Marine War Vet kills 12 in CA

Discussion in 'Politics' started by g8tr72, Nov 8, 2018.

  1. g8r.tom

    g8r.tom Well-Known Member
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,363
    Oxbucks:
    $1,177
    Ratings:
    +1,262 / -21
    Everyone is a sinner. YOu know that, right? When you try to belittle someone over their actions and faith, you come off like a loser.
     
    • 5-Star Finger

      5-Star Finger Apex predator of the political forum biome
      Lifetime Member

      Joined:
      Nov 16, 2017
      Messages:
      1,540
      Oxbucks:
      $1,365
      Ratings:
      +2,538 / -19
      There's what said and then there's the intent with which it is said. Also, that's a fragment of what was said so I can't really comment on it other than generally.

      Some stuff Trump says no one can defend - but I think it is fair to say he's no where near the only political figure this is true for. Then there's a lot of what is said is interpreted in the worst possible way I would argue deliberately. See the comments in the wake of Charlottesville. A comment on mutual violence (which was and is occurring) and another on people on both sides of debating the place of monuments was deliberately skewed by the media as an endorsement of white supremacy, when that was clearly not the context of the remarks.

      In this case, I don't think saying that someone is strong in handling something implies that it is necessarily a weakness for others that don't. You can praise courage and fortitude without calling everyone that isn't acting that way a coward or weakling. It certainly seems that he's acknowledging the level of horror that they were exposed to. I wasn't there - I did find a piece by USA Today about it that used Twitter quotes from a lot of people that also weren't there. I did find this quote from someone who was:

      “I think it’s sickening that anyone would twist Mr. Trump’s comments to me in order to pursue a political agenda,” said former Marine staff sergeant Chad Robichaux, who asked the question that led to Trump's controversial response. “I took his comments to be thoughtful and understanding of the struggles many veterans have, and I believe he is committed to helping them.”

      It took the story I found about six paragraphs to get the quote above. A pretty important detail they probably should have led with, eh?

      What about on the way to and from? Or should I, as a dad, trust that someone else is responsible to protect my family from lunatics in the park or walking them to a car at night, after leaving a steakhouse or finishing our Christmas shopping? Self-defense is a basic human right. If I, as a good and honest man, obey whatever law that makes me defenseless in a certain area, should I really believe that crazies and the monsters will follow that example?

      So here's my challenge to you as a person: believe in the goodness in the people that argue with you. Do you honestly think anyone wants the type of people that you're describing above to have access to anything that makes them more dangerous than they already are to the rest of us? Think about it - even the NRA - really? They are moms and dads too. The truth is most of these people get their hands on what they use to hurt people after checking all the boxes we can reasonably establish at this time. Personally I favor the mandated reporting of people deemed by doctors to be dangerous to the background checklist. The trick is this has to be done with due process but swiftly. Ideally, with the endorsement of the patient themselves.

      In the interest of promoting discourse here; do you think that it's fair for those on the right, or like in my case, a creature of classically liberal leaning to listen to much what comes from the loudest voices on the left and suspect that they have ill intentions towards Constitutionally (and I happen to believe God-given rights) to keep and bare the arms we chose to use to defend our families and act as a check on power of government?

      "We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it's legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines." and “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” - Dianne Feinstein

      “When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly...When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it.” and “If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.” - Bill Clinton

      “The pathetic f***ers that want to keep killing our children, they could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action because they all still see those dollar signs,” - David Hogg

      I'm sure you know that's far from an exhaustive list. President Obama told John Lott while they were professors together that he didn't believe people should be able to own guns. I could quote Vice President Biden, Secretary Clinton, Senator Schumer, and Speaker Pelosi or countless other left-aligned media figures and celebrities.

      So my question is to you:

      Given the tenor of these comments, can you understand why right-aligned people instinctively recoil from any suggestion on this issue from the left? I know there are a lot of democrats that believe in the basic right to self-defense, but the money behind the party is distinctly anti-2nd amendment. They tend to paint their opponents as callous and bloodthirsty. If you'll excuse my bluntness I think you fell into that a little bit at the end of your comments.

      Let me turn your bit about voting in a different direction. First - forgive me a history lesson. I can't help it as a former history teacher.

      While 14th amendment specifically mentions participation in a crime as a reason for not granting voting rights, it's an absolute myth that felon disenfranchisement was somehow designed to target minorities. When many of these laws originated that point was moot because they were not enfranchised to begin with. Prior to 1821 eleven states already had adopted constitutions that disenfranchised felons and prior to the 14th 18 others had already joined them in this move.

      The laws didn't have anything to do with race and everything to do with John Locke's Two Treatises on Government. (you can read it here: John Locke: Two Treatises of Government (1680-1690)) as well as the writings of Hobbes. I understand that isn't a take you get in the media, but historically it is where these laws come from. Essentially they argued that in order for civil society to exist you had to have an agreement on rules. Those that refused to abide by those rules were in effect making war on society and since they excluded themselves from the obligations of the contract they should likewise be excluded from the benefit of defining its terms (and in some cases the right to go on living). I happen to feel that argument has aged pretty well.

      It is true that some states with existing laws modified those laws to try and target what were thought of as "black" crimes - robbing, wife beating, arson, rape, attempted murder - while not doing the same to what we might call today "white collar crimes." It's important to note that this happened in only five states, not even the entire South, and that these laws while designed to target "black" crimes applied to any white that committed them too, hence why they have been able to hold up in the modern era in the Supreme Court.

      Personally, I don't think serving your time is enough. I think you need to have a long wait with no further criminal activity before we let you vote. I'd say 10 years is more than reasonable to prove that you are truly reformed and ready to respect the rules you intend to help make via your political participation. I'm sure you're aware that both the Gun Control Act of 1968 and (in my opinion poorly named) The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (1986) both prevent felons from owning firearms - ever, unless his civil rights have been restored by either federal action or state laws. To be clear - I don't want felons, even "non-violent" ones carrying firearms until they've proved over a long period time that they intend to be people that are willing to live in the social contract.

      A lot of words. Hopefully you or someone else gets something from them.
       
      #42 5-Star Finger, Nov 8, 2018
      Last edited: Nov 8, 2018
      • Politigator

        Politigator L-boy's Cousin

        Joined:
        Oct 5, 2018
        Messages:
        447
        Oxbucks:
        $113
        Ratings:
        +113 / -128
        Just sayin. I don't belittle their faith. I belittle their actions that are completely and repeatedly contrary to their faith. And then they turn around and moan that our moral decay is due to dilution of faith, and wish to enshrine their values into law. (which often means somebody else losing their freedoms)

        Sure, God forgives, but forgiveness is based upon sincerity It doesn't mean that you can do what you want and all is forgiven. Especially if you hold yourself out as a disciple of Christ and then repeatedly and consistently act the opposite.
         
      • Detroitgator

        Detroitgator General Factotum
        Lifetime Member

        Joined:
        Jul 15, 2014
        Messages:
        12,023
        Oxbucks:
        $3,357
        Ratings:
        +9,935 / -26
        So, by your personal code, where does mocking the dead fit in?
         
      • g8r.tom

        g8r.tom Well-Known Member
        Lifetime Member

        Joined:
        Nov 17, 2017
        Messages:
        1,363
        Oxbucks:
        $1,177
        Ratings:
        +1,262 / -21

        You try to use their faith against them when they say something you don't like. It is obvious for all to see.
         
      • Politigator

        Politigator L-boy's Cousin

        Joined:
        Oct 5, 2018
        Messages:
        447
        Oxbucks:
        $113
        Ratings:
        +113 / -128
        I'm not for banning most guns. But I think the hurdle should be higher to own one.

        Everybody talks about defending themselves with a gun, but none of you talk about the danger that more guns and looser gun laws create. And none of you acknowledge the real and documented dangers of guns, which depending on what study you believe offset the benefit of owning a gun, at least in terms of mortality.

        I frequently hear how people ran an invader off with a gun. I'm all for that. But let's not assume that you have to have a gun to navigate and survive all of those situations. One problem is some people who have a gun make it their go to form of defense, and in some situations that may not lead to the optimal outcome.

        I am often amazed to hear the fear vocalized by grown men about walking down the street without a gun - at a time when crime is lower than it has been in decades. When did we get like this?

        I understand it is a fairly complex.topic and often some of the so called solutions have practical problems given current technology, but I think you can increase the hurdles of acquisition and not infringe on anybodys ability to get one.

        We make it easier to get a gun than to vote.

        As to these second amendment arguments, whatever their merits, we went many decades where not many people believed that the second amendment was cart Blanche permission for people to own any kind of gun they wanted. Chief Justice Warren Burger, a republican president appointee who was generally regarded as conservative in his day said those second amendment arguments were complete non sense. This freedom to own any gun philosophy only expended after the NRA morphed into a political organization and conservatives latched on to this fairly new ideology.

        Finally the most horrifying thing you said was doctors reporting patients to the government who they deem unfit to own guns. When people say stuff like this, I know they aren't serious about the constitution and protecting personal freedoms.
         
        • Dislike Dislike x 1
        • Facepalm Facepalm x 1
        • List
        • Politigator

          Politigator L-boy's Cousin

          Joined:
          Oct 5, 2018
          Messages:
          447
          Oxbucks:
          $113
          Ratings:
          +113 / -128
          Dude there is a long history in that particular case. That is the ONLY case where I bring it up.

          And please don't start the we are poor persecuted Christians war on Christianity crap.
           
        • g8r.tom

          g8r.tom Well-Known Member
          Lifetime Member

          Joined:
          Nov 17, 2017
          Messages:
          1,363
          Oxbucks:
          $1,177
          Ratings:
          +1,262 / -21
          So you act bad because someone else does.

          Got it.

          :backout:
           
        • CGgater

          CGgater Gainesville Native

          Joined:
          Jul 30, 2014
          Messages:
          4,572
          Oxbucks:
          $2,456
          Ratings:
          +5,019 / -42
          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

           
        • Windy City Gator

          Windy City Gator Well-Known Member

          Joined:
          Oct 26, 2017
          Messages:
          1,304
          Oxbucks:
          $876
          Ratings:
          +956 / -199
          Or he....there are women on this board.
           
        • URGatorBait

          URGatorBait #TeamBrad
          Lifetime Member

          Joined:
          Jun 11, 2014
          Messages:
          24,981
          Oxbucks:
          $2,107
          Ratings:
          +12,193 / -194
          I stopped reading when you said this.
           
          • stephenPE

            stephenPE Senior Member
            Lifetime Member

            Joined:
            Jul 20, 2014
            Messages:
            14,159
            Oxbucks:
            $918
            Ratings:
            +6,792 / -474
             
          • deuce

            deuce Mentally Challenged
            Lifetime Member

            Joined:
            Jun 11, 2014
            Messages:
            3,838
            Oxbucks:
            $693
            Ratings:
            +1,703 / -68
            In other words, "He's a Liberal"....

            I often enjoy his post but he can come unglued at any time.
             
            • deuce

              deuce Mentally Challenged
              Lifetime Member

              Joined:
              Jun 11, 2014
              Messages:
              3,838
              Oxbucks:
              $693
              Ratings:
              +1,703 / -68
              I think there is a basic misunderstanding of what the real nature of a Human Being is.

              If you think Humans are basically "nice" and "kind" and "good", you may well be mistaken.

              Even though it's a little dated and not universally accepted, The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris is an interesting read.
               
            • 5-Star Finger

              5-Star Finger Apex predator of the political forum biome
              Lifetime Member

              Joined:
              Nov 16, 2017
              Messages:
              1,540
              Oxbucks:
              $1,365
              Ratings:
              +2,538 / -19
              How high should the hurdle be for you to exercise your free speech rights? Ideas aren't more dangerous than guns? I'll keep that in mind the next time I see a progressive get apoplectic over a microagression.

              You're going to need to quote a specific study so we can look at methodology otherwise there's no value as it is all generalities. Almost without exception they completely ignore counting encounters like my recent defensive encounter. That's because it isn't a shooting at all - thankfully. If you drop those numbers like the studies always cited by groups like Everytown for Gun Safety of course it looks more dangerous to own them. You also need to look at their definition of children. I think you'll find it interesting. Oh and the CDC studies from the Clinton era that were tucked away and not published initially - those you should find very interesting in regard to your mortality claim.

              Have you ever survived or witnessed a violent encounter? It's a clever rhetorical trick to softly imply people that don't agree with you are cowards - but it's hollow. Being prepared to deal with a violent counter creates a freedom from fear, not an exercise in it. You buy fire insurance but don't live in fear that your house will burn down, do you? A firearm is insurance against a violent encounter. If you believe the numbers based on the CDC studies of the late Clinton era you get a number over 2 million.


              So let's put a fork in this talking point right now, eh? This is completely false on the initial purchase of any firearm, and purchasing one to give to a person who you know is prohibited from owning one is a felony. If you are talking about resale your argument is completely meaningless.

              The following things are also easier to resell than it is to vote: chainsaws, demilitarized armored personnel carriers, knives, Chinese throwing stars, Beanie Babies, rat poison, color televisions, hydrochloric acid, rental properties, cocaine, Barry Manilow Christmas albums, components to make explosives, sex toys, pitbulls, fireworks, I'm with Her windbreakers....etc, etc. Some of these things are extremely dangerous and some are (mostly) harmless. The issue is that they are all private property at the time they are sold and very few private sales of anything are regulated at all. So saying "it's easier to buy a gun at resale than it is to vote" is meaningless because you could say the same thing about everything you need to build a truck bomb - or a really sweet music collection. Most gunowners would love to have access to the background check system for their private sales - because as I mentioned above, literally no one wants dangerous people walking around with firearms.

              Like new as in Thomas Jefferson, new? Dude, not even close. Even a causal reading of the framers will tell you exactly what they meant and why it was there. I guess the guys selling these to people via mail order missed the memo that the 2nd never meant you could own anything you want:
              Sten.jpg tommy.jpg Ad.jpg
              vintage.jpg

              I could care less what anyone of any political stripe has to say about it. Words have meanings and you have to go to the people that wrote them to understand them. There's nothing to argue here.

              Careful, pumpkin grabbing the pearls so hard will bust your necklace. Perhaps you missed the "due process" part. That means courts and lawyers and an opportunity for representation. We deprive people of rights all the time, the key is that before we do it there must be access to the legal system where the matter at hand is being decided. It's ironic to the point of self-parody that a person that can't understand what "shall not be infringed" means believes someone else doesn't have a grasp on the Constitution.

              I was really looking forward to Ox bringing you back. I thought surely someone that was banned had to be some kind of progressive man-eater. I'm sincerely disappointed. You literally made the weakest forms of the arguments progressives have on this issue. Not only that but you went places historically that are easily demonstrably disprovable. Alas, I guess it is one more wounded gazelle on my digital Serengeti - I had such high hopes.
               
              #55 5-Star Finger, Nov 8, 2018
              Last edited: Nov 8, 2018
              • 5-Star Finger

                5-Star Finger Apex predator of the political forum biome
                Lifetime Member

                Joined:
                Nov 16, 2017
                Messages:
                1,540
                Oxbucks:
                $1,365
                Ratings:
                +2,538 / -19
                [​IMG]
                 
                • GatorAlways

                  GatorAlways Well-Known Member

                  Joined:
                  Apr 7, 2016
                  Messages:
                  1,581
                  Oxbucks:
                  $157
                  Ratings:
                  +360 / -106
                  Actually, no I’m not. The contiued incidence of mass shootings and our county’s inability to even acknowledge that it’s a problem is not entertaining at all.
                   
                  • Tay Bang

                    Tay Bang I wasn't mean to Byrd

                    Joined:
                    Jul 25, 2018
                    Messages:
                    1,818
                    Oxbucks:
                    $609
                    Ratings:
                    +1,891 / -99
                    Who the f won’t acknowledge that someone killing an undeserving human being is a problem?

                    Your lefty solutions are the problem.
                     
                    • AugustaGator

                      AugustaGator Junior Member
                      Lifetime Member

                      Joined:
                      Jun 12, 2014
                      Messages:
                      14,721
                      Oxbucks:
                      $2,574
                      Ratings:
                      +4,891 / -100
                      What’s the problem and what is your analysis on the root cause?
                       
                    • 5-Star Finger

                      5-Star Finger Apex predator of the political forum biome
                      Lifetime Member

                      Joined:
                      Nov 16, 2017
                      Messages:
                      1,540
                      Oxbucks:
                      $1,365
                      Ratings:
                      +2,538 / -19
                      Yeah, no one acknowledges them. You know, like for instance here....in a thread...where we are talking about one...that you just posted in.

                      Failing to agree that "banz zee gunz...reeeeee" is the answer is not the same as saying mass killing isn't a problem, or any killing for that matter isn't a problem. Banning anything, or restricting it by law does not work. It has never worked, and will never work, because criminals and crazies don't follow laws. Like prohibition. Like drug laws.

                      Heroin is already illegal, it doesn't stop people from ending up dead because it is. Just be glad we don't treat this issue the same way left coast states treat the drug problem, or we'd have state funding gun shops handing out free bullets. Even if hypothetically you could magically make every single firearm on the planet vanish and destroy forever the ability to make new ones it would not deter people that want to kill - it only changes the means in which they do this. So, if your "solution" is no solution at all, your solution is useless. If your solution only tramples the rights of individuals who will follow the law because they are honest - your solution is useless.

                      This isn't a gun problem anymore than the Nice attack was a truck problem, and honestly anymore than the drug problem is a drug problem. The problem in all of these problems is the software, not the hardware. If you want to talk to about how to identify, treat, and steps to help minimize the risk of people with faulty software hurting themselves and others I think you're going to find nearly universal engagement.

                      If people are adjudicated (notice this word - due process) dangerous they should be institutionalized until they are not - and the threshold to establish they are not should be fairly high. Even people that can be better with medication need to be monitored to make sure they are actually taking it. It could work like our current parole system. Even this would not stop some attacks - because if they are adults and have not been engaged in intervention during their school years we may have no idea. That's really the best you can do. Making sure a nut running loose plows a pickup truck into a Christmas parade, or chucks a pipe bomb into a subway car rather than using a handgun isn't really a victory, is it?
                       

                    Share This Page

                    The Box

                    Help

                    You don't have the necessary permissions to use the chat.

                      1. There are currently no users chatting.
                        • About Us

                          Our community sprung up when the Gatorsports message board was shut down in the summer of 2014. We pride ourselves on offering Gator-biased, yet critical discussion among people of all different backgrounds. We are working every day to make sure our community is the best Gator message board you will find.
                        • Like us on Facebook

                        • Buy us a Zima!

                          The management works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best designs, and all the other bells and whistles. Care to buy us a non-alcoholic Zima? We'd really appreciate it! Just click the "Donate" tab at the top of the page.