Colorado Movie Shooting

[Mr. Blackwell]

It's not a misrepresentation so much as a misunderstanding.

Don't like the car analogy? Fine. Let's just stick to personal responsibility, death and the constitution.

Gun rights vs. Abortion rights

Go

[Azdgari]

You can always call a misrepresentation a misunderstanding when you get called on it.  Misrepresentations are convenient like that.

It's not so much that I don't like your car analogy, as that your car analogy isn't analogous.  Which, of course, you knew when you made it.  Totally disingenuous.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Let's go back to where we started, before you started dodging.  Criminals have the legal right to obtain the means to kill others more easily.

Before we do this we need to make crystal clear what we are talking about when it comes to criminals.

I provided a link which laid out what definition I am using. I want to make sure I completely understand what you consider a criminal before we continue. My interpretation of your use of the word criminal includes anyone who has ever broken any law period. It does not matter to you if they have been caught or convicted. Is this correct?

[Azdgari]

That is correct.  As HAL pointed out in the pedophile-adoption thread, one is still breaking the law even if there's no chance of getting caught.  One might not have a criminal record, but one is still a criminal.

For example, a thug who shoots a store-owner for the cash in the register and gets away with it is a criminal, as far as I'm concerned.  Whether he's caught and convicted is irrelevant to that designation.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Then I agree that, according to your use of the word, criminals have the right to legally obtain fire arms the means to kill others more easily. under the 2cnd amendment. 

Edit
For correct quoting.

[screwtape]

A good Tomgram on violence in America.  What is often overlooked in the conversation is police violence. 

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175575/tomgram%3A_stephan_salisbury%2C_life_in_the_american_slaughterhouse/

The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics has been compiling data on deaths of suspects following arrests, but the information covers just 40 states and only includes arrest fatalities. From January 2003 through December 2009, bureau statistics show 4,813 deaths occurred during “an arrest or restraint process.” Of those, 61% (2,931) were classified as homicides by law enforcement personnel, 11% (541) as suicides, 11% (525) as due to intoxication, 6% (272) as accidental injuries, and 5% (244) were attributed to natural causes. About 42% of the dead were white, 32% were black, and 20% were Hispanic.

What I think is interesting is the right-wingers' lack of outrage about this.  It seems to me this is exactly what they claim gun rights are supposed to prevent.  This is exactly what a tyrranical government looks like.  Yet, whenever an unarmed kid is killed by police, their knee-jerk reaction is to defend the police and try to smear the kid.

[Kimberly]

Sorry to interupt but can one of yall explain something to me:

Accused movie theater shooter James Holmes was charged with 24 counts of first degree murder today, two counts for each of the people he is accused of killing during an alleged shooting spree at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., on July 20.

Today, he was officially read his charges in Aurora District Court. Each death carried two separate murder charges, one for showing premeditation and one for showing extreme indifference to life. Both of the charges carry the death penalty as a possible sentence.

Source

How can you get charge with two counts or murder for one person? I understand the difference in the reasons for the charge but why aren't those lumped to one charge?

[HAL]

How can you get charge with two counts or murder for one person? I understand the difference in the reasons for the charge but why aren't those lumped to one charge?

I just saw this explained on TV. It's because of the extreme indifference to life. That's the way the law is in that state.

[Kimberly]

^ Because 12 counts of murder isn't enough for the death penalty? I guess I just don't get the point, he killed 12 people. Yes it's an extreme indifference to life but are only certain victim's lives worth two points? IDK, I don't see how it's legal or point it makes on paper. 

[HAL]

^ Because 12 counts of murder isn't enough for the death penalty? I guess I just don't get the point, he killed 12 people. Yes it's an extreme indifference to life but are only certain victim's lives worth two points? IDK, I don't see how it's legal or point it makes on paper.

It's states rights. They made the law. Now, if two death penalties per person are unconstitutional, it would be against federal law, but to find out it would have to be challenged in the Supreme court.

[nogodsforme]

A good Tomgram on violence in America.  What is often overlooked in the conversation is police violence. 

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175575/tomgram%3A_stephan_salisbury%2C_life_in_the_american_slaughterhouse/

The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics has been compiling data on deaths of suspects following arrests, but the information covers just 40 states and only includes arrest fatalities. From January 2003 through December 2009, bureau statistics show 4,813 deaths occurred during “an arrest or restraint process.” Of those, 61% (2,931) were classified as homicides by law enforcement personnel, 11% (541) as suicides, 11% (525) as due to intoxication, 6% (272) as accidental injuries, and 5% (244) were attributed to natural causes. About 42% of the dead were white, 32% were black, and 20% were Hispanic.

What I think is interesting is the right-wingers' lack of outrage about this.  It seems to me this is exactly what they claim gun rights are supposed to prevent.  This is exactly what a tyrranical government looks like.  Yet, whenever an unarmed kid is killed by police, their knee-jerk reaction is to defend the police and try to smear the kid.

Strange how there is only one scenario where gun rights people are not enthusiastic about victims being better armed: when a minority person or suspected criminal is killed by police or by someone who "feels threatened" by a minority person or suspected criminal. 

If two people feel threatened by each other who is in the right? The first person to shoot, of course, like in an old west cowboy movie. Unarmed or slower on the draw? You lose. See Treyvon Martin case.

As for the cars vs guns analogy; when gun owners are required to be trained, licensed and insured against damages to persons and property caused by their guns, we might have a comparison. I would have less problem with people owning guns if guns were as regulated as cars are.

[Mr. Blackwell]

As for the cars vs guns analogy; when gun owners are required to be trained, licensed and insured against damages to persons and property caused by their guns, we might have a comparison. I would have less problem with people owning guns if guns were as regulated as cars are.

Oh, I agree there should be a requirement to be trained and licensed to own a gun...hadn't thought about the insurance part but it makes sense.

The only reason I used the cars analogy was for the comparative damage caused to society by each vs. society's tolerance for one over the other. 

Abortion was touched upon lightly to illustrate how the constitution can be interpreted to extrapolate and apply rights not specifically outlined within the original frame work. If we can do that then we absolutely can re-interpret rights vaguely granted within the original framework in order to remove or greatly restrict them. And that is what frightens me.

Let's touch on another one real quick. The right to vote has not always been recognized for everyone. That was changed over time. Flash forward to today and look at the arguments for or against voter ID.

It is argued that requiring an ID to vote effectively disenfranchises a certain class of people. Much like a poll tax did.

If we are to compare apples to apples then it can be argued that requiring special training and licencing to exorcise your second amendment rights will disenfranchise a certain class of people.

For the purposes of this phase of the discussion I believe that discussing possible harm to others should not pertain.

Since comparing potential harm caused by our use of automobiles does not apply to this conversation then potential harm caused by guns cannot be considered as a rebuttal to equal access to our rights.

I said before and I'll say it again, I don't mind one bit if we go in and expand our rights[1]...I just don't think it's a great idea to start going in and removing them.[2]

1.	Even if I vehemently disagree with them
2.	ditto

[Azdgari]

That's the problem, Jay.  Expanding gun rights effectively curtails the life-rights of others.  Because the guns end up being used.

[Mr. Blackwell]

That's the problem, Jay.  Expanding gun rights effectively curtails the life-rights of others.  Because the guns end up being used.

I am not talking about expanding them. Never once.

[Azdgari]

I know.  Those life-rights don't bear any expansion whatsoever, especially not at the expense of gun-rights.  Gun-rights are far more valuable than life-rights are.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Is there a point you want to make? Or is this just a sound bite contest?

[Azdgari]

Several others seem to have caught the point of my sarcasm.  I trust you can do the same.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Soundbite contest it is. Have it your way. You win.

[Azdgari]

*sigh*  You're really going to keep trying not to understand stuff, aren't you?

My point is that in order to expand life-rights, in practice, one may have to curtail gun-rights.  In order to restore gun-rights, one might have to curtail life-rights.

Example:  Giving people the right to shoot trespassers on sight expands a facet of gun-rights, and curtails a facet of life-rights.

[Mr. Blackwell]

*sigh*  You're really going to keep trying not to understand stuff, aren't you?

My point is that in order to expand life-rights, in practice, one may have to curtail gun-rights.  In order to restore gun-rights, one might have to curtail life-rights.

Example:  Giving people the right to shoot trespassers on sight expands a facet of gun-rights, and curtails a facet of life-rights.

If you are going to dismiss one constitutional right in defense of another then we must also reconsider our acceptance of private ownership of automobiles.

Driving a car is not a right after all and is therefore not in a protected status constitutionally. If your primary concern is the preservation of the right to life with total disregard to what is provided for in the constitution then we should ban private ownership of automobiles immediately so that not one more single innocent life is lost at the hands of irresponsible drivers.

[Mr. Blackwell]

*sigh*  You're really going to keep trying not to understand stuff, aren't you?

My point is that in order to expand life-rights, in practice, one may have to curtail gun-rights.  In order to restore gun-rights, one might have to curtail life-rights.

Example:  Giving people the right to shoot trespassers on sight expands a facet of gun-rights, and curtails a facet of life-rights.

Edit

What I don't understand is your sudden use of words like "expand" and "restore" into this conversation as If that is something that I have called for. Stop doing that or demonstrate that I have actually called for expansion and restoration.

I understand what you are saying there. Sorry.

[Azdgari]

If you are going to dismiss one constitutional right in defense of another then we must also reconsider our acceptance of private ownership of automobiles.

Driving a car is not a right after all and is therefore not in a protected status constitutionally. If your primary concern is the preservation of the right to life with total disregard to what is provided for in the constitution then we should ban private ownership of automobiles immediately so that not one more single innocent life is lost at the hands of irresponsible drivers.

Who proposed that with respect to guns?  When did I make a similar point?  Never.

And we already have reconsidered the private ownership of cars.  That's why they have to be licensed, training is required in order to drive them, strict laws govern their usage on the road, using them while intoxicated, etc.  Where is this total private ownership that you're hypothetically suggesting we reconsider?

[Mr. Blackwell]

Who proposed that with respect to guns?

I did.

And we already have reconsidered the private ownership of cars.  That's why they have to be licensed, training is required in order to drive them, strict laws govern their usage on the road, using them while intoxicated, etc.

And it's easy to do that for automobiles because we do not have a constitutional right to own or use them. We must do something to protect the right to life no? If all our rules and licensing and regulations have little or no success in preserving the right to life then we should just ban the use outright. It's not like banning automobiles would require the various states to agree and ratify it.

Just do it.

Where is this total private ownership that you're hypothetically suggesting we reconsider?

There are two in my driveway. They are paid for. I own them. They are mine. I have to have a license to use the roads. And I pay for that privilege with taxes. But the cars are privately held by me. I got titles to prove it.

Now, with all that in mind, I could use my cars irresponsibly and kill innocent people....statistically speaking it is much more likely that I might do that over using a gun to kill innocent people.

[Azdgari]

I did.

So what you're saying is that it was effectively a strawman.

And it's easy to do that for automobiles because we do not have a constitutional right to own or use them. We must do something to protect the right to life no? If all our rules and licensing and regulations have little or no success in preserving the right to life then we should just ban the use outright. It's not like banning automobiles would require the various states to agree and ratify it.

I suspect that our rules and licensing and regulations for cars have quite a bit of success in preserving the right to life.  Imagine a road with no rules whatsoever for ownership or operation of any vehicles.  Don't you think the rules have had a beneficial effect?

There are two in my driveway. They are paid for. I own them. They are mine. I have to have a license to use the roads. And I pay for that privilege with taxes. But the cars are privately held by me. I got titles to prove it.

Great.  And the government doesn't know you have them.  And you can drive them without licence plates, and do whatever you like.  Because you own them, they're 100% under your control and will.  Right?

Of course not.  You own them, but not in every sense.  Ownership does not confer absolute rights over them.  Why should it for guns?

You bring up the 2nd Amendment.  Would requiring guns to be licensed and registered, for example, actually violate the 2nd Amendment?  That's a matter of interpretation, I suppose.  But if preventing people from bearing arms on an airplane is constiutional, then why not other restrictions and regulations?  Remember, you also already have "concealed carry" permits down there.  Isn't that an infringement?  Should absolutely everyone be legally allowed to conceal whatever weapon they like, from whatever age they can get one?

[screwtape]

Strange how there is only one scenario where gun rights people are not enthusiastic about victims being better armed: when a minority person or suspected criminal is killed by police or by someone who "feels threatened" by a minority person or suspected criminal. 

I wonder what gun rights people think a tyrranical government would look like?  Or out of control police?  According to them, that is what guns are supposed to protect us from.  But how does that work?

Let's take Anaheim as an example, from the Tomgram I linked.  Suppose the people of Anaheim, all 300,000 of them, fed up with cops killing kids at random, armed themselves.  And then they sent a formal declaration to the police department and city leaders saying something to the effect of "any cop who perpetrates violence on a member of our community in a way we deem unjust will be shot.  So y'all better figure this shit out."

Is that what they have in mind?  Armed citizens shooting out-of-control police?   

Seriously, gun enthusiasts, how is it supposed to work?

[DumpsterFire]

Sorry Tape, I accidentally hit -1 when I intended to +1 that last comment. System is making me wait 1 hour before I can +1 to even it out. Maybe you, as an omnimax admin, can correct it for me?

Anyway, great question. At what point does one determine the government has become tyrannical enough to justify an armed response?

[screwtape]

Maybe you, as an omnimax admin, can correct it for me?

I will do that right after I figure out how to give you -100.

[Dante]

Let's take Anaheim as an example, from the Tomgram I linked.  Suppose the people of Anaheim, all 300,000 of them, fed up with cops killing kids at random, armed themselves.  And then they sent a formal declaration to the police department and city leaders saying something to the effect of "any cop who perpetrates violence on a member of our community in a way we deem unjust will be shot.  So y'all better figure this shit out."

Is that what they have in mind?  Armed citizens shooting out-of-control police?   

Seriously, gun enthusiasts, how is it supposed to work?

If we're going to go to the extremes, then yes, it is. And why not? If all other diplomatic resources and non-violent options are exhausted, with no beneficial consequences occuring, what other choice is there besides the use of force? Submission?

[screwtape]

If we're going to go to the extremes, then yes, it is.

I'm not sure what you mean by "If we're going to go to the extremes".   Please elaborate

If all other diplomatic resources and non-violent options are exhausted, with no beneficial consequences occuring,...

Would you say that is the situation in Anaheim?  If not, how is that point determined or defined?  How do you know whether we are at that point?  What if the non-violent options are not exhausted but are met with further violence?