About the Texas massacre and easy access to guns.

[Foxi4]

Not only should society take care of a fallen hero and his loved ones, they should erect a statue of whomever gave his/her/their life.

That’s a lot of statues.

Technically, that is part of their job, to uphold the law and protect the innocent, which does involve risking their lives if someone is a dangerous enough criminal. There was no reason why they couldn't go in and stop the guy with the number of officers and guns they had.

”The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm (…)” - they do not have a duty to protect any specific individual from any harm. They only have a duty to more broadly “protect the public”, and not at the cost of their own life and limb.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

Then what is their job? Search the pockets of teens for cannabis but be grown-ass useless p****s when duty calls? Protect and Serve, not "protect and be useless".
Police in Europe has the duty to intervene.

Very good question. As for duty to intervene, I’m not so sure - I’d have to look at the law in any individual country to say if they do or don’t. As a general rule they have some degree of duty of care, I doubt they have a duty to risk their life.

...
L
fucking
mao

I’m not sure what to tell you - it isn’t, as per court ruling above.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

”The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm (…)” - they do not have a duty to protect any specific individual from any harm. They only have a duty to more broadly “protect the public”, and not at the cost of their own life and limb.

Well, if that's the case, that's an incredibly glaring flaw then. Gonna have to look into this more.

 

[Foxi4]

Despite the fact that you do engage in it?

I would never.

I do, but again, you're missing the point. The point is the ridiculous complexity required to sell tacos and the relative ease of buying guns, just like the Texas shooter this thread refers to did a couple days before the event.

There is no constitutional right to sell tacos, there’s a constitutional right to bear arms. Ipso facto, one is not like the other.

Well, if that's the case, that's an incredibly glaring flaw then. Gonna have to look into this more.

Glad to be informing the public that they’ve been believing a myth for the better part of their lives - you’re all welcome. The person responsible for protecting your life is first and foremost you.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

Glad to be informing the public that they’ve been believing a myth for the better part of their lives - you’re all welcome. The person responsible for protecting your life is first and foremost you.

I do agree with you on that, but I also thought the police do the same thing when you call them. But if this is true, I really am going to have to do an in depth on this and what ever else I either didn't know or misunderstood.

 

[SyphenFreht]

The intent:

I think that video would have better represented the argument of how bad guys will still get guns if all guns were banned.

Sure does. Every form of "regulation" that limits the classes of "armament" that can be sold is a form of restriction. Increasing the legal age does that too. You do know the meaning of the word, no?

I'll even argue that redefining who is "responsible" is a way of doing so as well.

As for the stupid infographic being stupid. You seem to completely overlook that introducing stupid graphics is a point of failure in an "intelligent conversation".

Comparing the selling of tacos to the purchase of tacos would be effective if the point is to demonstrate "regulations only matter from the point of the profiteer".

Ham-fisting guns into it doesn't demonstrate a working logic.

Sure doesn't. The 2A ensures that the people have the right to bear arms in case of a tyrannical government. Aside from what can be inferred from the federalist papers, technically speaking having access to a bb gun could be considered enough to bear arms against said government, from the point of view of the government. At no point does the Constitution explicitly state that the people should be allowed to have the exact same armaments as said government.

You can redefine "responsible" all you want, but if we're saying that people who aren't responsible enough to abstain from shooting up a school, a church, a mall, what have you, should still be allowed to own guns, well... I'm curious to see someone fight to have prison inmates keep their gun rights.

Well coming from someone who clearly likes to bastardize their interpretations of words and their meanings, I can see why you think the graph and the intent behind it is stupid. Just because you don't understand the idea behind, or agree with it, doesn't mean it's stupid.

The point wasn't the difference between sale and purchasing rights, it was to highlight one of the many ways regulation has failed from an overarching point of view. But feel free to redefine the graph however you like; at least some of us won't resort to calling you or your information stupid because we don't understand it or disagree.

Ham-fisting the right to protect something that isn't going to be taken away does not demonstrate working logic either. It does, however, further breed the fear campaign that seems to have many a Republican up in arms (You like what I did there, didn't you? You don't have to admit it. I know)

Technically, that is part of their job, to uphold the law and protect the innocent, which does involve risking their lives if someone is a dangerous enough criminal. There was no reason why they couldn't go in and stop the guy with the number of officers and guns they had.

I thought this same thing myself, but @Foxi4 provided a link quite a few pages ago that proves this is false. What confuses me though is why the police have operated under the guise of serve and protection for so long if in fact that's far from the truth.

To the last sentence, I will still say someone should've gone in there. Hell, I would've, officer or not. But if we can't expect the cops to do anything, they certainly should've not had the right to hold the parents back from going in themselves. Seems to a precarious situation to be in if the cops won't save the kids but the able bodies parents are kept from it as well.

 

[Foxi4]

I do agree with you on that, but I also thought the police do the same thing when you call them. But if this is true, I really am going to have to do an in depth on this and what ever else I either didn't know or misunderstood.

Basically they have a duty to protect the public, but that does not extend to protecting you specifically. They just respond to an emergency, like a traffic accident, and do what is in their power to prevent further harm, for instance by shutting the lane down, diverting traffic and so on. With that being said, they do not have the duty to run toward a burning car and save you specifically unless they believe they can do so without endangering themselves in the process. Makes sense, yes?

I thought this same thing myself, but @Foxi4 provided a link quite a few pages ago that proves this is false. What confuses me though is why the police have operated under the guise of serve and protection for so long if in fact that's far from the truth.

To the last sentence, I will still say someone should've gone in there. Hell, I would've, officer or not. But if we can't expect the cops to do anything, they certainly should've not had the right to hold the parents back from going in themselves. Seems to a precarious situation to be in if the cops won't save the kids but the able bodies parents are kept from it as well.

That’s not quite right. They do have a duty to protect the public, just not *you* specifically. The public, not individual persons. As for the latter part, you weren’t there, so you don’t know what you would’ve done facing death. You don’t know until you’re in the moment.

 

[tabzer]

Sure doesn't. The 2A ensures that the people have the right to bear arms in case of a tyrannical government.

The nuance is a little different. "To ensure a free state". Basically, the ability to back words with action guns.

At no point does the Constitution explicitly state that the people should be allowed to have the exact same armaments as said government.

It explicitly states that the rights to bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can redefine "responsible" all you want, but if we're saying that people who aren't responsible enough to abstain from shooting up a school, a church, a mall, what have you, should still be allowed to own guns, well... I'm curious to see someone fight to have prison inmates keep their gun rights.

I'm saying rebranding people as irresponsible based on IQ or psych tests that might root out potential political dissidents.

Well coming from someone who clearly likes to bastardize their interpretations of words and their meanings

What are you talking about? You seem to think as long as it's not "outright infringement" it's within parameters of the constitution.

it was to highlight one of the many ways regulation has failed from an overarching point of view

What "one way"? It assumes the conclusion is agreed upon as the premise. Self-gratification. It's clearly not an argument.

Ham-fisting the right to protect something that isn't going to be taken away does not demonstrate working logic either.

There you go again.

 

[SyphenFreht]

It explicitly states that the rights to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Correct. Parameters are allowed to exist without infringing a right.

I'm saying rebranding people as irresponsible based on IQ or psych tests that might root out potential political dissidents.

Adequate education can combat this as long as it's done effectively.

What are you talking about? You seem to think as long as it's not "outright infringement" it's within parameters of the constitution.

Much like @Foxi4 and I, you and I may have to disagree with our interpretation of infringement. Again, you can have parameters without inherently infringing rights.

What "one way"? It assumes the conclusion is agreed upon as the premise. Self-gratification. It's clearly not an argument.

It's clearly not an argument you wish to have, is all.

There you go again.

Don't worry, there will be more.

 

[tabzer]

Again, you can have parameters without inherently infringing rights.

The process of adding and tightening parameters are infringing by definition.

It's clearly not an argument you wish to have, is all.

I'm inviting you to communicate what the argument actually is. For example: "Tacos are over-regulated, so 'assault rifles' should be banned."

 

[SyphenFreht]

The process of adding and tightening parameters are infringing by definition.

That would be the case if the right to bear arms included owning whatever firearm you wish at your beck and call. Based upon your reasoning, the sale of firearms as opposed to freely giving them away would be considered an infringement as the purchase of said firearm would be considered a parameter and the price would be considered "tightening". If the hurdle you need to surpass is easily overcome, that is not an infringement. You seem to confuse "inconvenience" with "infringement".

I'm inviting you to communicate what the argument actually is. For example: "Tacos are over-regulated, so 'assault rifles' should be banned."

The idea behind the graphic is up for debate. I took the argument as: "Regulation in America is problem that exists on multiple levels. Regulations on firearms are lax when compared to the regulations surrounding food sales." You may see the argument differently. Just because we hold two different perspectives on the same graphic does not imply one perspective is dumb or even that one is right.

 

[tabzer]

That would be the case if the right to bear arms included owning whatever firearm you wish at your beck and call. Based upon your reasoning, the sale of firearms as opposed to freely giving them away would be considered an infringement as the purchase of said firearm would be considered a parameter and the price would be considered "tightening". If the hurdle you need to surpass is easily overcome, that is not an infringement. You seem to confuse "inconvenience" with "infringement".

You could argue that intentionally stifling a country's economy could translate to infringement of many rights, but the economy wasn't an idea added after the fact.

Regulations on firearms are lax when compared to the regulations surrounding food sales

That's not the argument, that's the disinformation. If I listed all of the regulations/liabilities regarding manufacturing and sales of guns and compared it to the requirements of buying a taco you'd see it as stupid, because it is.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Again with the incredibly stupid comparison?

Gotta do something that is at your level after all, or you'll never understand.

Tell me how much harder buying a Taco is, or how much easier is setting up a gun SHOP and you'd have a point.

No, I really shouldn't, because the point is to highlight different accessibility.

There is no constitutional right to sell tacos, there’s a constitutional right to bear arms. Ipso facto, one is not like the other.

There is a constitutional right to feed yourself and be able to set up your business. There is also a right to life found in the preamble of the declaration of independence.

 

[AleronIves]

For the sake of argument, are libel laws an unconstitutional infringement of your 1A rights? I'm not sure I buy the argument that any restriction on guns whatsoever is 2A infringement.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

For the sake of argument, are libel laws an unconstitutional infringement of your 1A rights? I'm not sure I buy the argument that any restriction on guns whatsoever is 2A infringement.

I'm fairly certain they do, they feel that freedom of speech means THEY can say whatever the hell they want while they can censor everything they don't like,

 

[Creamu]

That’s a lot of statues.

Yes, maybe that would increase the motiviation to lower the homicide rate.

 

[tabzer]

For the sake of argument, are libel laws an unconstitutional infringement of your 1A rights? I'm not sure I buy the argument that any restriction on guns whatsoever is 2A infringement.

Restrictions on rights after the establishment of said rights are infringing. It's literary. That's not to say that they aren't made for good reason or intention. Some rights appear to intrude on others and balance is determined by the courts; ultimately the SCOTUS.

If you want to have measures passed by pretending infringement isn't infringement, you could be setting yourself up for another Roe v Wade situation, if it isn't rejected by SCOTUS. If measures are passed based on conflict with other constitutional guarantees, then you develop a stronger case. The strongest is passing another amendment, or repealing , outright.

 

[Foxi4]

There is also a right to life found in the preamble of the declaration of independence.

The existence of guns doesn’t impede your right to life, murder does. This is why murder is illegal and gun ownership generally isn’t.

Yes, maybe that would increase the motiviation to lower the homicide rate.

The idea that anyone is *required* (not expected to, *required*) to risk their life is false. It’s very honourable to do so, but it’s not a requirement. If you *expect* people to take a bullet for you just because they’re soldiers or policemen, you’re going to be very disappointed in your time of need.

For the sake of argument, are libel laws an unconstitutional infringement of your 1A rights? I'm not sure I buy the argument that any restriction on guns whatsoever is 2A infringement.

We’ve explored this earlier. Libel laws are not concerned with your ability to speak, they’re concerned with damages. The government isn’t interested in (or even capable of) restricting your right to speak or express yourself, but a third-party you’ve defamed can pursue a civil suit for damages which were a direct result of you lying about them. The court only decides whether what was said was a lie or not and whether there are damages owed as a result. Since there is no restriction of a right, there’s no infringement. You are never sued for speaking, you’re sued for deliberately damaging someone’s reputation with the intent to do harm to them.

To give you an example, let’s say that you’re a contractor and I call your client, with whom you are actively negotiating, and tell them that you’re a convicted murderer and thief when you’re not, solely because I don’t like you. If that customer drops the contract as a result of that call, I’ve committed a tort - it’s tortious interference with a contract. I am liable to pay damages as a result, which are an equivalent of lost income, plus some punitive damages, perhaps. At no point am I not allowed to use the phone anymore - I can use a phone, I can’t get into other people’s business with the intent to do harm to them.

To put it in even simpler terms, let’s say speech is a car and we get into a bit of a fender bender. I’m probably not going to lose my license if it’s my fault, but I’ve caused you damages, so I owe you for repairs. You are getting restitution from me because I messed up your car. I am still entitled to drive after that, but I have to fix the damage I’ve done.

 

[smf]

Who could possibly be more responsible for protecting me than myself? It’s my life.

It's at best a zero sum game, in reality it seems that you are less able to protect yourself if everyone is allowed guns.

I would much rather have to protect myself from someone with a knife than a gun. The more powerful an attacker feels, the less worried they are going to be about consequences. I'd rather they don't feel powerful at all.

 

[smf]

Restrictions on rights after the establishment of said rights are infringing. It's literary. That's not to say that they aren't made for good reason or intention. Some rights appear to intrude on others and balance is determined by the courts; ultimately the SCOTUS.

If you want to have measures passed by pretending infringement isn't infringement, you could be setting yourself up for another Roe v Wade situation, if it isn't rejected by SCOTUS. If measures are passed based on conflict with other constitutional guarantees, then you develop a stronger case. The strongest is passing another amendment, or repealing , outright.

I guess you're not christian then, because you are holding the constitution as an idol.

 

[Foxi4]

It's at best a zero sum game, in reality it seems that you are less able to protect yourself if everyone is allowed guns.

I would much rather have to protect myself from someone with a knife than a gun. The more powerful an attacker feels, the less worried they are going to be about consequences. I'd rather they don't feel powerful at all.

If that’s your preference, you’re more than welcome to not own a gun. The idea that we should remove 393 million guns from the hands of American civilians so that you can “feel safe” is not only not realistic, it puts the onus on making you feel a certain way on other people. I don’t care if you feel safe or not - that’s a you problem.