or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Aurora, CO Movie Theater Shooting
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Aurora, CO Movie Theater Shooting

post #1 of 184
Thread Starter 

This whole event will be discussed, dissected and used for various reason. Seems a thread might be in order.

 

I'll start with a rather interesting article on CNN today: "Why did Colorado shooting suspect avoid social media?"

 

This article contains some interesting and rather scary implications:

 

 

Quote:
It's a truth of the digital age. When a person is plucked from obscurity, for good reasons or bad, the first thing curiosity-seekers do is turn to the Web.
 
Facebook or Twitter. LinkedIn or Tumblr. We expect social media to shed light on a person's personality, especially when, as in the case of Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes, we're trying to explain the unexplainable.
 
As it turns out, 24-year-old Holmes, who stands accused of killing 12 people and wounding dozens more during a shooting spree at a movie theater Friday, appears to have left virtually no digital footprint. Media and law enforcement investigating the shootings have found no traces of him online, aside from a possible account on Adult Friend Finder, a romantic meet-up site, according to police.

 

OK. So? What does this mean?


 

Quote:
It's impossible, of course, to draw broad conclusions about his mindset based on the fact that he didn't share online.

 

Well, good. Uhhh...

 

 

Quote:
But Holmes' lack of an online presence has emerged as a piece of the puzzle for people looking for answers.

 

We can't draw any conclusions from his lack of a "social media footprint"...but maybe we can because his lack of such a "digital footprint" is a "piece of the puzzle."

 

(where's that bug eye emoticon when I need it)

 

But there's more...

 

 

Quote:
"We could ask the same questions about the lack of Web presence that we could for anyone who isolates themselves. Was he socially isolated in all senses?" asked Dr. Pamela Rutledge, director of the Media Psychology Research Center.
 
"We know that social isolation can amplify the negative consequences of stress and increase the risk of developing psychopathology. Some research has shown that social isolation actually delays the positive effects of activities found to be emotionally beneficial, such as exercise. ... What we don't know is what caused Holmes to have such a break with reality."
 
Whatever his reasons, the lack of an online presence puts Holmes squarely in the minority among his peers.

 

So...his lack of engagement with Facebook, Twitter and so on should lead us to wonder whether or not he was isolated in all senses. Furthermore, his deviation from the "norm" of his peers in this sense also should give us pause.

 

Well...ok...she's covers on this:

 

 

 

Quote:
But Rainie says it would be a mistake to draw a direct line between his decision to eschew social networking and a mindset that led to the alleged violence.
 
"It's not the norm for someone of this age to have such a limited presence, in any form: no blogs, no profile on a photo-sharing site and things like that," Rainie said. "But it's also a mistake to think the everyone in this age cohort is living every minute of their lives with social media. That's not the case."

 

But...

 

 

Quote:
"It's certainly an interesting element of his life that (Holmes) had such a limited digital presence," Rainie said. "But it's not necessarily the case that this means anything about the quality of his social world."
 
Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, a professor of business psychology at University College of London, has studied the impact of Internet use on mental health. He too says it's impossible to nail down its significance at this point but listed a set of possibilities, from a sense of isolation to distaste for Facebook as an emblem of "the status quo" to something perhaps even more sinister.

 

And we close with the person raising the initial questions (Dr. Pamela Rutledge) casually and subtly broadening the questioners to everyone ("we"):

 

 

Quote:
With few, if any, conclusions to draw, Rutledge said the most interesting observation about society as a whole may be how surprised we are that the suspect did not use social media.
 
"It's a testimony to how normal participating in the social media world is when we look at the lack of presence as an anomaly," she said. "(We wonder,) 'What's wrong with this guy that he's not at least on Facebook?' "

 

A very cleverly constructed article with many implications and much innuendo without coming right out and saying that people not fully and regularly engaged in today's social media are weird, socially isolated, even possibly crazy.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2 of 184

This man's defense of his sister's memory is beautiful.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #3 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:

 

Yes, very nice.

 

I love the extremely leading questions:

 

 

Quote:
Did he (Obama) have anything inspiring or helpful to tell you?

 

 

Quote:
Do you think that there should be a push for tighter gun laws given the horror that you just endured and how it has impacted you personally? Do you feel compelled to push for tighter gun laws?

 

Sadly for Michael Eric Dyson he had a guest too smart to take the bait.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #4 of 184

100 million gun owners didn't kill anyone last week

 

Quote:
Charles Starkweather proved in 1958 that he could kill just as many people with a .22 rifle and a small caliber shotgun as Robert Hawkins or James Holmes could a half-century later with a so-called assault rifle. Evil finds a way. As Bruce Wayne's butler tells him in a previous Batman movie, "Some men just want to watch the world burn."
 
In the wake of these latest murders, as you hear our politicians blather on about more gun control, remember that 100 million gun owners didn't kill anyone last week. They are the good guys. They are on our side.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #5 of 184
 
Quote:
No one in Washington talks about prescription drug deaths. There are no sobbing victims shown on the evening news. This "chemical massacre" happens quietly, behind closed doors. Yet to achieve this level of mass death in the world of plane crashes, for example, you'd have to see a jumbo jet airliner crashing into the ground once a day, every day of the year.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #6 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Prescription drugs kill 6200% more Americans than homicidal shootings
 
Quote:
No one in Washington talks about prescription drug deaths. There are no sobbing victims shown on the evening news. This "chemical massacre" happens quietly, behind closed doors. Yet to achieve this level of mass death in the world of plane crashes, for example, you'd have to see a jumbo jet airliner crashing into the ground once a day, every day of the year.

It's always seemed to me that the gun control issue is just a really difficult one, since guns can be (and are) used for both good and bad purposes. The important question (presumably) is whether it is sensible to try to control/deter/prevent the "bad" uses while not negatively impacting the "good" uses, and if so how. If that could be achieved, I assume that everyone (other than those with criminal intent) would approve. From which it would follow that the concept of gun (use) control per se is not necessarily a bad thing, and one could argue that the debate should just be about whether it can be achieved within the constraints above, which is by no means a given.

On the other hand, I'm not convinced that it usefully furthers the debate to compare deliberate killing of any kind with accidents, however large, or with self-inflicted, accidental drug deaths.
post #7 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

The important question (presumably) is whether it is sensible to try to control/deter/prevent the "bad" uses while not negatively impacting the "good" uses...

 

I think the answer to this question is self-evident to any reasonable person: Yes! Where possible we ought to deter or prevent the bad uses of guns (or anything else).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

...and if so how. If that could be achieved...

 

This is where it gets much trickier. How? I believe the real fault line in the debate is here. Some assume that various gun control laws as they exist around the world today are the "how"? Others disagree that this achieves the deterrence of the bad as suggested above...or do so at too much of an expense of eliminating the good uses as well.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

If that could be achieved, I assume that everyone (other than those with criminal intent) would approve.

 

Probably.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #8 of 184

Probably the most succinct argument I've heard against gun control is the pointlessness of it, in a world where suicide bombing is not uncommon.

 

Quote:
“No. Not really … if someone wants to kill people, they wouldn’t need a gun to do it … You can strap explosives on your body. They do that all the time.”

 

This quote is attributed to Ice T, who also has quite a constitutionalist opinion of the value of gun ownership.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-ice-t-speaks-out-against-gun-control-20120725,0,4003896.story

 

Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #9 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

Probably the most succinct argument I've heard against gun control is the pointlessness of it, in a world where suicide bombing is not uncommon.

 

 

This quote is attributed to Ice T, who also has quite a constitutionalist opinion of the value of gun ownership.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-ice-t-speaks-out-against-gun-control-20120725,0,4003896.story

 

lol. That's a pretty stupid quote. Sure America may have had a suicide bomber or two in it's history, but most people who kill people with guns want to kill people with guns, not blow themselves up. 

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #10 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

Probably the most succinct argument I've heard against gun control is the pointlessness of it, in a world where suicide bombing is not uncommon.
 

It's succinct, but I'm not sure it's a great argument, because it's certainly much easier to get hold of guns than explosives, and trying to modify ease of acquisition (for undesirable use) is what this is all about
post #11 of 184

Figures like these are staggering. Why is it they can't stop this? 

 

• 106,000 Americans killed from drug side effects
• 115,000 Americans killed from bedsores
• 98,000 Americans killed from medical error
• 88,000 Americans killed from infections
• 32,000 Americans killed from surgery
• 37,000 Americans killed from unnecessary procedures

I wouldn't argue though that it negates sensible gun laws. 

 

Do you think people should be allowed to keep their own grenades and rocket launchers? Just how far are you willing to go to preserve your brand of liberty?

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #12 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

100 million gun owners didn't kill anyone last week

 

 

Charles Starkweather proved in 1958 that he could kill just as many people with a .22 rifle and a small caliber shotgun as Robert Hawkins or James Holmes could a half-century later with a so-called assault rifle. Evil finds a way. As Bruce Wayne's butler tells him in a previous Batman movie, "Some men just want to watch the world burn."
 

In the wake of these latest murders, as you hear our politicians blather on about more gun control, remember that 100 million gun owners didn't kill anyone last week. They are the good guys. They are on our side.

 

The fact is these high powered assault rifles exist for a reason.


Edited by Hands Sandon - 7/26/12 at 5:31pm
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #13 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The fact is these high powered assault rifles exist for a reason.

 

The rifle used by this shooter was not an assault rifle. I've told you this, now, three times. Your continued mis-use of this term can only mean either a) stubborn and willful ignorance, b) a deliberate attempt to use an inaccurate, inflammatory term instead of speaking the truth.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #14 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

The rifle used by this shooter was not an assault rifle. I've told you this, now, three times. Your continued mis-use of this term can only mean either a) stubborn and willful ignorance, b) a deliberate attempt to use an inaccurate, inflammatory term instead of speaking the truth.

It's a big fucking gun that shoots a lot of bullets that has no reasonable nor rational purpose for civilian use.
post #15 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

It's a big fucking gun that shoots a lot of bullets that has no reasonable nor rational purpose for civilian use.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #16 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Figures like these are staggering. Why is it they can't stop this? 

• 106,000 Americans killed from drug side effects

• 115,000 Americans killed from bedsores

• 98,000 Americans killed from medical error

• 88,000 Americans killed from infections

• 32,000 Americans killed from surgery

• 37,000 Americans killed from unnecessary procedures


I wouldn't argue though that it negates sensible gun laws. 

Do you think people should be allowed to keep their own grenades and rocket launchers? Just how far are you willing to go to preserve your brand of liberty?

Agreed.

Yes, heart disease kills more people so everyone can carry AK47s, but we should ban hamburgers.

Those arguing "oh, it's not that bad"... Nobody is asking you what is worse, we're saying there has to be reasonable limits.

My request is simple. Draw the line at handguns and hunting rifles. Simple.

Nobody in MyTown, USA needs something that can take out a squad of Taliban.
post #17 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post


Agreed.
Yes, heart disease kills more people so everyone can carry AK47s, but we should ban hamburgers.
Those arguing "oh, it's not that bad"... Nobody is asking you what is worse, we're saying there has to be reasonable limits.
My request is simple. Draw the line at handguns and hunting rifles. Simple.
Nobody in MyTown, USA needs something that can take out a squad of Taliban.

 

And when somebody goes on a shooting rampage with a handgun and a hunting rifle? What then?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #18 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

And when somebody goes on a shooting rampage with a handgun and a hunting rifle? What then?

 

We should ban those as well.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #19 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

So, an AR15, military, or "civilian-it's-not-an-assault-rifle" or whatever. What reasonable, rational purpose does it serve in normal civilian society?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

And when somebody goes on a shooting rampage with a handgun and a hunting rifle? What then?

That's where I draw the line. Then we look at what caused such shooting rampage. If it is plain psychopathic behaviour, then hence my suggestion of looking at mental issues and counseling. Usually these killers have predisposition to mental issues (like I said the "gap" is very narrow), are socially isolated, etc.

Worse case scenario, ~forgive~ and look at how we can build a better world with less violence.
post #20 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

We should ban those as well.

Sounds like you've given up?
post #21 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

That's where I draw the line. Then we look at what caused such shooting rampage. If it is plain psychopathic behaviour, then hence my suggestion of looking at mental issues and counseling. Usually these killers have predisposition to mental issues (like I said the "gap" is very narrow), are socially isolated, etc.
Worse case scenario, ~forgive~ and look at how we can build a better world with less violence.

 

But why are you not taking that approach now? Why are you seeking to punish millions of responsible gun owners for the actions of a few lunatics?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #22 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Sounds like you've given up?

 

Simply applying your reasoning.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #23 of 184
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

So, an AR15, military, or "civilian-it's-not-an-assault-rifle" or whatever. What reasonable, rational purpose does it serve in normal civilian society?

 

What difference does it make?

 

P.S. The answer is defense against tyrants.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #24 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post


Agreed.
Yes, heart disease kills more people so everyone can carry AK47s, but we should ban hamburgers.
Those arguing "oh, it's not that bad"... Nobody is asking you what is worse, we're saying there has to be reasonable limits.
My request is simple. Draw the line at handguns and hunting rifles. Simple.
Nobody in MyTown, USA needs something that can take out a squad of Taliban.

 

There is a huge problem there.  The 2nd Amendment was not authored to protect the rights of hunters.  The original intent was to make sure citizens could form militias that would both protect against foreign threats, and threats from our government itself.  The Amendment is clear that this right "shall not be infringed."  The problem is that we've already "infringed" on this right to a high degree.   

 

Don't get me wrong...I understand your position.  In reality, no one needs an AK.  But ask yourself:  When we ban such weapons, what is the end result?  Criminals don't change their behavior because you make something illegal.  All these laws do is take weapons away from those that would normally pass the already-stringent background checks. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #25 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Agreed.

Yes, heart disease kills more people so everyone can carry AK47s, but we should ban hamburgers.

Those arguing "oh, it's not that bad"... Nobody is asking you what is worse, we're saying there has to be reasonable limits.

My request is simple. Draw the line at handguns and hunting rifles. Simple.

Nobody in MyTown, USA needs something that can take out a squad of Taliban.

There is a huge problem there.  The 2nd Amendment was not authored to protect the rights of hunters.  The original intent was to make sure citizens could form militias that would both protect against foreign threats, and threats from our government itself.  The Amendment is clear that this right "shall not be infringed."  The problem is that we've already "infringed" on this right to a high degree.   

Don't get me wrong...I understand your position.  In reality, no one needs an AK.  But ask yourself:  When we ban such weapons, what is the end result?  Criminals don't change their behavior because you make something illegal.  All these laws do is take weapons away from those that would normally pass the already-stringent background checks. 

But can you clarify something - you make the comment that no one needs an AK, and then argue that if we were to ban them, then law-abiding people would be unable to obtain them. On the face of it, that objection appears to contain a logical contradiction. If they don't need them then why is it a problem if they can't get them?

A further observation - this thread started in relation to the recent shooting, and the alleged culprit did qualify as a law-abiding gun owner, as has been the case in many such events. Making it harder for that individual to obtain weapons legally would presumably at least have reduced the probability that this would have occurred. And controls in any situation are always about trying to reduce unwanted outcomes - not make them impossible.
post #26 of 184

When the Bill of Rights was appended to the Constitution, the available "arms" were primitive, slow and clumsy compared to today's weapons. Had weapons of modern capability - firing hundreds of rounds per minute - or laying waste to entire cities been available at the time if that time, would the 2nd Amendment have been passed? We don't know of course.

 

The Second Amendment talks about the right to bear "arms"; it makes makes no specific mention of the word "gun". However, if we can legally own an AR15 or an AK47, then what is to stop us from owning an RPG launcher with ammunition? What laws say that we can't purchase/own anti-tank weapons, or shoulder-launched heat seeking anti-aircraft missiles? Where do we draw the line as to who can own what? In the extreme case, whats to legally prevent a citizen from owning a WMD? These are all *arms*. Or is there no line? Does there need to be a debate on this, and a reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment?

 

What are "arms"? Do we define "arms" as what was available in 1800... clearly not. Should we?

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #27 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

When the Bill of Rights was appended to the Constitution, the available "arms" were primitive, slow and clumsy compared to today's weapons. Had weapons of modern capability - firing hundreds of rounds per minute - or laying waste to entire cities been available at the time if that time, would the 2nd Amendment have been passed? We don't know of course.

 

The Second Amendment talks about the right to bear "arms"; it makes makes no specific mention of the word "gun". However, if we can legally own an AR15 or an AK47, then what is to stop us from owning an RPG launcher with ammunition? What laws say that we can't purchase/own anti-tank weapons, or shoulder-launched heat seeking anti-aircraft missiles? Where do we draw the line as to who can own what? In the extreme case, whats to legally prevent a citizen from owning a WMD? These are all *arms*. Or is there no line? Does there need to be a debate on this, and a reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment?

 

What are "arms"? Do we define "arms" as what was available in 1800... clearly not. Should we?

 

When the First Amendment to the Constitution was written, this was the most effective method of communication:

 

1000

 

Hand-setting the type for a single page took hours, to say nothing of the actual printing, binding and distribution process itself.

 

Using your reasoning, since the founding fathers could not conceive of 640,000 Gb of information being transmitted around the world in a single minute, the First Amendment does not apply to our modern methods of communication.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #28 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

When the Bill of Rights was appended to the Constitution, the available "arms" were primitive, slow and clumsy compared to today's weapons. Had weapons of modern capability - firing hundreds of rounds per minute - or laying waste to entire cities been available at the time if that time, would the 2nd Amendment have been passed? We don't know of course.

The Second Amendment talks about the right to bear "arms"; it makes makes no specific mention of the word "gun". However, if we can legally own an AR15 or an AK47, then what is to stop us from owning an RPG launcher with ammunition? What laws say that we can't purchase/own anti-tank weapons, or shoulder-launched heat seeking anti-aircraft missiles? Where do we draw the line as to who can own what? In the extreme case, whats to legally prevent a citizen from owning a WMD? These are all *arms*. Or is there no line? Does there need to be a debate on this, and a reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment?

What are "arms"? Do we define "arms" as what was available in 1800... clearly not. Should we?

When the First Amendment to the Constitution was written, this was the most effective method of communication:



Hand-setting the type for a single page took hours, to say nothing of the actual printing, binding and distribution process itself.

Using your reasoning, since the founding fathers could not conceive of 640,000 Gb of information being transmitted around the world in a single minute, the First Amendment does not apply to our modern methods of communication.

Oh come on - you can do better than that. His questions were reasonable and instead of addressing any of them, you produce a poorly corresponding analogy (poor because there is no asserted downside to the increased data flow) and try to play the logical extension card?
post #29 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Oh come on - you can do better than that. His questions were reasonable and instead of addressing any of them, you produce a poorly corresponding analogy (poor because there is no asserted downside to the increased data flow) and try to play the logical extension card?

 

No asserted downside to improved methods of communication? So...what's all this controversy over so-called "intellectual property laws" and governments trying to control and censor the Internet under the premise of enforcing such laws?

 

Would you like to explain to me why people cannot be trusted with guns, yet a group of people calling themselves a government can be trusted with them?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #30 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


But can you clarify something - you make the comment that no one needs an AK, and then argue that if we were to ban them, then law-abiding people would be unable to obtain them. On the face of it, that objection appears to contain a logical contradiction. If they don't need them then why is it a problem if they can't get them?
A further observation - this thread started in relation to the recent shooting, and the alleged culprit did qualify as a law-abiding gun owner, as has been the case in many such events. Making it harder for that individual to obtain weapons legally would presumably at least have reduced the probability that this would have occurred. And controls in any situation are always about trying to reduce unwanted outcomes - not make them impossible.

 

It's not a contradiction at all.  It's a problem because banning them infringes on their Second Amendment rights, which fortunately don't depend on the whims of the populace.   I think there isn't much reason to own an AK, so I don't buy them (or any other gun).  But others feel differently.  

 

As for your second point:  In theory, making it hard for "that individual" to obtain weapons legally would be a good thing.  But the issue is that there is no way to do that without infringing on the rights of people that don't commit crimes.  Are we going to have psychological testing for everyone that wants to buy a gun?  Would this reduce the black market for guns?  Of course not.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #31 of 184

What sammi and muppetry have run into is the cold, hard truth that further gun restrictions clearly violate the 2nd Amendment.   There is really no way around this, even if we decided that we could and should ban assault weapons.  As for rocket launchers, WMD, etc...all of our freedoms do have certain limits.  From my understanding, most of these are restricted through background checks, licensing, etc...but most are not "illegal" to own.  One can by fighter jets, tanks and even RPGs.  WMD probably falls into another category.  As sammi says, the line must be drawn somewhere.  Somehow I think most people would agree that Weapons of Mass Destruction are a good start.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #32 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Oh come on - you can do better than that. His questions were reasonable and instead of addressing any of them, you produce a poorly corresponding analogy (poor because there is no asserted downside to the increased data flow) and try to play the logical extension card?[/QUOTE

No asserted downside to improved methods of communication? So...what's all this controversy over so-called "intellectual property laws" and governments trying to control and censor the Internet under the premise of enforcing such laws?

Would you like to explain to me why people cannot be trusted with guns, yet a group of people calling themselves a government can be trusted with them?

What I'd really like first is to hear your thoughts on the questions that were asked of you, rather than your oblique responses with other questions. However, to try to answer your questions:

Intellectual property laws: Those controversies have been around since IP and patents first arose back in the 19th century. I'm not sure what that has to do with this issue.

Internet censorship: Yes - some governments have tried to do that. I assumed, however, since you were referring to First Amendment, that this was about the US. And in any case, even if the US Government were trying to achieve some level of internet censorship, you invoked the logic of it as an extension of the previous posters reasoning for controlling weapons, not a de facto reality that you disagree with.

Governments with guns: OK - are you arguing for the abolishment of government? If you don't trust the organization that you set up to maintain an ordered society then why trust it with anything else either? That's back to the other poster's question about whether everyone should be allowed WMDs etc.. You have a better alternative to the democratic republic model?

I'm not certain that we even disagree philosophically (maybe we do), but you are simply not engaging with the debate - it's just like listening to an endless string of talking points.
post #33 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


What I'd really like first is to hear your thoughts on the questions that were asked of you, rather than your oblique responses with other questions. However, to try to answer your questions:
Intellectual property laws: Those controversies have been around since IP and patents first arose back in the 19th century. I'm not sure what that has to do with this issue.
Internet censorship: Yes - some governments have tried to do that. I assumed, however, since you were referring to First Amendment, that this was about the US. And in any case, even if the US Government were trying to achieve some level of internet censorship, you invoked the logic of it as an extension of the previous posters reasoning for controlling weapons, not a de facto reality that you disagree with.
Governments with guns: OK - are you arguing for the abolishment of government? If you don't trust the organization that you set up to maintain an ordered society then why trust it with anything else either? That's back to the other poster's question about whether everyone should be allowed WMDs etc.. You have a better alternative to the democratic republic model?
I'm not certain that we even disagree philosophically (maybe we do), but you are simply not engaging with the debate - it's just like listening to an endless string of talking points.

 

He made an analogy...one that you're having trouble refuting.  Sammi's point was that the founders couldn't have envisioned the type of weapons we have today, so the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply.  Jazz countered that they couldn't have envisioned the Internet, so the 1st Amendment must not apply.  Explain the difference.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #34 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

But can you clarify something - you make the comment that no one needs an AK, and then argue that if we were to ban them, then law-abiding people would be unable to obtain them. On the face of it, that objection appears to contain a logical contradiction. If they don't need them then why is it a problem if they can't get them?

A further observation - this thread started in relation to the recent shooting, and the alleged culprit did qualify as a law-abiding gun owner, as has been the case in many such events. Making it harder for that individual to obtain weapons legally would presumably at least have reduced the probability that this would have occurred. And controls in any situation are always about trying to reduce unwanted outcomes - not make them impossible.

It's not a contradiction at all.  It's a problem because banning them infringes on their Second Amendment rights, which fortunately don't depend on the whims of the populace.   I think there isn't much reason to own an AK, so I don't buy them (or any other gun).  But others feel differently.  

As for your second point:  In theory, making it hard for "that individual" to obtain weapons legally would be a good thing.  But the issue is that there is no way to do that without infringing on the rights of people that don't commit crimes.  Are we going to have psychological testing for everyone that wants to buy a gun?  Would this reduce the black market for guns?  Of course not.  
Quote:
What sammi and muppetry have run into is the cold, hard truth that further gun restrictions clearly violate the 2nd Amendment. There is really no way around this, even if we decided that we could and should ban assault weapons. As for rocket launchers, WMD, etc...all of our freedoms do have certain limits. From my understanding, most of these are restricted through background checks, licensing, etc...but most are not "illegal" to own. One can by fighter jets, tanks and even RPGs. WMD probably falls into another category. As sammi says, the line must be drawn somewhere. Somehow I think most people would agree that Weapons of Mass Destruction are a good start.

I don't disagree with any of those points individually, but there is still an inherent dichotomy. On the one hand, you invoke the citizens inalienable right to bear arms (which has no restrictive wording about type of arms), but then seem to apply it selectively; AKs are fine but WMDs are not. You say that "further gun restrictions clearly violate the 2nd Amendment". The existing restrictions don't? So it's OK for you personally to decide where the line should be drawn? Or if others feel it should be somewhere else, isn't that the reason to have the debate, rather than dismiss the subject.
post #35 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

What I'd really like first is to hear your thoughts on the questions that were asked of you, rather than your oblique responses with other questions. However, to try to answer your questions:

Intellectual property laws: Those controversies have been around since IP and patents first arose back in the 19th century. I'm not sure what that has to do with this issue.

Internet censorship: Yes - some governments have tried to do that. I assumed, however, since you were referring to First Amendment, that this was about the US. And in any case, even if the US Government were trying to achieve some level of internet censorship, you invoked the logic of it as an extension of the previous posters reasoning for controlling weapons, not a de facto reality that you disagree with.

Governments with guns: OK - are you arguing for the abolishment of government? If you don't trust the organization that you set up to maintain an ordered society then why trust it with anything else either? That's back to the other poster's question about whether everyone should be allowed WMDs etc.. You have a better alternative to the democratic republic model?

I'm not certain that we even disagree philosophically (maybe we do), but you are simply not engaging with the debate - it's just like listening to an endless string of talking points.

He made an analogy...one that you're having trouble refuting.  Sammi's point was that the founders couldn't have envisioned the type of weapons we have today, so the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply.  Jazz countered that they couldn't have envisioned the Internet, so the 1st Amendment must not apply.  Explain the difference.  

I thought I had explained it - maybe I did it poorly. I'll try again.

The analogy is poor because it confuses cause and effect. The argument (as I understand it) was not per se that the 2nd Amendment does not apply because the founders could not imagine modern weapons (which would indeed be equivalent to asserting that all prior constitutional arrangements cannot apply today if anything has changed substantially), it was that the 2nd Amendment might need to be re-evaluated because weapons have changed and it was possibly not intended to lead to the current possibilities of weapons ownership. The very existence of WMDs and your comments that they should not be open to private ownership makes that case, doesn't it? The analogy, on the other hand, does hinge on the assertion that information flow has changed, and so the First Amendment must now be inapplicable.

Was that any better?
post #36 of 184
Quote:
Governments with guns: OK - are you arguing for the abolishment of government? If you don't trust the organization that you set up to maintain an ordered society then why trust it with anything else either? That's back to the other poster's question about whether everyone should be allowed WMDs etc.. You have a better alternative to the democratic republic model?
 
I'm not certain that we even disagree philosophically (maybe we do), but you are simply not engaging with the debate - it's just like listening to an endless string of talking points.

 

I'm not engaging to your satisfaction? I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

I didn't set up any government. It existed before I was born.

 

Now we can quibble over the definition of "arms" or "militia", but it is all rather pointless. It's more important to understand the greater context, here. All one has to do is read the words of the founders to understand their views on government. Just read the Declaration of Independence, for starters.

 

They didn't trust it, which is why they specifically mentioned (not granted - because our rights do not come from government) the right of the people to defend themselves against tyranny and oppression in the 2nd Amendment.

 
Whether or not they had so-called "assault weapons" in mind when they ratified the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant in the context of their words on the subject:
 

 

Quote:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
 
"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
 
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
 
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
 
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " 
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
 
"[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 Federalist Papers, No. 46
 
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
 
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
 
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." 
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
 
"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
 
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." 
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
 
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
 
"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
 
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
 
" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
 
" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
 
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
 
"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
 
"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms
 
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6
 
"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
 
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams

 

 
This is just a small sampling of quotes on the subject, but it is abundantly clear to me that the founders wanted the people to be able to defend themselves against all forms of tyranny - even if it came from their own government. The fact that man has invented more ghastly methods of causing death and destruction means that the people have even MORE of an obligation to assert their right to defend themselves - against ALL threats foreign and domestic - not less.
 
Or would you have us follow the same path as this man:
 
Quote:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
-- Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #37 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Governments with guns: OK - are you arguing for the abolishment of government? If you don't trust the organization that you set up to maintain an ordered society then why trust it with anything else either? That's back to the other poster's question about whether everyone should be allowed WMDs etc.. You have a better alternative to the democratic republic model?
 
I'm not certain that we even disagree philosophically (maybe we do), but you are simply not engaging with the debate - it's just like listening to an endless string of talking points.

I'm not engaging to your satisfaction? I'm sorry you feel that way.

I didn't set up any government. It existed before I was born.

Now we can quibble over the definition of "arms" or "militia", but it is all rather pointless. It's more important to understand the greater context, here. All one has to do is read the words of the founders to understand their views on government. Just read the Declaration of Independence, for starters.

They didn't trust it, which is why they specifically mentioned (not granted - because our rights do not come from government) the right of the people to defend themselves against tyranny and oppression in the 2nd Amendment.
 
Whether or not they had so-called "assault weapons" in mind when they ratified the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant in the context of their words on the subject:
 

Well at the risk of belaboring the point though, if the rights of the people are that cut and dried, why should they not be allowed to own WMDs, or even just, say, explosive devices, bombs etc.? Is your view on government more "trust, but verify", or "shoot them if they move"?

My satisfaction has nothing to do with this. It's just an interesting and, I think, important subject and since you are presumably interested enough to post on it, I'd like to understand your position - including your rebuttals of opposing arguments, which is kind of key to any sort of debate or dialog.
post #38 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


 
Or would you have us follow the same path as this man:
 
Quote:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
-- Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)


Did you just make the argument that permitting the populace to be armed must be a good idea because Hitler thought it was a bad one?
post #39 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Did you just make the argument that permitting the populace to be armed must be a good idea because Hitler thought it was a bad one?

 

Did you even read his quote?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #40 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Did you just make the argument that permitting the populace to be armed must be a good idea because Hitler thought it was a bad one?

Did you even read his quote?

Yes - he's saying that it is a foolish mistake to allow the populace to be armed. You seemed be asking if we should follow his example (i.e. try to prevent it). I read that to mean you believe we should not follow his example, presumably because that was his chosen course of action. If that was not your point, what was the relevance of the quote? What did I misinterpret?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Aurora, CO Movie Theater Shooting