A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
President* Trump late Saturday suggested the FBI could have stopped the shooter who killed 17 people and injured 14 others at a Florida high school this week if the bureau spent less time working on the Russia investigation.That is just so jaw-droppingly narcissistic/stupid that anyone who buys into that, other than the anacephalics on Fox & Friends, probably should seek professional help.
European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent.You're here, you've consented. If you don't like it, go read some other goddamn blog. It's not as if you're paying me.
29 comments:
Stopped the shooter how, exactly? By doing something different than the dozens of times he was visited by law enforcement already? By saying "Gee, he seems like he might do something bad, let's arrest him"? He had obviously learned what he needed to say to them to make them calm down and leave him alone, as he had done so many, many times.
This is a seriously difficult issue, complicated, and fraught with competing interests of personal civil rights and public safety considerations that are not helped by the grade-school level of understanding Fergus displays in his feeble attempts to turn everything he sees into reasons why he's not guilty.
Florida law enforcement refer to the standard that would have to be met to involuntarily commit him as the "Baker Act" and to a one they say he didn't meet those standards.
And that is totally leaving aside the fact that crime investigation is a different division of the FBI than counter intelligence, which means that he's ignorant of how his own government works, lying, or both.
-Doug in Oakland
D is correct, except for the (alleged) video purporting to have been a promise to kill people. I haven't seen it, so I cannot say more than that.
The fine line of civil rights and protections vs defense against such actions is very, very thin....Mental illness is also hard to define, and treatment is nonexistent because no one is willing to institutionalize those who need it.
Slippery slope and all that, both in the gun rights arena and the mental health arena.
Australia hasn’t had a mass shooting in two decades. So saying the problem is insolvable is simply wrong. I don’t see the hand-wringing as living people should have more rights than somebody with a gun, regardless of their mental state.
DA, remember that the same argument is used by the anti-choice crowd to justify banning abortions.
Are you fine with that?
Differences is that we’re talking about people outside of the womb. Their right to life is more Porten than a possible nutcase acquiring an armory is going at seven weapons seven rifles not quite an armory but I don’t know why you need seven with seven rifles for unless you’re doing enactment of Stalingrad .
Seven weapons is an "armory"?
BWAAA-HA-HA-HA!
Almost every person that I know who is active in target shooting has far more than that.
But if you're going to call us "nutcases," then this conversation is over.
Stalingrad involved over one million troops on each side, so with seven rifles, the re-enactment would be a little wimpy. I’m not really sure what DA was saying, as his post is disjointed. I do note he is apparently willing to call a fetus a person with only secondary rights due to parasitic status? Seems a bit confused.
I’m calling the perp in Florida with seven rifles a nutcase. The NRA is now a cult of death in this country. Praise Kali!
Nope. i’m saying comparing living breathing people with Feti in the womb is
ridiculous. Comrade Misfit made the comparison and I think it’s bullshit. Just learning to use speech to text accessory on my iPhone please bear with me.
DA, your iPhone flunks Latin constructs. The plural of fetus is fetuses...;-)
Actually, I was off by a one i.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki
Thanks for not disputing the rest of my comment.
DA, the statement was “...people outside of the womb”. Now, that results in the converse, people inside the womb, as being a valid understanding of your position. If you did. It intend that, then alternate phrasing would be in order. Taking your own words, as both the Comrade and I did, and showing how inane they become at a logical extension is not disputing your statement, it’s pointing out its weakness.
Does that mean that if you had Cletus, and his cousin Cletus, over for dinner, you had Cletii?
Trying to be clever by half isn’t a good strategy. I am willing to impact civil rights of gun owners for the sake of living, humans outside the womb so that we minimize the ability of nuts like the guy in Florida to commit mass murder. If that means Comrade Misfit and others like him have to go through more paperwork and licensing requirements, you can shed a tear for them, if it means so much to you.
"I am willing to impact civil rights of gun owners"
How about if we changed "gun owners" to "Women" when it comes to abortion?
Or "blacks" (cause they do more crime per 1000 than other races)?
Once you are willing to "impact civil rights" for anyone then you no longer have an argument. You are, at that point, a dictator. Like it or not, we have a Constitution, and it applies to everyone. Even those folks you don't like.
Really you know gun owners who were born that way? They had no choice, just as in the case of women and African-Americans. You have no idea how liberals really think, just a cargo cult version via Limbaugh, Fox News, et al. You remind me why I should donate to the United Negro College Fund.
DA,
You should donate to the UNCF. They're a solid group.
I don't know too many reporters or publishers who were born that way, other than maybe the Sulzberger family. Doesn't stop any of them from exercising their First Amendment rights. Property owners might not have inherited their land, but they have Fifth Amendment rights. People who the cops are interested in have rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments (off the top of my head).
Your "born this way" argument proves too much.
So let me ask you: You want to take away some of my rights? OK, so what do I get in return for agreeing to that?
Da:
You failed to address my points.
When are rights ok to remove from people?
Women are born that way. So Trans folks have no rights as another gender because they weren't "born that way"?
Do women have abortion rights? Or not? When is it OK to take their rights to determine the fate of their offspring away? Are you gonna force 'em to bear children if they don't want to?
How about blacks? Do they have rights even though some (and a higher percentage of 'em) of their brethren commit crimes? Or is it OK to take away their rights?
Again, when are rights *not* sacrosanct? Who(and under what circumstances) decides it is OK to take away the rights of others? Is it OK to take away rights just because you are emotional right now? What happened to calm deliberation?
It's folks that think like you that brought us the Patriot Act.
The price you pay is less dead kids.
"Again, when are rights *not* sacrosanct?"
When they interfere with the rights of others, for the most part. Then it's up to the government to decide on whose rights take precedent and when and how. No-one likes giving them up, no matter what the seeming imbalance might be from someone else's perspective.
-Doug in Oakland
DA, let's also outlaw swimming pools and transporting children by motor vehicle. Those kill far more children than school shootings.
Fewer dead kids, right?
If there were cases of people using those as means to deliberately kill children as with guns, you might have a point.
Re: "Rights", I was taught in Drivers' Education Class that driving is not a right, but a privilege. That's because motor vehicles are a very useful thing, but a carelessly or maliciously operated motor vehicle can be deadly.
Can somebody explain how very different firearms are in that respect?
JM
(Daily reader of this blog, but very infrequent commenter.)
Looking at the responses here, probably not.
JM, the Second Amendment, as per the Heller case. Owning a firearm is a civil right. But is is also the most regulated of civil rights.
Ah, so motive matters. Some guy gets drunk and kills 27 kids with his pickup truck and that's less of a tragedy than if some guy deliberately drove a truck into a crowd of kids?
Because that's what you're arguing, is it not?
Um, autos and pools aren’t designed to send bits of metal at high speed in a straight line to kill people. If there were an epidemic of people, drunk or sober, using pools and autos to kill children, then your analogy would hold.
After Britain had a mass shooting in 1987, the country instituted strict gun control laws. So did Australia after a 1996 shooting. But the United States has repeatedly faced the same calculus and determined that relatively unregulated gun ownership is worth the cost to society.
https://nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
So the fact that more kids are killed by automobiles doesn't matter? More by Drunk Drivers than firearms doesn't matter? It is only the *motivation* that matters?
Does negligence or carelessness or just plain stupid actions make *those* kids less dead? Or is it only when it happens in large numbers with a firearm that you feel the need to act to restrict something?
By your logic, we should regulate automobiles (and especially drivers) much more...outright ban those that weigh more than 2000lbs and have more than 60 HP or go more than 30 MPH unless driven by a "Professional"...and outright ban swimming pools more than 6" deep in private homes as well.
For the kids and all that.
I've owned, at different times, a Ruger .22, a AR-15A2 HBAR, a Colt Cold Cup with a 10# recoil spring and a couple of K-22s. All were designed to trow high-speed pieces of metal at paper target at ranges up to 600 yards.
Other than popping a few pigeons and such at my dad's farm, that's all I've ever used them for.
But hey, I guess I'm a mass-murderer waiting to happen (according to the gun-grabbers).
I think we're done, here.
Post a Comment