Crazy Talk

[Pokinfun]

It is funny that the king confiscated guns to provide for public safety. I bet Patrick Henry would have been considered crazy for saying "give me liberty or give me death!"
I cannot believe that you seriously believe that if my wife gets a subscription for being moody, during Menopause, the government should have the ability to take my weapons.
Also, I cannot believe that you trust the government enough to give them your guns.
Lastly, your third M, taking guns away is not going to stop mass killing, it just means they will use something else, such as a car or a fire to kill people. Therefore, what is the purpose of the first M?
We have a larger problem with our society, a lack of values. A very long time ago in China a man thought that people are basically good, people just need good values and morals to have a great society, a little bit later a another man thought that all people are bad and you need strict laws, a harsh government to enforce the laws and people need few rights.
Our government needs to worry a little less about laws and a little more about values. As far as the second M, it is pointless with our current level of technology.

 

[Roadkill Coyote]

Lastly, your third M, taking guns away is not going to stop mass killing, it just means they will use something else, such as a car or a fire to kill people. Therefore, what is the purpose of the first M?

The three Ms was just a way of breaking the problem down into components. As I said before, attacking the last one is the one that can't work regardless, so no, to repeat myself again, I am not calling for or supporting taking away guns. But I do believe that the way we define who is prohibited for mental incapacity is going to change, and we need to find a objective standard, before someone manages to get a non-objective one passed. If you don't like the idea of a proscription standard, or the scope of the idea that I threw out, then how would you find the people that are falling through the cracks. The folks that would have been confined previously, but are now on the street heavily medicated? Or are you satisfied with the current state of the mental health system?

 

[Roadkill Coyote]

You've already admitted that your suggestions would create completely unacceptable side effects. First, you'll never get law abiding gun owners to turn their medical records over to the DoJ for their seal of approval. Second, you'll never EVER get a law passed abolishing the 1st Amendment, based on how big the media outlet is.

I have admitted no such thing. I concede that they would be damaging to our liberties, so are most laws and regulations, to a greater or lesser degree. As to whether people will allow access to their medical records, we fork over our drivers license to buy decongestants. I'm not sure we are as staunch a majority as you suggest.

Secondly, I am not suggesting that we abolish the First Amendment, only that we treat it with the same inviolable reverence that we do the Second. Call me a troll if you will, but if we are going to have food fight in the constitutional cafeteria, I don't think the jello slinging should be confined to just one table. one part is no more sacred than the other.

What you should focus your efforts on is creating an atmosphere where media outlets choose to not name the killers. FOX news has done pretty well on the Umpqua shooting in this regard. The other majors need to hear that and how the majority of America wants it that way. Boycotts of advertisers on segments where they focus on the killers, phone calls, letter writing campaigns, etc. All of that is going to be far more effective than a program from the FBI, which they already don't like (the FBI that is). What do they like? Money. Hit them where it hurts and they'll listen.

I just popped over to FOX's site and clicked the first story about the shooting, and saw both the killer's name and pic. Voluntary has not worked, and a tool as weak as a boycott is not going to stop networks that are desperately fighting for views. They are making money drawing big numbers off of sensational reporting of these stories, and so a popular opinion campaign has to offset more than their normal revenue, I don't believe it can, I think, in this instance, it's a tragedy of the commons scenario.

 

[Roadkill Coyote]

I strongly urge you go to read the courts' various holdings in the Pentagon Papers cases. No, comparing a state blackout on what is and is not allowed to be reported to Pravda is not a "wild exaggeraton;" it's federally-enforced censorship, and fundamentally incompatible with the founding values of our nation.

I am content to let those reading this decide whether not being able to report the name and image of a mass murderer would convert FOX news into a organ of state propaganda. As to the courts, they may strike it down. You might have change tacks and fine them after the fact, or make it explicitly possible for victims to sue for past coverage. Something like that would be more likely to slide through. But frankly, I think it would be more chilling to reporting than an outright ban.

 

[Pokinfun]

It is not illegal in our country to be crazy or mentally ill. You, liberals, or other factions in our nation cannot take away someone's Rights until a citizen forfeits their Rights, by committing a crime. Or, generally you have to be adjudicated mentally incompetent by a judge because you have been proven a danger to yourself or others. Regardless, we have Rights for a reason, because we needed protections from a tyrannical government and factions. The anti gun lobby is a faction. You should read Federalist #10.
What you need to do is worry about to keep people free and not worry about keeping people alive, because I would rather be dead than another man's slave.
Now, if you can figure out three m's for teaching people values and it is wrong to murder people, then you won't have to worry about crazy people hurting others or taking away free citizens rights because you are scared. By the way, I know a book that has already figured out the values part.

The three Ms was just a way of breaking the problem down into components. As I said before, attacking the last one is the one that can't work regardless, so no, to repeat myself again, I am not calling for or supporting taking away guns. But I do believe that the way we define who is prohibited for mental incapacity is going to change, and we need to find a objective standard, before someone manages to get a non-objective one passed. If you don't like the idea of a proscription standard, or the scope of the idea that I threw out, then how would you find the people that are falling through the cracks. The folks that would have been confined previously, but are now on the street heavily medicated? Or are you satisfied with the current state of the mental health system?

 

[DavidMcmillan]

This is a fairly good discussion, and one that should continue. There is a problem, and it will be addressed. The larger issue for us though is the fact that we are losing on the field of public perception. Let's compare the bumper stickers of each side; "common sense background checks" or " come and take them". Then we have the folks that strap on their AR's and AK's and parade around. All within our rights, but kinda stupid when we are trying to win an argument.

There have been many proposed solutions. There will be change, but if we get involved in drafting what we propose, and convince the NRA to change tactics, we have a chance of saving our rights. The current approach just continues to build opposition to our position.

 

[Glocktogo]

I have admitted no such thing. I concede that they would be damaging to our liberties, so are most laws and regulations, to a greater or lesser degree. As to whether people will allow access to their medical records, we fork over our drivers license to buy decongestants. I'm not sure we are as staunch a majority as you suggest.

Secondly, I am not suggesting that we abolish the First Amendment, only that we treat it with the same inviolable reverence that we do the Second. Call me a troll if you will, but if we are going to have food fight in the constitutional cafeteria, I don't think the jello slinging should be confined to just one table. one part is no more sacred than the other.

I just popped over to FOX's site and clicked the first story about the shooting, and saw both the killer's name and pic. Voluntary has not worked, and a tool as weak as a boycott is not going to stop networks that are desperately fighting for views. They are making money drawing big numbers off of sensational reporting of these stories, and so a popular opinion campaign has to offset more than their normal revenue, I don't believe it can, I think, in this instance, it's a tragedy of the commons scenario.

I believe you did. You posted

But I understand that what I'm suggesting is a damaging to your liberties and you're unhappy and disagree with me in the strongest possible terms.

If that's not a completely unacceptable side effect, I don't know what is. So let me state it as plainly an with as much clarity as I can. With absolute disambiguation, that is a completely and wholly unacceptable side effect on any level. You don't get to disagree with me on that, because my beliefs are iron clad on the matter.

You second point is cleverly worded, but sally forth and let us know how that works out for you!

This is a fairly good discussion, and one that should continue. There is a problem, and it will be addressed. The larger issue for us though is the fact that we are losing on the field of public perception. Let's compare the bumper stickers of each side; "common sense background checks" or " come and take them". Then we have the folks that strap on their AR's and AK's and parade around. All within our rights, but kinda stupid when we are trying to win an argument.

There have been many proposed solutions. There will be change, but if we get involved in drafting what we propose, and convince the NRA to change tactics, we have a chance of saving our rights. The current approach just continues to build opposition to our position.

The NRA's approach is to rebuild the utterly broken mental health system, not punish law abiding citizens. It's only the crazy, knee-jerk liberals who disagree with that premise. I have no desire whatsoever to negotiate with crazy people.

 

[dennishoddy]

I have no desire whatsoever to negotiate with crazy people.

LOL, I see what you did here.

 

[twoguns?]

..............

 

[DavidMcmillan]

We can bluster all day long, but we are not winning. No one here has the answer, but we need to be part of the discussion, or we can just stand our ground, shout the same things we have shouted for years, and watch the media and the "control" crowd continue to gain support until it's over.

We must be part of the national conversation, or accept what comes.

You may not want to negotiate with "crazy people", but they are the ones we are fighting against, and right now they are leading in public perception.