DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus School safety and the gun issue...

We have, Rocky.

We've spent it on traffic laws, traffic lights, airbags, road improvements, seat belts, speed limits, traffic stops, traffic cams, drunk driving checkpoints, etc.

All these have had a cumulative net positive outcome on road fatality statistics since the 1960's. And in each case of policy/standards change, they came about as a result of the will to make things safer.

And if those examples brought about gradual systemic improvement, some would argue that the same results might be seen if the same will was exercised in changing the approach to firearms/school safety.


.02

So I have a question for the Trumpians;

It looks as though we WILL be getting some new gun legislations finally! I will applaud Trump if this happens and it will be a great liberal victory!

My question is, is Gun Control >, =, or < Tax Reform?

Well I saw your playful poke and decided to have fun with it. Lol and I can't imagine anyone who knows me thinking I have low self esteem about anything =) Arrogant and stubborn maybe but that just makes me an American

I would have to say Tax reform because it was killing jobs. People who are working are far less likely to be committing gun crimes so in effect it's the best form of gun control.

Georgia teacher in custody after police say he fired a gun in empty classroom

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018...room/381955002/

A social studies teacher who fired one shot from a handgun after barricading himself in an empty classroom at a Georgia high school was taken into custody Wednesday, according to police.

Officers convinced the teacher to surrender and took him into custody without incident after about 30 to 45 minutes, said Dalton, Ga., police spokesman Bruce Frazier.

"We had officers inside the building quickly,” he said.

No one was injured aside from a female student who hurt her ankle while rushing to evacuate Dalton High School.

The incident occurred two weeks after a school shooting in neighboring Florida left 17 students and faculty dead, renewing the debate about gun control in the U.S. In the wake of that tragedy, President Trump and federal and state legislators have proposed arming teachers, a move backed by the National Rifle Association.

More: Trump doubles down on arming some teachers to prevent school shootings

More: President Trump says arming teachers should be 'up to states'

More: How secure are our schools? Since Columbine they are locked tightly, research shows

Frazier said the teacher, identified as Jesse Randall Davidson, 53, would be charged, although the exact nature of the charge was not immediately clear.

According to the school website, Davidson was described as the "voice of the Catamounts," the Dalton football team, and has written a two-volume history of the Dalton football team.

Davidson, who has taught at the school since 2004, apparently fired the handgun out the window and did not aim at anyone, Frazier said.

“I don’t know if he fired the gun off to let people know to back off or what,” he said.

Davidson had taught first period without incident or an indication of anything unusual, Frazier said. The shooting occurred during third period, when Davidson had a planning block.

“It certainly seems that he didn’t have any intention to harm anyone else,” Frazier said.

Here’s a look at the large police presence at Dalton High School. Suspect in custody. Students taken to a staging area for parents to pick them up. @wsbtvpic.twitter.com/wtGq09cmsL

— Chris Jose (@ChrisJoseWSB) February 28, 2018
The ordeal unfolded after Davidson apparently refused to allow students into the classroom and barricaded the door.

A single shot ran out inside the room when the principal arrived to try unlocking the door. School officials quickly evacuated the school and placed it on lock down. Students were taken to the city's convention center, the school said on its Facebook page.

Police said no students were ever in danger. The school, which has about 2,000 students, is located about 90 miles north of Atlanta.

I can post the copy of the receipt...and as for manager..I didn’t look him up...he aporached me as I was walking to register to check out and asked if there was anything else he could help me with....I was content to walk in and out....but he asked

jc. Not pasting the article contents as I think the video on the page is far more important. Pat Toomey's reaction! Amazing...

Watch Dianne Feinstein Erupt With Glee After Trump Seems to Endorse Her Assault Weapons Ban

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-dianne...lt-weapons-ban/

Clem!!!!!!!

AAHHHHH...

You're overlooking the numbers.

To me this is an amazing phenomenon. I just don't understand it.

In the 21st Century, since 1999, what maybe 100 children have died in school shootings?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The three biggies

Florida two weeks ago 17 dead
Sandy Hook, CT 26 dead
Columbine 15 dead.

In those same years ~ about 35,000 children died in car accidents.

So we've got 100 vs. 35,000.

So let's make our school safer? So what?

Spend billions of dollars? And make our schools armed camps?

To get the number below 50 children in school shootings in a decade?

50 children will die in car accidents this week.

The next child killed in a school shooting, will be front page, lead story news. On every TV news channel in America.

I wonder what the poor parents of the 50 children killed this week in automobile accidents think.

Also keep in mind twice as many children survive car accidents with permanent horrifying disability.



She's such a cutie.

Walmart Joins Dick's Sporting Goods In Tighter Limits On Gun Sales

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/...lorida-shooting

Very weird that Rocky has never heard of a child's car seat since he makes all of his posts in his booster seat.

Trump Stuns Lawmakers With Seeming Embrace of Gun Control

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/us/politics/trump-gun-control.html

Cool.

Let's keep it real here. The "guns" at Walmart are lameo hunting rifles and such. Cheap stuff. Nobody buys guns from Walmart. I would be fine with Walmart not selling guns at all. Because people need to go research before they buy and go to a proper gun store to buy it with experienced salesmen.

The only thing Walmart needs to sell is ammo.

True, but if you have a maga hat on they can only sell you one bullet. The fife rule.

Oh, I think I get the numbers.
My main point wasn't to compare car deaths to gun deaths in raw numbers.

My comparison was car deaths now v. car deaths before NTSB policies. Huge improvement in safety measures and tons fewer fatalities per capita in 20xx than 1972.

My point was that political will helped push those vehicular standards, and that similar will might have the same influence in this field. BTW- I really have no horse in this race, as I was raised around guns but don't care about them, pro or con. I'm simply observing how and why political inertia changes.

Or... maybe now, I'm considering that I may have misread the message or intent behind your OP. Might have to go back and review.


p.s. she IS a cutie.

I find the comparison interesting.

I do not think it was political will that drove the new regulations, rather political expediency. If cars were necessary to protect individual safety, if they were deemed necessary by the founders and rights to ownership enumerated in the Constitution for the purpose of defending liberty, if there were an organized and effective lobby advocating for their availability, those regulations might well have died on the table.

I think the methodology differences are important. For cars, virtually all efforts have been focused on making a safer device, almost no effort has been focused on the human user. For guns, the inherent safety of the device, for the user, was ensured by proofing standards hundreds of years ago. The NRA, and other groups, have done much to address the safety and proper usage by the human.

Many years ago I purchased a hi-powered pellet rifle for my son, for the sole purpose of teaching him two principles. One, you never point the barrel at someone unless you are prepared to kill them, and two, ANY gun is to be considered loaded until you personally have determined that it is not. If you are not competent to do so, you should not be handling the weapon.

A classmate of his, along with many other children, is dead because no one ever taught him these two lessons.

Another one is dead because no one ever taught him that cars are not toys, and also because his friends parent was stupid enough to buy a sports car for a teenage boy, without any effort whatsoever to teach him any responsibility. That woman was on the scene, before the body bag had been taken away, telling him "it's not your fault, you didn't mean to". Then she bought him another sports car. Stupid cow.

jc...

Republicans Gobsmacked by Trump's Gun Control Comments

9:22 PM, FEB 28, 2018 | By HALEY BYRD
link



The president suggested gun confiscation could come before due process in a televised bipartisan meeting with members of Congress.

During a televised bipartisan meeting to discuss gun control proposals with members of Congress on Wednesday, President Donald Trump split with conventional Republican wisdom and suggested that guns be confiscated from individuals who could pose safety threats before due process is carried out under the law.

Nebraska Republican Ben Sasse issued a statement rebuking those comments Wednesday night. “We’re not ditching any Constitutional protections simply because the last person the president talked to today doesn’t like them,” Sasse wrote.

Other Republican senators mostly distanced themselves from Trump’s statement.

“Ummm. I don’t know,” Senate Republican Conference chairman John Thune responded afterward. “I think that’d be hard to sell, based on the conversations our members have had.”

His colleagues argued that such a move by law enforcement would encroach upon constitutional rights. “I don’t ever believe there’s a time in this country where due process can be dismissed, period,” North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis told reporters. He suggested that Trump may not be familiar with the law—“he’s not a legal scholar”—and that he might not have meant what he said.

“I don't think that he was saying that there's a place where you suspend the Constitution and suspend due process. I just don't believe that," said Tillis. "I know you heard the words. I just don't believe in my heart of hearts that's exactly what he meant."

Trump’s comments came during a conversation about preventing gun violence in the aftermath of a February 14 mass shooting at a Florida high school that left 17 people dead. Vice President Mike Pence spoke about gun violence restraining orders, mentioning an emphasis on allowing for due process, “so that no one’s rights are trampled.”

Trump quickly countered, “Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court, because that's another system. Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures.”

“I like taking the guns early,” the president said shortly after. “So you could do exactly what you're saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”

During the meeting, Trump expressed support for a number of proposals supported by Democrats, such as universal background checks and raising the age to purchase rifles to 21 from 18. He also asserted numerous times that Republicans in Congress are afraid of the National Rifle Association.

Asked whether he supported Trump’s suggestion thatdue process could come after gun confiscation, Arizona Republican Jeff Flake was taken aback. “Uhh,” he said. “Well, any proposal we put forward respects due process, so ...”

Is the president just unfamiliar with Republican policy?

“I don’t know,” said Flake.

Louisiana Republican John Kennedy said he disagreed with Trump on the issue, but added that the president is entitled to hold such an opinion: “This is America.”

A senior GOP Senate aide told TWS that Republicans would have been “apoplectic” if Obama had said half of what Trump said during the meeting. “This is why you don’t do high-stakes, hot-button negotiation on live TV with someone who doesn’t know or care about details.”

Trump’s Wednesday meeting was reminiscent of a freewheeling January 9 meeting with lawmakers to discuss a path forward on protecting the Dreamers. That discussion appeared productive at first, with Trump promising to sign whatever immigration agreement Congress could come up with. He was open to a number of ideas, many of them supported by Democrats more so than Republicans. But the discussions fell apart soon afterward, when Trump changed his mind and shot down a bipartisan proposal to solve the problem.

After Wednesday’s gun control meeting, some lawmakers admitted they expected a reversal would come from the White House in the coming days. “At some point, someone will tell the president what he endorsed and it will be like the meeting never happened,” another senior Republican Senate aide predicted.

If that happens, Kennedy said he wouldn’t be concerned by Trump’s tendency to flip-flop. “It doesn’t bother me a bit when someone changes their opinion after thinking things through.”

Democrats said they were encouraged by Trump’s openness to new gun control measures, but most are bracing for an inevitable shift, too.

“I’m afraid what we’re going to see is an exact repeat of the pattern we saw before,” Delaware Democrat Chris Coons told reporters, referring to the failed DACA discussions. “I hope that he will recognize that this is an important moment for him to show genuine national leadership by embracing a strong bipartisan bill that could improve background checks and make Americans safer.”

Asked whether Trump has any credibility left when it comes to policy, considering his previous mixed messages and conflicting statements, Coons said this time around would be revealing.

“If he does it again, where he has a televised, bipartisan positive meeting, and then reverses course almost immediately, I think he’ll lose all credibility,” said Coons.

Nelson you are on point with your statement regarding guns and the constitution but I would offer that the founding fathers had a much different vision in mind.

They lived in a world of muskets and black powder pistols. They in no way envisioned the lethal power of today's weaponry.

Imagine for a moment how much a few cases of AR-15s and ammo would have changed the MILITARY landscape back then. Imagine Washington's smaller force forming open field skirmish lines armed with ARs and unlimited ammo in high round count clips. The front line on a knee with the rear line standing, the advantage in range becoming obvious as British troops advance... It would have been a bloody massacre and the enemy would have fled the field en masse.

Now even if the founders understood the carnage these weapons could have on the battlefield, would they have been able to forsee a school shooter using them? Would they have been able to imagine the gang killings or the death rate of blacks in Chicago?

Then ask yourself honestly if the founders that brought us the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness along with free speech and due process would have supported private ownership of these weapons of war in the face of the blood we have seen spilt on our streets?

Obviously the only answer is 'NO'.

This is why the founders gave us the power to amend the constitution from time to time as needed and deemed necessary by our leaders and the population as a whole. Of course we should always protect our right to keep and bear arms in the face of a tyrannical oppressive government, but should we not also protect our citizenry from the hideous number of gun deaths in our country?

Although the answers are neither clear nor easy, based on the knowledge we have of the intents of our founding fathers along with the commonly accepted views of their high moral fiber and good intent which we hold with a certain degree of reverence, one can only conclude that they would have expected us to use our powers of law, regulation, or even constitutional amendment to protect the people.

So in my honest opinion, the argument that the constitution protects the right to own this type of weapon becomes moot or definitely wrong by any reasonable interpretation of the intent of the founding fathers.

Trump is far too cowardly to ever walk back comments. He'll have his spokesperson do it, like back when he said he wanted to jail women who get abortions.

He doesn't really care about guns or abortion, and his attempts to guess what is palatable for his audience is more often than not woefully inept.

He said he had lunch with the NRA and that he wasn't afraid of them... we will see.

I disagree. The founders were intelligent, educated men with a knowledge of history. Surely, they were very aware of the developments in weapons technology in their own time, and would have anticipated significant advancements.

These men had just overthrown a tyrannical government, or just one they really did not care for, and many had experience with lawless gangs, thieves, and marauding savages. Their overall focus and intent, in my opinion, was to invest the people themselves, with the means and equipment necessary to ensure their own safety, both individually and collectively. Not to rely on someone else to do it for you.

SFAIK, the only SCOTUS findings on this have defined the militia as every able-bodied man in the country, and the weapons as those in common use at the time.

The repeated use of the term "assault rifle" is an example of continuous ignorance and stupidity. It is blatant fear-mongering, also flat-out lying. An assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire, this has been essentially illegal since 1933. Technically not illegal, you just have to pay a special tax which is hard to do. Modeled on the 1932 Marijuana tax act, wherein obtaining the necessary tax stamp was impossible, or nearly so.

A SEMI-automatic rifle is an excellent weapon for hunting, pest removal, target shooting, home defense, personal or property defense, or for resisting government forces. It is not an "assault" weapon, and the word "style", in relation to this, is meaningless and frankly identifies the user as a moron.

Lets protect the kids...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXM4u4wUMAUvoIj.jpg

I agree with on your stance on the term 'assault rifle'. A plastic body does not make a rifle any more deadly. And even though your view of the fathers intent is interesting and compelling, I completely disagree that they had the ability to foresee today's weaponry.

Take a 'semi automatic' gun for instance, if the ability to fire as fast as one could squeeze the trigger were even remotely fathomable during the legislative period following the revolution or for war preparations prior to that time, it would have been considered a matter of duty to pursue the rapid development of such a weapon.

Yet I must agree that the founders would have inevitably considered advancements in technology and again I contend that is why they gave us the power to amend the constitution. If the founders had meant for us to live with the constitution as it was written by their hands, largely unamended for over two hundred years, they simply would not have made provisions to do so.

Although I will admit that Jefferson's views on frequent amendment by each generation (every 20 years or so) to adjust to the world of the day was not adopted due to concerns of creating constitutional instability, I contend that the almost unattainable two thirds vote in congress or three fourths vote by states legislatures needed to amend the constitution is woefully inadequate.

The founders presumed that there would be a need to amend the constitution and based on the 13 colonial states devised a system to measure what they deemed a majority consensus of the people's will to do so. They did not however intend for this same device to be used by a minority to hold hostage the majority in matters of great concern for the nation. This fact (intention) should be obvious to even the most ardent constitutionalist.

The requirements that must be met to pass a referenda to call a constitutional convention based on the current size of our union and the population is in my opinion acting not as a measure of the will of the majority of the people but as a hindrance to legislatively express that same will.

Taking all of this into consideration, I firmly believe the founders would not only want, but would call for legislative remedies with great urgency to reform our gun laws and address the inadequate system for making regular constitutional adjustments that reflect the current will of the people.

I think these articles support my position:

This one on regularly amending the constitution

https://newrepublic.com/article/63773/what-jefferson-said

And a letter written by Jefferson discussing some of his views on our democracy from retirement

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-samuel-kercheval/

"Many ideas, some good & some not so good, emerged from our bipartisan meeting on school safety yesterday at the White House. Background Checks a big part of conversation. Gun free zones are proven targets of killers. After many years, a Bill should emerge. Respect 2nd Amendment!"

-President Donald Trump

To foresee today's weaponry in specific detail, unknown, I am unaware of any documentation of the question being specifically asked. To predict continual advancement, absolutely. Semi- and fully-automatic weapons existed at that time, and were under development by numerous people. Almost certainly, Washington and Franklin at a minimum were aware of them. I believe Franklin did some work on such a project, but not certain. There were numerous multi-fire flintlocks produced, the Puckle gun, an early Gatling, was tested in 1763, others similar to the Nock volley gun were fairly common. Not real practical, but the idea was obviously viable.

As for amending the Constitution, IMO they made it difficult for a reason. To adjust the central law of the land according to the will of the majority would mean re-writing the whole bleeping thing every 20 minutes. The simple answer is that most people are stupid. The more complex answer is that obtaining consensus among many is difficult, that's why they left many things so vague, and allowed for more local control on most matters.

The right to keep and bear arms was one of the most essential rights, and, most importantly, the ONLY ONE necessary to enforce all the others. They had just demonstrated this to be true. They were aware of the public safety concerns, they also lived in a society wherein every child was taught when and how to use them, and when not to, and also where anyone shooting up a bunch of innocent children would be swinging from a rope in the public square at high noon tomorrow.

It is also the most strongly written - no other amendments specifically state "shall not be infringed"

So are you implying that a lack of common sense and sheer stupidity inherent in the American populace along with poor parenting is the root of all of our gun crimes? If so, wouldn't that scream for the need for regulation?

Or is that lack of common sense and stupidity your argument as to why we should struggle to make regular changes to the constitution that reflect our changing world thereby forcing us to adhere to archaic world views so far removed from modern reality that they become implicitly inept at resolving our current issues?

I'm as American and patriotic as anyone, but I just can't accept that this is our only option especially when the majority of those governed are calling for change. We can and must govern ourselves more responsibly and with greater flexibility. It's time for change.

Then why wasn't it the FIRST amendment? It may have been strongly written in those terms, but we should not mistake that for intent to supersede common sense.

Yea, except those words were still written in this thing called an AMENDMENT.

a·mend·ment
&#601;&#712;men(d)m&#601;nt/Submit
noun
plural noun: amendments
a minor change in a document.
a change or addition to a legal or statutory document.
"an amendment to existing bail laws"
an article added to the US Constitution.
noun: Amendment; plural noun: Amendments
"the First Amendment"

So an amendment can still be *thunder strike* amended.

One man's common sense is another man's head shaker.

Can you provide more details? From what I have seen the semi / auto weapons of that era needed to be mounted more like a Gatling gun than what would be called a semi auto rifle today. The rate of fire was low. And while the NRA consistently quotes two weapons to have been available at the time - there is no known proof that I am aware of that one of the guns the NRA quotes was anything more than a pipe dream.

Also - at what point do you stop. I asked this question before. Should the public have access to exactly the same technology as the military? munitions, optics, protections ... what about weaponry like anti-tank or SAM ? If the purpose is to protect the public from the Government - and the government has these things, and armored vehicles and planes and now drones etc .... does it follow that nothing should be off limits? . . . and if there is a limit - why? and who decides what it is? Not withstanding that you can't remove the semi-automatic weapons / assault weapons that currently exist and certainly criminals will have their hands on them .... if 60% of the population wanted to make them illegal to own, what happens? What if 70% want to, 75%, 80% ? What's actually a tipping point for change? I'm not asking if an amendment would prevent a similar shooting next year or the year after that ... I am asking at what point does public opinion actually matter?

Stupidity, ignorance, and poor parenting are not the cause of ALL gun crimes, but IMO a majority of them. More regulations, yes, but - of the stupid, ignorant, poor parents, not of guns.

I find little in the Constitution to be archaic, other than the language. We have modified and improved it, and, if applied correctly, it definitely is capable of solving our problems.

Govern ourselves more responsibly, absolutely. To demand that someone else do it for us, by GOD, NO!

We have captured several mass murderers alive. SFAIK, not ONE is dead yet. If you want to DO SOMETHING about the problem, start right there.

test of quick reply

Reply test

wtf

Brief reply and test to MGH

I named two, google it?

My local national guard armory has mobile heavy artillery rockets, keeping such available to local citizenry seems both practical and sufficient.

Nok Gun: Googled:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volley_gun

"They differ from modern machine guns in that they lack automatic loading and automatic fire and are limited by the number of barrels bundled together.

In practice the large ones were not particularly more useful than a cannon firing canister shot or grapeshot. Since they were still mounted on a carriage, they could be as hard to aim and move around as a cannon"

I would say that isn't a very good justification. Does the constitution say anything about the right to own a cannon or a mortar?

The Puckle Gun I had seen and was aware of. Comparing that to a modern day fully auto weapon is dubious imo. 9 shots a minute - 3 times faster than the faster muskets of the day.

Not to mention that the Puckle Gun took a crew to operate...

Seems Trump missed the memo yesterday.