Someone's Sick In The Head
President Trump's Chief Of Staff Mick Mulvaney appeared on Meet The Press this morning. As you might expect he said Donald Trump is not responsible for the mass murder inside a Walmart in El Paso Texas. Mulvaney went a bit beyond that into another area though. He claimed that Patrick Crusius , the El Paso shooter, suffers from mental illness and we need to treat mass shootings like this one as a mental health issue.
Patrick Crusius went into great detail in his manifesto as to why his action was a POLITICAL one. Some of his descriptions even sounded like themes Trump has advocated, such as that America is being invaded by unwanted immigrants. One could say his act seemed crazy, but his words really dont seem crazy. They seem ideological.
After Chuck Todd finished with Mulvaney he went back to his panel which included the liberal cable tv pundit Professor Eddie Glaude. Todd asked Glaude what he thought of Mulvaney's response, and Glaude immediately pointed out the obvious - when there were instances of attacks in America by Muslims, no one talked about "mental illness". After the Boston marathon bombing no one thought it could be explained by mental illness. After the San Bernadino mass shooting by American Muslims in 2015 no one talked about mental illness being the cause. It was terrorism.
Now we have another shooting , done for political reasons , with the INTENTION of terrorizing a community, and Mick Mulvaney wants to blame it on "mental illness".
The inconvenient truth is that the Trump white house wants it both ways.
The ElPaso attack is domestic terrorism based on white supremacy.
Tags
Who is online
45 visitors
Domestic terrorism is coming into clearer view. And all these shootings are not the product of "mental illness".
And it seems like very few can be attributed to white nationalists. I don't think the any of the shooters were NRA members. And most have appeared to lean left in their politics.
Liberals like to say that we need more funds for mental health treatment...which would not do any good. Almost all these mass killings are committed by evil people who know what they are doing, who are not insane or mentally ill, who have no police record or mental health hold, and obtained a weapon legally and passed a background check. In some cases weapons were gotten from private parties, from criminals, or stolen. The shootings by Muslims seem to be for political ideology, as does the one in El Paso. That apparently set off what appears to be a copy cat shooting in Dayton.
Yeah maybe on Opposite World in another time but here on Earth in The United States of America in the year 2019 nearly all of the horrendous mass killings we are currently suffering are at the bloody hands of homegrown rightwing white nationalist domestic terrorists.
That crap you said is worthy of propagandists like Tokyo Rose or Axis Annie!
Absolutely nobody reading it believed it either including, I suspect, yourself...
All of the extremist killings in the US in 2018 had links to right-wing extremism, according to new report
Nice try Greg..
In my opinion, domestic terrorism does equal mental illness. People have to be nuts to begin with to be a terrorist.
So the American Muslims that have committed acts of violence should not be considered terrorists then, but mentally ill?
Both actually. Sane people do not become terrorists.
There is mental illness everywhere. The difference is that other nations are not in the grip of a white nationalist fever and their mentally ill radicals do not have such easy access to firearms...
Can't argue with you there.
Then this is A Red Letter Day. Let this be a starting point going forward.
They use trucks and bombs.
Were, outside of actual war zones, are such atrocities as common as rightwing acts of homegrown domestic terrorism are in the USA today?
Are we at war? Our enemy? The KKK, American Nazis and White Nationalists!
And, apparently, The Goddamn NRA...
I find it ironic that Trump says, “Hate has no place in our country, and we're going to take care of it,” when he is the biggest perpetrator of hate in America.
Encouraging pitting skin color, political party, sexual preference, religion and ethnic background against each other, denigrating them as if HE alone is worthy of sitting at the right hand of God, is not only dividing our country, but, playing to the mentally ill.
He may not pull the trigger with his own hands, but then, neither did Hitler.
Do you consider Europe a war zone? Good grief, start your Googling with France.
Straw man. The NRA has nothing to do with twisted minds who take advantage of our freedoms to carry out violent CT’s of hate
unless we begin not only finding a way to both tap into everyone’s thoughts and then arresting them for those thoughts, those consumed by evil will always find a way to carry out the hate that drives them.
take away firearms and they will use other means. An acceleration of vehicle attacks and bombings in public places would be two of the most frequent as it is in countries where firearms are either banned or difficult to obtain
both right and left should focus on root causes instead of blaming politicians and organizations for the evil in hearts that drives otherwise ordinary people to commit insane acts of violence.
I asked, were on Earth are such attacks as you referenced as fucking common as are acts of homegrown domestic terrorism in the United States of America today?
Europe has not suffered such an attack recently. They still remain rare.
Unlike, white nationalists massacaring churches and synagogues is here.
WRONGO! NOT TRUE! FALSE! The NRA has everything to do with the ease with which white nationalists nutters are able to amass their godforsaken "Waco Sized" stockpiles of high powered firearms and the ammunition needed to commit the endless stream of senseless rightwing atrocities America is currently suffering at the hands of homegrown white nationalist domestic terrorists right now in the Good Old US of A TODAY...
If you really do believe that crap about the goddamn NRA not being a main reason why so damn many rightwing American nutters can so easily lay their crazyass hands on stockpiles of high powered firearms and ammunition compared with any other nation in the world you must be living in... Russia!
Total leftist nonsense. The gunmen and they alone are responsible
My opinions on automation, immigration, and the rest predate Trump and his campaign for president. I putting this here because some people will blame the
President or certain presidential candidates for the attack. This is not the case. I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump’s rhetoric. The media is infamous for fake news. Their reaction to this attack will likely just confirm that.
Hey JBB - how was the NRA responsible for this????
At Least 3 Killed, 40 Wounded In Weekend Shootings Across Chicago
Gang-bangers with ILLEGAL WEAPONS did their usual in Chicago. Are you saying that the NRA issued these Gang-bangers their guns so they could go shoot up neighborhoods?
Paris massacre: At least 128 killed in gunfire and blasts, French officials say
128 killed - wonder how the NRA got involved in that one, eh?
The NRA is responsible for easy access killers have to guns in the USA...
I don't need to rely on any media output, all I have to do is to listen to what comes out of Trumps own mouth to know what the truth is. And it is all lies and radical extremism, then when the insane happens he pretends to feel sorry for the dead, injured and their families.
There are a lot of decent, intelligent and well qualified Republicans to lead our country, but, Trump isn't one of them. And he proves it more every time he opens his mouth.
Yet, unlike in the USA, such mass atrocities still remain rare in Europe.
You went back to 2015 for an example of what the USA suffers daily!
And all you have to do to prove that ridiculous statement is show us one time the NRA sold a weapon.
Come on, you can do it!
Yes. Which seems odd to me. It doesn't seem like we had this many crazy people 40 years ago.
Actually, a lot of them are. It was certainly a driver behind Brexit, and several other European countries have elected strongly nationalist leaders.
No, but as has already been pointed out, they do manage to blow stuff up or run people over. I don't think it happens as often as it does here, but that circles back to my question about "why do we have so many lunatics in this country?"
You really compared our American President to Hitler?
Yes, but we make it as easy as falling off a log as a country, don't we?
That's a horseshit rationalization.
Are knife manufacturers responsible for all stabbings because of easy knife access?
Are bathtub manufacturers responsible for all drownings because of easy bathtub access?
Are vehicle manufacturers responsible for all vehicular deaths because of easy vehicle access?
Are food suppliers responsible for all choking deaths because of easy food access?
Etc, etc, etc.
You wouldn't happen to be an attorney would you?
I cannot agree with you more Raven Wing. I thought the same damned thing. How dare he say there is no place for hate in this country when he stirs up this hate on a daily basis towards immigrants, non-immigrants, cities in the U.S. including Baltimore, being his latest hateful attack.
you know what the reply to this will be...
........... but those things are not designed to kill .................
They aren't.
Guns are.
Those are such bullshit comparisons. Obviously that's all you've got. Nonsense.
The comparisons are spot on to any clearly thinking, unbiased person.
Which is why your response is not a surprise in the least.
SOSDD considering the source.
Right and neither are guns.
I know some Navy SEAL's, Marine Recon, Army Rangers, and Special Forces that would disagree with you wholeheartedly! A knife will kill someone just as dead as a gun and a lot more silently.
How many 'mass knifings' can you name - where 29 people or more are killed within seconds?
Man kills 2, wounds 17 in knife attack on Japanese schoolgirls outside Tokyo
Police-recorded knife crime has been rising consistently since 2014, with about 40,000 incidents in the 12 months to September 2018. That will probably reflect some genuine increase.
There were 43,516 knife crime offences in the 12 months ending March 2019.
This is an 80% increase from the low-point in the year ending March 2014, when there were 23,945 offences, and is the highest number since comparable data was compiled.
These statistics do not include those from Greater Manchester Police because of data recording issues.
Out of the 44 police forces, 43 recorded a rise in knife crime since 2011.
And those two are just from the UK and Japan.
Hey Ed, haven't you said you live right near a border town and see border jumpers all the time?
Sounds like you have more to fear from killers/white nationalist/domestic terrorists like Patrick Crusius than immigrants
I'm sure that's all you can find because there are not many guns in the U.K. and Japan as opposed to the U.S.
Well no shit sherlock but again, how many mass knifings have occurred where more than 29 people have been killed in seconds?
One might think so, but there some things to consider. First is that mass attacks almost always happen in or near large metropolitan areas where the lunatics doing the shooting doing can get the most media coverage. Secondly, I live in a small rural community that already has a majority population of Hispanic residents. Many people come across the border legally from the city of Agua Prieta just across the border to shop and work. It would be hard for a potential shooter to really tell who was who. Thirdly, because it is a small rural community, a big part of the legal population, especially the ranchers and farmers in the area outside of town routinely carry either open or concealed. That is in itself a major deterrent to a potential shooter.
I never said anything about knives used in mass killings. I merely answered a comment regarding knives being for killing where you stated , "They aren't. Guns are."
No, but I did. I was referring to mass killings. Yet no one has answered the question 'when have people been mass murdered in seconds, with knives', that is impossible.
Whatever.
Somebody would have to have mad Ninja skills to pull that off
Somebody would have to have mad Ninja skills to pull that off
I answered your question politely and reasonably with no sarcasm whatsoever and that's all you could come up with? Yeah, whatever is right.
Okey dokey.
In a way, yes. So? Excuse me, but, if YOU are totally without sin then you can point your finger at me. Until then, I have no interest in what you say. Do not comment to me any further.
Just a sign of a very weak argument.
[Deleted]
So did mcVey (spelling) when he blew all those people to bits
You, as usual, just blow off without any truth to your statements.
So religious domestic terrorists are Mentally Ill?
The ignorant comments you pass out prove that you care nothing about reality
Right and neither are guns.
Don't really know the purpose of a firearm do you. All the ones you ever had probably had an orange barrell
I must be using mine wrong then because most haven't killed a damn thing but inanimate objects. And the one that have killed something animate were all legal things. All with either wings or four legs.
Work on your insults Don, you're clearly slacking off ..... badly!
When you have been reduced to arguing how unfair it is that Trump is always compared with Hitler you probably already lost most decent people...
Actually according to the law we are aware of, it is the one who first introduces Hitler and Nazis into an argument about domestic politics had nothing really to say and is the loser of said discussion.
Since when? It has always been here.
Plz tell us JR. what is it the product of?
The punk from El Paso said he wanted to shoot people like he did in his video games playing them in the basement. Should we attack videos again and music?
No Way! They have as much mental illness everywhere else in the world as we do here butt in sane nations it is just way way way harder for their homegrown domestic insane mass killers to lay their goddamn murderous hands on great big huge giant massive "Waco Sized" stockpiles of high powered guns and ammo!
I've been saying the same thing. We actually found something we can agree on.
I disagree. [Deleted] White supremacy is a mental illness. Religious conservative extremism is a mental illness. Birther-ism, flat earther-ism, young earther-ism and deep stater-ism are all mental illnesses and any one can be easily radicalized because they're obviously already an unthinking drone incapable of logic and reason.
"The first mistake people are making is to assume the creep meant anything he said in his manifesto," wrote columnist Brian Cates. "Something new has been added into the mix in the last year and we have to recognize it: Mass shootings done for **fun** as the ultimate troll where these [shooters] write confusing manifestos and then sit back & watch the fun as both sides claim he belongs to the other."
Cates pointed out that the Christchurch, New Zealand mass shooter's manifesto contained a mixture of left-wing and right-wing rhetoric, and by its own explicit terms, was intended to cause international political division. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-declares-hate-has-no-place-in-our-country-as-dems-demand-recall-of-congress
Someone is sick in the head and that would be this 'president'
Now they are saying the shooter in TX was on 8chan posting racist comments.
8chan went dark.
I heard that Cloudflare shut them down and are dropping 8Chan.
Yeah I heard they are looking for another server/platform or something.
I would not be surprised if some despicable outfit like themselves would take the on. Money does talk ya know.
I never go looking for weapon grade probably foreign rightwing anti-American psyops but apparently that stuff passes for news...
Went to my local WalMart down here on the border a little while ago and ran into a friend of mine who knows I sometimes carry either open or concealed. He asked me if I felf strange walking into WalMart and was I going to start carrying more often given what has been happening the last few days? I thought about it a minute and said probably not. In my opinion, to open carry in crowded areas only makes one a target of insane shooters. My main purpose of carrying is to protect myself and my immediate family only. I cannot do that by running off to confront a crazy person shooting at others. Besides, police do frown on that kind of behavior. May sound cold hearted but it is a reality. Besides, in my state of Arizona, if I shoot somebody who is not shooting at me and cannot prove that there is a clear and immediate threat to my life, I'm the one that can go to jail for assault or manslaughter irregardless of circumstances.
Also forgot to mention that I could conceivably be sued by the perpetrator and/or his family in civil court for damages courtesy of our crazy liberal biased legal system. Not worth it.
Well, to be fair, they have to have tight restrictions or people would use it as a excuse to commit murder.
Where did you pull this nonsense from???????
Try rereading posts #2 and 2.1. They are fairly self explanatory. In addition, 30 of 50 states have Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws. Not surprisingly, three states that are not included are California, New Mexico, and New York. Great liberal bastion states! What a surprise! The caveat to the Stand Your Ground laws is that you cannot shoot somebody who is robbing your house in front of you, stealing your car, trespassing, destroying your property, raping or assaulting a family member in front of you, and a host of other acts. You can only shoot in self defense while in imminent fear of your life and you have to specifically tell LEO's that you were in fear for your life.The laws in the majority of non Doctrine states give more rights to the perpetrator than they do the victims.
No need, not interested
Of course you are not. Just cannot accept you've been had by your own making and would have to admit you could be wrong. Heaven forbid you should admit that a rightie could be right about things you really know very little about little. Bye bye now.
[Deleted]
I always thought that was a bad idea too. It always seemed to me the shooter would instantly target anyone else with a weapon, and anyone around them.
The most formative and useful portion of any good CPL course in the legal portion.
The responsibilities and potential ramifications of carrying in public are enormous. I recommend everyone take such a course even if you don’t plan on carrying. In fact, many chose to rarely carry in public after that for that reason alone and I like you am one of them.
Its a huge responsibility that is fraught with potential negative legal ramifications galore. People who have never taken it or studied it at length don’t have a clue in that regard.
Thats a sane persons view. This guy is obviously not one of them .....
It sounds like you had your coffee, Ed. I've always thought that open carry made one more of a target. I mean, if someone has it in their head to shoot people at Walmart, wouldn't the "smart" thing to do would be take out the person who obviously has a weapon?
My point exactly. Why make one's self a target without good reason?
Did you hear about the 2 morons in Baton Rouge? They were in a Walmart, got into a fight and one of them pulled out a gun and started firing.
This is the problem I have with just anybody having a gun. There are way too many hotheads out there who don't think first and will just pull out a gun and shoot somebody when they get pissed off.
Yep. Agreed.
Are you stating that the shooter is normal?
I dont know anything about his mental condition. I know he wrote a document that plainly states he committed these murders for political reasons. And his reason was to terrorize hispanics so that they will leave the US and go back where they came from. His manifesto says that.
Why couldn't the presidents chief of staff call it terrorism?
Trump's US Attorney said the shooting is being treated as domestic terrorism so what is your problem?
No John - he did not shoot these people for "political reasons". He killed them because there are "too many Mexicans" - that ain't political, it's racist.
El Paso County sheriff: 'This Anglo man came here to kill Hispanics'
I think you do. The guy shot nearly 50 people. What precisely would he need to do to convince you he's crazy?
And you need further evidence before you can decide he's a nutter?
Because he's not the one filing the charges and it's not his place to do so. He apparently cares more about due process than he does about your feelings.
Is white nationalists committing acts of domestic terrorism in the US normal?
I do not think so! It still seems to happen all the time! So, what is up with that?
Did someone imply it was?
The seeder seems to be stating that people who go on shooting sprees are just normal folks with political views.
I do not believe the seeder ever said that or that the seeder is on topic!
The fact is that right now today America is currently suffering an endless plague of homegrown white nationalist domestic terrorism. That is a fact. Another fact is that our nutters being so easily able to lay their hands on massive amounts of high powered guns and ammo is also responsible. Combined those are the problems American is facing today.
What is up on Opposite World?
Trump, and his chief of staff, and conservatives in general, and the Republican Party, all have their reasons for wanting this attack in El Paso seen as something other than white nationalist terrorism.
Trump is tied through his tweets to some white nationalist figures and general white grievance beliefs. The last thing he wants is for white nationalism to be put in the same sentence with terrorism.
Oh, ye who are too blind to see -
My opinions on automation, immigration, and the rest predate Trump and his campaign for president. I putting this here because some people will blame the
President or certain presidential candidates for the attack. This is not the case. I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump’s rhetoric. The media is infamous for fake news. Their reaction to this attack will likely just confirm that.
Taken from the Manifesto you posted.
Where is your evidence that every twisted white nationalist owns “massive amounts of high powered guns and ammunition”.
I was talking of white nationalists who already committed mass atrocities...
That’s not what you stated and it still isn’t correct. The average gun owner in the US has at least 8 firearms
how many we law abiding Americans own and how much ammo we have is no one’s business, especially the government
guns are a good investment.
Non shooters don't have a clue. They hear eight guns and they automatically gravitate towards eight automatic evil black weapons. For which, those of us in the know, understand are not legal unless properly licensed. Let see, how can we get to eight. Let me count the ways.
If one is a hunter: a shotgun for duck/goose hunting, a shotgun for upland game hunting, a shotgun for turkey hunting, a 22 for rabbit hunting and plinking, a rifle for deer hunting, a larger bore rifle for larger more distant game, a pistol for target shooting/defense, a smaller carry pistol ..... golly, that's eight without even one evil black gun or the many, many other specific uses for even more guns ...... how can this be?
Why the need for so many guns? Over 200? That sounds like overcompensating.
He's a gun collector. So what?
It's none of your damn business how many he has or hasn't collected.
You do? Wow, 200 firearms?
I really wouldn't expect that from you
It's none of your damn business how many he has or hasn't collected.
'I have over 200 firearms'
You know I was quoting MUVA.
So to say it's none of my damn business how many he has or hasn't collected is pretty fucking stupid.
Nah, it's still none of YOUR business ..... but again, i consider the source.
Again, fucking stupid.
I used to manage a gun range and eight is not an unreasonable amount to own. Some of my customers had many firearms, mostly for hunting and competition shooting. If you want to read about one man who went way overboard, google Jeff Lash.
You know, one of the great things about this country is also one of the bad things about this country. People are free to do as they wish. Most people do overall good and a much smaller group choose overall bad. Unfortunately much of our justice system is required for that minority and designed to reign them in. The good generally don't need the justice system, aren't affected directly by it unless they cross paths with the bad.
And while it's true that locks sometimes help keep honest people, honest. A lock does little but slow a crook down.
Just because people like Jeff lash are POS, shouldn't mean law abiding citizens liberties automatically get curtained because of him and his actions. A lot of people in this country are tired of DC messing with their lives like that.
I knew Jeff and he was not a POS, just wayyyyyyyyy out there. He was an incredibly proficient shooter.
If that is their standard for normal, it would scare the Hell out of me to see what they consider abnormal...
Two things can be true.
It’s hard to get good statistics on firearms ownership (and for good reason that protecting our rights is our business, not government). However some interesting stats
Ownership is way higher in rural areas
The south east central and west central regions have the highest ownership
The ownership rate is highest for higher income households and nearly double that of low income households
The problem is that we need more euphemisms, like "workplace violence", "mental illness", etc in order to explain the fact that although there are disgruntled people, people with mental illness, all over the world so that the USA is not unique, what is the difference between them and Americans? Bingo! You got it. GUNS, and the right for everyone to have them, and so many do have them.
By the way, extreme obsession is a mental illness, and is often displayed by REPETITIVE BEHAVIOUR. [Deleted]
Dont troll my article Buzz.
[deleted]
He asked him not to troll his seeded article, did he say anything about the comment other than it was an attempt at trolling?
The fact is, anyone with a first grade reading comprehension can see he's intentionally calling John "sick in the head" which is beyond "skirting". Besides, nothing in Buzz's comment applies to John so not sure why he would "recognize himself" in that sad, poorly written attempt at an insult.
[deleted]
[Deleted]
which bill? the back ground check? 10 day wait period ? another AWB? mag restrictions?
I don't see the 10 day wait period one going through so its dead. just as an AWB or mag restrictions are also dead in the water.
The background check one , I see the senate adding to it , letting all sales have to be background checked , but not through a FFL dealer , a simple 1-800 number that needs to be called at no cost to the seller or buyer just like for an FFL dealer with a comfirmation number that the call was made given, now that I could get behind and use.
How about any young men who buy a gun to be treated like young women who seek an abortion. Think about it: a mandatory 48-hours waiting period, written permission from a parent or a judge, a note from a doctor proving that he understands what he is about to do, time spent watching a video on individual and mass murders, traveling hundreds of miles at his own expense to the nearest gun shop, and walking through protestors holding photos of loved ones killed by guns, protestor who call him a murderer.
After all, it makes more sense to do this for young men seeking guns than for young women seeking an abortion. No young woman needing reproductive freedom has ever murdered a roomful of strangers.
Anonymous source.
Well Dulay since I am pro choice , I really don't see how this compares, but I will bite , if a female is under age ( under 18) yes parental consent should be sought if not a judges they are still considered MINORS . after 18 they are considered adults so no parental consent needed, after that , none of what you posted matters to me and they should be left alone to make their own decision.
48 hr wait? good that would do away with the 3 days that NICS says they have to deny a sale , so after 2 days of not hearing back the sale can go through. remember most BG checks through NICS are done within 15 mins with a yes or no answer.
I have actually lived a few places where the nearest FFL dealer was close to a hundred miles away, no biggie for me , videos? hell just turn on the TV or pop in a dvd or a video game same difference.
Go through protestors ? isn't that what you are doing now on social media? still doesn't change my mind., call me a murderer for being a gun owner? charge me and prove it.
How about we put the 48 hour waiting period in FRONT of the 3 day NICS BG check? How about repealing the 3 day time limit?
How about we charge MUCH MORE for BG checks?
Mine took less.
So did you have to go to the expense of staying 'a hundred miles away' for 48 hours?
As for videos, perhaps instead of nice clean 'ER' scenes, they showed REAL blood covered ERs, like the one in El Paso or Las Vegas. Oh and just maybe there are some shooters that would like to give their 'witness' from prison about how wonderful they feel about what they did and their life since then...
No it isn't.
That's what women go through every day just to get medical care. The vast majority of women that have to walk that gauntlet aren't there for an abortion.
As I said I don't see the comparison , the issues of abortion and guns are two different issues that by their very nature are approached differently for any number of reasons both societally and individually. I did say I would bite , and play along though , but I didn't say I wouldn't point out the deflection from the point of the article or what I posted , nice try to deflect and make a false equivelancy.
I posted what I thought would and would not pass, my own opinion without being asked why I thought those things would fail ,or why I would not support them, even showed a modicum of willingness to compromise on the one I could get behind, you decided to take it to an extreme with false equivelance , if I had to be a voting member I would likely take that willingness to compromise now and tell you nope , it stays exactly as it is now , so you get nothing , remain exactly where we are now and just sit and wait .
That's a pretty good recipe to lose what you wish to gain.
Ya, they ARE approached differently. The anti-choice supporters pretend that it's all about the sanctity of life and the pro-2A [at all cost] pretend that it's all about the sanctity of the right to bear arms. Despite the everyday proof, neither wants to admit the hypocrisy of being anti-abortion and pro-2A [at all cost].
What deflection are you talking about Mark?
It's NOT a false equivalency.
I didn't take anything to an extreme, I merely cited the limitations that states have passed on women's control over there bodies and applied them to guns. Interesting that you view those limitations applied to access to guns are 'extreme' yet women all over this country deal with those limitations on access to health care every day.
How mature.
Note that I accepted your compromises and asked you about taking other steps. Instead of addressing them, you ignored my questions and took umbrage. So much for your concept of compromise.
The entire exchange is a false equivilancy in my view .
you didn't accept my compromise you made it more restrictive to the point it was disagreeable and thus unattainable and thus unsupportable My concept of compromise is thus , reaching an agreement that both side can agree with , yet not get everything they demand , with what you added , it became unagreeable and unsupportable. its that simple , so yes it is rather mature to simply sit back , and wait until the unagreeable aspects of any potential compromises are removed especially if those unagreeable steps wont do a damn thing to affect what the compromise was to have an effect on.
the restrictions/ requirements you added thus made any compromise dead on arrival.
Now dulay , your stuck trying to figure out which of those requirements or restrictions you added made it from something I could support , and get behind and use , to just walking away and remain with the status quo and be unsupportive.
The background check one , I see the senate adding to it , letting all sales have to be background checked , but not through a FFL dealer , a simple 1-800 number that needs to be called at no cost to the seller or buyer just like for an FFL dealer with a comfirmation number that the call was made given, now that I could get behind and use.
I had absolutely nothing to gain or lose under that. and was a rock bottom minimum and maximum i would go with.
So which of those requirements/ restrictions or combination of, do you think , would have made me go from supportive to , nope not gonna do it?
Thank you for proving the give an inch and take a mile myth, could have had a small victory , but ended up with a defeat, dont blame you for trying to get more than could have been gotten though, dont know unless you try.
I am of course still open to what I said I could support and use , under the terms and conditions I stated.
That's a false attribution.
Thought it doesn't matter because the argument is relevant.
Why?
Why should it matter to me?
How did I do that Mark?
Making a proposal and then taking your ball home when it isn't accepted lock stock and barrel isn't compromise Mark. It's pertulance.
Now Dulay I didn't propose the compromise , I read the bill the house passed and proposed what and how it would have to be to support the bill on expanding the BGC and that alone . again I gained nothing from it if it was accepted the way I stated. I am totally within my rights to withdraw support when the proposal becomes unworkable and ineffective and outside the bounds of what I can agree with. .
How did you try to take a mile ? simple look at the counter you posted . another 48 hr wait time added . letters of clearance . having to watch propagandized (shock) videos . ahh lets not forget the added and or increased cost for the BGC which currently costs gun dealers and the government nothing to acsess for a simple yes or no answer.
In your arrogance you forgot , I can sell a gun in a private sale at no cost , no wait time , no letters or forms needing to be filled out and no movies to be watched all legal and by the law in the jurisdiction I live in. so I don't need this legislation , but you do need me for the perceived public support needed to convince the legislators who will vote on it , with the calls informing them how we the ones that elected them feel.
Your arrogance of imposing restrictions and requirements , took something that 8 out of 10 gun owners can support , and convinced enough of them to change their minds to the point you now don't have the public support needed to get the legislation passed instead of that 8 out of 10 , you might have lost 4 1 point per added requirement which puts the legislation supported only by a minority with no hope of getting a majority of the support it could have which translates to the legislation not being passed , if kept in a simple form it likely would pass.
The small victory of universal BGC would have been a good start and would have closed that private sale loophole in the law if it was kept as I stated I could accept it after reading the house bill, I saw it as a win / non win for both parties , on one of the more important issues of gun violence , the one directly related to the people who get the guns , and had the potential to start to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands .
So the question is , do you want the 8 out of 10 gun owners to support this bill , or do you want to go for the whole hog and lose enough support due to added requirements the legislation fails?
Because in the simple form i stated , 8 out of 10 gun owners would support it , because like me they would lose nothing , it would not cost them anything , you start adding costs and requirements that make not a whit to what is trying to be accomplished , the support evaporates .
So the arrogance and petulance of unrealistic and ineffective requirements , basically will be its death knell, remember gun owners dont NEED you or your legislation , but YOU do need them or enough of them to support the proposed legislation to get it passed.
I am glad this is all hypothetical.
'They call her a killer. They call her a sinner. They call her a whore.'
Presume much? I live an equally unregulated jurisdiction. In fact, Chicago gets many of their weapons from here...
Why. You're a minority, a loud minority but a minority none the less.
All I need is that majority to agree with me and judging from the polls, including those that include NRA members, the majority already agrees with me.
The arrogance and petulance of the NRA and their supporters unrealistic 'any gun to anyone at all cost' has already caused their death knell. They're bleeding membership and support.
The new voice of responsible gun owners will be someone like Mark Kelly, soon to be Senator of Arizona.
Four words.
Tyranny of the majority
Much of the constitution was crafted as a protection against exactly that.
call me skeptical , but I sincerely doubt it , will just have to wait and see .
Really? What in the Constitution protects us from the tyranny of the majority. Oh I know there was much said about it in the Federalist Papers but much of that is lofty ideals that were shit canned long ago.
Lol ... "lofty" ideas that were shit canned long ago? Perhaps in your mind but not in reality.
Like usual i'm not interested in arguing with you about this because i'm sure you'll craft the usual ridiculous moon batted rationalizations to fight it but the reality is this is one of the single biggest protections against such tyranny. You can tell it is by how many liberal voters were against it when Hillary lost, when Gore lost, etc.
The Electoral College.
Not shit canned years ago .....
..... still here ....
Still doing the job it was intended to do.
Helping to stop a "Tyranny of the Majority"
Next .....
nah sparty , its the Constitution itself that restricts what the government can do , and the 9 people that sit on the US Supreme Court that protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority .
But that's just my humble opinion.
Not sure what you're disagreeing with.
The EC is defined in the Constitution along with other checks and balances which help avoid the tyranny we speak of.
The EC is only used for the selection of the president , so the EC in and of itself has nada to do with protecting the minority from the majority.
The Amendments themselves contained within the constitution are what protect the minority from the will of the majority if the majority desires to take the minoritys right to do something away , the majority cannot make a law through government that the constitution the thre government is prohibited from doing .
The majority can say a person cannot have an opinion or freely speak it , and try to make a law enforcing that , but the government is restricted in being able to do that.
the majority may want to restrict how a person or what a person worships and try and make a law , but the government cant do it .
The majority may even want governmental forces be able to go where they want at any time for any reason , guess what , theres an amendment for that as well.
all legislation passed by government from local to up on high has to pass the constitutional sniff test of what the government itself is restricted and forbidden to do, many people forget that the US Constitutions amendments are restrictive in nature , and restrictive to government to protect the minority. if a law violates what is already in the Constitution , it is unenforceable, and those 9 justices I mentioned are the arbitrary authority of what does and does not pass that sniff test.
So one of the three branches of Government, the Executive branch, is nada? I disagree. It most absolutely has a bearing on the discussion at hand. Absolutely.
The EC is not part of ANY of the branches period .
Look at it this way , you have 3 branches of the government , Legislative , they write the laws, the legislation . To ensure that the minority is protected from the majority and vice versa , they should ensure that the legislation conforms to the restrictions on government per the constitution. Ie pass that sniff test.
Executive either approves or disapproves the passage of those laws , ensuring the same things that the legislation conforms to the restrictions contained in the constitutiom. Ie again pass that sniff test
The judiciary , uses the constitution to determine if challenged the constitutionality of the legislation in question to ensure the legislation does not violate those amendments restricting the government in what it can and cannot do. Ie the ACTUAL sniff test and final authority
Where in all that does the electoral college come into play? simply when it comes time for them to cast their ballots for a presidential candidate and to determine who will be the next president whom is the head of the executive branch once every 4 years.. The EC has no bearing on the other 2 branches since they are not affected or elected via the EC.
So in conclusion , the EC has very little bearing on the day to day protection of the minority from the tyrany of the majority , and the final say in those protections rests within the constitution itself , and the 9 member panel we call the USSC.
You initially put more importance in the electoral college than it actually has in protecting the minority from the majority. that is where I am in disagreement.
I also think what you are confusing is what happened in 2016.
trump got the minority of the popular votes so in any other election he would have lost.
But the office of the presidency is not decided by popular vote it is decided by who gets the majority of the votes in the electoral college, which he won , so in that case the minority of voters actually defeated the popular majority voters .
Yes, we still disagree. To wit:
The EC assured that less populated states would still have a say in who gets elected POTUS. Some would say a disproportionate say based on a theory of one person, one vote. Based on experience and history the founders were very cognizant of the potential foibles of a pure Democracy and set us up as a Constitutional Republic instead. Largely for that reason alone. They were concerned about:
A Tyranny of the majority in electing a POTUS. The EC is one of checks and balances that was put in place for that very reason.
The EC is still applicable .... absolutely.
Lol, i don't think i'm the one confused Mark.
And how many times and when does the EC come into play when legislation is proposed , and who exactly decides if that legislation passes constitutional muster if it is challenged?
tell you what sparty , I nominate perrie and vic to review our discussion , you can nominate 2 to review , and together they can pick an impartial person and I will let them decide who is correct or you can pick one and best 2 out of 3 is correct.
Gore's lose didn't have a fucking thing to do with the electoral college, it had to do with the activist SCOTUS.
What brought you to the unfounded conclusion that the founders codified the Electoral College to 'stop a Tyranny of the Majority'?
Hamilton didn't mention the 'Tyranny of the Majority' in Federalist 68, he seemed to think the electoral college was needed in order to oppose cabal, intrigue, and corruption.
But hey, maybe you've read another founder expressing that position. Link?
Oh and BTFW, I hope that Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper 68 isn't too much of a 'ridiculous moon batted rationalization' for you...
Oh and as for a lofty ideal that was shit canned just recently, this part of Federalist 68 that fits the bill:
I'm not really interested in debating this any further with you or arguing with the other person involved. Arguing for the sake of arguing is their thing, not mine.
It's clear to me that the EC meets the criteria as i've previously laid it out. You don't agree, fair enough, we don't agree. Doubtful anything you or i say is going to change that.
It is what it is.
You keep citing the founders yet you can't cite one statement by them that they codified the EC to curb the 'Tyranny of the majority'.
Citing facts and supporting your position is inherent to debate, making unfounded posits isn't.
Your posit is unsubstantiated.
I'll take the ACTUAL documented commentary by the founders over your agenda based opinion.
The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
Where do you come up with these screwball comments. Do you have a book of them
It is surprising that the national archives source you offered does not mention that state representation (and critically the 3/5ths compromise) was a critical factor in the decision to go with the electoral college rather than a vote by Congress. (The election of the president by a popular vote was briefly considered and passed on by the convention.)
Madison was in favor of direct election of the PotUS yet he did not propose it to the convention but rather offered a system he called the Virginia plan. This plan established the three branches of government and a bicameral legislation where representation was a function of state population (as with the modern House). The higher house was directly elected by the people of the states and the lower house was elected by the higher house based on nominations from state legislatures.
Under the Virginia plan, the national legislature (both houses) would elect the PotUS.
Was your comment meant to revelatory?
in 10.1.33 you asked Sparty "You keep citing the founders yet you can't cite one statement by them that they codified the EC to curb the 'Tyranny of the majority'."
The comment is a direct quote from the link showing that the EC was established as a compromise between elections by a vote in congress and the popular vote. To make it clear, the popular vote is a vote of the majority and can sometimes be called the tyranny of the majority.
Yet you STILL haven't posted anything that even hints that the founders codified the EC to curb the Tyranny of the majority.
To make it clear, your quote doesn't answer the question.
You quoted it so you should know WTF I was asking.
So quoting an essay doesn't cut it.
Stiil arguing for the sake of arguing I see. Who wrote the constitution? The founders.
As previously noted several times, the EC was clearly included in the constitution specifically as a hedge against a ToM at a state level. Much to the chagrin of many today.
If not, what was their purpose for including it?
Still failing to support your claim and devolving to personal comments I see.
Revelatory.
Yes Sparty, you keep stating the same unfounded bullshit. PROVE IT.
I already told you. I take Alexander Hamilton at his word.
Nah, the support is there. You just fail to accept it. And you need to stop taking things so personally. You’ll live longer. what is interesting about that though is your tendency to talk down to people here. You do it all the time while being quick to claim personal attacks from others. Very telling.
Lack of acceptance of relevance does not mean it is not.
Already have. See above.
And so do I. He felt the EC was nearly flawless in that it accounted for a majority vote while not disinfanchising the minority vote. A better description for ToM protections there is not.
Why post false statements?
You fail to provide it.
You didn't mean it as personal?
Pot meet kettle.
Really? What is it telling Sparty?
Don't mean to talk down to you Sparty but revelatory has nothing to do with relevance.
More false statements.
The part I quoted from Federalist 68 proves just how naïve Hamilton was about the EC.
Actually Sparty, there is a MUCH better description of Tyranny of the Majority. You should read Tocqueville.
I haven't.
Nope, you failed to accept and/or acknowledge it. Not my problem.
Nope, meant it as factual, which it is.
Lol ... reversal attempt fails .... next
It's also telling that you act like you don't know what's telling about it.
Lol, sure you don't ....
Interesting interpretation. I disagree. Adamantly
A French aristocrats observations from a few months of direct observation of US Democracy were appropriate nearly 200 years ago but he was wrong. It didn't play out to his concerns. Today the "unpopular" minorities he spoke of have largely been protected. One only needs to compare conditions from both times to see that.
Even though it was hard fought over time, protections in the constitutions and BoR worked. Just like they did in 2016. A candidate ignored the minority and lost because of it.
Potential ToM avoided ....
Ironically, Hamilton's were from OVER 200 years ago and he was wrong too...as the part I quoted clearly proves.
Not wrong, as more than one of my comments clearly proves.
Okay, this ended up exactly where i expected it would. Me disagreeing with your stance completely. SOSDD
Have nice day Dulay .... i'm out of this one. [deleted]
Blah blah blah blah. Tighter legislation isn't going to do a damn thing except pacify those that are afraid of guns.
When are these idiots going to get it through their skulls that the only people who will obey any legislation are those who AREN'T SHOOTING UP EVERYTHING. Those carrying out these shootings don't give a rats ass about tighter legislation. Murder, just like rape, robbery and grand theft are illegal virtually everywhere in the world, yet we still see it occurring everyday. Why do we see it? Because they don't care about the legislation.
The gun isn't the problem. It's the jackhole that picks up that gun that is the problem. There are people who could have intervened but didn't. The absentee parents could have intervened. Friends could have intervened. But none of them did.
Tighter legislation dramatically reduced mass atrocities in other nations...
Why wouldn't tighter legislation and stricter enforcement work in America?
Then you can move there.
Take Chicago for example. Some of the strictest gun laws in the country and one of the highest murder rates by firearms in the country. Strict gun laws sound good but those that push for it don't think the problem through.
1. The problem isn't the gun. It's an inanimate object. It requires some outside force to manipulate it in order to operate. They won't even go off when dropped. I've seen everything from 9mm to 155mm fall from 1250 feet AGL, slam into the ground and nothing fired. That is where the problem comes in.
2. The person holding the gun. This is the real problem and NOBODY is willing to say it. Just as with every other mass shooting, there were people who could have intervened. Family, friends, co-workers. All could have pulled their faces away from their computer screens and paid attention to their surroundings and more than likely noticed something was off. But nobody wants to be "that guy" and call somebody out for fear of offending them if they were wrong.
Hell, I remember going to high school with a deer rifle in the window of my truck. Where I grew up, we went to school, then we went hunting. Nobody pitching a fit. Nobody was shot. But then again, we all knew our neighbors and kids and looked out for each other. That is non-existent today.
So true Jeremy.
This guy had two 50 round drum magazines mounted together and modified his firearm with easily acquired accessories that he mail ordered or bought at the local gun shop.
The only reason was so he could shoot more and faster and longer, and the NRA and these shooters just use people like you for camouflage and someday they'll decide they need to get your extra deadly weapons too, since nobody ever did anything to even try to slow it down or limit the carnage in ANY way at all.
Any rights that gets abused too often and too much can and will be taken away, Constitution or no, and I wouldn't like that either but that's the way we're headed IMO.
Be sure to try to shoot it out with the police, afterwards you won't need your firearms anymore and you'll be "happy".
Pretty much this.
Why would it? Has it ever?
How's our war on drugs going? How did prohibition work out?
"Constitution or no"??
I'm not sure you understand how this "Constitution" thing works.
And what would have those friends/parents do? Call the police? Does that mean you're in favor of Red Flag laws?
And what if a person doesn't have any friends or parents to intervene?
Personally, I don't think Red Flag laws on their own will get us where we want to be, and I question whether the violation of civil liberties makes them viable at all.
Then what do you suggest?
I confess I don't know.
It's a complex, multifaceted problem that isn't going to be fixed with simple solutions. There isn't a wonder drug for this.
We need a plan. By which I mean we need an intelligent plan that ties together several, sometimes unpopular, different ideas, including but not limited to:
In short, (it's probably too late for that
), I think a good set of laws will probably end up pissing everybody off, and I don't think we have enough grown ups around to make it happen.
Impressive list, Jack! And I wholeheartedly agree with all of it.
And it's nice to see someone admit he doesn't have the answers. I don't, either
And they would still be in that gun shop if it weren't for the real problem. THE SHOOTER.
Then we need to do something about the real problem. But it's easier to blame something that doesn't move.
How about pay attention to what their kids are doing and who they hang around with. Be aware of their surroundings.
Really? You are going that route? I thought you were above that.
What do you mean? I see nothing wrong with what I wrote. Many people don't have parents or friends in their lives to intervene.
So they are hermits? There is always somebody around to intervene. The key is people need to pull their heads from their phones and take a very close look at what's going on around them. But, I don't see that happening any time soon. Kim Kardashian's ass might gain another 50 pounds. Dont want to miss that.
According to an article on my MSN homepage, Trump used the word "invasion" some 200 times in ads on FB and other social media sites.
Anyone who engages in gratuitous murder is mentally disturbed as far as I am concerned. Anyone who is not appalled at the idea of killing an anonymous non-combatant human being simply because the individual is within range needs to be removed from society.