Sikhs killed in shooting at Temple in Wisconson

[ballen0351]

I think we've come far enough where a "short list" of enemies is pretty reasonable. Al Qaeda, Taliban, Aryan Nation (and their spin-offs) are quite sufficient.

Sure great list but what about when the govt decides the tea party is an enemy of the state or the NAACP or even libertarians or whatever group the govt decides is bad.

 

[granfire]

Sure great list but what about when the govt decides the tea party is an enemy of the state or the NAACP or even libertarians or whatever group the govt decides is bad.

well, we did move a big step in that direction, no? Like in the last decade. to the point that you really don't want to check out the Koran from the local library....

 

[Wo Fat]

Sure great list but what about when the govt decides the tea party is an enemy of the state or the NAACP or even libertarians or whatever group the govt decides is bad.

I know; Slipper Slope. But being fearful of the proverbial "Slippery Slope" often means that we stand still and do nothing.

The declaring of independence from the British Crown had its "slippery slopes". The drafting and ratification of the Constitution had its "slippery slopes". So did the Bill of Rights. So did the Equal Rights Amendment. So did the Voting Rights Act. All had slippery slopes, and all made the U.S. a better country.

I'm in agreement with your premise that no body of law should be written to *diminish* the rights of anyone (intentionally or by affect). Yet we know that we have domestic enemies whose violent actions depend on full, unconditional freedom. If people could find solutions to navigate the slippery-ness of a Constitution or Declaration of Independence, then surely we are advanced enough that we can find ways to allow citizens their right to guns while denying guns to our domestic enemies.

 

[granfire]

I know; Slipper Slope. But being fearful of the proverbial "Slippery Slope" often means that we stand still and do nothing.

The declaring of independence from the British Crown had its "slippery slopes". The drafting and ratification of the Constitution had its "slippery slopes". So did the Bill of Rights. So did the Equal Rights Amendment. So did the Voting Rights Act. All had slippery slopes, and all made the U.S. a better country.

I'm in agreement with your premise that no body of law should be written to *diminish* the rights of anyone (intentionally or by affect). Yet we know that we have domestic enemies whose violent actions depend on full, unconditional freedom. If people could find solutions to navigate the slippery-ness of a Constitution or Declaration of Independence, then surely we are advanced enough that we can find ways to allow citizens their right to guns while denying guns to our domestic enemies.

I think it means that we need to think it through when we propose legislature stemming from a knee jerk reaction.

The devil is in the details. and what looks good when presented pared down into standard English might be all kinds of worms and hornet's nests when decyphered from legalese....

 

[Wo Fat]

I think it means that we need to think it through when we propose legislature stemming from a knee jerk reaction.

The devil is in the details. and what looks good when presented pared down into standard English might be all kinds of worms and hornet's nests when decyphered from legalese....

I follow. But if we've done essentially nothing since the Columbine shooting massacre, then whatever we do in this day--if anything--probably won't be a knee jerk reaction. In fact, we allowed the AWB to sunset a few years after Columbine.

Yes, the devil is always in the details when there is a nefarious intent. The Constitution is one of the greatest bodies of law. Yet its framers took great pains NOT to abolish humans owning humans. Again, it's all about intent.

 

[elder999]

I follow. But if we've done essentially nothing since the Columbine shooting massacre, then whatever we do in this day--if anything--probably won't be a knee jerk reaction. In fact, we allowed the AWB to sunset a few years after Columbine.

Yes, the devil is always in the details when there is a nefarious intent. The Constitution is one of the greatest bodies of law. Yet its framers took great pains NOT to abolish humans owning humans. Again, it's all about intent.

THe Assualt Weapons Ban was the biggest knee jerk of all. In fact,to loop back around on all of this, I defy you to define an "assault weapon" satisfactorily.

EDIT: I defy ANYONE to rationally apply the Assault Weapons Ban's definition of "assault weapon" rationally and satisfactorily.

 

[ballen0351]

You also assume that if I'm a terrorist and you put me on a list I won't still get a weapon. I've bought hundreds of illegal guns and explosives even acting as a white supremacy gang member. Guess who I bought most of my guns from. Blood gang members young black men that knew I was racist. I had fake white power tattoos all over me the only color they cared about was green

 

[Wo Fat]

THe Assualt Weapons Ban was the biggest knee jerk of all. In fact,to loop back around on all of this, I defy you to define an "assault weapon" satisfactorily.

EDIT: I defy ANYONE to rationally apply the Assault Weapons Ban's definition of "assault weapon" rationally and satisfactorily.

No, no. I'm not advocating or arguing for the Assault Weapons Ban. I use it only in the context of making the point that, after Columbine, we did NOT enact new law on the level of an AWB.

 

[ballen0351]

No, no. I'm not advocating or arguing for the Assault Weapons Ban. I use it only in the context of making the point that, after Columbine, we did NOT enact new law on the level of an AWB.

There was no reason to make new laws after columbine it was already illegal for the two boys to own guns. Its also already illegal to shoot up a school so what makes you think if they didn't care its a crime to shoot up a school how are gun laws going to stop them?

 

[Wo Fat]

You also assume that if I'm a terrorist and you put me on a list I won't still get a weapon. I've bought hundreds of illegal guns and explosives even acting as a white supremacy gang member. Guess who I bought most of my guns from. Blood gang members young black men that knew I was racist. I had fake white power tattoos all over me the only color they cared about was green

Well there ya go. Why even prohibit criminals from owning guns. I mean, if they're gonna get guns anyway then we might as well not bother with laws that prohibit them.

Survival of the fittest. Natural selection.

 

[ballen0351]

Well there ya go. Why even prohibit criminals from owning guns. I mean, if they're gonna get guns anyway then we might as well not bother with laws that prohibit them.

Survival of the fittest. Natural selection.

So tell me why if I'm willing to kill someone what gun law will change my mind?

 

[ballen0351]

If you want to prevent gun violence start enforcing gun laws we already have. Hold judges accountable that give these guys slaps on the wrist and they are back out in a year or two. We have mandatory minimum 5 year sentences for possession of a firearm during commission of a felony. So the criminal goes to court take a plea to the felony charge the gun charge gets dropped and he gets 18 months for the felony charge. They are back out in 10 months. The laws are not broke the judicial system is

 

[blindsage]

I know; Slipper Slope. But being fearful of the proverbial "Slippery Slope" often means that we stand still and do nothing.

The declaring of independence from the British Crown had its "slippery slopes". The drafting and ratification of the Constitution had its "slippery slopes". So did the Bill of Rights. So did the Equal Rights Amendment. So did the Voting Rights Act. All had slippery slopes, and all made the U.S. a better country.

I'm in agreement with your premise that no body of law should be written to *diminish* the rights of anyone (intentionally or by affect). Yet we know that we have domestic enemies whose violent actions depend on full, unconditional freedom. If people could find solutions to navigate the slippery-ness of a Constitution or Declaration of Independence, then surely we are advanced enough that we can find ways to allow citizens their right to guns while denying guns to our domestic enemies.

The "slippery slope" is not an abstract argument in all cases. I agree it is often carried way to far, but in the case of freedom of speach, and targeting specific individuals or groups to prevent from having guns, our history is not very good. If "enemy of the state" is the standard then, historically speaking, anyone who has ever been accused of being part of a communist or socialist group should not have been allowed to have guns, including union members. The slippery slope is real in some cases. Now, I think in general it gets to absurd proportions when it comes to gun control, does anyone argue for citizen access to F-16s? No? Nuclear warheads? No? So obviously there's a limit that the vast majority can agree to, but we have to be careful when we decide to single out groups that have not done anything illegal as obvious people who should have their rights reduced.

 

[billc]

Definition of "assault" weapon...

Any weapon that is the current low hanging fruit of those individuals who do not believe that ordinary citizens should own or carry firearms for any reason. The exact weapon defined as an "assault" weapon, will vary depending on the current crimes that are being perpetrated, and which can be used to ban even weapons that are unrelated to those crimes.

 

[elder999]

. Now, I think in general it gets to absurd proportions when it comes to gun control, does anyone argue for citizen access to F-16s? No? .

To be fair, there are several pilots and organizations that privately own fighter-jet platforms. A few MIGs, some F-104s,
some F-14s, a few other foreign planes-that's just off the top of my head. All disarmed, of course, but....

 

[Wo Fat]

So tell me why if I'm willing to kill someone what gun law will change my mind?

There's no law that will change your mind. That's not even an argument.
Now, if you're willing to kill a temple full or train full or classroom full of people, then there ought to be a law that changes your ability to kill that many people.

I'm not talking about keeping guns away from the people, I'm talking about keeping certain people away from guns.

 

[ballen0351]

There's no law that will change your mind. That's not even an argument.
Now, if you're willing to kill a temple full or train full or classroom full of people, then there ought to be a law that changes your ability to kill that many people.

I'm not talking about keeping guns away from the people, I'm talking about keeping certain people away from guns.

OK so again what law can you make that will keep guns away from certain types of people?

 

[ballen0351]

Murder is illegal if I'm willing to break that law why would a law saying I'm not allowed to own a gun stop me? I can see it now. "Man I really want to kill a room full of minorities but darn it I'm not allowed to own a gun its against the law so never mind"

 

[billc]

You see, we don't need more laws against owning guns...we need more laws against committing murder, because there obviously aren't enough laws on the books making murder illegal. If we put even more laws on the books that make killing innocent people against the law, then we would also take care of people using guns to commit those murders and we won't have violated the constitution to do it. Unless of course there is a first amendment argument protecting the freedom of expression through murder. I guess the supreme court would have to hear that one...:hmm:

 

[ballen0351]

So as I write this on my cell I'm currently sitting outside a Mosque as security. I'm struck by a few things I figured I'd share. #1 these are some of the nicest people I've ever met. They keep bringing me out food drinks candy. They won't stop thanking me for being here. #2 the woman with the wonderfully colored head scarfs are absolutely beautiful. #3 I was talking to a older man with a noticeable limp he was walking inside and I say he had disabled Veterans tags. He was wounded in Vietnam and he's so proud of it that he fought for our county #4 I get more and more pissed as ignorant *** people that would hate someone because of a religion and they dress differently. And would try to kill them or harm them. #5 the kids are so amazed by my police car no different then any other kids I've met in the job. #6 they keep trying to invite me in and show me around they want so hard to show me they are not a threat like I'm an enemy to them because of a few stupid people they seem fearful of my presence. I'm no better then them and they have nothing to price to me but its hard to put that message across to them with seeming like I feel superior to them which I am most definitely not.

I'm pissed off that this has even became a topic of conversation because of some poor excuse of a human that was a waist of Air and is a 1000% less American then these awesome people are.