stevenaa

Rivera is not going to accept anyone on his staff he doesn't want.  He didn't come here to let Snyder press him into keeping KOC right out the gate.   Rivera didn't need to come here. He chose to come here,  and he set the terms without a doubt.   A coach of his caliber would accept nothing less. 

I don't think its murder,  but I don't want to necessarily encourage vigilantism.  It worked out ok in this case assuming the facts are accurate.  But it could have been a disaster if the AK had been fired indiscriminately.  

No problem with that whatsoever.  Don't want to get yourself shot,  don't go into a waffle house with an AK and rob people.   If my wife was expected to show up I'd be freaked as well.  

As I've said repeatedly.  Nothing is going to stop crazy.   At least 30 dead.  Horrifying.  The human race is becoming so desensitized to violence.  We have to make ourselves better than this.  

Truck attacker kills dozens in Nice 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/truck-plows-into-crowd-in-nice-france-many-dead-paper/ar-BBulpVJ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

Wasn't intending to be rude, though maybe a little bit of a smart ass. Can't help myself.

That worked fine with 1700s era muskets. That's not feasible in the 21st century, because in order to give the people a fighting chance against the government they'd need access to things like tanks and fighter jets.

 

You need to recheck your very recent history to know this is absolutely not true.   

How about a background check and no ARs?

I'm fine with that.   I think restricting hunting rifles to internal magazines of 3-5 bullets is fine.    Background checks should be required.  30 day waiting period for cool down and time to do background checks is fine.  None of that infringes on my ownership rights.   We place limits on our constitutional rights all the time.    There's room for compromise IMO.   

The great irony of this statement is that usually those who do not want to address gun control issues and say the real problems are the underlying ones are the ones who are staunchly against health reform (the ACA), education reform (increasing funding for school infrastructure and teachers), want to defund welfare, and safety net programs, etc.

 

It's a great argument except it's a phony one. If gun rights folk truly believed that mental health is an issue why haven't there been any meaningful changes in mental health support or funding? If they think the violence has to do with poverty or economics, why do they attempt to deregulate and defund jobs programs, school lunch and breakfast programs, SNAP, etc.

Ah,  except in the very post you clearly didn't fully read,  and several others I've posted lately I've stated clearly I support more restrictions and regulations.  And it's awful convenient of you to lay the blame for all our social ills at the feet of the gun rights folks.  

So we have data like from Germany, UK, Japan and a whole bunch of other countries that their angry maniacs use cars, bombs, and other methods? Show me the data... SHOW ME THE DATA (Jerry Mcguire there).

Or is there something more sinister in our great USA that makes people snap?

The problem of United States, UK, Canada, Germany cannot be so different that one country has a "crazy people publically killing people with easy means" problem and the rest, when they remove the efficiency, don't.

Our mass shootings are the rule, other countries are the exception.

Notice, I have advocated for a total gun ban, but juet more regulated and restricted (Germany) is what I would like.

I don't know how many non-gun owning "silent agreement" folks there are who did previously believe in "gun rights" - but Sandy Hook tilted me big, and Pulse was the tipping point. I an going to be a vocal advocate for more gun control rather than silently standing by.

America is not those places and frankly we have very unique social issues that those countries have no familiarity with.    My post made it clear I'm for more regulation and restrictions.  I fully agree with you there.   But I won't ever support restrictions that prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing a firearm within a reasonable period of time.   30 days is more than enough time to do a completely thorough background check.  But any substantive effort to actually correct the problem of violence needs to include working on our social condition.

I believe that it is gun proliferation that threatens "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" more than a ruling fist.

No.  What is threatening "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"  are a plethora of problems that lead people to do these sort of things.  Gun violence is a symptom and no one really wants to make any attempt at addressing the underlying issues.  They just want to strip the rights away from many millions of law abiding citizens.   You can be assured that if there is no access to a gun for these nuts,  they'll spend five minutes on the internet and then walk into a crowded environment and set off the bomb they just learned how to make.  Or drive their car on a rampage a crowd, or any other method easily available to cause carnage and get the notoriety they crave. 

I think tighter restrictions and regulations are needed.  Keep guns out the hands of potential terrorists,  mentally ill,  felons,  anyone involved in a violent crime etc.......    There are things that can and should be done.  

Once you start removing freedoms , where does it stop?   Back to prohibition to stop drunk driving?    I'm sure the families of loved ones killed by drunk drivers would be ok with those drivers never having access to alcohol.  We should give the government unfettered access to our personal internet activity so they can catch anyone involved in activities deemed unacceptable. 

OK, but during the course of our history, the definition was further defined and honed by laws... beginning right after the founding, in fact. 

Why don't we recognize them?

Basically this says all is null and void except what was said directly at the founding of the country.

 

for the record, i never said i believe anyone should be.. in fact, i think the civilian militia for the defense of the state notion to be another of those obsolete things that folks hold on to.

i just find it irritating that in the due course of sales we have decided that part of it all isn't really important, and basically has no meaning at all.

 

~Bang

I don't think we should change the meaning of an amendment just because we've changed the meaning of a word it contains.  While difficult,  there are constitutionally correct ways to modify it,  and that's how it should be done IMO.   

I do believe the amendment gives room for regulation,  just not up to the point of preventing ownership to law abiding citizens.   I've no problem with reasonable regulation.   My right to be armed is not infringed by having to have a background check,  or wait 2 weeks and so on.    I don't support the NRA's insistence that there are no restrictions that are reasonable.  Frankly I see that as the most likely cause of my loss of freedom as things get pushed to a breaking point where drastic measures are furthered that will infringe on my right to ownership.  Something that could be avoided with reasonable compromise.

He may still have been stupid enough to fight a duel today.     

Uh, no,.

What militia means is pretty easy.

even for an idiot like me who barely escaped the 4th grade, dictionaries are easy to find.

A militia may be made up of civilians, but it is to be 'well organized'. 

And to me, that means at the absolute very least you should know which militia you belong to,, or where to report if called upon by the various militia acts.

 

I think you should read up to Peter's comment and then the after... the US defined militia in this regard in 1903.

It also shows in his link that the males between 18-45 could be CONSCRIPTED.. (ie: "forced")  to their local militia company when called, so something of the sort actually existed..  and then in 1903, was defined by law as the national guard.

The purpose of the second was not to stand up TO the National guard, but as defined by the US, to become the national guard.

In fact, the "National guard" wasn't even defined until well after the second was written, and even the earliest militias on the continent were designated by units

"The first colony-wide militia was formed by Massachusetts in 1636 by merging small older local units, and several National Guard units can be traced back to this militia. The various colonial militias became state militias when the United States became independent. "

This does not at all read to be the chaotic practice we have now, but a much more controlled and organized envronment..

 and in 1903 it went the last step to say that the National guard is the recognized state militia, and even state defense forces fall under their command.

 

it is interesting how we will adhere to law and interpret it when convenient,, but when the law also defines what the militia is, well then it's just 'wrong'.

 

My dollar is still here.

 

 

 

~Bang

Uh no.  The principal authors of the Bill of rights clearly defined what militia meant at the time it was written.  We can argue the semantics of what it means now, or what it was defined to mean in 1903,  but that has nothing to do with the meaning at the time it was written, or the clear intent from the words of those involved in writing it.    It was absolutely meant to provide an armed populace as a deterrent against the government.  How can Masons own words be construed to mean anything else?  How about Madison's words? He had a little something to do with the penning of the Bill of Rights. 

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

― James Madison

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

― Alexander Hamilton

The words of the authors themselves make the intent and reason of the 2nd amendment crystal clear.   Making it out to be anything other than what they themselves stated is revisionist. 

You all are quick to dismiss "the people".  It does not limit "the People"  to the group belonging to the militia. It is clear the intent is that the militia is "the people"    As in "We, the people"   There is no ambiguity in that statement.   "the people" as a phrase is only used a couple times and each time in the context of individual rights.    The amendment in no way implies that a militia of select people will be formed, and just those people will not have their right to arms infringed. 

Mason makes this quite clear, and as a key person to the Bill of Rights,  I think I'll trust his opinion. 

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

This is from Mason draft:

17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.

You can read the Amendment in a vacuum and assign any meaning that fits your agenda.  But the framers intention is quite clear. 

The People are to be armed as the best defense against governmental power.

I do think the argument can be made regarding the training and discipline of said militia(The People)  I think it's well within the governments right(arguably at the state level)   to enforce training as a requirement of ownership and really that should be done to fulfill the spirit of the amendment IMO  I find it interesting that the "trained to arms" qualifier was left out of the final amendment. 

"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."

The people were the militia.   Note that it doesn't say until such time as a militia is unnecessary, or until such time that food can be provided through mass production and hunting is no longer a necessity.     The framers understood a well armed populace was the best guarantee against physical government abuse. 

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

I'm a supporter the second amendment as read to guarantee individual rights to gun ownership,  more specifically the limitation on government to restrict ownership.  However,  I'm not a card carrying NRA member who has no sense of understanding that things change over time.   I'll never support any legislation that prevents my right to own a firearm except under some well defined,  stringent exceptions:

Commit a felony-lose the right

Convicted of domestic violence,  or while on trial for it-  lose the right

On a no fly list-  lose the right.  But we need processes to expediently correct mistakes in who is listed

We need a way to restrict the mentally sick from gun ownership.  See the Texas nut lady.   Long history of mental health issues.  tragic

We need stiff penalties for children getting access to firearms.  

I'm fine with more thorough background checks and reasonable wait times.  I'm fine with mandating that personal sales be recorded.  I'm fine with requiring a licensing program for gun ownership.  None of those infringe on my right to own a gun.  

So, thinking about this need for the thousands of rounds of ammo. From the discussion here, it seems mostly linked to the shooting range. Therefore, what if we devised a two part scenario:

 

Pt. 1-- You have your right to bare arms and have some ammo at home. Is three cartridges enough for personal defense? Pick a relatively small number that would work to stave off burglars, bad guys, and the random alien invasion.

 

Pt. 2-- Your 10,000 rounds of ammo is still yours, you can buy it, you can possess it, but it is housed at your "well regulated militia" Maybe that means a locker at the shooting range or gun club. Maybe it means a safe deposit box at Gringots, but the mass quantities which the gun owner only really needs at that location stays at that location.

 

In a way, that would satisfy both parts of the 2nd. You have your right to bare arms and your armaments are part of well regulated militia.

 

(I suspect everyone will hate the idea and I know it could never pass, but it seems to me a sane compromise)

It would have no affect on anything.  These attacks are not about people spewing thousands of rounds of ammo.    Plus,  a large portion of gun owners aren't just shooting at ranges.  They shoot on private property.  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  does not mean right to own guns but not ammo.  Arms encompasses both. 

LOL. But the world would be so much better if everyone just followed my rules.

 

Risking Princess Briding myself... 5,000 bullets, Greatbuzz?! Inconceivable!

 

(Kind of mind blowing in any case)

You can shoot a thousand rounds in an afternoon if you have a few people shooting very easily.   I take my 45 pistol to the range and roll through 100 rounds in no time.    That's only 13 magazines worth.   And I have to sneak out to go by myself.   My kids love to shoot so I'm not getting there without them.  That can be several hundred 22 rounds. 

How frightening to find a stranger in your child's room.  

Oregon Mother Shoots and Kills Intruder She Discovered in Child's Bedroom

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/oregon-mother-shoots-and-kills-intruder-she-discovered-in-childs-bedroom/ar-AAhFFqO?li=BBnbfcL

The conviction of any violent crime should ==  no gun ownership rights.   

I was thinking about something like that, a "gun range loophole" in the context of temporary transfers of firearm custody.

 

One of the possible sets of restrictions is that private sales and transfers must be recorded somewhere and registered.  I would think temporary transfers (letting friend Joe borrow gun for weekend) would require some sort of quick registration as well, with the goal of making sure all parties have done their due diligence on the other party.

 

Of course, that would prohibit a father letting his son shoot his gun, even at a range, which seems overly harsh.  I think to that end, a lifting on limitations on temporary transfers of control within the confines of a gun range would make sense.

I think that the case where someone is going to use a gun for harm, I'm not comfortable holding the gun loaner responsible unless he's knowingly loaning it to a felon.  If me and Jim Bob are long friends and use each others guns for hunting,  I don't think I'd be responsible for Jim Bob flipping out and using my firearm.    Using friends guns for hunting is common place.  That's like loaning my care to someone who then drives to a bar and kills someone drunk driving. 

Impractical, maybe.  Impossible, no.  Everything has a bar code with a description of the contents.  Doesn't matter if you purchase one box of 100 rounds or 20 boxes of 100 rounds.  

 

If they implemented the same tracking measures they do for pseudophederine, it would require your driver's license to be scanned along with tracking it to you individually.  Tracking it would actually be extremely easy.  

 

Back to the first part of your post, it may be impractical, now that I think about it.  It would be hard to determine what amount is too much, when do we need to get involved and look into an individual, etc. etc. etc.  

 

It was just a thought I tossed out there.  But they could use the same tracking measures to track high capacity magazines, etc. which might be pointless too, but it could be done.  

Let me clarify.  You could easily track and record the purchases.  What is impossible is determining the intent of those making the purchases.  If they're on a watch list of some sort,  it should be flagged. But the numbers of individuals buying ammo makes it impossible to screen on that alone.   So if you want to cross reference firearm and ammo purchases to watch lists, that's doable.   But if Joe Schmo goes and buys an AR and 1000 rounds of ammo,  a very common purchase,  knowing if that's a trigger or not is impossible, and there will never be enough agents to personally interview those people or the funds with which to do so. 

Tracking ammo is impractical. I'd say it's impossible.   1000 rounds sounds like a lot, but it's really not.   The number of people buying that much and much more for typical use is huge.  A small 1 gallon bucket of 22 ammo holds 1300 rounds.  No practical way to weed out who or who may not be suspect. 

I have no issue with putting limitations in place for magazine size, making all purchases require registration and even requiring licensing for gun ownership.  Make every sale of a weapon require submitting a tax form and make the purchaser pay sales tax on it, just like we do for automobiles.  Have a 2 week waiting period and cross references all purchases to any terror watch lists.  We seem to look back on these and see missed opportunities where flags should have been raised.   Fix that.

I don't know.  Those images raise a lot of questions.  Was that girl a suspect for any crime other than  riding her bike through the mall parking lot on her way home?  If the concern of the officer was that she was trespassing, why did he forcibly attempt to keep her on the property instead of letting her pedal off the property? Is yanking a person to the ground by grabbing a handful of hair standard procedure? Is tasing an unarmed 15 year old girl on the ground whom you outweigh by 100 pounds standard procedure? Do you think mall management approved of the way that moonlighting cop handled the situation?  Do you think the cop would have handled it the same way if a white woman decided to walk away from the officer, knowing she had done nothing wrong?

There could be a yes or no answer to each of those questions,  which is why watching a video with no context makes it very difficult to draw any context.   There were two cops on the scene quickly.  Where they watching the parking lot due to recent increase in car break ins?    Were the kids riding through there during the middle of a school day.  There are tons of reasons they might have legitimately stopped her, but that doesn't really matter.  The issue of how she was handled was escalated by her when she tried to ride off and then resisted.  She was clearly not easy to handle or subdue.  Just because he outweighs her by 100, doesn't mean he can subdue her without potentially hurting here.    Even when he jerks her around,  he never appears to try to harm her seriously.  Had he punched her, or picked her up and body slammed her I'd have an issue with it.   But trying to get control of an unruly 15 year old isn't always easy.  Tazing should be done to prevent bodily harm to the cop or the suspect.  She was making no attempt at complying.  He could have jumped on her and subdued her due do his weight advantage,  but she very may well have been really hurt.  I don't see a cop here trying to be overly abusive.  I see one trying to subdue an unruly teenager bent on resisting with all she had.  

All I can really do with this post is laugh.

When faced with unassailable logic...   

What a ****ing thug punk **** of a cop. 

All easily avoided if she'd not tried to ride away and then resisted.   She forcibly resisted and he didn't do anything to cause serious harm.  He jerked her around trying to get her down after she got out of his grip when he was going to cuff her.  He didn't body slam her or pound on her.  Tazing here prevented further struggle that might have resulted in injury.  The boy did as he was told and nothing happened to him.  Had that been my daughter acting like that,  I'd have no problem with what he did. 

"To the dismay of the imperialistic American dogs, today we successfully tested our intercontinental ballistic bunker busting missile.  It performed as expected,  flawlessly looping and then burrowing nose first at high speed, deeply into the ground.  No longer will American presidents be able to safely cower in caverns beneath the Whitehouse when we launch our pre-emptive strikes"

Couple taken hostage kill murder suspect, jail escapee in Mississippi

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/us/mississippi-escaped-murder-suspect-killed-hostages/index.html

 

Well if the gun control crowd had their way - only folks that have guns being the outlaws and cops this family would have probably been murdered.  Thank god they had a gun and I thank them for their public service of taking out this criminal.

 

It is not coincidence that the murder capitols of the US are the same cities with the most stringent gun control laws e.g Chicago.  The bad guys don't seem to care about the laws.  Only the law abiding citizens abide by them.

 

Good for them.  Hope the husband taking the gun from his wife and finishing the job doesn't cause the any issues. 

If not notoriety,  what then? What's driving the uptick in this type of violence.  It isn't easy access to guns. They've always been easy to obtain in this country.  There has never been a period when they were difficult to get.   Heck,  locking up guns in your own home is a fairly recent concept.  The mass shooters may often be going after some perceived wrong, but they are going at it in a big way and there's a reason.   They want to go out in a blaze of glory and our perpetual, media frenzied state provides an easy avenue. 

So, people in the 1990's didn't want to be famous or notorious? They didn't want to be notorious in the 50's, 60's, or any other decade? No one on any country other than the US wants to be famous or notorious?

 

Sorry. Don't buy it. Wouldn't even rent it. I think there is a media component to this, but killing the messenger doesn't solve or even really address the problem.

Of course they did, but they didn't have the means they have today.  Social media, instant access news etc.....  fuels mass killings.   A way for them to be someone.       You can't lump all gun related killings into the same bucket because there are different causes needing different solutions.   You want to do something about the violence in the streets do something about rampant pregnancies where the father moves on to the next one.  Do something about the poor level of education in this country.  Most impoverished kids don't have parents who had good schooling who can help them with studies or even understand/believe that their kids being better educated gives them a real chance.   It's hard to hope for your children when you can't hope for yourself.     No body really wants to attack the underlying issues that cause the problem.