thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,847
|
Post by thebin on Sept 2, 2015 10:28:53 GMT -5
I'm a Republican that owns a gun that is very supportive of gun control measures. And in that context, I have to say that the stalemate on any such legislation is entirely the fault of the Republican party or rather an interest group to which it is beholden (along with those Democrats that share its views on this issue). This is not a "both sides need to compromise" sort of issue. I would gladly support a measure that eliminated assault weapons (defined as specifically as you'd like) and established more concrete background checks on all purchasers and transferors of guns. I think many Americans agree with those proposals, I don't think they infringe on any Constitutional freedoms (no matter how broadly interpreted), and most important from my perspective I would challenge anyone to demonstrate to me how they would negatively affect the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves (through legal gun purchases) and enjoy sporting activities. I would also challenge anyone to demonstrate to me how these regulations would fail to prevent at least some of the mass violence that has occurred in recent years. Sure, we don't enforce our existing laws as well as we could, and, sure, there will be plenty of people that find loopholes or just ignore whatever new laws we put in place. But that happens with every single law we pass. Banning assault weapons won't stop someone like the recent murderer in Virginia, but it ought to make mass school (and movie theater) shootings more difficult. And increasing the difficulty level may be enough to dissuade a would-be perpetrator from acting. It's not that Democrats are beholden to their own interest groups (unless by that you mean the NRA, to which many Dems are also beholden). It's that this issue presents precisely the sort of tyranny of the narrow-interested that the authors of the Federalist Papers and others railed against. It's one thing if the majority position is unwise; the republican (small r) system seeks to correct for that. It's another altogether when the majority position IS wise, but the democratic/republican system still can't enact it. Post of the Summer candidate.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,906
|
Post by Filo on Sept 2, 2015 10:52:33 GMT -5
I'm a Republican that owns a gun that is very supportive of gun control measures. And in that context, I have to say that the stalemate on any such legislation is entirely the fault of the Republican party or rather an interest group to which it is beholden (along with those Democrats that share its views on this issue). This is not a "both sides need to compromise" sort of issue. I would gladly support a measure that eliminated assault weapons (defined as specifically as you'd like) and established more concrete background checks on all purchasers and transferors of guns. I think many Americans agree with those proposals, I don't think they infringe on any Constitutional freedoms (no matter how broadly interpreted), and most important from my perspective I would challenge anyone to demonstrate to me how they would negatively affect the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves (through legal gun purchases) and enjoy sporting activities. I would also challenge anyone to demonstrate to me how these regulations would fail to prevent at least some of the mass violence that has occurred in recent years. Sure, we don't enforce our existing laws as well as we could, and, sure, there will be plenty of people that find loopholes or just ignore whatever new laws we put in place. But that happens with every single law we pass. Banning assault weapons won't stop someone like the recent murderer in Virginia, but it ought to make mass school (and movie theater) shootings more difficult. And increasing the difficulty level may be enough to dissuade a would-be perpetrator from acting. It's not that Democrats are beholden to their own interest groups (unless by that you mean the NRA, to which many Dems are also beholden). It's that this issue presents precisely the sort of tyranny of the narrow-interested that the authors of the Federalist Papers and others railed against. It's one thing if the majority position is unwise; the republican (small r) system seeks to correct for that. It's another altogether when the majority position IS wise, but the democratic/republican system still can't enact it. Great post, and sums up how I feel (I don't own a gun though), as does this: So while the NRA shouldn't necessarily be concerned with poverty or mental health, pro-gun activists who use those issues to take the blame away from our gun culture should be held to address those issues. Being pro-gun should NOT mean don't do anything to reduce gun violence, and the fact that that is all that side represents right now isn't sad in an abstract sense, it's sad because of how many people are dying because of it.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 25, 2015 16:08:46 GMT -5
Parents lose daughter in Aurora movie theater shooting. Parents mad at dealer who sold ammo to shooter. Parents aware of federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (as well as similar Colorado law). Parents sue anyway. Judge rightly dismisses case. Parents upset that judge awards attorney fees to dealer. Good work Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. We Lost Our Daughter to a Mass Shooter and Now Owe $203,000 to His Ammo Dealer
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,387
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Sept 25, 2015 17:49:25 GMT -5
Good for Lonnie and Sandy Phillips; may their struggle result in change of the law.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by DallasHoya on Sept 25, 2015 17:56:38 GMT -5
Parents lose daughter in Aurora movie theater shooting. Parents mad at dealer who sold ammo to shooter. Parents aware of federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (as well as similar Colorado law). Parents sue anyway. Judge rightly dismisses case. Parents upset that judge awards attorney fees to dealer. Good work Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. We Lost Our Daughter to a Mass Shooter and Now Owe $203,000 to His Ammo DealerAnd the parents' quote: "you have an impenetrable barrier to using the judicial system to effect change in gun legislation in Colorado." Imagine that. Maybe change in gun legislation should be effected by the legislature? Nah, that would be democracy.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,440
|
Post by TC on Sept 25, 2015 18:13:17 GMT -5
Maybe change in gun legislation should be effected by the legislature? Nah, that would be democracy. Did you bother to read the article?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 25, 2015 21:04:28 GMT -5
Maybe change in gun legislation should be effected by the legislature? Nah, that would be democracy. Did you bother to read the article? Did you bother to read it. They throw around the word "unconstitutional" like they get a free dinner if they say it enough times. No, it's not unconstitutional, but it sure sounds good to say it is. Shame on Brady for taking advantage of these poor people.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by DallasHoya on Sept 26, 2015 9:26:36 GMT -5
Maybe change in gun legislation should be effected by the legislature? Nah, that would be democracy. Did you bother to read the article? The only consitutional claim they seem to make in your quote relates to the "loser pays" provision, not the underlying provision protecting gun manufacturers. I'm glad to see that they "are changing our focus from going after these laws in the judicial branch (we have dropped our appeal) to getting them overturned on the legislative level." But why didn't they try to stop the law in the legislature in the first place? Well they did, and they lost. It's the typical response from the left - and sometimes from the right - lose in the legislature, think up some farfetched consitutional claim, and try to find a judge who belives in the same goal and adopts the claim as his own in order to get there.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 2, 2015 10:53:52 GMT -5
Colloquially (as opposed to legally), I think most people would apply the term to a crime where race, religion, or some other form of 'inherent identity' is the primary factor above all others. Perpetrators of such acts, like the aforementioned Mr. Roof, pick out victims as representatives of that identity group, without knowing them as individuals. In this particular case, the perpetrator clearly knew and held grievances against the individuals he targeted, so it calls into question the applicability of the term. Clearly there was racial, sexual, class, and other resentment built into those grievances, but without diving into that morass, I think it's safe to say that he did not pick the targets at random based solely on their race. I would view it as akin to a bigoted white guy holding a set of grievances against his drug dealer and shooting him; racial animus probably played a role, but the pre-existing relationship and whatever went on there was the more important factor, Now, it he had gone and killed two white people at random because he wanted to take Mr. Roof up on his offer of RaHoWa, then that would incontrovertibly be a hate crime as most people understand the term, even with the knowledge that this guy clearly had a lot of unaddressed mental health needs. Hate crime. Oregon shooter said to have singled out Christians for killing
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 2, 2015 11:27:21 GMT -5
Colloquially (as opposed to legally), I think most people would apply the term to a crime where race, religion, or some other form of 'inherent identity' is the primary factor above all others. Perpetrators of such acts, like the aforementioned Mr. Roof, pick out victims as representatives of that identity group, without knowing them as individuals. In this particular case, the perpetrator clearly knew and held grievances against the individuals he targeted, so it calls into question the applicability of the term. Clearly there was racial, sexual, class, and other resentment built into those grievances, but without diving into that morass, I think it's safe to say that he did not pick the targets at random based solely on their race. I would view it as akin to a bigoted white guy holding a set of grievances against his drug dealer and shooting him; racial animus probably played a role, but the pre-existing relationship and whatever went on there was the more important factor, Now, it he had gone and killed two white people at random because he wanted to take Mr. Roof up on his offer of RaHoWa, then that would incontrovertibly be a hate crime as most people understand the term, even with the knowledge that this guy clearly had a lot of unaddressed mental health needs. Therein lies the problem of tossing about this nebulous concept of a "hate crime." At least this incident will give the White House another opportunity to falsely claim that gun violence is on the rise.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 2, 2015 11:33:41 GMT -5
While mentioning himself repeatedly in his remarks, did the President get around to calling this one a hate crime?
Not that classifying it matters, but he seems to like to do that sometimes...
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 2, 2015 12:22:46 GMT -5
Therein lies the problem of tossing about this nebulous concept of a "hate crime." At least this incident will give the White House another opportunity to falsely claim that gun violence is on the rise. Brilliant analysis by you (as usual). How long did it take you to type " "?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 2, 2015 12:31:21 GMT -5
Not only did I not analyze anything, I didn't type anything!
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 2, 2015 13:07:45 GMT -5
Not only did I not analyze anything, I didn't type anything! So you agree that this shooting qualifies as a hate crime under RusskyHoya's definition. Good to know.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Oct 2, 2015 13:20:53 GMT -5
Colloquially (as opposed to legally), I think most people would apply the term to a crime where race, religion, or some other form of 'inherent identity' is the primary factor above all others. Perpetrators of such acts, like the aforementioned Mr. Roof, pick out victims as representatives of that identity group, without knowing them as individuals. In this particular case, the perpetrator clearly knew and held grievances against the individuals he targeted, so it calls into question the applicability of the term. Clearly there was racial, sexual, class, and other resentment built into those grievances, but without diving into that morass, I think it's safe to say that he did not pick the targets at random based solely on their race. I would view it as akin to a bigoted white guy holding a set of grievances against his drug dealer and shooting him; racial animus probably played a role, but the pre-existing relationship and whatever went on there was the more important factor, Now, it he had gone and killed two white people at random because he wanted to take Mr. Roof up on his offer of RaHoWa, then that would incontrovertibly be a hate crime as most people understand the term, even with the knowledge that this guy clearly had a lot of unaddressed mental health needs. Hate crime. Oregon shooter said to have singled out Christians for killingAssuming the initial reports are correct, then obviously antipathy toward Christians (or perhaps toward organized religion in general, which is how I've seen some reports characterize it, and Christians just happen to be the group most heavily represented in rural Oregon) played a role in this. From those same reports, it looks like he didn't exclusively target known believers... ...but clearly singled some out for that specific reason. With time, we may get a better sense of whether he was more like the Columbine shooters, who wanted to kill lots of people but also had Christians high on their list of disdain, or someone like Jay Scott Ballinger, who really just hated Christians.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 2, 2015 13:42:02 GMT -5
Not only did I not analyze anything, I didn't type anything! So you agree that this shooting qualifies as a hate crime under RusskyHoya's definition. Good to know. As RusskyHoya points out, there's more information that needs to come out to find out what this guy's deal was, but yes, it absolutely does look like this may have been a hate crime targeting Christians, or that it played a large role.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Oct 2, 2015 15:05:21 GMT -5
There's also the oddity that dude seemed to be into the IRA, which was an organization steeped in Catholicism.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 11, 2015 7:58:10 GMT -5
|
|