Forum Replies Created
-
BS. You determine all for her and everyone else. Such pomposity. The lady might prefer a semi-auto. Licensing and registering doesn’t do anything to make anyone safer. It does make money for the government for doing nothing. Which is how government likes it.
Society has laws, regulations, rules. That’s been the case at least since the dawn of the first “higher civilization” in Sumeria, 6000 years ago. The Constitution sets this up as well, with the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the General Welfare Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and Article One, Section Eight in general. You seem to be suggesting that it’s “tyrannical” to have our Constitution at all, because it sets this up. This, apparently, is “determining all for her and everyone else.”
As for what she may prefer. She may prefer her own nuclear submarine, but we have rules and laws in place to prevent that. She may prefer to own lions, tigers, crocs and take them with her on the streets. But we have laws and rules to prevent that. She may prefer to blow things up with explosives, because that looks cool and everything. But we have laws and rules to prevent that.
You like to use “BS.” Your take is the epitome of that. Basic rules on firepower, registration and licensing don’t in any way, shape or form “determine all for her and everyone else.” That kind of extremist hyperbole is the real “BS” here.
I don’t know which one is the worst, but religion as a whole is certainly an anchor holding back progress. I don’t know if a any sort of global ‘utopia’ is actually possible but I know it isn’t possible as long as religion exists.
We agree on that one, definitely.
I also don’t think “utopias” are possible. Perhaps they’re not even desirable. But I do believe we can do immensely better. Doing much better is the key for me. We have a ton of room between our current barbarism and that utopian high.
I’m reading a biography of the Romanovs right now, and judging from the norms of the 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries — I’m up to 1740, roughly — we’ve already reduced a great deal of commonplace barbarism in the world. Obviously, we have tremendous work still ahead. But it gives me some hope for the future.
I mean, think about it. It’s harder to get a prescription for a sinus infection than to get an AR-15. It’s often harder to open the damn bottle once you get the medicine than it is to slap in 30 rounds and blast away.
We took asthma inhalers off the shelf because a few kids got high from them. And we can’t stop the arms race of ever-increasing firepower, readily available to anyone with the money? Mateen got a concealed carry license and purchased weapons of mass destruction with ease. It’s much harder for people to purchase help for serious, persistent colds and the flu than it was for Mateen to do what he did.
It’s just flat out insane.
Also, WV,
That fear people have? Where does it come from, and what (and whose) purpose does it serve? The most obvious source is the Gun Industry. Whip up fear, in any way possible, through the NRA, the GOP, Hate Radio, craven Democrats, etc. etc. . . . and you get a huge increase in gun sales — as in, profits for billion-dollar corporations. Since we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that more guns means more death and injury, those people who live in fear, including the poor, are being radically hurt by this steady stream of propaganda.
Crime has actually fallen for decades — though mass shootings have increased. People should be LESS fearful than ever of most kinds of crime — but more fearful of those mass shootings. But they’re being fed lies about the way to solve this, which is actually the opposite of what SHOULD happen. More guns at home means more deaths and injuries, and more guns on the streets means the same. The most effective possible means of reducing the only kind of violent crime on the rise — those mass shootings — is radically limiting firepower available to Americans. Get rid of all detachable ammo containers, and any kind of gun that can use them. That, mixed with licensing and registration, “smart technology,” closing all loopholes in the gun-check process, will make these people safer.
No it is not the gun. It is people. Whether mental illness, rage, neglect, carelessness etc. the gun did not discharge on its own. Capacity BS. Anyone that wanted to give such heinous goal a thought can achieve more without a firearm. 2nd Amendment is a right and must not be infringed because a few people abuse it.
It is people WITH guns. “Guns” are the common denominator, and the only thing we can control for. We can’t change people, or predict their actions. But we can make it impossible for them to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
And, again, your 2nd amendment right has never included unlimited consumer choice, or unlimited access to any gun you might want, or unlimited lethality. It just says “keep and bear arms” if you’re a part of the state militia — which no longer exist.
Your rights wouldn’t be “infringed” one iota if we banned all semis/assault/military style weapons. Not one iota.
Also, bnw,
In almost EVERY case, these mass shooters are stopped when they have to reload. They’re almost always tackled by very brave people without guns. The reloading part is what gets them, nine times out of ten.
Logic tells us that if we do away with all large capacity guns, ammo containers, accessories, etc, they’re going to have to reload a hell of a lot sooner, and this should dissuade all kinds of people from attempting mass carnage going in. If they know, up front, they’ll have just their six-shooter, with its internal chambers only, and will have to hand-load each bullet, one at a time . . . . rather than grabbing a magazine and slapping it in place . . . . their Rambo visions will disappear.
It WILL save lives.
Well, personally, I don’t see your point at all on the effects of including states in with the definition. Honestly, I have no idea how that could lead to some sort of Islamophobic-only discussion. It doesn’t make any sense to me at all. Not in the slightest. In fact, I think by including states, it does the opposite of what you’re saying. It holds countries like Israel and the United States accountable for their actions against Muslims — among a host of others. And it includes state “terror” campaigns against a host of powerless domestic groups as well. As mentioned, striking workers, dissidents of all stripes, Occupy, blacks, Native Americans and other minorities, women, etc. etc.
Be that as it may . . . . I don’t want to get bogged down in definitions, either.
To be honest, I don’t think “terrorism” is an apt description of what Mateen did. I think he just snapped, and his toxic mixture of self-hatred and hatred for certain groups just boiled over. Easy access to weapons literally weaponized that self-hatred, and the rest of that toxic mix. It seems pretty clear that nothing he did by slaughtering those people could possibly further any “political” aims, so that part of the definition is out. Did he “terrorize” people? Definitely. But so do rapists and a host of other people who generally aren’t called “terrorists.”
In short, I think “mass shooter” is more appropriate than “terrorist.” Though pretty much anything we call him is really, in the scheme of things, in the midst of this tragedy, irrelevant.
That said, I didn’t want to get bogged down in a discussion of definitions, either.
The main thing for me, is to do whatever we can to radically reduce these tragedies, if not end them altogether. To find ways to do this.
This particular case seems among the most complex in recent times, with the most seeming contradictions. But the bottom line for me is, he could not have slaughtered so many people without the tools to do so. And the tool of choice among mass shooters is a semi-automatic gun, most often an AR-15.
We can’t solve for the variable of hate — at least not right away. But we can solve for the variable of weapons. That’s within our control. Changing the way people think about “the Other” will take decades. Changing our gun laws can be done now. Yesterday.
And so you can think what you want, but, I am staying within the intelligible parameters of understanding what the legal definitions are of domestic and international terrorism, instead of participating in the whole “have an agenda, change the word” phenomena right now.
I know you like to continue old fights, but I was done with the hiroshima discussion and fully acknowledge that we see it very differently. I know there was some “ah but my opinion is the truth” stuff going on with that but I regard that as par for the course in discussions like this.
My eye is on the actual legal definition of terrorism and what it means.
You assume far too much in these discussions. It’s the biggest reason why you and I have these disagreements. You are forever assuming you just know the real motives behind my posts, and you don’t. You never have. You’re actually quite tin-eared about these things, routinely, primarily because you’re so certain you do know the hidden rationale behind all things. Judging from the ways you consistently mischaracterize them, your certainty is misplaced. Severely misplaced.
Please just stop. Take them on face value, or please just ignore them altogether.
I said what I said because I believe it to be true, not because I “have an agenda.”
ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorismthe use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
That would include states.
And, yes, of course, all the sides “did it” in WWII — and most, if not all, other wars. But we have virtually no control over what these other nations decide to do, with regard to future use. We have next to no ability to control other nations along those lines. We do, however, have control over our own actions. To me, that’s why it’s more important for us to recognize and admit to our use of terrorism as a tactic, when we’ve resorted to it over time. Against striking workers, dissidents of all stripes, Native Americans, blacks (and other minorities), women, etc. etc. and overseas.
The definition being used for terrorism easily places the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in that category. “Shock and awe” in Iraq, the firebombing of Dresden and Tokya, to name just a few.
Israel is also a terrorist nation, under that definition. There are many others, of course.
I think it’s time to include states in the mix with this too. If it’s politically correct to always name things as a certain kind of ____ terrorism, it should be done when states act in this manner as well.
