Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

originally posted by: HauntWok
It still doesn't prohibit it now does it?

Yes, it does actually. The little part about 'shall not be infringed'. As I said, your lack of understanding regarding the Constitution is appalling. There have been legal determinations regarding laws of a less restrictive nature where they were vacated, your insurance/tax ploy would never work constitutionally.

I just don't think that the rest of us should have to pay for the mess that gun nuts create.

What you think is irrelevant. What the Constitution says supersedes your banality.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So you're the oak that breaks in the storm while the willow lives?

The Oak and the Willow, a fable In a field, there was an oak at one end, and a willow-tree at the other.

Whenever a wind moved through the field, the willow swayed in the wind, while the oak remained unmoved.

When this happened, the willow said to itself, “I wish I was as strong as the Oak, instead of bending over with every breeze“ then one day a large windstorm whipped through the field.

When the storm passed, and the darkness lifted, the willow looked across the field, and was shocked to discover that the oak was laying on the ground, broken. When the Gardener came into the field, the willow said, “Oh sir, what happened to the Oak? How is it that I survived the storm, weak as I am, and the Oak fell?”

The Gardener said, “Oh little willow-tree, do you not understand what happened? When the winds blow, you bend with them, while the oak remains still. So when a really powerful wind comes along, you can bend with the wind, and survive it. But the Oak cannot bend, and so if the wind is strong enough, it will break. For the Oak had a secret, a weakness within that no one looking at the outside could see. And the Gardener went on his way, leaving the willow to ponder what he said.

Moral: Strength within and strength without are not the same, and one should cultivate strength within first. Also, when the winds of life blow, bend, and you may survive the real storms when they come. Try and resist them, and when the real storms come, you may break instead.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Chiftel
Again this silly argument that any improvement short of attaining perfection is pointless or even worse than the current situation.
Amazing.
Do you feel the same way about all improvements?

When it comes to abrogating my rights there is no compromise. I either have them or I do not.

The Founders understood this and that the Second Amendment was the prime mover in the continued sustainment of those rights. Their ability to comprehend that violent action against a tyrannical government, while not certain, needed to be preserved for the continuation of the People to enjoy their natural rights.

There is no such thing as natural rights.

All rights are bestowed by society upon the individual.

You see, a right is something you do not need to continually fight yourself to preserve. But rather the rest of society overwhelmingly respects voluntarily. And willingly fights on your behalf to preserve for you against the occasional deviant from social norms who begs to differ with regard to said right of yours.

If you have to keep fighting to exercise a right, that right is de facto non existent.

Rights which are consistently broken are as good as no rights at all.

Also, you clearly do not have a 'natural' right to life as you are mortal and can die of illness, cold, malnutrition etc. Or from an infection or predation by wild animals.

So, clearly, nature, as well, begs to differ with regard to even your 'natural' right to life, for instance.

originally posted by: HauntWok
So you're the oak that breaks in the storm while the willow lives?

Pointless hyperbole. There is no call to change the Constitution.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not yet, but there is a call to end this violence.

Too many mass shootings. It can be curbed, but you may have to bend a little.

originally posted by: Chiftel
There is no such thing as natural rights.

The authors of the Constitution disagree. They felt that Man has certain rights that cannot be conveyed by society or government and I agree.

You see, a right is something you do not need to continually fight yourself to preserve. But rather the rest of society overwhelmingly respects voluntarily. And willingly fights on your behalf to preserve for you against the occasional deviant from social norms who begs to differ with regard to said right of yours.

I am not sure what Pollyannaish world you reside in but there are always people that will attempt to restrict your rights for various reasons, often because they feel 'they know better'. Many times these persons become part of the government. Their personal viewpoints can be converted to law, the Constitution makes determination on whether, based on our enumerated rights, these laws are legal.

If you have to keep fighting to exercise a right, that right is de facto non existent.
Rights which are consistently broken are as good as no rights at all.

There are challenges to the First Amendment constantly, does that mean those rights ceased to be valid? That is a preposterous premise.

Also, you clearly do not have a 'natural' right to life as you are mortal and can die of illness, cold, malnutrition etc. Or from an infection or predation by wild animals.
So, clearly, nature, as well, begs to differ with regard to even your 'natural' right to life, for instance.

That is a rather silly argument. Since man is mortal his ability to live his life freely is somehow not sacrosanct?

originally posted by: HauntWok
Not yet, but there is a call to end this violence.
Too many mass shootings. It can be curbed, but you may have to bend a little.

We have bent too much as it is.

Where is your righteous indignation for the victims of blunt force trauma over the last 10 years which has killed a huge amount more people than mass shootings? Your stance is farcical in nature as you are more concerned about how people are murdered than that they were murdered.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Chiftel
There is no such thing as natural rights.

The authors of the Constitution disagree. They felt that Man has certain rights that cannot be conveyed by society or government and I agree.

Very nice of them to disagree. Doesn't mean they are right.

I've clearly explained why natural rights are fiction. Or just an empty term, devoid of any real meaning and just an emotional trigger.

originally posted by: Chiftel
Very nice of them to disagree. Doesn't mean they are right.

Whether you or I feel they are right or wrong is irrelevant. This is the law of the land.

I've clearly explained why natural rights are fiction. Or just an empty term, devoid of any real meaning and just an emotional trigger.

Your personal philosophy is as meaningless to me as mine is to you. I believe that as a free, human being I have the rights outlined in the Constitution. If you do not feel the same way that is your choice, my rights are why I continue to reside in the United States.

The law of the land is irrelevant.

The only thing that gives the law strength is the voluntary compliance of the majority of the citizens supposedly bound by it.

When people massively start breaking a particular law then that law is as good as non existent.

You see, your 0,1% of the population you have to act as enforcers of the law are but a tooth pick under foot.

Laws just codify, write down social conventions. When social conventions change, laws are soon to follow.

Or heads start rolling (a la 1789).

originally posted by: Chiftel
The law of the land is irrelevant.
The only thing that gives the law strength is the voluntary compliance of the majority of the citizens supposedly bound by it.
When people massively start breaking a particular law then that law is as good as non existent.
You see, your 0,1% of the population you have to act as enforcers of the law are but a tooth pick under foot.
Laws just codify, write down social conventions. When social conventions change, laws are soon to follow.
Or heads start rolling (a la 1789).

Since you seem to be making the same mistake as hauntwok:

The Constitution of the United States is considered to be the foremost piece of legislature with regard to the implementation and authorization of legality and lawfulness within the United States; upon its creation, the Constitution of the United States not only outlined a framework for a legislative system, but also an identifiable statute reflecting the legal guidelines imposed with regard to the relationship between the United States Federal Government and its collective citizens. constitution.laws.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Source

The Constitution is not law per se but the framework of how laws can operate. It does not change due to social and societal whims and requires a massive undertaking to modify. Hence the reason it has happened so infrequently. The Constitution enumerates our rights and decrees how the government must interact with them.

I already told you, it doesn't matter what you try to call your little piece of paper with writing on it or how you try to to argue it's somehow more than a piece of paper with writing on it.

The only thing that gives the law strength is the voluntary compliance of the overwhelming majority of the population.

That may well be because of individual fear of personal reprisals (one shepherd dog can herd a whole herd of sheep).

But it is still voluntary compliance of the vast majority of the population, regardless for what reason (individual fear of punishment, incarceration etc.).

When even 10% of the population no longer voluntarily complies, the law changes. Or there is civil war or a massacre of one side or the other.

You think what you call your little piece of paper (a Constitution instead of a bill, act or ordnance) makes a difference?

Do you really?

originally posted by: Chiftel
When even 10% of the population no longer voluntarily complies, the law changes. Or there is civil war or a massacre of one side or the other.

I would wager that more than 10% of the populace intentionally pay their income taxes improperly. Where is the massacre or change in tax law? Not all disagreement on laws leads to violent protest or civil war.

a reply to: HauntWok

Even if there was 10x more violence for a certain group it would still only make taking away their firearm rights borderline fair. In July of last year there were less than a million cops but 16 fatalities by cop. Did you post your outrage about that string of tragedies too? Cops are four times MORE dangerous with firearms than the general adult population carrying guns.

Proof Cops are More Dangerous with Guns:
There were 780,000 Police Officers in the USA in 2012.
en.wikipedia.org...

There are 209 million adults in the US as of 2012
www.infoplease.com...

45% of American Households had access to a gun as of 2011.
wiki.answers.com...

Roughly 8,900 people are killed by a firearm each year in the USA.
www.theguardian.com...

In 2013, 314 people were killed by police officers in the USA.

Therefore:
94 million adults in the USA have access to a firearm. (45% of 209 million).
1 person was killed for every 10,600 adults with access to a firearm in the USA in 2012.
1 person was killed for every 2,500 police officers in the USA in 2013.

Bottom Line: Unless you want to take the guns away from cops FIRST, you are being a hypocrite!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I am starting to think i was completely correct in my original assumption that gun rights activists enjoy and celebrate mass shootings as a win for their cause.

I have proposed slight regulatory changes that would not involve in any way any gun ban, but would help keep guns out of the hands of insane people, and somehow you are against it.

Something has to change, your personal anger at the idea of anything that would help reduce the frequency of these mass shootings is not a solution.

What contributes to a solution to this problem is a willingness for both sides to come together and compromise.

I feel my idea is fair and balanced, respecting the need to reduce these mass shootings and at the same time the lawful individuals right to keep and bear arms.

Do you have a better solution that isn't just "enforce the laws on the books" approach that has failed?

originally posted by: HauntWok
I am starting to think i was completely correct in my original assumption that gun rights activists enjoy and celebrate mass shootings as a win for their cause.

Your repellant statement is further undermined by the gleeful tone your initial, taunting posts in this thread took. Stop projecting.

I have proposed slight regulatory changes that would not involve in any way any gun ban, but would help keep guns out of the hands of insane people, and somehow you are against it.

That would disenfranchise anyone who could not afford your preposterous tax/insurance. Your answer? Oh well, guess they do not need a firearm.

Something has to change, your personal anger at the idea of anything that would help reduce the frequency of these mass shootings is not a solution.

I am not angry at all. I actually pity you in your simplistic and rather Orwellian solutions to problems; more laws.

What contributes to a solution to this problem is a willingness for both sides to come together and compromise.

There has been 'compromise' for two hundred years where our rights were eroded. We are just now starting to see daylight and there is no intention of reverting to the darkness of fear.

I feel my idea is fair and balanced, respecting the need to reduce these mass shootings and at the same time the lawful individuals right to keep and bear arms.

How is a poll tax/insurance respectful, fair and balanced? You still have not answered my question about disenfranchisement and this fact is telling.

Do you have a better solution that isn't just "enforce the laws on the books" approach that has failed?

There are enough of them on record that proper enforcement of all of them would lead to a huge and marked decrease in illegal firearms use and help reduce gun violence.

So making guns illegal would have prevented this killing?
Wow so simple.

If he wanted to shoot people, he would have bought those guns on a gun shop or on the black market. Remember? Gang members all over the world get their guns through smuggling or buying them directly from corrupt officials.

And where guns are illegal, they're usually the only ones with the guns.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's where the confusion lies, the weapons used in these mass shootings are normally legally purchased.

America’s latest mass shooting took place just over a week ago when a 22-year-old college student with a history of mental illness killed three people with a knife in his apartment before going on a shooting spree through Santa Barbara, Calif. By the time he took his own life, six people were dead and 13 wounded.

www.washingtonpost.com...

As I said before, the gun isn't the problem in these mass shootings, it's the lunatics behind the gun.

originally posted by: HauntWok
As I said before, the gun isn't the problem in these mass shootings, it's the lunatics behind the gun.

And how would your poll tax/insurance prevent this?

Where is the outrage for the children of Chicago gunned down with illegal weapons? Should we not be doing our best to enforce the plethora of laws already on the books in an effort to prevent them from being murdered?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Of course we should do everything that we can to get illegal guns of the streets.

But we are talking about firearms legally purchased by people who often have mental health problems. The core of the problem.

The insurance i proposed is for the victims, and the families of these tragedies. I realize we can't prevent all of these events, but the public shouldn't have to foot the bill for the actions of a gun owner gone off his nut.

It would also help pay to get illegal guns off the streets.