Yeah, and as much as I’m perplexed by US gun laws, I’m not sure the debate is quite relevant in this particular case - at least if it’s verified that the perpetrator acted out of fanaticism. He’d have found ways to arm himself even with tighter gun control. Not the typical shooting.
Note that I find it sad that there’s such a thing as a “typical shooting”.
If “the biggest, most heavily armed and most obscenely over-funded military in the history of civilization” isn’t enough to deter another country from launching an armed invasion of the United States then the prospect of dealing with a few private citizens carrying AR-15s seems pretty unlikely to make much of a difference.
We can talk about the “how” forever - @Brainspore, @rkt88edmo, @Jim_Kirk, @Mister44, and many others in this and other threads have already shown that. The debate about whether “a well regulated militia” or “shall not be infringed” is the more decisive clause of the second amendment is a never ending debate. Not that it’s not important going forward to figure out if and how we can prevent this sort of thing in the future, but for now I’d rather talk about the why, and the moral response. And how the root cause for this heinous act is intolerance, whether or not this is a “real” terrorist attack or more a case of domestic “hate crime” - I’m honestly sure I know or care to know the difference. At the root of both is intolerance - the same intolerance that Trump espouses, the same intolerance the right wing promotes, and the same intolerance that Fox supports. I’d rather not see this country let Trump or any others who have so vigorously promoted hate drape the rainbow flag around they shoulders while the call this a terrorist attack against people that they barely considered Americans until today. Let’s not make this in to a debate about the 2nd amendment. Let’s not make this a discussion about how All American Lives Matter. Let’s focus on the victims, and the intolerance that led to their murder.
My point exactly. Way too many shootings happen in the USA, and raise questions about the 2nd amendment, but this particular one is of another kind, and raises primarily other questions.
Yes - sorry if my soliloquy sounded like a rebuttal. It wasn’t aimed at you.
Or as some might put it:
Imagine you lived in the only developed country in the world that allowed virtually unrestricted access to high explosives. In this scenario, tens of thousands of individuals die from explosives every year, and every few months another domestic terrorist blows up dozens of people at a time in a high-profile attack.
Then after every high profile attack some people speak up to ask “should we change the way explosives are regulated in this country?” and are immediately shouted down by others who say THIS IS NO TIME TO POLITICIZE EXPLOSIVES and LET’S FOCUS ON THE VICTIMS, NOT THE TOOLS THE KILLER USED.
The moral response. (And thank you for getting us back on track.)
A few years ago I recall reading the best analysis of the moral response I’ve ever seen.
To paraphrase:
If the killing of twenty 6 and 7 year old children hasn’t changed anything, then we have no moral response at all.
One person attempts and fails to take down a plane with a bomb in his shoe, and everyone has to take off their shoes at airports for the rest of time.
A group of people contemplate binary liquid explosives (that any decent chemist will tell you assembling in an airplane restroom is one of the stupidest things possible) and everyone is limited to 3 ounces of water on airplanes for the rest of time.
Twenty children murdered at Sandy Hook, and nothing changed.
Five dead in Roswell New Mexico and nothing changed.
Five dead in Moultrie, Georgia and nothing changed.
Eight dead in Piketon, Ohio and nothing changed.
Six dead in Appling, Georgia and nothing changed.
Five dead in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and nothing changed.
Five dead in Kansas City, Kansas and nothing changed.
Five dead in Belfair, Washington and nothing changed.
Four dead in Hesston, Kansas and nothing changed.
Five dead in Glendale, Arizona and nothing changed.
Six dead in Kalamazoo, Michigan and nothing changed.
Six dead in Chesapeake, Virginia and nothing changed.
and on,
and on,
and on,
and on…
No. I’m sorry. We do not have a moral response. 
If profits matter more than most lives, (as seems to be the case) then we have truly lost our way as an “evolved” species.
After I wrote this, it occurred to me…
We were told, back when George Bush was president, that we couldn’t just pull out of Iraq. If we did, then all those soldiers who had already died would have died in vain.
Is it the same logic here? Are we saying that we can’t do anything about gun violence and mass shootings, because if we did, then those 20 children at Sandy Hook will have died in vain? Because if we did, then we would have to answer the question “Why didn’t we do anything after Sandy Hook?” As long as we allow the killings to continue, we will never have to face the fact that all those victims have died in vain?
Please, someone tell me that that is crazy, the ravings of some lunatic… please.
I heard on the radio… the mother of one of the children murdered in Sandy Hook apologized to the families and loved ones of the victims murdered in Orlando. She apologized that even the death of her child and others did not change things.
most of the gun people only support that last bit. They seem to overlook the first part.
(Jesse Ventura, governor of the State of Minnesota)
(Silvio Berlusconi, prime minister of Italy)
(Ted Cruz)
Crikey… how these guys get in to their offices in the first place boggles the mind.
I do not understand the hate for Massachusetts.
Trump can vouch for the sincerity and quality of the twitter accounts sending the congratulations. Other politicians are reduced to accepting congratulations from total strangers, could be anyone! Worthless!
No words of mine can add or detract from what happened. However to come swooping in like a gods-damned vulture…
Is exactly in keeping with Mister Trump’s character as portrayed so far.
I just hope that the rainbow flags are not he end of the good will and solidarity that will be shown and that even though I don’t want the dead to be paraded around as myrters, that some recognition is given that even though America has grown vastly more tolerant in the past twenty years of LGBT… many parts of this country (including my family, sadly) see them as barely human sinful creatures behelden to hedonistic lusts and are worthy only of contempt.
You know, the opposite of the whole ‘love and hope eternal while offering a hand to those that don’t have’ philosophy.
it was more the different meanings of well regulated between restricted, standardised and uniformly equipped you and Jonas discussed. from my POV no definition is enforced.
Ah, but it was. Like I said, if you wanted to join the Militia back in the day, the laws said you had to have a certain amounts and type of equipment. Showing up with no powder, holes in your boots, and a bent barrel wouldn’t cut mustard. There were also rules for having to show up for drills, etc.
The Militia system was largely replaced by the National Guard in 1903, which of course is super regulated, with the government providing weapons, uniforms, equipment, food, training, etc.
Again - the two are separate from each other. One needed a pool of well armed people to pull from for the Militia, but the right to be armed was for everyone.
One COULD argue that because the original intent was an armed populace was needed for national defense, that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete since we now have a massive federal army. I disagree with that, but at least you have 1) a rational argument and 2) it considers the original context.
But you also have to consider that it protects the individual right to defense. Certainly we don’t have to endure wild bears, Indian raids, and bandits and highway men like in the late 1700s, but there are still bad people out there. And as I continue to point out, even with the crime and horrible events such as this, nearly every one of the 80 MILLION gun owners hurt no one with their guns, including the estimated 10 million (high estimate?) who own one or more AR-15s and similar styled rifles.
Millions of people played Lawn Jarts in the 50s and didn’t hurt anyone, but after a few injuries and deaths, they banned the game. I am not saying guns should be banned but shouldn’t there be at least some common sense? Do I need to defend myself with an AR-15?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
