?

[rugbysecondrow]

I didn't write it - it's hit my Facebook feed about five times from different people in the past few days, so I'm passing it on. And while it's obviously not a calmly reasoned argument on the technical merits and demerits of gun control or abortion, I don't think the basic sentiment of the comparison is out of line...



I respect your right to find that it is...



-Ray


Sure, but being coy about being purposefully inflammatory is also poor form.

The reality of the conversation is that for gun control legislation (in whatever form) to work, those favoring it need to work with and convince those who currently oppose it to change their stance some. If the conversation stays reasonable, that is possible. If it becomes inflammatory or insult laden, which happens, then it won't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[goonster]

Anyone in the U.S. Military takes an oath to uphold the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. If a tyrannical government orders the military to fire/fight on its own people will they follow orders?

How does this justify a civilian population awash with small arms?

Because you can pick off the would-be tyrants' henchmen when they hesitate to launch a Hellfire missile?

[goonster]

The reality of the conversation is that for gun control legislation (in whatever form) to work, those favoring it need to work with and convince those who currently oppose it to change their stance some.

That could change.

At some point, the cost could become so high that the burden shifts to those who defend the status quo.

[rugbysecondrow]

That could change.

At some point, the cost could become so high that the burden shifts to those who defend the status quo.

This is true, it would have to be a very big shift to overcome the constitutional, legal and cultural battles.

[brockd15]

How does this justify a civilian population awash with small arms?

Because you can pick off the would-be tyrants' henchmen when they hesitate to launch a Hellfire missile?

Just a side note. It's really popular to belittle, insult, stereotype (incorrectly), and talk condescendingly to/about people who are pro-gun.

Instead of thinking of people who believe gun ownership should be protected as people with this sort of paranoid, Rambo-wannabe, anti-government mentality, try to think of them as reasoned, intelligent people who have a different stance on the subject. The vast, vast majority are.

Or at the very least, don't vocalize it. Not saying to be silent, just tactful.

[Ray]

Sure, but being coy about being purposefully inflammatory is also poor form.

The reality of the conversation is that for gun control legislation (in whatever form) to work, those favoring it need to work with and convince those who currently oppose it to change their stance some. If the conversation stays reasonable, that is possible. If it becomes inflammatory or insult laden, which happens, then it won't.


I think it's reasonable in that both gun control and abortion are hugely emotional issues where reasonable middle grounds exist, but they're held hostage by extremists, all or nothing players, arguably on both sides.

On abortion, there's a big percentage (not sure if it's a majority or not) who feel it should be legal for the first tri-mester, illegal in the late term (except in fairly extraordinary circumstances), with some of the middle tri-mester being open for changes in medical science affecting when the fetus becomes "viable". But the anti-abortion purists insist that ALL abortion must be illegal and the pro-choice purists insisting that ALL abortions remain legal and easily available. We may be arriving at a legal middle ground despite their best efforts, but that may be because there are equally strong advocates on both sides of the issue.

On gun control, there's a clear majority in favor of background checks, closing the gun-show loophole, and banning or limiting assault weapons (sometimes depending on how many rounds in a clip). In this case, there's a VERY strong advocacy group fighting against ANY form of gun restrictions and a relatively weak and barely organized movement on the other side of the issue. There are so few anti-gun purists (outlaw all privately owned firearms) that they aren't even a presence in the dialog. Hell, I consider myself as pro-gun control as anyone I know, and I don't have any interest in banning hunting rifles and even basic handguns if people feel they need them for protection, so I don't know if there's any sort of population of "ban 'em all" people out there - probably a few... But we're nowhere near reaching a legal middle ground on this issue, even thought there's a strong political middle ground out there waiting to be seized. Someday, I suspect it will be, but I'm not holding my breath that it'll happen in my lifetime, and I hope to be around a good long time.

So, yeah, the thing I posted was a snarky as hell comparison, somewhat inflammatory, but I don't think out of line to start a discussion of the similarities...

-Ray

[Mark McM]

Anyone in the U.S. Military takes an oath to uphold the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. If a tyrannical government orders the military to fire/fight on its own people will they follow orders?

Kent State?

[cloudguy]

Great post Ray and +1 to the aptness of the analogy. Indeed, just go read the comments section of any news opinion article about changing guns laws. The main fear from the pro-gun crowd seems to be that the Government and especially Obama wants to take all the guns away to gain greater CONTROL of the populace, i.e., the perceived motivation is not to prevent further tragedies and loss of life but rather to take away freedom. The same is essentially true of those on the pro-choice side who believe that the motivation of the opposing side is not to prevent the loss of innocent life but rather to CONTROL a woman's body and take away her freedom.

[goonster]

Instead of thinking of people who believe gun ownership should be protected as people with this sort of paranoid, Rambo-wannabe, anti-government mentality, try to think of them as reasoned, intelligent people who have a different stance on the subject.

OK, but you are also making some assumptions about me here, i.e. that I can't differentiate, and that I'm condescending from a position of ignorance.

Please know that I've experienced gun culture from the inside, having held some of those extreme ideological positions in my youth, having owned my share of "RKBA" belt buckles, and being an owner of firearms to this day.

[Mark McM]

When someone successfully sues the parents insurance company for a tens of millions that will create a change in homeowners policies. And/or changes in health insurance. When owning a gun voids a person's coverage completely it will create a change based off of financial consideration. Corporations will drive the change, not laws from elected/bribed/self centered officials.

Well, until legislators are successfully lobbied to pass laws that prevent insurance companies from discriminating against gun owners. After all, the gun owners are just exercising their constitutional rights, and keeping the rest of us safe, right?

[AJM100]

Anyone have any ideas on how to make this thread more divisive?

:bike:

[brockd15]

OK, but you are also making some assumptions about me here, i.e. that I can't differentiate, and that I'm condescending from a position of ignorance.

Please know that I've experienced gun culture from the inside, having held some of those extreme ideological positions in my youth, having owned my share of "RKBA" belt buckles, and being an owner of firearms to this day.

Fair enough, we all have our own experiences.
It just gets so old....gun supporters being talked about as if they're toothless hillbilly vigilantes.

What extreme ideological positions did you hold, and what changed your mind?

[bigmatt]

How does this justify a civilian population awash with small arms?

Because you can pick off the would-be tyrants' henchmen when they hesitate to launch a Hellfire missile?

My point is there will be military members that would not comply with a tyrannical rule and join forces with the "people" if a revolution were to happen. The 2A is there to ensure that the American people can own and keep arms to ensure a Tyrannical government rule doesn't happen in the US. World history has shown that the first order of business for a new Dictator/Tyrannical government is to disarm the people.

"A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject."

[Ray]

Fair enough, we all have our own experiences.
It just gets so old....gun supporters being talked about as if they're toothless hillbilly vigilantes.

What extreme ideological positions did you hold, and what changed your mind?

Different levels of "gun supporters" are perceived (and probably discussed) differently. People who oppose ANY limits on firearms because the gummint is out to get them or they want to protect themselves from terrorists coming in from Mexico (seriously - I've met a couple and they were about as far from Mexico as you could be in the CONUS...) I perceive rather harshly and would probably talk about that way as well.

Most "gun supporters", however, are nothing like that and don't bring out that kind of reaction. Most of the gun folks I know (including my brother and several close friends) are into hunting, or just shooting for sport, and most of them also favor the same level of control I'd like to see. You know, the basic background checks, closing of loopholes, banning of certain types of assault weapons. I have nothing but respect for these people.

Anybody who lumps all gun supporters together deserves your (and my) derision. The vast majority of us don't...

-Ray

[Tin Turtle]

Well, until legislators are successfully lobbied to pass laws that prevent insurance companies from discriminating against gun owners.

Possibly. But I think there would be a other outcomes that are more likely. It is hard to say what will happen for sure. I don't see much happening at the federal level. The House is so gerrymandered in that they don't even have do basic governing, let alone tackle complex problems.

The talk of executive action to close the loopholes is ok, but anything more than that and the political cost will be too high. Hell I am a leftist and I won't support someone who wants to impose restrictions that are too onerous. I live in the Chicago area, I see how effective stringent gun laws and bans are. All it does is make me a potential felon.

I live in China too and that gives a very different perspective. My wife is safe there, much safer than here. But even the Chinese will tell you that the only reason their government gets away with putting corrupt thugs on the street as law enforcement is because the population isn't armed.

It is too complicated to cover in a posting on a bike forum.

[rugbysecondrow]

Anyone have any ideas on how to make this thread more divisive?

:bike:

It is my opinion that Shimano owners are the anti-gun lunatics who want to abort your baby. Campy enthusiasts are just freedom loving protectors or life.

:beer:

[brockd15]

My point is there will be military members that would not comply with a tyrannical rule and join forces with the "people" if a revolution were to happen. The 2A is there to ensure that the American people can own and keep arms to ensure a Tyrannical government rule doesn't happen in the US. World history has shown that the first order of business for a new Dictator/Tyrannical government is to disarm the people.

"A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject."

Totally agree. Unfortunately, there are people (including on this forum...in this thread) who would say that this mindset is what should make you unfit to own a gun.

Ahem...


Seriously if you want a litmus test for who should not own guns then take them away from anyone who thinks they need guns to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Those people are clearly nuts in plain sight.

This ^

[JAllen]

It is my opinion that Shimano owners are the anti-gun lunatics who want to abort your baby. Campy enthusiasts are just freedom loving protectors or life.

:beer:

Where do the SRAM folks fall in?

[goonster]

What extreme ideological positions did you hold, and what changed your mind?

I chafed at any sort of regulation of guns, e.g. Class III restrictions, suppressors, whined about the Brady Bill, assault weapons ban, etc. all the standard stuff. Just did not see the downside.

Over time, an ongoing, honest evaluation of the evidence apparent to me indicated that the downside overwhelmingly outweighs the upside, and that the ideological arguments (net crime deterrence, liberty, etc.) do not hold up to scrutiny. That includes the benefit of having lived in places where private gun ownership is severely restricted.

But yes, I absolutely recognize that reasonable people are shaped by varying experiences, and can arrive at different conclusions.

[CunegoFan]

Most "gun supporters", however, are nothing like that and don't bring out that kind of reaction. Most of the gun folks I know (including my brother and several close friends) are into hunting, or just shooting for sport, and most of them also favor the same level of control I'd like to see. You know, the basic background checks, closing of loopholes, banning of certain types of assault weapons. I have nothing but respect for these people.


How do you define an assault weapon? Things have changed since scaremongering about assult weapons reached its height in the 80s. Scary looking black guns, AKA modern sporting rifles, have taken over the gun market these days. Buying a base gun and tricking it out with tacticool after market add-ons is like buying upgrades for your bicycle. I don't know any active shooters who want them banned.

Harping about assault rifiles seems way out of touch. You might want to complain about growth in suppressor sales, which are huge now, and SBRs.

[velomonkey]

It is my opinion that Shimano owners are the anti-gun lunatics who want to abort your baby. Campy enthusiasts are just freedom loving protectors or life.


Brother you have that incorrect - there is no possible way Adams, and Jefferson would ride anything but Campy


SRAM owners are the freaking gun nuts - "guns don't kill people . . ." rock solid logic there, ace.

[Seramount]

I have the slightly disturbing experience of working with some rabid gunners whose whole lives apparently revolve around their arsenals, their preps, and their infantile delusions about fighting off the gubmint when it comes to take their guns and put them in re-education camps.

these guys are degreed professionals, not toothless hillbilly vigilantes.

it's always amusing to remind them that the movie Red Dawn was not a documentary.

they seem completely unable to grasp the fact that even the most minimal US military response to their little clique of camo-clowns would be devastating.

[Ray]

How do you define an assault weapon? Things have changed since scaremongering about assult weapons reached its height in the 80s. Scary looking black guns, AKA modern sporting rifles, have taken over the gun market these days. Buying a base gun and tricking it out with tacticool after market add-ons is like buying upgrades for your bicycle. I don't know any active shooters who want them banned.

Harping about assault rifiles seems way out of touch. You might want to complain about growth in suppressor sales, which are huge now, and SBRs.
You're probably right. I don't pretend to be a gun expert and can't get down into the weeds of what I'd like to see done. Anything that can be used to fire a lot of ammo quickly (ie, take out a classroom in a matter of a minute or two) I think should be banned or heavily regulated. Exactly what that was called or currently is called is beyond my knowledge...

-Ray

[velomonkey]

The Fact is that guns laws have gotten LESS restrictive under Obama. It's a fact - say whatever you want, but this guy has singed legislation that removed restrictions (e..g, national parks and trains). However, if you follow the NRA and crap like the you'd think it to be totally opposite.

So, no, we can't have a rational discussion, however, when we're gonna point fingers as to why we can't have said discussion let's make sure we use facts.

[tumbler]

Where do the SRAM folks fall in?

Their guns, unfortunately, malfunctioned and the result wasn't pretty.

[ntb1001]

It is my opinion that Shimano owners are the anti-gun lunatics who want to abort your baby. Campy enthusiasts are just freedom loving protectors or life.

:beer:
I would disagree with this...Im a lifelong Campy diehard...and I guess you could call me anti gun....but I'm Canadian :):)
So that throws me out of all of the discussion about this...although to me it's pretty simple...no guns available. ..no problems with guns.
I don't understand the whole constitutional right to bear arms thing. Why is it a big deal for a waiting period, or a background check???
As much as I like going to the states, and I have friends and family living all over from NY to Texas, to California. ...I'm happy living up here in the Great White North.

[Ray]

Totally agree. Unfortunately, there are people (including on this forum...in this thread) who would say that this mindset is what should make you unfit to own a gun.

Ahem...

I don't think that makes you unfit to own a gun, but it definitely affects my opinion of you. As my mindset no doubt affects your opinion of me.

I simply think it's absurd to think that any group of well armed guys who fear the government are gonna be able to do a damn thing if the government does decide to go after them, for whatever legitimate or tyrannical reason. The US military has artillery and nukes and tanks and stuff. You want to be able to buy those too? If some militia did decide to start something, the Feds would probably wait you out like Cliven Bundy but if they decided to take you out, it would probably take all of 20-30 minutes to do the job, if that...

-Ray

[velomonkey]

So if anyone wants to explain to me like I'm a 2nd grader how exactly this means basically everyone can get a 9mm pistol I'm all ears. Because what I read is that if you want to serve in the militia, you can have a weapon, not that any given citizen has some intrinsic right.

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.

[brockd15]

I don't think that makes you unfit to own a gun, but it definitely affects my opinion of you. As my mindset no doubt affects your opinion of me.

I simply think it's absurd to think that any group of well armed guys who fear the government are gonna be able to do a damn thing if the government does decide to go after them, for whatever legitimate or tyrannical reason. The US military has artillery and nukes and tanks and stuff. You want to be able to buy those too? If some militia did decide to start something, the Feds would probably wait you out like Cliven Bundy but if they decided to take you out, it would probably take all of 20-30 minutes to do the job, if that...

-Ray

Ha, I was writing almost that exact sentence for what someone says who thinks opposition to tyranny is pointless. :)

I guess the view is that it would be a military war with the US armed forces on one side and a little group of rebels and the NRA on the other. Right? So why even bother?!

I think that's a pretty unrealistic scenario and isn't what people have in mind when raising this. If it was something like that we'd be talking more about civil war, with both sides having armed forces. Think more along the lines of the Battle of Athens in Tennessee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-mYP25kC2Y

What's your opinion of the citizens of Athens that stood up to their unjust government?

[soulspinner]

I have the slightly disturbing experience of working with some rabid gunners whose whole lives apparently revolve around their arsenals, their preps, and their infantile delusions about fighting off the gubmint when it comes to take their guns and put them in re-education camps.

these guys are degreed professionals, not toothless hillbilly vigilantes.

it's always amusing to remind them that the movie Red Dawn was not a documentary.

they seem completely unable to grasp the fact that even the most minimal US military response to their little clique of camo-clowns would be devastating.

My buddy has a surgeon friend with a panic room and an arsenal....he thinks The President is coming for his guns.:confused:

[brockd15]

So if anyone wants to explain to me like I'm a 2nd grader how exactly this means basically everyone can get a 9mm pistol I'm all ears. Because what I read is that if you want to serve in the militia, you can have a weapon, not that any given citizen has some intrinsic right.

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.

Well, not quite second-grader level I guess.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

It's about interpretation and that's the way it's been interpreted.

My interpretation (for what it's worth)? A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, is made up of and run by the people. And for it to be armed the people who make it up must be armed. Who else would run it? The government? And if the government decides the people can't have guns, or makes it effectively impossible to get them, then there goes the militia.

How do you interpret it?

[beeatnik]

Wait, Ultra gots kids?

[Mark McM]

So if anyone wants to explain to me like I'm a 2nd grader how exactly this means basically everyone can get a 9mm pistol I'm all ears. Because what I read is that if you want to serve in the militia, you can have a weapon, not that any given citizen has some intrinsic right.

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.

This comes from the same document that counted slaves as 3/5ths of a person for determining how many congressional representative each state may elect. That portion of the Constitution became outdated and was replaced with a different system better suited to modern times.

The 2nd amendment may have made sense when it was written, but it too hasn't kept up with modern times. It is about time that it too be replaced with something more appropriate.

[rugbysecondrow]

Where do the SRAM folks fall in?

They are Illegal Aliens

[rugbysecondrow]

I would disagree with this...Im a lifelong Campy diehard...and I guess you could call me anti gun....but I'm Canadian :):)
So that throws me out of all of the discussion about this...although to me it's pretty simple...no guns available. ..no problems with guns.
I don't understand the whole constitutional right to bear arms thing. Why is it a big deal for a waiting period, or a background check???
As much as I like going to the states, and I have friends and family living all over from NY to Texas, to California. ...I'm happy living up here in the Great White North.

I am glad you opened with Canadian...I was able to stop reading. :beer:

[brockd15]

This comes from the same document that counted slaves as 3/5ths of a person for determining how many congressional representative each state may elect. That portion of the Constitution became outdated and was replaced with a different system better suited to modern times.

The 2nd amendment may have made sense when it was written, but it too hasn't kept up with modern times. It is about time that it too be replaced with something more appropriate.

It's worthwhile separate laws that are morally based vs. those that are not.

What you're referring to, and what someone else earlier mentioned about women voting, dealt with those where it was morally wrong to oppress people. For the record, it didn't get outdated, it was just as wrong then as it is now (I know you don't disagree, just saying). Changing it was morally right, keeping it in place was morally wrong.

The same can't be said for gun laws. They aren't based in morality, so comparing them with laws that are isn't really good practice and that logic should be used to make decisions.

By that reasoning the whole constitution might as well be thrown out and started from scratch. Who really needs 3 branches of government anyway? I mean, all it does is create division. We should get with the times and just have one. It would be so much easier that way!

MLK Jr. said this:

One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with Saint Augustine that "An unjust law is no law at all."

Now what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.

[fuzzalow]

So if anyone wants to explain to me like I'm a 2nd grader how exactly this means basically everyone can get a 9mm pistol I'm all ears. Because what I read is that if you want to serve in the militia, you can have a weapon, not that any given citizen has some intrinsic right.

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.Second grader? Nah, try golden retriever:
Explain it to me as from Margin Call (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmHl7hKlVj4)

John Tuld: Maybe you could tell me what is going on. And please, speak as you might to a young child. Or a golden retriever. It wasn't brains that brought me here; I assure you that.

In answer to your question: it is all in the placement of the comma, in the language of the amendment as written. That syntactic break and conceptual discontinuity is the ambiguity that will forever pit the forces of Constitution textualism against the liberal interpretations over true intent of the Second Amendment.

[choke]

So if anyone wants to explain to me like I'm a 2nd grader how exactly this means basically everyone can get a 9mm pistol I'm all ears. Because what I read is that if you want to serve in the militia, you can have a weapon, not that any given citizen has some intrinsic right.

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.While brockd15 covered it generally, the definition can also vary depending on your location. For example, many residents of Wyoming might not be a de facto member of the militia but are a de jure member. WY Statute 19-8-101 (http://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/2013/title-19/chapter-8/section-19-8-101) reads: (a) The militia of the state is divided into the organized militia and the unorganized militia.

(b) The organized militia consists of the following:

(i) Such elements of the land and air forces of the national guard of the United States as are allocated to the state by the president, the secretary of defense or the secretary of the army or the air force and accepted by the state, hereinafter to be known as the Wyoming national guard; and

(ii) Wyoming state guard forces, when organized.

(c) The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to serve in the militia but not commissioned or enlisted in the organized militia.

[velomonkey]

My interpretation (for what it's worth)? A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, is made up of and run by the people. And for it to be armed the people who make it up must be armed.

By that definition the only requirement to be in the militia is to be armed. I would have a hard time thinking anyone would get behind that.

In it's simplest form a militia is the non-professional fighters but still part of the military - even armies with Samaria warriors had militia - it pre-dates America.

In modern terms a non-profesianal fighter on behalf of the state is the National Guard which is run by the state.

So, modern day militia is national guard - you join them, they are OK with it, arm the heck up.

[jr59]

Can't we just talk about Lance?

[rugbysecondrow]

I would add that just as bigger kid will likely whoop a smaller kids arse, it is the threat of the smaller kid fighting back which helps him avoid becoming a victim.

Do I think that citizens could defend an all out onslaught against us by the GOV? Nope, but I also think that the threat of the citizens fighting back is a real check and balance, not just at the Federal, but also at the state, county and city levels as well.

Nobody wants trouble, 300,000,000 guns in the hands of citizens helps provide a kickstand to that statement.

[CunegoFan]

The above is why you'll never get any meaningful gun control. There is a segment of the population that thinks the 2nd Amendment should be done away with, that there should be no guns in the hands of private citizens, so gun owners view any attempt at control as the "gun grabbers" attempting to move the ball toward their eventual goal of eliminating all guns. There won't be much compromise with people whose goal is to eliminate you altogether.

[beeatnik]

Where do the SRAM folks fall in?

They call an embryo a baby.

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=1837341&postcount=60

[velomonkey]

This comes from the same document that counted slaves as 3/5ths of a person for determining how many congressional representative each state may elect. That portion of the Constitution became outdated and was replaced with a different system better suited to modern times.

The 2nd amendment may have made sense when it was written, but it too hasn't kept up with modern times. It is about time that it too be replaced with something more appropriate.

The 3/5s thing was a bit later and then was nullified by the 13th amendment.

The constitution is a dynamic document, you want to codify it, edit it, change it, add to it - you can.

Given they said 3/5s, it seems they were awfully specific and seems the 2nd was about guns and the militia.

[velomonkey]

The above is why you'll never get any meaningful gun control. There is a segment of the population that thinks the 2nd Amendment should be done away with, that there should be no guns in the hands of private citizens, so gun owners view any attempt at control as the "gun grabbers" attempting to move the ball toward their eventual goal of eliminating all guns. There won't be much compromise with people whose goal is to eliminate you altogether.

Asking for clarification on a full sentence hardly equals an attempt to remove all guns from citizens.

You protest too much!!!! It's a discussion.

[SlackMan]

I don't think that makes you unfit to own a gun, but it definitely affects my opinion of you. As my mindset no doubt affects your opinion of me.

I simply think it's absurd to think that any group of well armed guys who fear the government are gonna be able to do a damn thing if the government does decide to go after them, for whatever legitimate or tyrannical reason. The US military has artillery and nukes and tanks and stuff. You want to be able to buy those too? If some militia did decide to start something, the Feds would probably wait you out like Cliven Bundy but if they decided to take you out, it would probably take all of 20-30 minutes to do the job, if that...

-Ray

I think the US military's experience in fighting various rag-tag groups that were significantly under-armed, but fighting in urban settings, suggests that they could very well have a tough time. If we get to the point where the US is using nukes and heavy artillery in urban settings, then we are probably beyond hope.

[brockd15]

The above is why you'll never get any meaningful gun control. There is a segment of the population that thinks the 2nd Amendment should be done away with, that there should be no guns in the hands of private citizens, so gun owners view any attempt at control as the "gun grabbers" attempting to move the ball toward their eventual goal of eliminating all guns. There won't be much compromise with people whose goal is to eliminate you altogether.

I think you're right. And it doesn't help when some of the reference points are countries who have banned guns either completely or almost completely. That just suggests that those total-ban policies should be the end-goal, or at least it's perceived that way.

[Ray]

Ha, I was writing almost that exact sentence for what someone says who thinks opposition to tyranny is pointless. :)

I guess the view is that it would be a military war with the US armed forces on one side and a little group of rebels and the NRA on the other. Right? So why even bother?!

I think that's a pretty unrealistic scenario and isn't what people have in mind when raising this. If it was something like that we'd be talking more about civil war, with both sides having armed forces. Think more along the lines of the Battle of Athens in Tennessee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-mYP25kC2Y

What's your opinion of the citizens of Athens that stood up to their unjust government?

I wasn't aware of it, but it sounds like a bit of an outlier and also of questionable relevance to today. These days, even relatively small local jurisdictions have (or have access to through cooperative agreements) all sorts of swat teams and pretty heavy duty weapons. Which they arguably shouldn't, but that's a whole other discussion. I don't favor local police forces being armed like small armies and I don't favor local populations being armed to the point of being able to take out the police.

Battle of Athens aside, the the more typical response when a local government is clearly violating federal law or the constitution is to send the National Guard in, like with the integration battles across the south in the early 1960's...

I don't see individual gun rights as particularly relevant to any of this sort of thing, but that's obviously where I differ with many of the pro-gun advocates, or should I say anti-gun-regulation advocates. Because they're not the same thing...

-Ray

[Ray]

I think the US military's experience in fighting various rag-tag groups that were significantly under-armed, but fighting in urban settings, suggests that they could very well have a tough time. If we get to the point where the US is using nukes and heavy artillery in urban settings, then we are probably beyond hope.

I don't think we'd get to the point of the US military using heavy duty weaponry in urban settings. If a "revolution" is so wide-spread that such action would be necessary, it would probably resolve one way or another before we got to that point. Or we'd be Syria, and I personally believe a whole lot of other stuff would have to happen before we get anywhere near that sort of situation. And I agree we are probably beyond hope if we get to the point where such would even be contemplated...

My point is that if something like the Cliven Bundy situation actually went viral and the "leader" didn't start talking such nonsense that even the right wing media and most of his followers abandoned him, THEN you might have a situation where a bunch of armed people might be looking for a fight with the government over some issue or handful of issues. And I don't think they'd stand a chance. I think that, as with Bundy, the feds would probably try to wait 'em out, but if it escalated, as with Waco, I think the results would be about like Waco... No weapons that those folks in that compound might have would change the outcome...

-Ray

[slidey]

Hear, hear! :hello:

I haven't seen this quote yet, but I very much like the hypocrisy under the spotlight. Thanks for sharing.

OK, I stand corrected. But that's NINE out of how many hundred or thousand. I don't know the figures but I know we're approaching 300 for this year alone. I think the exceptions prove the rule.

This has been making the rounds lately - I like it a lot, but I would...

"How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion -- mandatory 48-hour waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he's about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, an ultrasound wand up the ass (just because). Let's close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun. Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.

It makes more sense to do this with young men and guns than with women and health care, right? I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?"

-Ray

[Rada]

It's worthwhile separate laws that are morally based vs. those that are not.

What you're referring to, and what someone else earlier mentioned about women voting, dealt with those where it was morally wrong to oppress people. For the record, it didn't get outdated, it was just as wrong then as it is now (I know you don't disagree, just saying). Changing it was morally right, keeping it in place was morally wrong.

The same can't be said for gun laws. They aren't based in morality, so comparing them with laws that are isn't really good practice and that logic should be used to make decisions.



So you see nothing morally wrong with 10,000 + gun deaths a year. Your "logic" dictates this sacrifice on the off chance that some tyrant seizes the government. Wow.

[unterhausen]

the thing is that the 10 percent of Americans that go insane over this issue is a population that is shrinking while becoming ever more radicalized. They don't see that this is the way towards defeat. The "open carry" fanatics really are the ones that are going to get the situation turned around. We had a recent Supreme Court ruling that wilfully ignored the founder's intent with the second amendment. These sorts of things can be corrected, and probably will given the stakes.

California got the strictest gun control laws in the country after (then Governor) Reagan got scared by open carry fanatics. The sane part of this country isn't going to put up with the fetishization of guns that much longer.

There are a lot of common sense things we can do without grabbing all the guns. That's what is going to happen, I don't see the full outlawing of guns in my lifetime. Really depends on what happens. If someone shoots up the NRA convention, maybe it will happen. But the NRA convention is a gun-free zone

[Rada]

But the NRA wants guns in schools.

[brockd15]

So you see nothing morally wrong with 10,000 + gun deaths a year. Your "logic" dictates this sacrifice on the off chance that some tyrant seizes the government. Wow.

No, that tyrant talk is just where this thread has gone. There are other reasons we could address and avenues this discussion could take.

I'm not quite sure how my comments blew your hair back so much, though. So that we're clear, the difference is when the law requires something that's immoral. For example, saying that a black man is not a whole person is not moral. Saying that a person can own a gun is morally neutral. If the law required that you use that gun for immoral reasons, then it would be an immoral law. When someone does something immoral with a gun acquired via a morally neutral law, that doesn't make the law immoral. Tell me how that doesn't make sense.

And it doesn't in any way suggest or imply that X amount of gun deaths, regardless of the number, are just ok. I think your logic might be flawed there.

[brockd15]

But the NRA wants guns in schools.

Just out of curiosity, what does it mean to you when you say the NRA wants guns in schools? What would that look like in real life, and what are the implications?

[wombatspeed]

If 4 or more people is defined as mass shooting

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence

Quite the visual.

[Rada]

Perhaps you should question your assumptions on what is morally neutral.

[brockd15]

the thing is that the 10 percent of Americans that go insane over this issue is a population that is shrinking while becoming ever more radicalized. They don't see that this is the way towards defeat. The "open carry" fanatics really are the ones that are going to get the situation turned around. We had a recent Supreme Court ruling that wilfully ignored the founder's intent with the second amendment. These sorts of things can be corrected, and probably will given the stakes.

California got the strictest gun control laws in the country after (then Governor) Reagan got scared by open carry fanatics. The sane part of this country isn't going to put up with the fetishization of guns that much longer.

There are a lot of common sense things we can do without grabbing all the guns. That's what is going to happen, I don't see the full outlawing of guns in my lifetime. Really depends on what happens. If someone shoots up the NRA convention, maybe it will happen. But the NRA convention is a gun-free zone

I've looked up stats before but I don't feel like doing it today. What 10% are you talking about, what does it mean for them to be radicalized (and even increasing in radicalness!), what makes you think they're shrinking, and why is open carry going to change everything? I'd just like to know the thinking behind the statements.

And that might be first time I've ever heard anyone call California the sane part of this country...funny!

[Rada]

Just out of curiosity, what does it mean to you when you say the NRA wants guns in schools? What would that look like in real life, and what are the implications?

This:
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,"

[brockd15]

Perhaps you should question your assumptions on what is morally neutral.

Now this gets really interesting. Can you explain what you mean, specifically what I should reconsider? What are your assumptions on morality?

[brockd15]

This:
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,"

Yeah, but when you visualize the NRA wanting guns in schools, what do you think that looks like in real life and what are the results? Who has them, when and why do they use them, etc.? On the surface, just saying they want guns in schools sounds scary, for sure.

[Rada]

Yeah, but when you visualize the NRA wanting guns in schools, what do you think that looks like in real life and what are the results? Who has them, when and why do they use them, etc.? On the surface, just saying they want guns in schools sounds scary, for sure.

There was an armed guard at Columbine HS. Real life, didn't work, not the answer.

[brockd15]

There was an armed guard at Columbine HS. Real life, didn't work, not the answer.

But that doesn't answer the question. I still don't know what you're thinking with the statement. Do you think of one armed guard, multiple armed guards, some teachers, all teachers, all the kids??? People carrying open on the hip, rifles, handguns, machine guns? Paint me a picture!

Then, with that scenario in mind, what's the result? Disgruntled guards opening fire? Kids overpowering teachers for a gun? Teachers loosing their cool? What's the impact compared to what we see now, today?

I genuinely would be interested in hearing about it.

[unterhausen]

we know what happens if the teachers are all carrying, a week after it became legal in Idaho, a teacher shot himself in the foot. Tragedy waiting to happen
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/12/3567002/this-week-a-utah-teacher-injured-herself-with-accidental-gunshot-at-school/

[beeatnik]

we know what happens if the teachers are all carrying, a week after it became legal in Idaho, a teacher shot himself in the foot. Tragedy waiting to happen
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/12/3567002/this-week-a-utah-teacher-injured-herself-with-accidental-gunshot-at-school/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcrg2nlemDk

[Rada]

But that doesn't answer the question. I still don't know what you're thinking with the statement. Do you think of one armed guard, multiple armed guards, some teachers, all teachers, all the kids??? People carrying open on the hip, rifles, handguns, machine guns? Paint me a picture!

Then, with that scenario in mind, what's the result? Disgruntled guards opening fire? Kids overpowering teachers for a gun? Teachers loosing their cool? What's the impact compared to what we see now, today?

I genuinely would be interested in hearing about it.

Do I want to see any guns in schools? No. I am a gun owner, although I have to admit I have not fired a weapon in many years. I grew up around guns and was taught at a relative young age to respect and use firearms. I used to hunt and still respect the discipline and skills that it can instil. I do not advocate the banning of firearms, however, I see the gun laws we currently have are breaking our society. Maybe to the point where I would favour banning all firearms rather than continue down the path we are currently headed. I'd prefer to see my daughter live in a society that valued life more than it does the ownership of an Uzi.

[gdw]

"There was an armed guard at Columbine HS. Real life, didn't work, not the answer."

It worked here in Colorado a few years ago and Atlanta if my memory is correct.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/1214/Colorado-school-shooting-Armed-guards-the-answer

[Rada]

"There was an armed guard at Columbine HS. Real life, didn't work, not the answer."

It worked here in Colorado a few years ago and Atlanta if my memory is correct.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/1214/Colorado-school-shooting-Armed-guards-the-answer

Often it does not work.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

Just saying when the intent is there armed guards are not usually a deterrent.

[brockd15]

we know what happens if the teachers are all carrying, a week after it became legal in Idaho, a teacher shot himself in the foot. Tragedy waiting to happen
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/09/12/3567002/this-week-a-utah-teacher-injured-herself-with-accidental-gunshot-at-school/

This can go both ways, though. There are times when armed people in schools stop a shooter, too. I think saying we know what happens based on a couple incidents is jumping the gun a little. Pun only sorta intended. :)

So if we can pretty much agree that banning guns isn't gonna happen, and with no real changes in who can get them (I think we can also agree that significant changes there are unlikely), then schools left unprotected will continue to be vulnerable to attacks.

So what's the answer?

We know what happens when someone wants to open fire in a school and there's nobody there to stop them, and it's tragic. We have never seen (that I know of) someone carrying legally in a school (teachers, principals, guards, etc.) kill any kids. We have seen some stop shooters from killing more kids.

I see a better result on one side (saving kids) and a worse result on the other (can't do much to help them).
What am I missing? Is there a scenario I'm overlooking?

[brockd15]

Do I want to see any guns in schools? No. I am a gun owner, although I have to admit I have not fired a weapon in many years. I grew up around guns and was taught at a relative young age to respect and use firearms. I used to hunt and still respect the discipline and skills that it can instil. I do not advocate the banning of firearms, however, I see the gun laws we currently have are breaking our society. Maybe to the point where I would favour banning all firearms rather than continue down the path we are currently headed. I'd prefer to see my daughter live in a society that valued life more than it does the ownership of an Uzi.

Gun arguments aside, we probably want pretty much the same things as an end result.

That last comment I think is crucial, and is what should be the focus of these discussions instead of guns. There's a much wider problem of why people do these things, and I think it's much more important than how they do them. The problem is that taking away guns (in my mind) is not the answer, and it won't cause society to value life more than it does now.

That's what we should be talking about.

[Gsinill]

They call an embryo a baby.

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=1837341&postcount=60

Beeatnik, I like your style :beer:

[Rada]

Gun arguments aside, we probably want pretty much the same things as an end result.

That last comment I think is crucial, and is what should be the focus of these discussions instead of guns. There's a much wider problem of why people do these things, and I think it's much more important than how they do them. The problem is that taking away guns (in my mind) is not the answer, and it won't cause society to value life more than it does now.

That's what we should be talking about.

In my mindset more guns and ever deadly examples is not the answer. You are correct that you cannot make society respect life, but you can make it harder (and less likely) to take it.

[brockd15]

Beeatnik, I like your style :beer:

Just saw this. Oh no....not sure we want to go down this road, but...

Is it safe, then, to assume that you're both ok with abortion based on the comment? If that's the case, if an embryo isn't a baby, what is it? Development has already begun and it can't become anything other than a person...what else could it possibly be? There's really no disagreement in the scientific world about when life begins...it's at conception. At conception it becomes an independent life from the mother. There's no weird step along the way when a person isn't a person. At that point the ball has started rolling and it won't stop unless something stops it, and it can't change to something other than a human life. So aborting at that stage is taking the life from (a.k.a. killing)...a baby.

If I'm going to be jabbed for this one, I'll stand by it all day long. The gun thing if far less consequential than this, on more than one level.

And for the record, I've never even ridden Sram!

[Bruce K]

We need to be real careful guys and gals

We are getting VERY close to the edge now

BK

[Seramount]

...if an embryo isn't a baby, what is it?

ever take a developmental biology course...?

[velomonkey]

Yeah, but when you visualize the NRA wanting guns in schools, what do you think that looks like in real life?

The answer to your query . . . . . . .

[Gsinill]

Is it safe, then, to assume that you're both ok with abortion based on the comment?...

And for the record, I've never even ridden Sram!

Can't speak for beeatnik but in my case not necessarily a correct assumption.
I simply applauded him for identifying you (consciously or not) using the word baby over embryo to give your argument more weight.

And... I do have SRAM on one of my bikes ;)

[velomonkey]

if an embryo isn't a baby, what is it?

An embryo is not a fetus, like a fetus is not a baby, like a baby is not a toddler, like a toddler is not a young adult . . . . .

[gasman]

Like Bruce said.

You're pushing the line here.

This is a bike forum so go for a ride.

[brockd15]

An embryo is not a fetus, like a fetus is not a baby, like a baby is not a toddler, like a toddler is not a young adult . . . . .

That's all fine, just semantics at that point, really. All of the above are humans, none more or less so than any other.

[Elefantino]

We need to be real careful guys and gals

We are getting VERY close to the edge now

BK
I think the thread is beyond the edge, in free fall.

[brockd15]

Like Bruce said.

You're pushing the line here.

This is a bike forum so go for a ride.

Ha, I did go for a ride. Twice!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this has all been really civil, I think. Hot button topics talked about with a generally respectful tone. What line are we pushing , other than controversial subjects?

[beeatnik]

^In 2015, developmental biology should not be a hot button topic, regardless of one's worldview.

[gasman]

Ha, I did go for a ride. Twice!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this has all been really civil, I think. Hot button topics talked about with a generally respectful tone. What line are we pushing , other than controversial subjects?

It's been pretty civil but I think there is little left to say about guns.
Let's not get into developmental biology.

[Louis]

^In 2015, developmental biology should not be a hot button topic, regardless of one's worldview.

Eppur si muove.

[brockd15]

^In 2015, developmental biology should not be a hot button topic, regardless of one's worldview.

Exactly, and the facts of it really aren't in dispute, it's the political and philosophical worldviews that are. It's pretty much universally agreed upon when life begins, it's how people respond to it that makes it controversial.

Not sure we'll get the chance here, but it's definitely worth talking about.

https://www.lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/
The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria:· differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. ·These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise.· They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion.· They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed.

Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new·cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. ·Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. ·Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete.· Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type:· its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.

[echappist]

Exactly, and the facts of it really aren't in dispute, it's the political and philosophical worldviews that are. It's pretty much universally agreed upon when life begins, it's how people respond to it that makes it controversial.

Not sure we'll get the chance here, but it's definitely worth talking about.

https://www.lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/

I normally don't wade into these things, you engage is way too many logical fallacies and rhetoric (as in art of discourse) faux pas that I am commenting.

Not even getting into the accuracy of the facts themselves, which is a whole separate issue, but your choice of source above takes away from credibility of your post.

It really is awfully intellectually lazy of you to present information from Lozier, a group that promotes "fetal rights," as fact. Even if what is presented above were scientifically agreed upon, you do your argument no service by citing such a biased source. You could have cited a dev bio text, but you choose not to.

then there's this:

That's all fine, just semantics at that point, really. All of the above are humans, none more or less so than any other.
Also, you may wish to dismiss the differentiation mentioned earlier as "semantics," but the fact you are trying to dismiss the contentions over "semantics" shows that you know it's more than just words as word choices matter. Purposely mixing up the ideas of embryo, fetus, new-born, toddler and just insist it's all "human" is a strawman argument as you ignore the actual biological (not to mention legal) differences of the various stages and oversimplify all the listed stages as "human."

Don't you want to present a cogent argument? If so, at least take some care in constructing your arguments so that others won't have to dismiss you outright for logical fallacies.

[slidey]

Exactly, and the facts of it really aren't in dispute, it's the political and philosophical worldviews that are. It's pretty much universally agreed upon when life begins, it's how people respond to it that makes it controversial.

Not sure we'll get the chance here, but it's definitely worth talking about.



If you're done with a ride - take a bloody hike into the wilderness. Your incessant bleating of pseudo-science on the abortion issue is really irksome. It is remarkable how your tighty-whities get in a bunch when there's ever a discussion on gun control, but interestingly there's no reciprocity in letting the woman have a choice in letting her make her own bloody decision about her own body.

This thread is about guns - I have nothing to say about it, at least nothing in agreement to your twisted logic, so I won't. I sincerely hope though that you stop your dithering hypocritical nonsense on women's rights issues.

[brockd15]

Not even getting into the accuracy of the facts themselves, which is a whole separate issue, but your choice of source takes away from credibility of your post.

It really is awfully intellectually lazy of you to present information from a group that promotes "fetal rights" as fact. You could have cited a dev bio text, but you choose not to.

That's just from a search, could use a different one if you prefer. I don't know anything about that group and there's no agenda behind it.

That said, what part do you disagree with?

[brockd15]

If you're done with a ride - take a bloody hike into the wilderness. Your incessant bleating of pseudo-science on the abortion issue is really irksome. It is remarkable how your tighty-whities get in a bunch when there's ever a discussion on gun control, but interestingly there's no reciprocity in letting the woman have a choice in letting her make her own bloody decision about her own body.

This thread is about guns - I have nothing to say about it, at least nothing in agreement to your twisted logic, so I won't. I sincerely hope though that you stop your dithering hypocritical nonsense on women's rights issues.

Ouch. We should be able to disagree without going to that level.

Really though, tell me point by point what you don't agree with and why and we'll talk about it, no animosity. I'd be happy to tell you what I think and the reasons behind it, but I'm guessing it won't happen here. Feel free to PM me. I'm not kidding about that, btw, I'd like to know your thoughts.

[Bradford]

OK, that's enough.

This is a bike forum. No politics, no showing disrespect to other members. This is over the line, time to move on to something bike related.