[RD] Florida School Shooting

[aelf]

Conservatism is a disease independent of religious belief.

 

[Zelig]

I also think our air security is a travesty.

As long as you have TSA Pre and avoid all the pleb lines, it's really not bad at all.

At that point, worst part is all the airport loudspeakers bleating their quasi-police state propaganda while you're trying to sleep.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As long as you have TSA Pre and avoid all the pleb lines, it's really not bad at all.

At that point, worst part is all the airport loudspeakers bleating their quasi-police state propaganda while you're trying to sleep.

I don't think the "inconvenience to the plebs" is what people usually refer to as a travesty. I think it is the reality that as soon as someone decides to target air cargo and brings down a plane the reality that successful monitoring of air cargo is not within the current scope of the system and no one has given much thought to how to get it there that is the source of concern.

 

[Commodore]

successful monitoring of air cargo is not within the current scope of the system and no one has given much thought to how to get it there that is the source of concern.

When I worked for TSA years and years ago, we had personnel checking air cargo. We used larger versions of the bulk mass x-ray machines used to screen checked luggage to scan for anything suspicious and if something odd-looking did pop up, we'd open the container it was in and check it out. And for anything too large to go through our x-ray machines, we used a combination of dogs and random inspections.

It doesn't say that, actually.

Yeah, it does. Not in actual words, but it is pretty generally recognized that the first ten amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights (in case you weren't aware), are considered the fundamental rights that all Americans are guaranteed.

So if you don't like gun ownership, blame the Founding Fathers for putting it in there with all the fundamental rights Americans have. Because of you go after the 2nd Amendment, it sets a precedent that the rest of the Bill of Rights is fair game as well.

This is literally untrue.

Oh, okay. I'll just have to take your word for it and disregard over 200 years of American legal precedent.

Seriously, something doesn't become untrue because you don't like it or because your college professor says it is untrue.

 

[stinkubus]

The problem is there does not exist 200 years of legal precedent on the issue of a private citizen's right to own weapons, separate from militia service. There is exactly one case, Heller vs. DC. That case was decided in 2008.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

When I worked for TSA years and years ago, we had personnel checking air cargo. We used larger versions of the bulk mass x-ray machines used to screen checked luggage to scan for anything suspicious and if something odd-looking did pop up, we'd open the container it was in and check it out. And for anything too large to go through our x-ray machines, we used a combination of dogs and random inspections.

I'm familiar with x-ray machine security. There are a lot of things that have a familiar impenetrable shape to them. In the small world of luggage there's not a huge problem there, but if, just for example, a manifest says that Starbucks is air freighting a half dozen espresso machines to their franchisee in New York that container going through the x-ray can show the recognizable outline of a half dozen metal tanks...with anything inside of them.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Seriously, something doesn't become untrue because you don't like it or because your college professor says it is untrue.

We'll Americans have been owning fire arms without being part of a well regulated militia since it was first conceived into laws.
Because the lack of the a standing army, the militia formed a vital part of self defense forces
as I sarcastically mention it was also for slave revolt suppression

On the other hand, Military level equipment has heavy restrictions, increasing firepower and lethality and the idea of keeping them from civilians circulation.

 

[Commodore]

I'm familiar with x-ray machine security. There are a lot of things that have a familiar impenetrable shape to them. In the small world of luggage there's not a huge problem there, but if, just for example, a manifest says that Starbucks is air freighting a half dozen espresso machines to their franchisee in New York that container going through the x-ray can show the recognizable outline of a half dozen metal tanks...with anything inside of them.

They'll look inside those espresso machines if they find there is reason to. Usually, if we couldn't see through something on an x-ray machine, we would open up the container and do explosive trace detection tests on it, since explosives really are the main thing TSA looks for. If we got a hit on one of those espresso machines, you better believe we would open up all of them for physical inspection.

Of course, no system is perfect and there is still much to be desired in our airport security system and procedures. My point though was that people are thinking about air cargo vulnerabilities and are at least trying to do something to mitigate the threat.

We'll Americans have been owning fire arms without being part of a well regulated militia since it was first conceived into laws.

I would argue that just merely owning a firearm makes one a member of a citizen militia. Since, if necessary, all the armed citizens of a given area could hastily organize into militia since they already have the weapons. And there is actually some precedent for that, especially in small towns and rural communities, where the local sheriff will temporarily deputize armed citizens in order to deal with some small crisis. As for the "well-regulated" part, well that's covered by the current restrictions on what types of weapons these "militiamen" are able to carry as well as licensing requirements to be able to carry those weapons in public.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I would argue that just merely owning a firearm makes one a member of a citizen militia. Since, if necessary, all the armed citizens of a given area could hastily organize into militia since they already have the weapons. And there is actually some precedent for that, especially in small towns and rural communities, where the local sheriff will temporarily deputize armed citizens in order to deal with some small crisis. As for the "well-regulated" part, well that's covered by the current restrictions on what types of weapons these "militiamen" are able to carry as well as licensing requirements to be able to carry those weapons in public.

The US would have to be a pretty terriable state to mobolize the Militia, Id imagine that all the useable manpower being sucked dry by the regular armed forces, national guards and what not
This is kinda old argument which appear every mass shooting, we kinda understand that right to bear arms is a constitional right and that wont change.

Republicans wont even allow the CDC to carry out study of gun violence which isnt anywhere prohibited by the Consitution
Or allow gun sale records to be computerised again not prohibited by the constituion.

I cant understand why Republicans would do this. thats what seems so crazy

 

[Commodore]

national guards and what not

Funny you should mention the National Guard. The National Guard actually does kinda function as a government-sponsored militia since its members aren't full-time professional soldiers.

Republicans wont even allow the CDC to carry out study of gun violence which isnt anywhere prohibited by the Consitution
Or allow gun sale records to be computerised again not prohibited by the constituion.

I cant understand why Republicans would do this. thats what seems so crazy

On this we agree.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Oh, okay. I'll just have to take your word for it and disregard over 200 years of American legal precedent.

Seriously, something doesn't become untrue because you don't like it or because your college professor says it is untrue.

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

As long as it doesn't impact: migration or direct taxation before 1808 or the entitlement of every state to two senators, literally any other part of the Constitution can be amended by the process cited above. Ergo, what you said viz. "The US is not governed by popular rule [...] no amount of mob rule should be able to change that" is literally untrue.

 

[Chose]

Just saying: the vast majority of shootings aren't performed by mentally ill people.

Yes of course, which relates to the fact that handguns are the real problem.

Conservatism is a disease independent of religious belief.

So, people say stuff like this without any push back on here?

 

[schlaufuchs]

So, people say stuff like this without any push back on here?

aelf gonna aelf.

 

[stinkubus]

@Chose Do you need a safe space, snowflake?

Moderator Action: This is an RD thread, so this post is quite unacceptable. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Angst]

Yes of course, which relates to the fact that handguns are the real problem.

Nice to know that we agreed. I found your post a little ambivalent on the issue, so I wanted to be sure. Sorry if I misread it

 

[Ryika]

Mental or social problems are an issue in most, if not all, (school) shootings. The shooters often don't qualify as mentally ill, but it is pretty much always the case that they're in a bad mental state, often caused by things such as isolation, or bullying.

It's not an "Either or"-thing anyway. Better awareness of- and care for mental health will lower the amount of rampages that happen, proper gun laws will reduce the occurence and, more importantly, lethality of those that do happen.

The question is really if people are willing to accept the higher lethality of those rampages in favor of having more freedom when it comes to guns. Not sure why people are not willing to have an honest discussion about that, and instead deflect to things such as mental illness, it's not like it's an indefensible position. But if you're not willing to defend the position that the current occurrence and lethality of school rampages is a price that you're willing to pay to maintain the current gun laws, then maybe you should think about altering your stance on the issue, instead of trying to come up with excuses.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, it does. Not in actual words, but it is pretty generally recognized that the first ten amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights (in case you weren't aware), are considered the fundamental rights that all Americans are guaranteed.

So if you don't like gun ownership, blame the Founding Fathers for putting it in there with all the fundamental rights Americans have. Because of you go after the 2nd Amendment, it sets a precedent that the rest of the Bill of Rights is fair game as well.

Oh, okay. I'll just have to take your word for it and disregard over 200 years of American legal precedent.

So, you obviously just have no idea what you're talking about because the 2nd Amendment did not originally create an individual right to firearms, and there is not 200 years of legal precedent that creates such a right. Law in the colonies was derived from English common law and it had been illegal since the 16th century to go armed in public. The judicial origins of the "individual right to firearms" actually lie in courts in the slave south, an utterly barbaric culture characterized by duels between aristocrats and where significant proportion of the white population was under arms at any given time due to the threat of slave rebellions.

Moreover, I'm going to point out the irony that you 2nd Amendment fundamentalists, with your refusal to countenance even the slightest level of regulation of firearms, are breeding a generation of people who, like me, are totally opposed to your vision of the Second Amendment and mostly just want to get rid of guns completely. You are, by refusing to move on this issue, likely creating the conditions for the 2nd Amendment to just be repealed at some point in the future. Then the gun nuts can try to have their revolution or whatever <snip>

Moderator Action: Once again, this is an RD thread, so please post accordingly. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Then the gun nuts can try to have their revolution or whatever

Hmm.. if it comes to a civil war between gun nuts and pacifists, I know who I'm backing.

 

[Lexicus]

Hmm.. if it comes to a civil war between gun nuts and pacifists, I know who I'm backing.

And if it's gun nuts vs the US government, who are you backing then?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well I'd kind of expect the US government to not just kill them. But maybe I expect too much.