"we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, kid was troubled and all sorts of warning signs.

Yes, social services and FBI shoulda/coulda done more to intervene.

Agree, we need to better treat and address mental illness.

We still need sensible gun laws. Period. Stop deflecting.

Ok, what specific sensible gun law would have prevented this shooting? Before suggesting banning the AR-15 or standard capacity magazines, remember that the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with a 15-round 9mm pistol and a 10-round .22 caliber pistol. And that a waiting period and a one-gun-a-month law didn't stop him.

Then let’s eliminate personal gun ownership without a license and licensing requires an extensive waiting period, a comprehensive background check, and registration.

Make it harder to buy a gun then let’s say, get a drivers license or adopt a pet at the local Humane Society. And yes, no more assault rifles. But you don’t like that answer, do you?

Clinging to your guns ..... Americans are such spineless, selfish cowards. Your guns make you feel safe and yet they actually make it more dangerous for everyone.

Some of your suggestions would literally require an amendment to the constitution. Waiting periods don't do anything - the sure didn't for the Florida shooter. Neither did having his guns - like every gun purchased in a gun store - in a registry. And "comprehensive background checks" are great, until someone just gets their cousin, friend or baby daddy to bypass them (this is how most criminals get their guns btw). In reality, it's just an inconvenience for decent folk, and not an impediment to bad people. It would be like having sober people take a breathalyzer before starting their car.

Back to registrations for a moment - I assume the point would be to make sure criminals and crazies don't have guns, right? The only problem with that is that it's unconstitutional to have criminals and crazies register their guns. That pesky 5th Amendment prevents the government from forcing people to testify against themselves. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

So the only people you can't force to register their guns are the ones you should be concerned about. So again, what's the point of that?

you convinced me! so the only solution is comprehensive Australia-style reforms.

And you're just one constitutional amendment away from that being possible. Get to work!

These questions are far from settled constitutionally.

The Framers didn't contemplate assault weapons. The Constitution can change with the times. For example, women have the right to vote now.

At the time of the constitution, there were private warships, and the first machine gun was invented before the Revolutionary War - the Puckle Gun. I think it was even offered to the Colonialists (and maybe the British too). So they Founding Fathers weren't oblivious to advances in weapons of war. They saw it during their war. But if someone brought an AR-15 to them, I doubt they'd say "Oh gee, we can't have our citizens bringing these with them to the battlefields, we'd repel the Redcoats far too effectively."

Do you think the framers contemplated the internet, btw? Asking for a friend.

so it’s a living constitution that anticipates that the framers anticipated historical changes? In that case, Congress can now interpret the Commerce Clause to conduct Australia-style comprehensive reforms.

True story, the first Battles of the Revolutionary war started because the government tried to take away firearms from the people. Good luck trying to take away arms from a culture that celebrates it. If even 1% of firearms owners violently resisted efforts to take away arms, you'd have a huge mess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, kid was troubled and all sorts of warning signs.

Yes, social services and FBI shoulda/coulda done more to intervene.

Agree, we need to better treat and address mental illness.

We still need sensible gun laws. Period. Stop deflecting.

It's not about needing to treat and address mental illness. You answer is in your first statement. Both agencies completely failed the public. That is HUGE. Why won't anything be done about it? Because....GUNS...OMG....GUNS!

I am outraged that agencies like these didn't just fail, they failed spectacularly and completely. And what about the social media companies that seem so efficient at attacking conservative posts, but let the types of posts this kid kept putting through go by the wayside. Where is the flagging system? Where are the internal departments that one can ping to get them to look at post A or B, and turn them over to police in that jurisdiction if they deem them violent or disturbing? This kid didn't just post ONE photo, he posted a STREAM of photos and comments. Not one raised eyebrow from staff so hell-bent on suspending folk like Ben Shapiro or Raheem Kassam?

And how do you propose we "treat and address" mental illness? Or the FBI failure? Or about the failure of Facebook? Why is it that you are open to action on ALL of these fronts but open to NONE on the issue of gun control?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, kid was troubled and all sorts of warning signs.

Yes, social services and FBI shoulda/coulda done more to intervene.

Agree, we need to better treat and address mental illness.

We still need sensible gun laws. Period. Stop deflecting.

Ok, what specific sensible gun law would have prevented this shooting? Before suggesting banning the AR-15 or standard capacity magazines, remember that the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with a 15-round 9mm pistol and a 10-round .22 caliber pistol. And that a waiting period and a one-gun-a-month law didn't stop him.

Then let’s eliminate personal gun ownership without a license and licensing requires an extensive waiting period, a comprehensive background check, and registration.

Make it harder to buy a gun then let’s say, get a drivers license or adopt a pet at the local Humane Society. And yes, no more assault rifles. But you don’t like that answer, do you?

Clinging to your guns ..... Americans are such spineless, selfish cowards. Your guns make you feel safe and yet they actually make it more dangerous for everyone.

Some of your suggestions would literally require an amendment to the constitution. Waiting periods don't do anything - the sure didn't for the Florida shooter. Neither did having his guns - like every gun purchased in a gun store - in a registry. And "comprehensive background checks" are great, until someone just gets their cousin, friend or baby daddy to bypass them (this is how most criminals get their guns btw). In reality, it's just an inconvenience for decent folk, and not an impediment to bad people. It would be like having sober people take a breathalyzer before starting their car.

Back to registrations for a moment - I assume the point would be to make sure criminals and crazies don't have guns, right? The only problem with that is that it's unconstitutional to have criminals and crazies register their guns. That pesky 5th Amendment prevents the government from forcing people to testify against themselves. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

So the only people you can't force to register their guns are the ones you should be concerned about. So again, what's the point of that?

you convinced me! so the only solution is comprehensive Australia-style reforms.

And you're just one constitutional amendment away from that being possible. Get to work!

These questions are far from settled constitutionally.

The Framers didn't contemplate assault weapons. The Constitution can change with the times. For example, women have the right to vote now.

At the time of the constitution, there were private warships, and the first machine gun was invented before the Revolutionary War - the Puckle Gun. I think it was even offered to the Colonialists (and maybe the British too). So they Founding Fathers weren't oblivious to advances in weapons of war. They saw it during their war. But if someone brought an AR-15 to them, I doubt they'd say "Oh gee, we can't have our citizens bringing these with them to the battlefields, we'd repel the Redcoats far too effectively."

Do you think the framers contemplated the internet, btw? Asking for a friend.

so it’s a living constitution that anticipates that the framers anticipated historical changes? In that case, Congress can now interpret the Commerce Clause to conduct Australia-style comprehensive reforms.

Right now the right side of the political spectrum trusts the government even less than usual. Do you really think they would comply?

What do you think the compliance rate was for NY and CT's registration requirements implemented after Sandy Hook?

What do you think Canada's compliance rate was? (Hint, it was higher than NY and CT, but very very low).

My but aren’t you a set of moving goalposts! go away.

You're pretty ignorant.

You want to implement "Australian style comprehensive reforms", but appear to lack the historical context of resistance to such measures in America. You have a group of people who chant "Molon Labe" (again check history) and "From my cold dead hands", and you think they're willingly going to give up their firearms? Do you even notice how many Gadsden flag VA license plates there are around here?

I'm not saying that guns rights advocates have the correct position, or even if they would win in an conflict, but I would expect heavy resistance, be it electoral resistance or violent resistance. To think otherwise is pure fantasy and ignores history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, kid was troubled and all sorts of warning signs.

Yes, social services and FBI shoulda/coulda done more to intervene.

Agree, we need to better treat and address mental illness.

We still need sensible gun laws. Period. Stop deflecting.

It's not about needing to treat and address mental illness. You answer is in your first statement. Both agencies completely failed the public. That is HUGE. Why won't anything be done about it? Because....GUNS...OMG....GUNS!

I am outraged that agencies like these didn't just fail, they failed spectacularly and completely. And what about the social media companies that seem so efficient at attacking conservative posts, but let the types of posts this kid kept putting through go by the wayside. Where is the flagging system? Where are the internal departments that one can ping to get them to look at post A or B, and turn them over to police in that jurisdiction if they deem them violent or disturbing? This kid didn't just post ONE photo, he posted a STREAM of photos and comments. Not one raised eyebrow from staff so hell-bent on suspending folk like Ben Shapiro or Raheem Kassam?

And how do you propose we "treat and address" mental illness? Or the FBI failure? Or about the failure of Facebook? Why is it that you are open to action on ALL of these fronts but open to NONE on the issue of gun control?

I'm not the one who is saying that treating and addressing mental illness is the main problem here. I don't think the problem is prescribed drugs either. There are plenty of folks on prescribed meds who do not kill - in fact, the vast, vast majority. I, further, didn't say anything about not being open to ANY of issues re: gun control. More likely, this kid was the product of an abusive infancy and early childhood, and didn't bond. That's usually the cause of sociopathy.

I said that throwing blame around isn't practical, nor will it solve a thing. FACT: This guy was turned into the authorities. FACT: The authorities dropped the ball. FACT: This guy was posting very disturbing posts and statements to social media. FACT: Social media didn't notice or if they did, care enough about those posts to report them. FACT: Social media DOES care about posts by conservatives - enough to ban them for periods of time, so we know they ARE watching.

So I wonder why Raheem Kassam and Ben Shapiro are 'bad' and need to be banned, while posts from this shooter were not looked into, banned, nor reported. I believe there were folks that DID report this guy to the social media companies.

I am a tech person. I don't think it's responsible to HAVE a social media company unless you have a team of folk who's only responsibility is to handle reports of alarming posts, and sort through them, reporting those that meet a certain set of criteria (that can be developed in tandem with law enforcement). Right now, these companies are highly politicized, which allows folks like this guy to slip through the cracks.

[Anonymous]

I introduced logic and liberals bailed. Too funny

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I introduced logic and liberals bailed. Too funny

You're the IT guy, right? Typical for you to confuse rhetoric with logic. Too funny.