Program Note
[ Posted Thursday, October 1st, 2015 – 19:32 UTC ]
No column today. Airport runs and family responsibilities, sorry.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
No column today. Airport runs and family responsibilities, sorry.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Take care of yerselves, CW..
We'll play nice..
Probably :D
Michale
Traditionally Program Notes have been treated as open forums to discuss news of the day or whatnot..
To that end...
Once again, we have a mass shooting in a Psycho Shooting Range (AKA Gun Free Zone)....
And once again, Obama and Democrats fall all over themselves to use a tragedy to push their unpopular agenda for unnecessary gun laws..
When a gun walks into a crowd of people of it's own volition and starts shooting...
Then... and ONLY then... will gun control fanatics have a legitimate argument...
If Obama and the Democrats REALLY want to do something tangible to stop active shooter events, the solution is easy.
Get rid of Gun Free Zones...
Creating gun free zones is like hanging a sign, MASS SHOOTERS WELCOME
Michale
Yes, 10 people being killed is tragic but in your pro gun argument are you going to ignore the the average of 27 other people who were killed by a gun that day who were most likely outside a gun free zone? Or the 27 that will die today? Tomorrow? The next day? And the next day, and the next... Deaths that just don't occur in other first world countries that have much more stringent controls on guns.
Bashi,
How many of those were killed by a gun of it's own volition?
I am willing to bet not a single one...
But, OK... OK... Let's go with your argument that more stringent controls are needed...
What controls would you propose??
You are Emperor Bashi and your word is law...
What gun laws would you propose to end all gun violence while still allowing innocent people to protect themselves from criminals??
We await your proclamation.. :D
Michale
Yes, 10 people being killed is tragic but in your pro gun argument are you going to ignore the the average of 27 other people who were killed by a gun that day who were most likely outside a gun free zone?
Key word there being "likely"..
Do you have any evidence that ANY of them were outside a Gun Free Zone??
Michale
But the key here, the thing that brings Obama and the Democrats out of the woodwork *IS* Gun Free Zone mass shootings..
So, if Obama and the Democrats are REALLY serious about stopping gun violence, why don't they start with something that is, statistically, a winner..
Eliminating Gun Free Zones..
I carry everywhere.. In today's world, anyone who DOESN'T carry is a lunatic...
Michale
Cars don't kill people, people do.
This is why we don't regulate the public use, private ownership, or safety features of cars in America.
RD,
Guns are already regulated, just as cars are..
You need a license to drive... You need a license to carry...
But, OK.. There is not enough regulation in your opinion..
Fine..
What would you do to regulate guns MORE so as to prevent MASS shootings???
You don't like the way it is now??
What would you do to change it??
I'll even make it easy on ya'all.. Just concentrate on preventing mass shootings with new gun laws..
Don't worry about the every day stuff...
Should be a piece of cake, right?? :D
Michale
Cars don't kill people, people do.
Exactly..
And when people in cars kill other people, is there a huge hysterical outcry to ban cars??
No there is not..
Because it's UNDERSTOOD by any logical and rational human being that the person DRIVING is the one responsible.. Not the inanimate object....
Why can't that same logic be applied to people who kill other people with guns??
Because it's a partisan agenda...
Michale
Michale (#8, #9):
Partisan agendas be damned, from either side. I didn't make this about being liberal or conservative and I refuse to participate in a zero-sum discussion. I want to improve policy and public safety while recognizing the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment.
What would you do to regulate guns MORE so as to prevent MASS shootings???
You don't like the way it is now??
What would you do to change it??
I'll even make it easy on ya'all.. Just concentrate on preventing mass shootings with new gun laws..
Fair questions, Michale. I can't speak for the royal "ya'all", but here's my take. I don't have full policy answers, but I do see some principles that people on all sides of the issue could reasonably consider:
Ownership of guns or ammunition need not necessarily be restricted. It is reasonable to regulate ownership or use in cases of previous criminal activity involving firearms or mental competence or physical capacity (and to some degree we do this now). While ownership of guns in the populace should be not restricted by the federal government, a State government may however do so as it sees fit.
Recognize and recommit that the 2nd amendment does not confer an individual civil liberty for the ownership, possession, and use of a gun or ammunition. Rather it confers the right of a "well regulated militia" to the people. This implies some training and discipline on part of those who "bear arms."
Public carrying (whether open or concealed) should involve license and registration. It's one thing for me to own a gun, its another for me to carry outside my home.In accordance with the 2nd amendment, the ability of an individual State of the Union to regulate licensing (and thus the public use or carrying of a firearm) or to register presence of arms (e.g., weapons and their ammunition) in their state should be unimpeded by the federal gov't or federal law.
Each State is responsible for the public safety of its citizens and should be empowered to protect them and prevent any federal government interference in establishing a "well regulated militia".
Each State could reasonably require extensive training in the use of firearms before ownership or license to bear arms is allowed. If the purpose is a "well regulated militia", then establish the training and discipline that such entails. I'm rather envisioning at least the same degree of training and demonstrated competent use that we require for driver licensing in each state.
State licensing standards may require liability insurance for the public carrying and use of arms, just as we do for cars. If you can't show you're licensed and insured, your ability to "bear arms" is restricted or prohibited.
States may require that individuals registered the arms they own and transactions involving those. The federal government, however, may not. If states decide to share that information with other states, that is up to their legislative, executive, and judicial processes; the federal government has no jurisdiction here (again in line with the 2nd amendment).
However, the federal government may have standing if a State has a militia, but it is not a "well regulated militia". I'll leave the grammatical parsing of the 2nd amendment to the attorneys, but this seems a reasonable place to stand as it is written.
Regulations and policies, whether federal or state, should not impede or prevent research into firearms and their role and presence in public safety. Allow both private and publicly funded research with regard to public safety. Preventing or restricting such research is just institutionalized willful ignorance and an unamerican abridgement of the marketplace of ideas.
Private facilities have the right and liability for controlling the presence and use of firearms on their premises (much as I think it is now though I'm not an expert).
Public facilities may control the presence and use of firearms according to the government body with jurisdiction of those facilities. There need not be an extrajudicial oversight or blanket regulations on all public spaces, any more than there is with cars or any other potential threat to public safety. For instance, public schools are governed by their school boards and by extension, their governing State. If a school board wants to allow them, and the governing municipality and the State allows that, then so be it. If a school board doesn't and the governing municipality and the State allows that, then so be it. That's why we have local elections.
I do not pretend that this would completely solve mass shootings. Completely solvency isn't the standard, improved public safety is. DUI laws don't prevent all drunk driving deaths, but they demonstrably help. Improved public safety and public health should be measured rigorously and with established research standards, not some zealot's (regardless of political persuasion) assertion of what constitutes a more safe environment.
If safety is improved by everyone and their untrained uncle carrying a sidearm, then research should demonstrate that. If safety is improved by no one other than state military personnel or law enforcement possessing a fair arm, then that too should be apparent.
Personally, I disagree with states that have "shall issue" permit laws to any member of the citizenry, but our present bias in preventing states from managing the presence and use of firearms within a state has drastically reduced our ability to meaningfully respond with public safety policies.
In short, allow ownership according to State laws and each State should have a policy that assures the use of firearms in its state follow those of a "well regulated militia", not a free-for-all.
I might have more thoughts, those are just the ones that occurred to me right now.
Oh darn, it dropped all my formatting (even though it previewed correctly!). Sorry about that.
(4th paragraph from bottom) I don't know what a "fair arm" is (except in the Disney sense). I meant "fire arm".
(*sigh*)
The intent of the 2nd Amendment is as clear as the Religious Test part of the Constitution....
Because a militia is important, the right of CITIZENS (not Militia Members, but CITIZENS) to bear arms shall not be infringed...
Seems pretty cut and dried to me..
My point in bringing all of this is simple..
Guns and gun ownership is already regulated. There are laws in place already..
No reasonable law proposed by the Gun Control groups would have prevented ANY mass shooting or any guns crimes at all, for that matter...
The idea that, because mass shootings happen, SOMETHING is lacking, is ridiculous... Unless we're going to put people in boxes for their entire lifespan, shit will happen...
Blaming and banning guns because of mass shootings is no different than blaming and banning cars because of DUIs...
The system we have in place right now is a pretty fair system. One that balances individual liberties, public safety and the Constitution...
The fact that shit still sometimes hits the fan does not indicate a failure in the system insofar as guns and gun ownership is concerned...
It simply indicates that sometimes shit happens and there is nothing you can do about it..
To do more is akin to force relocating every American to Kansas to protect them from hurricanes or force relocating everyone out of California to protect them from earthquakes...
This hysterical panic we see every time there is a mass shooting event is ridiculous...
I have been in my fair share of shootings and what's worse than the actual incident is the monday-morning quarterbacking from people who are completely ignorant of the issues involved...
That's what I am seeing from our so-called "leaders"...
Michale
Partisan agendas be damned, from either side. I didn't make this about being liberal or conservative and I refuse to participate in a zero-sum discussion.
That's just it..
We CAN'T have this discussion without politics..
Because, if we take partisan politics OUT of the discussion, there is NOTHING to discuss...
There is NO ISSUE....
Michale
How many of those were killed by a gun of it's own volition?
I am willing to bet not a single one...
Yawn.
What gun laws would you propose to end all gun violence while still allowing innocent people to protect themselves from criminals??
We await your proclamation.. :D
Nice to know your memory is as bad as usual.
I'm somewhere between pro-gun and neutral. I own guns. I want the gun folks to just own up that this kind of mass shooting thing as well as a high homicide rate is the price we pay to be an armed society. Quit pretending that roughly a gun for every person in the country somehow makes us safer. Well, it does quite a bit from foreign invasion just not from ourselves. From ourselves it makes it an order to orders of magnitude more likely to die from a gun shot than every other first world nation that has banned or severely restricted gun ownership. With similar magnitude differences for homicide overall. I would like the NRA to drop it's hysterical fear based politics and get back to teaching and pushing for gun safety and training while trying to stay as non political as possible. I would also like the 2nd amendment to to cover actual "arms" and not merely a small subset of the overall classification...
Key word there being "likely"..
Do you have any evidence that ANY of them were outside a Gun Free Zone??
Duh. Aren't you allegedly an ex cop? Are you just playing stupid?
I carry everywhere.. In today's world, anyone who DOESN'T carry is a lunatic...
Then move. Most the country you really don't have that fear. Unless of course you are clinically paranoid...
I would like the NRA to drop it's hysterical fear based politics and get back to teaching and pushing for gun safety and training while trying to stay as non political as possible. I would also like the 2nd amendment to to cover actual "arms" and not merely a small subset of the overall classification...
Tell ya what..
When you push the Left Wingers to drop THEIR hysterical fear based politics, I'll go to work on the NRA..
Deal??
As far the NRA getting "back" to gun safety and education??
The NRA is the ONLY organization that does it!!??
Most the country you really don't have that fear.
You have been hanging around JFC too long.. :D
Still waiting for ANYONE to come up with some common sense laws that will actually PREVENT mass shootings.
Oh!!! OH!!! WAIT!!!! I know one!!!
Let's BAN the Confederate Battle Flag!!!! **THAT** will prevent mass shootings!! :D
I guess I am the only one that can come up with any common sense laws...
Who woulda thunked it... :D
Michale
Let's BAN the Confederate Battle Flag!!!! **THAT** will prevent mass shootings!! :D
Ya'all gotta admit, that was a pretty pathetic display from Left Wingers...
Use a mass shooting tragedy to further a partisan agenda that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the tragedy...
Michale
Oooooo Rolling Stone just posted a "scathing" argument for Gun Control...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001?page=2
Rolling Stone know as much about guns and gun issues as they know about college campus rape...
heh...
Michale
If we really want to see how well Liberal Gun Control works, we need only look so far as Chicago or New York City....
Nothing is stopping Liberal run states from passing the most restrictive gun laws they can...
Why don't they??
Because A> they know that they won't work and 2> once it's proven that restrictive gun laws don't work, the entire Gun Control movement will be shown for the incompetent partisan agenda it really is...
Michale
When you push the Left Wingers to drop THEIR hysterical fear based politics, I'll go to work on the NRA..
I neither speak for the entire left nor entirely disagree with their aim. Banning or really strong, as in Israeli or Swiss strong, gun regulations would vastly drop the homicide rate.
Haven't you used the "if any life could be saved" argument on other issues? Why is it suddenly absent for this one?
If we really want to see how well Liberal Gun Control works, we need only look so far as Chicago or New York City....
Chicken and egg. Did gun control fail or was it enacted just before crime peaked in those cities? Both violent crime and homicides are down from their late 80's highs. New York more so than Chicago.
Nothing is stopping Liberal run states from passing the most restrictive gun laws they can...
Why don't they??
You mean other than the courts? And I do live in California, we already have. Yet many of us still own guns and no black van has whisked us away. Go figure...
Because A> they know that they won't work and 2> once it's proven that restrictive gun laws don't work, the entire Gun Control movement will be shown for the incompetent partisan agenda it really is...
You probably need country wide gun laws to have any real effect with the commerce clauses and such...
Rolling Stone know as much about guns and gun issues as they know about college campus rape...
Well if you have to belittle rather than counter, it kind of weakens your side. The main story of the rape article was wrong (but something horrible probably did happen to that woman) but they got the overall statistics right as was shown in a recent study of some top schools. Something to think about.
I neither speak for the entire left nor entirely disagree with their aim. Banning or really strong, as in Israeli or Swiss strong, gun regulations would vastly drop the homicide rate.
Despite all the evidence (New York, Chicago) to the contrary... :D
While I can't speak for Switzerland (I didn't got there much) I do know that firearms are VERY prevalent in Israel.. So, you picked a very bad example there..
Chicken and egg. Did gun control fail or was it enacted just before crime peaked in those cities? Both violent crime and homicides are down from their late 80's highs. New York more so than Chicago.
You are not up in current events are ya sunshine...
The bad old 80s are making a comeback in New York.. All across the country, in bastion of liberal-think violent gun crimes are on the rise..
You probably need country wide gun laws to have any real effect with the commerce clauses and such...
Bull... States can enact their own gun laws if they choose to...
The fact that they don't is very telling...
Well if you have to belittle rather than counter, it kind of weakens your side.
Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.. :D
The main story of the rape article was wrong (but something horrible probably did happen to that woman) but they got the overall statistics right as was shown in a recent study of some top schools. Something to think about.
The overall statistic is as much bullshit as the main story...
Something I could prove to you if I actually thought you would be swayed by the facts...
:D
Michale
Well if you have to belittle rather than counter, it kind of weakens your side.
Congrats.. You just killed EVERY one of Biga's comments!! heh :D
Michale
Mexico has some of THE most strict anti-gun laws on the planet....
Howz THAT "no-gun paradise" working out for every day mexicans??
Yea.. That's what I thought...
Michale
Once again...
You have the hysterical emotionalism from the Left...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/02/umpqua-community-college-shooting-oregon-mass-shooting-fbi-statistics-column/73199052/
And you have the reality...
Michale
The main story of the rape article was wrong (but something horrible probably did happen to that woman)
Is there any evidence to suggest this?? No there is not...
More likely she was an opportunist out for her 15 mins of fame.. And, in doing so, did a REAL disservice to those women who truly ARE victims of sexual assaults..
It's just like screaming racism at the drop of a dime.. Every false accusation simply insures that REAL cases are that much harder to prosecute...
Condemn the moron..
You would if it was a Right Wingers making a false accusation...
I am just sayin'...
Michale