Las Vegas Shootings

[Greenday]

Me? No, I'm not telling you that; that was jackfaire's claim. But I'm still waiting for him to provide evidence of Antifa only retaliating after being provoked, not attacking outright.

My problem with Antifa is that they are using precisely the methods that the fascists they claim to oppose have been using since the 1920s and 1930s: silencing, intimidation, menacing, violence. "No-platforming" is, essentially, a fascist tactic - you decide who is allowed to speak, and more importantly, who isn't. But hide it in the cloak of virtue - we are only stopping the BAD GUYS from speaking out! - and everything is okay?

No, it's not. Fascism is one of those things you can't fight with its own weapons.

Usually we fight it with guns and bombs so...

[jackfaire]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVOuY7hoqEs

[Canarr]

So are you telling me, in every instance above, that ANTIFA was provoked into "action"?

Me? No, I'm not telling you that; that was jackfaire's claim. But I'm still waiting for him to provide evidence of Antifa only retaliating after being provoked, not attacking outright.

My problem with Antifa is that they are using precisely the methods that the fascists they claim to oppose have been using since the 1920s and 1930s: silencing, intimidation, menacing, violence. "No-platforming" is, essentially, a fascist tactic - you decide who is allowed to speak, and more importantly, who isn't. But hide it in the cloak of virtue - we are only stopping the BAD GUYS from speaking out! - and everything is okay?

No, it's not. Fascism is one of those things you can't fight with its own weapons.

[Greenday]

Antifa has definitely attacked the white power crowd "unprovoked". It's been reported on the news a bunch of times as has been posted.

On the one hand, I believe in free speech.

On the other hand, I think fascism needs to be stamped out mercilessly and anyone who is willing to admit to being a fascist in public deserves an ass-kicking. Look at Germany. Germany takes a zero tolerance approach to fascism because fuck Nazi scum.

The fascists don't give a crap about your protests or your Facebook posts. Words don't stop fascism.

[mjr]

Can you provide examples of that?

Slate: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/...nce_video.html

NY Post: http://nypost.com/2017/09/24/the-per...nazi-punching/

Buzzfeed: https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesth...GW7#.vsvm1yzVD

Politico: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...nce-fbi-242235

The Hill: http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...e-is-necessary

And this, from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/u...ed-attack.html

So are you telling me, in every instance above, that ANTIFA was provoked into "action"?

[Canarr]

To be fair I was discussing the US version of Antifa. There is plenty of third party footage showing Nazi groups showing up antagonizing then filming when the Antifa group snaps. They then only show the footage of Antifa "attacking poor innocent protestors" in this way they try to discredit them but with everyone having cameras it's easy for third parties to post the total footage and be all "Uhm but what about this part where you're clearly provoking them?"

Can you provide examples of that?

Well, some people in Antifa think that they're being "provoked" simply because the other people think differently than they do.

And there are numerous instances where Antifa had NOT been provoked (unless "saying something I don't like" counts as being provoked).

Can you provide examples of that?

[mjr]

To be fair I was discussing the US version of Antifa. There is plenty of third party footage showing Nazi groups showing up antagonizing then filming when the Antifa group snaps. They then only show the footage of Antifa "attacking poor innocent protestors" in this way they try to discredit them but with everyone having cameras it's easy for third parties to post the total footage and be all "Uhm but what about this part where you're clearly provoking them?"

Well, some people in Antifa think that they're being "provoked" simply because the other people think differently than they do.

And there are numerous instances where Antifa had NOT been provoked (unless "saying something I don't like" counts as being provoked).

Who do you think started all the chaos in Berkeley? Antifa. I find it completely and utterly ironic that a group that says that they're "anti-fascist" uses the same fascist tactics that they're against. It's like they don't know what fascism is.

[jackfaire]

Now, I don't know about the US version of Antifa;

To be fair I was discussing the US version of Antifa. There is plenty of third party footage showing Nazi groups showing up antagonizing then filming when the Antifa group snaps. They then only show the footage of Antifa "attacking poor innocent protestors" in this way they try to discredit them but with everyone having cameras it's easy for third parties to post the total footage and be all "Uhm but what about this part where you're clearly provoking them?"

[bara]

This is how I feel about gun control.. Thanks Obama.
https://youtu.be/6imFvSua3Kg

[Canarr]

You mean the alt-right nutjobs. ANTIFA hasn't actually attacked anyone. Fought people sure attacked no. See attacks are unprovoked.

That's a fairly clear statement to make for very unclear situations, I think. If you have left-wing and right-wing extremists show up for the same demonstration, both sides fitted out with helmets, padding, clubs and weighted gloves, it's fairly impossible to claim that one side was the innocents, and the others the provokers.

Now, I don't know about the US version of Antifa; but in Germany, when they show up somewhere, they're looking for a fight. They love mixing it up with Skinheads and other representatives of Neonazis, but they'll settle for setting cars on fire and trashing stores in a pinch. Sure, they generally won't attack uninvolved bystanders; but I guess that's only a small consolation when they've destroyed your car, or your livelihood.

Antifa is trouble, and not in a good way. When they show up, they'll distract public attention from the points raised by legitimate protestor. Just check out the reports from the G20 conference in Hamburg this year. So, not only are they needlessly violent, they're actually counterproductive to the causes they claim to be championing.

[jackfaire]

(i.e. ANTIFA and the alt-right nutjobs)? It doesn't have to be "most of the population".

You mean the alt-right nutjobs. ANTIFA hasn't actually attacked anyone. Fought people sure attacked no. See attacks are unprovoked.

I was a kid who would get provoked people would sidle up to me harass me verbally until I would lose my temper and punch them then they would "fight back" beating the shit out of me all the while playing the victim card.

It's a favorite tactic to drag down protest groups show them as "attacking" people while conveniently ignoring the fact they were provoked in the first place.

Reasonable is as always a case of majority rule. We have agreed to a representational democracy. Small groups of people don't get to automatically have their way. Most people in this country don't own weapons and many that do would argue that those background checks the guy passed weren't sufficient. Most background checks will check for a history of mental health issues but not issue a psych eval.

I had more of a background check when applying for a job as an UNARMED security guard. A person can make it through their life with undiagnosed mental health problems. Seeing if they have a record of treatment is only one part of it.

Hell I have a friend who has no immunization record from before she was 19 because the doctor's office gave all of their records to the state and the state lost them.

So it's possible to even miss past diagnosis.

An up to date psych eval administered by a panel of psychologists/psychiatrists from different backgrounds should be mandatory for gun ownership. It's not perfect but it would help keep the first mental health incident on a person's record be "mass shooting"

There are periods of my life where I had mental health issues where selling me a gun would have been downright irresponsible yet I would have passed all relevant background checks. I would have failed a psych eval though.

Feels like something I wouldn't mind having in place before I buy a firearm and make a mistake that screws up mine and other lives.

[mjr]

As far as weapons in general - I'm perfectly fine with reasonable restrictions and or controls - the amount of scrutiny should go up with the amount lethality of the weapon per minute. I'm fine with a general waiting period for smaller firearms just to discourage "of passion" crimes.

I'm sure those aren't your only two. Then again, there's the word "reasonable", which will differ between people.

With more automatic firepower,

Automatic weapons are damn near impossible for your "regular Joe" to get. And it costs at least $15,000 or so, and at least a year to get one -- if you're "qualified". And again, the Vegas shooter passed all relevant background checks.

Make it so if someone wants weaponry purpose-built for war, they can pass the basic background checks a military soldier has to pass.

What kinds of weapons would that be? Tanks? Rocket Launchers? AR-15's aren't "purpose built for war", and contrary to popular belief, the AR stands for ArmaLite, the manufacturer. If they were, they probably wouldn't be available to civilians. And we can't say "semi-automatic" weapons, because most pistols these days are semi-automatic.

What a lot of us want at this point is just accountability and a reduction of the religiosity of gun owners as if there's only 1 amendment in the constituation that can't have limits, and that's the one we're ignoring its basis for anyway.

The argument has been made that 2A "protects" the rest.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Since as a society we've already completely ignored the first part of it and I'm not even going to argue it, why is law regulating the manner in which firearms are sold infringement? Why is it so in the 21st century when it wasn't true in the 20th, 19th or 18th which all saw state laws upheld laws restricting the sales of guns.

Again, I ask: Is "the right of the people" defined differently in this Amendment than it is in others? If so, how? And can we just start ignoring parts, or all, of amendments, just willy-nilly? Let's do that, shall we? Free press? Nope. Not anymore. If you want to be a journalist, you have to undergo a psych evaluation and get a personal journalism license. Wanna petition the government? Not only do you need a permit, you need a background check and a license. 4th Amendment? I hope you have your permit that allows you to exercise that right (you might be hiding something that's dangerous in your house).

Yes, I know it's slippery slope, but ask yourself: How far are you willing to go? Full-on "nanny state"? Where's the line? Because at a point, the "freedoms" we talk about become an illusion. Remember, the people in "1984" were "free", too, but in a vastly different way. Because "newspeak" redefined the word "freedom".

The main problem with these arguments though is it requires that you and I need to agree with what people did when there was no professional military and danger was omnipresent (the frontier.) So even though our lives have materially changed, it eventually filibusters any discussion if we try to discern original intent when:

1) We know for a fact early in the countries history many states provided firearms for people (for military service if needed and as a general survival tool)
2) Most Americans are not trained in military disciplines anymore nor is there any expectation of possible service to the state attached to firearms (often they're more sought by people who fear the state rather than uphold it)
3) Most of the population is not in danger of animal/counterattacks from indiginous people/required to hunt for food.
4) The threat of a land-based invasion of the United States borders on beyond remote as long as ICBMs are a thing.

Well, as far as #1 goes, your last part in parenthesis is rather broad. "...as a general survival tool."

Ok. Personal protection would fall under "general survival", would it not?
As far as #3, how do you take into account the people that have been rioting and attacking people (i.e. ANTIFA and the alt-right nutjobs)? It doesn't have to be "most of the population".

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Are you saying you're suggesting that solely in the case of 2A, people should have to actually go to court to exercise a right that's actually written out in the Constitution?

BTW, this is another thing I don't necessarily support outright but if someone wants to play the "day in court" card, well there are options.

Umm...


So if you're asking the realistic question then, what would I support. That's reasonable. For me, any device which roundabout can be used to circumvent other laws should fall under extra scrutiny - so something like a bump stock should have a literal legal paper trail leading to a physician. That won't stop a crime, but what it will do is add a hurdle while not being something a person with a legit disability can't obtain. If this happens in the future - deal with the physician.

As far as weapons in general - I'm perfectly fine with reasonable restrictions and or controls - the amount of scrutiny should go up with the amount lethality of the weapon per minute. I'm fine with a general waiting period for smaller firearms just to discourage "of passion" crimes.

With more automatic firepower, yea I would probably be ok with mandatory medical/psychological checks that just need to be reupped over time. Make it so if someone wants weaponry purpose-built for war, they can pass the basic background checks a military soldier has to pass. If there is an issue with senility or competence that's not going to affect most people I'm ok with the few people it does catch. Yea, you can "but what if the government does X" argument, but I'd just argue right back what the government allows right now isn't within the purview of strict constructionism of the 2nd ammendment anyway. Basically, if gun owners aren't going to volunteer a better system "I don't support outright", then yea I'm fine with that one.

I'd also be fine with one wherein the local gun club/association that is selling the firearm is vouching for the person who buys it, that fixes a lot and would be more in keeping with gun owners. That's more of a "my brother's keeper" arrangement but doesn't allow free passing of the buck. If you worry that gun club member Dan is a little "out there", don't sell him the P90 (I totally want to fire one of those). What a lot of us want at this point is just accountability and a reduction of the religiosity of gun owners as if there's only 1 amendment in the constituation that can't have limits, and that's the one we're ignoring its basis for anyway.

[QUOTE]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/QUOTE]

Since as a society we've already completely ignored the first part of it and I'm not even going to argue it, why is law regulating the manner in which firearms are sold infringement? Why is it so in the 21st century when it wasn't true in the 20th, 19th or 18th which all saw state laws upheld laws restricting the sales of guns.

The main problem with these arguments though is it requires that you and I need to agree with what people did when there was no professional military and danger was omnipresent (the frontier.) So even though our lives have materially changed, it eventually filibusters any discussion if we try to discern original intent when:

1) We know for a fact early in the countries history many states provided firearms for people (for military service if needed and as a general survival tool)
2) Most Americans are not trained in military disciplines anymore nor is there any expectation of possible service to the state attached to firearms (often they're more sought by people who fear the state rather than uphold it)
3) Most of the population is not in danger of animal/counterattacks from indiginous people/required to hunt for food.
4) The threat of a land-based invasion of the United States borders on beyond remote as long as ICBMs are a thing.

[mjr]

So yea, it's not above board to say someone could make a law doing what I'd suggested which I'll add wasn't for "laypeople" it was for court appointed AND trained psychologist.

Are you saying you're suggesting that solely in the case of 2A, people should have to actually go to court to exercise a right that's actually written out in the Constitution?

And for those of us who are perfectly happy with people having guns but ALSO think maybe it should be harder to get than bulk sudafed, well we'd sort of like to have a discussion outside of the NO GUNS/EVERYONE GETS AUTOMATICS! binary.

How hard? The Vegas shooter (what this thread was initially about) passed all relevant background checks.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Couldn't you also say irresponsible media practices are dangerous?

What about the MEDIA you guys?!

Ultimately - this is the hill you die on when you stop having a policy point - the right no one is questioning.

However rights are limited frequently via opinion or law. In free press you have prohibitions on incitement, child pornography, obscenity, false statements of fact, yadda, yadda, yadda. If I want to report the news on the air, I have to have a license to do so and the FCC can revoke it.

The 4th amendment is limited via statute of the patriot act. Amendment 8 is flat out ignored in many jurisdictions by creating usurious "fees" on top of unpaid sums that would amount to loan sharking if an individual did it.

The 6th amendment makes no mention of "citizenship" status when discussing person's entitled to rights. Plenty of jurisdictions and interpretations have including strict constructionists (ie, conservatives) despite there being no text of any kind indicating that.

---
So yea, it's not above board to say someone could make a law doing what I'd suggested which I'll add wasn't for "laypeople" it was for court appointed AND trained psychologist.

BTW, this is another thing I don't necessarily support outright but if someone wants to play the "day in court" card, well there are options. So the next question is, is the person actually open to any kind of compromise or is it really they just don't want controls of any kind and they're fillibustering. And methinks for many, they use a lot of words to not say the latter, but that's exactly what they mean.

And for those of us who are perfectly happy with people having guns but ALSO think maybe it should be harder to get than bulk sudafed, well we'd sort of like to have a discussion outside of the NO GUNS/EVERYONE GETS AUTOMATICS! binary.