Guns

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I can call it incompetent as a regulation that you need them to confess rather then find the problem.

Technically not law abiding, but the fact is the person who sold to the shooter didn't break any laws himself that he was actually aware of and that's a massive problem.

They're a dealer, do you know how it works? If not, as someone who has done this multiple times let me inform you. First you go down to your FFL dealer and buy the gun of your choice, they check your ID to make sure you're of age to buy and then after they have you fill out the necessary paper work, once that is done they call it in. The call goes to the FBI which does a background check pulling up your info, if not red flags come of it, you pay for your weapon and go on your way. That is if you're in a state like mine where you can purchase and take home in the same day. Even if you're not, and you have to have a wait period like Florida for instance, that doesn't mean that extra time is used to do a deeper check, and if you had a CCW you'd get the gun the same day as purchase.

In other words the FFL dealer is the middle man, and as long as they did the steps they're suppose to they've done nothing wrong. It is up to local law enforcement to report things to the federal archive for one, two it's up to the federal archive to stay up to date so when these checks do come through they can be flagged appropriately.

 

[Mr Tree]

The Spanish government did so in Catalonia last year - even using weaponry that wasn't legal under Catalonian law.

And that was just because a bunch of people were having an opinion poll in their quasi-autonomous state that the larger state didn't want them to have. A state-sponsored military response, with illegal weapons, on civilians who were only voting (and not even that - the referendum wasn't binding).

Even today, the politicians behind that opinion poll are in prison or on the run. In Belgium.

That's a very onesided look on that particular situation. Also what would have armed catalonians might have meant? The start of a literal cival war? Guns would not have made that situation better.

Also the catalonian politicians aren't prisoners due to there opinions but thz actions following thise opinions.

What Rajoy did was awefull and he shouldn't have repressed the vote. It was stupid and axactly what puidgemont wished for... He's a dumb **** I grant you that but acting as if this is just an authoritarian state repressing it's citizens is making a mockery out of a very complicated situation.

Look at it from a spain perspective. How democratic is it to split up a country because your region voted for this? What about the rest of spain? They din't get a vote yet it impacts their lives too.

In the end I find this seperation movement a hyper egoistical movement. That being said therr should be a path towards an independence if they so desire it.

 

[Famine]

That's a very onesided look on that particular situation.

Indeed - and with good reason. The response by Spain of sending the actual military in (Guardia Civil is a military force), with illegal weapons, to assault innocent citizens and destroy property was wildly excessive. It's so far beyond a reasonable response to regional politicians rattling an independence sabre that it's absolutely impossible to defend with a straight face.

Which is why the rest of Europe has been pretending we've never even heard of Catalonia ever since.

Also the catalonian politicians aren't prisoners due to there opinions but thz actions following thise opinions.

Oh? Remind me what it is they did again to warrant being put in prison? Assault? Murder? Rape? Criminal damage? Doing 82km/h in an 80km/h zone?

Oh wait, it's "sedition". The act of inciting discontent towards those in authority. How delightfully fascist.

Look at it from a spain perspective. How democratic is it to split up a country because your region voted for this? What about the rest of spain? They din't get a vote yet it impacts their lives too.

This is what the courts are for. The courts already decided before the referendum that it wasn't legitimate. Rather than sending literal jackbooted goons to smash up polling stations and beat up citizens, Spain should simply have allowed it to proceed. Then, after the referendum, Spain should have challenged the result and legitimacy of the vote through the courts.

Incidentally, the referendum was a resounding independence result. By all accounts the actual feeling of Catalonia is a third strongly out and two thirds "meh". With the simple application of a ludicrous amount of force, Spain will have kept those without a strong feeling away from the polls, along with those who would have voted to remain part of Spain but didn't want to be seen voting in case they were thought to be voting to leave.

The only people who would turn up in the face of ridiculous violence are those who feel very strongly against the status quo.

Also what would have armed catalonians might have meant? The start of a literal cival war? Guns would not have made that situation better.

It would have meant that rather than being able to send in the military knowing that none of them would be harmed and they would be met with no greater resistance than sticks and rocks, they'd be sending them to meet a potential deadly force.

That alone may have prompted a rethink about the wisdom of sending the military in, and more willingness to consider the diplomatic, political and legal routes available. And without the military action skewing the voting patterns, that may have in turn resulted in a far less conclusive poll result, with no need to challenge it...

Basically, Spain's politicians played themselves. They could have let it pass and then used political avenues. Instead it has politicians in prison, others on the run and a general ill-feeling in the state.

 

[Mr Tree]

Indeed - and with good reason. The response by Spain of sending the actual military in (Guardia Civil is a military force), with illegal weapons, to assault innocent citizens and destroy property was wildly excessive. It's so far beyond a reasonable response to regional politicians rattling an independence sabre that it's absolutely impossible to defend with a straight face.

Which is why the rest of Europe has been pretending we've never even heard of Catalonia ever since.

Oh? Remind me what it is they did again to warrant being put in prison? Assault? Murder? Rape? Criminal damage? Doing 82km/h in an 80km/h zone?

Oh wait, it's "sedition". The act of inciting discontent towards those in authority. How delightfully fascist.

This is what the courts are for. The courts already decided before the referendum that it wasn't legitimate. Rather than sending literal jackbooted goons to smash up polling stations and beat up citizens, Spain should simply have allowed it to proceed. Then, after the referendum, Spain should have challenged the result and legitimacy of the vote through the courts.

Incidentally, the referendum was a resounding independence result. By all accounts the actual feeling of Catalonia is a third strongly out and two thirds "meh". With the simple application of a ludicrous amount of force, Spain will have kept those without a strong feeling away from the polls, along with those who would have voted to remain part of Spain but didn't want to be seen voting in case they were thought to be voting to leave.

The only people who would turn up in the face of ridiculous violence are those who feel very strongly against the status quo.

It would have meant that rather than being able to send in the military knowing that none of them would be harmed and they would be met with no greater resistance than sticks and rocks, they'd be sending them to meet a potential deadly force.

That alone may have prompted a rethink about the wisdom of sending the military in, and more willingness to consider the diplomatic, political and legal routes available. And without the military action skewing the voting patterns, that may have in turn resulted in a far less conclusive poll result, with no need to challenge it...

Basically, Spain's politicians played themselves. They could have let it pass and then used political avenues. Instead it has politicians in prison, others on the run and a general ill-feeling in the state.

I did not meant to defend spains action sendingnin the guardia civil, which is a paramilitary organisation so it did what it supposed to do stop uproars (again I do not agree they should have been called in).

The jailtimes are excessive, immensly excessive, but the order to arrest came after they called out independence not before! They would have not gone to jail if they didn't.

I do agree spain played itself and spain is acting wildly out of proportion.

On the guns might have let them rethink... Seems unlikely when they throw politicians in jail for 30+years.

They might have had an actual civil war how would that have been better?

And again the guardia civil is not the military! We in belgium had a similar force. They are far from military. That beeing said I'm glad they are gone as police resembling the military isn't a force that should be nessecary.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I did not meant to defend spains action sendingnin the guardia civil, which is a paramilitary organisation so it did what it supposed to do stop uproars (again I do not agree they should have been called in).

The jailtimes are excessive, immensly excessive, but the order to arrest came after they called out independence not before!
I do agree spain played itself and spain is acting wildly out of proportion.

On the guns might have let them rethink... Seems unlikely when they throw politicians in jail for 30+years.

They might have had an actual civil war how would that have been better?

And again the guardia civil is not the military! We in belgium had a similar force. They are far from military. That beeing said I'm glad they are gone as police resembling the military isn't a force that should be nessecary.

The point about guns isn't that if the citizens legally had guns they would have used them in self defense. The point is if the state knew the citizens were potentially heavily armed they probably wouldn't have sent in the jackboots to begin with. A few sharpshooting citizens could do a lot of damage to a huge group of men and women all bunched up in the middle of the street. So they'd have to escalate the situation and bring in some armor something I highly doubt they would do in this situation, given the citizens were simply getting together to vote on something that had pretty much zero chance of morphing into a legal outcome.

 

[Biggles]

The point about guns isn't that if the citizens legally had guns they would have used them in self defense. The point is if the state knew the citizens were potentially heavily armed they probably wouldn't have sent in the jackboots to begin with. A few sharpshooting citizens could do a lot of damage to a huge group of men and women all bunched up in the middle of the street. So they'd have to escalate the situation and bring in some armor something I highly doubt they would do in this situation, given the citizens were simply getting together to vote on something that had pretty much zero chance of morphing into a legal outcome.

Really? In the America thread you offered the opinion that the "government" wouldn't dare act against citizens in this way in TEXAS ... because they would risk encountering heavily armed opposition. I pointed out that that was exactly the situation that occurred in the Waco incident. "A few sharpshooting" Branch Davidians killed federal agents & the Feds brought in the "armor". The stand-off ended in a confrontation that left some 80 men, women & children dead.

It's had to imagine any situation within a modern, democratic nation-state where the presence of heavily armed citizens is going to result in positive outcomes in a political crisis. When the 2nd Amendment was written, it made sense (ignoring the fact that it was very poorly written). A fledgling nation with no standing army needed the ability to call up a militia for protection against foreign incursions & potential internal unrest. With no effective police force, individual citizens needed the ability to protect themselves & their families from threats & for hunting. This latter consideration still has some merit, but the idea that citizens should have guns to protect themselves against a "tyrannical government"? That is an anachronism.

The US now has a massive standing army. It has multiple levels of policing - local, state & federal. There is no way "citizens" no matter how well armed can effectively stand up to that force. The only recourse for the citizen is the rule of law & the exercise of democratic power. It is impossible to imagine a scenario, even in the era of Trump, where the"government" would attack, en masse, the citizens of the United States. More likely would be the disintegration of the country into competing factions, as happened in the past & continues to happen in different countries around the world. Having the various factions heavily armed is not going to help citizens arrive at a successful compromise between the competing factions - you can see this reality at play in dozens of ongoing conflicts around the world today.

The heavy-handed actions of the Spanish government are indefensible, but had the Catalan separatists been armed & fired on federal forces the resulting deaths & carnage would have escalated the crisis, created further divisions amongst the population of Catalonia & made the possibility of any kind of political resolution more distant than ever.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Really? In the America thread you offered the opinion that the "government" wouldn't dare act against citizens in this way in TEXAS ... because they would risk encountering heavily armed opposition. I pointed out that that was exactly the situation that occurred in the Waco incident. "A few sharpshooting" Branch Davidians killed federal agents & the Feds brought in the "armor". The stand-off ended in a confrontation that left some 80 men, women & children dead.

You're comparing an armed standoff with people locked in a compound who had already killed federal agents vs. hundreds of thousands of people gathering to vote. That's not apples to oranges that's apples to 1978 Ford F150 front bumpers.

It's had to imagine any situation within a modern, democratic nation-state where the presence of heavily armed citizens is going to result in positive outcomes in a political crisis. When the 2nd Amendment was written, it made sense (ignoring the fact that it was very poorly written). A fledgling nation with no standing army needed the ability to call up a militia for protection against foreign incursions & potential internal unrest. With no effective police force, individual citizens needed the ability to protect themselves & their families from threats & for hunting. This latter consideration still has some merit, but the idea that citizens should have guns to protect themselves against a "tyrannical government"? That is an anachronism.

American citizens have been heavily armed for some time. They've had their ups and downs but all in all it's been a pretty good ride.

The US now has a massive standing army. It has multiple levels of policing - local, state & federal. There is no way "citizens" no matter how well armed can effectively stand up to that force. The only recourse for the citizen is the rule of law & the exercise of democratic power. It is impossible to imagine a scenario, even in the era of Trump, where the"government" would attack, en masse, the citizens of the United States. More likely would be the disintegration of the country into competing factions, as happened in the past & continues to happen in different countries around the world. Having the various factions heavily armed is not going to help citizens arrive at a successful compromise between the competing factions - you can see this reality at play in dozens of ongoing conflicts around the world today.

That worked out well for the Catalans.

The heavy-handed actions of the Spanish government are indefensible, but had the Catalan separatists been armed & fired on federal forces the resulting deaths & carnage would have escalated the crisis, created further divisions amongst the population of Catalonia & made the possibility of any kind of political resolution more distant than ever.

It's indefensible but it happened. And who knows what the "resulting deaths and carnage" would have resulted in. Maybe a great deal of sympathy for the Catalans and a great more deal of condemnation for a tyrannical Spanish government that sends in it's jackboots to beat down it's citizens for having the audacity to vote. Or maybe nothing would have happened because the government wouldn't have been stupid enough to send in foot soldiers knowing they'd be facing armed citizens who aren't going to just lay down and get beaten to a pulp.

 

[Mr Tree]

If shots where fired the catalonians had lost all sympathy from me.

Now they at least get sympathy for how spain treated them, and are.able.to hold the moral highground compared to spain. Spain's actions are not to be defended but I disagree that this gives the catalonian side a free pas on critique.

Spain is obviously worse but the independence struggle is not a black and white picture and painting it as such is dishonnest.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If shots where fired the catalonians had lost all sympathy from me.

Now they at least get sympathy for how spain treated them, and are.able.to hold the moral highground compared to spain. Spain's actions are not to be defended but I disagree that this gives the catalonian side a free pas on critique.

Spain is obviously worse but the independence struggle is not a black and white picture and painting it as such is dishonnest.

So as long as they are completely defenseless and getting beat down like dogs in the street by the hundreds you can sleep at night but if they defended themselves all bets are off? That seems so backwards to me. It's ironic and sadly comical to see people saying the proper course of action is democracy and negotiation and peace when it was the very people who are supposed to protect the rights of the citizens to engage in the democratic process doing the beating. How do you negotiate in good faith with people who just sent in their jackboots to beat you into submission with clubs, rubber bullets and teargas?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santaya, Spanish Philosopher

 

[Mr Tree]

So as long as they are completely defenseless and getting beat down like dogs in the street by the hundreds you can sleep at night but if they defended themselves all bets are off? That seems so backwards to me. It's ironic and sadly comical to see people saying the proper course of action is democracy and negotiation and peace when it was the very people who are supposed to protect the rights of the citizens to engage in the democratic process doing the beating. How do you negotiate in good faith with people who just sent in their jackboots to beat you into submission with clubs, rubber bullets and teargas?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santaya, Spanish Philosopher

That's a strawman mate! So please react to my actual position or walk on...

To be cleat the spanish government has lost all of my sympathy because of that action.

Could you please not do that? Why would you imply I'm ok with the beating of people? In all honesty it kind of seems like a deliberate strawman as I have said many times the action of the spanish government were to be condemned.

So also why would you imply that's my position? I'd realy like an answer to that question.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That's a strawman mate! So please react to my actual position or walk on...

To be cleat the spanish government has lost all of my sympathy because of that action.

Could you please not do that? Why would you imply I'm ok with the beating of people? In all honesty it kind of seems like a deliberate strawman as I have said many times the action of the spanish government were to be condemned.

So also why would you imply that's my position? I'd realy like an answer to that question.

No strawman. You said that if the Catalans had fired shots you would lose all sympathy. To me that means you're ok so long as they remain defenseless except for using their hands but if they had defended themselves with weapons they would no longer have sympathy. So long as they are just victims they have your support but the second they defend themselves with weapons you don't support them. If that is what you said there is no strawman. If it isn't, clarify your position.

The Spanish government vigourously defended their actions and the response from the international community, including the U.N., was nothing more than paper condemnations. "We strongly disagree with this action on the part of the Spanish government...blah blah blah". Completely meaningless.

 

[Mr Tree]

No strawman. You said that if the Catalans had fired shots you would lose all sympathy. To me that means you're ok so long as they remain defenseless except for using their hands but if they had defended themselves with weapons they would no longer have sympathy. So long as they are just victims they have your support but the second they defend themselves with weapons you don't support them. If that is what you said there is no strawman. If it isn't, clarify your position.

The Spanish government vigourously defended their actions and the response from the international community, including the U.N., was nothing more than paper condemnations. "We strongly disagree with this action on the part of the Spanish government...blah blah blah". Completely meaningless.

I stated my opinion... You seem to lack the ability to understand.

I as an individual with no political power can't really do much but disagree with it and voice my condemnations so maybe start being a little less mad at the inaction of the international political community so you don't have to project it.

How hard is to see the diffrence. Between not being ok with violence from either side and beeing ok with violence as long as long as no guns are used... I don't accept violence and the side using violence loses my respect.
So I'm NOT ok with this violence.

To me that means you're ok so long as they remain defenseless except for using their hands but if they had defended themselves with weapons they would no longer have sympathy.

Yes, like YOU see it. Now keep arguing with the potion like YOU see it. How is that not textbook defenition of a strawman arguing with a position YOU make up.

 

[Scaff]

You're comparing an armed standoff with people locked in a compound who had already killed federal agents vs. hundreds of thousands of people gathering to vote. That's not apples to oranges that's apples to 1978 Ford F150 front bumpers.

American citizens have been heavily armed for some time. They've had their ups and downs but all in all it's been a pretty good ride.

That worked out well for the Catalans.

It's indefensible but it happened. And who knows what the "resulting deaths and carnage" would have resulted in. Maybe a great deal of sympathy for the Catalans and a great more deal of condemnation for a tyrannical Spanish government that sends in it's jackboots to beat down it's citizens for having the audacity to vote. Or maybe nothing would have happened because the government wouldn't have been stupid enough to send in foot soldiers knowing they'd be facing armed citizens who aren't going to just lay down and get beaten to a pulp.

A part of the problem here is that you seem to be under the impression that this was the Spanish government stamping down on a part of the Spanish democratic process.

That's not the case at all, the election in question (and views on that are an utterly separate discussion) was not a part of the Spanish democratic process, so please stop pretending it was.

You also seem to be utterly unaware (and yet google gives the needed information in seconds) that Catalan's have tried the armed approach, they did so from 1979 to 1990.

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


Its rather odd that you seem (despite not been American) to want to defend the US Constitution, but find it utterly OK to dismiss the Spanish Constitution (under which the Independence vote was illegal and un-constitutional). Why cherry pick between these constitutions, what makes the Spanish one worth less to you than the US ones?

Catalan has no right (under Spanish or International law) to secede from Spain unilaterally, as such the election was not legal, was unconstitutional and those taking part were not engaged in any democratic process. you have based your entire argument around this strawman,

A question for you, what would be your view of a US state without the right of secession doing the same, or for that matter Quebec?

However the single largest argument against the claim the US would never act against its own people due to differences of this kind of nature (because the constitution arms them) is the small matter of the Civil War.

 

[Johnnypenso]

A part of the problem here is that you seem to be under the impression that this was the Spanish government stamping down on a part of the Spanish democratic process.

That's not the case at all, the election in question (and views on that are an utterly separate discussion) was not a part of the Spanish democratic process, so please stop pretending it was.

You also seem to be utterly unaware (and yet google gives the needed information in seconds) that Catalan's have tried the armed approach, they did so from 1979 to 1990.

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

Its rather odd that you seem (despite not been American) to want to defend the US Constitution, but find it utterly OK to dismiss the Spanish Constitution (under which the Independence vote was illegal and un-constitutional). Why cherry pick between these constitutions, what makes the Spanish one worth less to you than the US ones?
Catalan has no right (under Spanish or International law) to secede from Spain unilaterally, as such the election was not legal, was unconstitutional and those taking part were not engaged in any democratic process. you have based your entire argument around this strawman,

Legal or illegal election, history or not, none of this justifies an armed response against defenseless citizens. All they were doing was voting, the most democratic act possible. If the vote was illegal they could have simply let it proceed then sorted it out in the courts.

A question for you, what would be your view of a US state without the right of secession doing the same, or for that matter Quebec?

My view would be to let them go ahead and vote and then figure it out in the courts. My view would definitely not be to beat them, kick them, throw them down the stairs and fire rubber bullets and teargas at them. I'm sure you know that Quebec had a vote on secession and almost everyone turned up to vote whether the vote was "legal" or not. I don't recall PM Chretien calling in the jackboots to shoot and teargas them.

However the single largest argument against the claim the US would never act against its own people due to differences of this kind of nature (because the constitution arms them) is the small matter of the Civil War.

There are exceptions to every rule but the fact is many soldiers entered the war with their personal weapons, especially early on when there was a dearth of weapons available to them before the building of weapons factories and the importing of weapons from the Brits.

I defend the Constitution because it exists and it's a good document, arguably one of the most important documents in history. I don't think it's perfect but it's done a heck of a good job so far. If you want to make any major changes in gun control you have to take it to the legislature and change the 2nd amendment. Short of that it's nothing but stuff and nonsense and putting on a bandaid here and there. Banning so called assault rifles is nothing more than lip service and temporary appeasement to your voting base. The problem of mass shootings and how to solve them is much bigger than a single weapon here or there and requires a broad based bi-partisan approach to even begin to tackle it, something the current political climate seems wholly incapable of.

 

[Scaff]

Legal or illegal election, history or not, none of this justifies an armed response against defenseless citizens. All they were doing was voting, the most democratic act possible. If the vote was illegal they could have simply let it proceed then sorted it out in the courts.

They had already done that.

My view would be to let them go ahead and vote and then figure it out in the courts. My view would definitely not be to beat them, kick them, throw them down the stairs and fire rubber bullets and teargas at them. I'm sure you know that Quebec had a vote on secession and almost everyone turned up to vote whether the vote was "legal" or not. I don't recall PM Chretien calling in the jackboots to shoot and teargas them.

The Quebec referendum was totally different, it sort to gain authority to then negotiate independence, not to directly declare it unilaterally.

There are exceptions to every rule but the fact is many soldiers entered the war with their personal weapons, especially early on when there was a dearth of weapons available to them before the building of weapons factories and the importing of weapons from the Brits.

Semantics, and the fact that people used personal weapons doesn't strengthen you case, it weakens it.

The 2nd amendment didn't stop the US government using force against its own people and resulting in a massive loss of life and a full civil war.

I defend the Constitution because it exists and it's a good document, arguably one of the most important documents in history. I don't think it's perfect but it's done a heck of a good job so far. If you want to make any major changes in gun control you have to take it to the legislature and change the 2nd amendment. Short of that it's nothing but stuff and nonsense and putting on a bandaid here and there. Banning so called assault rifles is nothing more than lip service and temporary appeasement to your voting base. The problem of mass shootings and how to solve them is much bigger than a single weapon here or there and requires a broad based bi-partisan approach to even begin to tackle it, something the current political climate seems wholly incapable of.

Still doesn't address why you support one Constitution without question and not others.

Nor do you need to change the second amendment (however the name give a big clue to that not being impossible), why does it preclude sensible limits on ownership and background checks?


Its all arguably irreverent as its apparently all the fault of video games anyway (Trump seems to be channeling the '80s and '90s with this one).

 

[Johnnypenso]

They had already done that.

They had already let the vote proceed and sorted it out in the courts? News to me.

The Quebec referendum was totally different, it sort to gain authority to then negotiate independence, not to directly declare it unilaterally.

Either way, it wouldn't have justified armed intervention by jackbooted Canadian thugs.

Semantics, and the fact that people used personal weapons doesn't strengthen you case, it weakens it.

The 2nd amendment didn't stop the US government using force against its own people and resulting in a massive loss of life and a full civil war.

Your opinion. I disagree. Not sure how people not having personal weapons to defend their liberties would have strengthened my case though.

Still doesn't address why you support one Constitution without question and not others.

Is there a part of the Spanish constitution that calls for armed intervention if the citizens of a region show up to place pieces of paper in a box? Can you quote it for me?

Nor do you need to change the second amendment (however the name give a big clue to that not being impossible), why does it preclude sensible limits on ownership and background checks?

There's no such thing as a concrete sensible limit. Your sensible is not my sensible is not the next guy's sensible. Obviously tens of millions of people think the limits are pretty sensible right now.

Its all arguably irreverent as its apparently all the fault of video games anyway (Trump seems to be channeling the '80s and '90s with this one).

Trump says a lot of stuff. Focus on the actions. Words are simply negotiations. Pretty sure you would have thought him calling Kim Rocketman was a mistake like most people and yet they are heading to the table to talk about the way forward in May. Absolutely historic IMO. Guaranteed Nobel Peace Prize if it works, or it would be in a non-political world. I sincerely hope it works out for the best, but maybe you should consider that some people operate on a different plane than you or me.

 

[Scaff]

They had already let the vote proceed and sorted it out in the courts? News to me.

The legality of a unilateral independence vote had been declared illegal by the courts before it took place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017

Either way, it wouldn't have justified armed intervention by jackbooted Canadian thugs.

What part of one being a legal referendum and the other not being is not clear?

Nice inflammatory language however.

Your opinion. I disagree. Not sure how people not having personal weapons to defend their liberties would have strengthened my case though.

What?

Your words....

"the fact is many soldiers entered the war with their personal weapons"

...now they didn't have personal weapons?

Is there a part of the Spanish constitution that calls for armed intervention if the citizens of a region show up to place pieces of paper in a box? Can you quote it for me?

Drop the strawman.

You should know better than to try this kind of nonsense. You know full well that's not what I said or came close to implying, don't even try and claim otherwise.

There's no such thing as a concrete sensible limit. Your sensible is not my sensible is not the next guy's sensible. Obviously tens of millions of people think the limits are pretty sensible right now.

Odd how so many other country seem to be able to find that sensible limit isn't it.

Trump says a lot of stuff. Focus on the actions. Words are simply negotiations.

Actions around video games?

Are you actually seriously under the impression that's going to make a difference.

Pretty sure you would have thought him calling Kim Rocketman was a mistake like most people and yet they are heading to the table to talk about the way forward in May. Absolutely historic IMO. Guaranteed Nobel Peace Prize if it works, or it would be in a non-political world. I sincerely hope it works out for the best, but maybe you should consider that some people operate on a different plane than you or me.

Which has sweet 🤬 all to do with this.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The legality of a unilateral independence vote had been declared illegal by the courts before it took place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017.

I have not said any different. What I said was, did they allow the vote to proceed and then sort it out in the courts?

What part of one being a legal referendum and the other not being is not clear? Nice inflammatory language however.

What part of either way, legal or illegal, wouldn't have justified armed intervention is not clear?

What?

Your words....

"the fact is many soldiers entered the war with their personal weapons"

...now they didn't have personal weapons?

You said having personal weapons didn't strengthen my case. Not having personal weapons wouldn't strengthen my case either.

Drop the strawman.

You should know better than to try this kind of nonsense. You know full well that's not what I said or came close to implying, don't even try and claim otherwise.

I don't see it as a strawman. You keep mentioning the constitutions without giving any specifics. The only specifics that would matter to me is if the Spanish constitution allowed for armed intervention in a region because the people showed up to put pieces of paper in a box when they were told not to. If you want to declare that a strawman, you're the boss and you make the rules.

Odd how so many other country seem to be able to find that sensible limit isn't it.

Other countries aren't the United States.

Actions around video games?

Are you actually seriously under the impression that's going to make a difference.

Didn't say it would. I said focus on the actions. There have been no actions so far, just words. Trump says a lot of words.

Which has sweet 🤬 all to do with this.

Your opinion. IMO Trump operates on a different level or through different methods than most people. Sometimes it works, he's a multi-billionaire after all and the richest POTUS by far in history, but he's also declared bankruptcy a few times as well. Trump says a lot of things simply to get a response or create a certain mindset in his political or business opponents. Obama or G.W. would never have called Kim Rocketman but neither of them made it to the negotiating table either. Obama was the great negotiator, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and he couldn't get Kim to the table. Sometimes being Mr. Nice Guy isn't the best course of action. Some might call it coincidence or an act of desperation on the part of Kim and the NK's but Presidents and other world leaders get credit, and condemnation, for what happens on their watch regardless of whether they made it directly happen or not. I don't know what is actually going on or is said behind the scenes and neither do you but the meeting is going to happen barring an issue between now and then and Trump should get full credit for that.

So, while people focused on the words and rhetoric leading up to this historic moment, the only thing that matters is that the two mortal enemies are going to sit down and negotiate. In the end the actions, and not the words, be they name calling a world leader or crying about violent movies and videogames, are all that matter.

 

[Scaff]

I have not said any different. What I said was, did they allow the vote to proceed and then sort it out in the courts?

Another court case to determine the legality of the election wasn't needed. It had already been through that process, as such a post election review of it illegality would make no sense at all.

What part of either way, legal or illegal, wouldn't have justified armed intervention is not clear?

It actually makes a large difference. The use of force against people legaly exercising a democratic right and ones that were involved in an illegal process are quite different.

The question of if the reaction was proportionate is secondary to that.

The issue is that you have said they were exercising a democratic right, which is not the case at all.

You said having personal weapons didn't strengthen my case. Not having personal weapons wouldn't strengthen my case either.

It does make a difference. Did the second amendment right to form a militia and bear arms stop the civil war? No.

Yet you have argued in favour of it being an effective deterrent, this is an example (a very bloody one) that contradicts that claim.

I don't see it as a strawman. You keep mentioning the constitutions without giving any specifics. The only specifics that would matter to me is if the Spanish constitution allowed for armed intervention in a region because the people showed up to put pieces of paper in a box when they were told not to. If you want to declare that a strawman, you're the boss and you make the rules.

I was very specific in regard to this. You ignore the Spanish constitution by saying that the Catalan election was a democratic process, it wasn't under the Spanish constitution.

I have previously said that quite clearly, to then make a leap to something totally different is a strawman.

Other countries aren't the United States.

Makes no difference at all, in fact its a core point. ##Other countries have constitutions, Why ignore part of one and uphold another?

Its a simple question.

Didn't say it would. I said focus on the actions. There have been no actions so far, just words. Trump says a lot of words.

What actions could possible come out of that meeting that would make a difference?

I mean have you actually seen the video they presented and then stuck on youtube with zero context?

However it does raise an interesting constitutional point, which does Trump care more about the first or second amendment?

Your opinion. IMO Trump operates on a different level or through different methods than most people. Sometimes it works, he's a multi-billionaire after all and the richest POTUS by far in history, but he's also declared bankruptcy a few times as well. Trump says a lot of things simply to get a response or create a certain mindset in his political or business opponents. Obama or G.W. would never have called Kim Rocketman but neither of them made it to the negotiating table either. Obama was the great negotiator, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and he couldn't get Kim to the table. Sometimes being Mr. Nice Guy isn't the best course of action. Some might call it coincidence or an act of desperation on the part of Kim and the NK's but Presidents and other world leaders get credit, and condemnation, for what happens on their watch regardless of whether they made it directly happen or not. I don't know what is actually going on or is said behind the scenes and neither do you but the meeting is going to happen barring an issue between now and then and Trump should get full credit for that.

So, while people focused on the words and rhetoric leading up to this historic moment, the only thing that matters is that the two mortal enemies are going to sit down and negotiate. In the end the actions, and not the words, be they name calling a world leader or crying about violent movies and videogames, are all that matter.

We know your a fan, its not easy to miss. It however still has nothing at all to do with the subject being discussed.

 

[Biggles]

You're comparing an armed standoff with people locked in a compound who had already killed federal agents vs. hundreds of thousands of people gathering to vote. That's not apples to oranges that's apples to 1978 Ford F150 front bumpers.

You're the one who brought up Texas ... which was apropos of nothing in the discussion about Spain. You're the one who suggested that it would be a good idea to sprinkle "sharpshooters" within a crowd of hundreds of thousands of people gathering to vote. If police were shot at in Catalonia, you can be sure that the police would have shot back ... & with far greater firepower & (as a Waco), many people would have been killed. The chances for a reasonable political resolution would be irremediably damaged.

Either way, it wouldn't have justified armed intervention by jackbooted Canadian thugs.

Perhaps you have forgotten the 1970 October crisis when Trudeau sent in the army in response to armed violence on the part of the FLQ?

Following the October crisis, Quebec separatists overwhelmingly rejected the idea of armed resistance & chose the path of political engagement, which eventually led to the (peaceful) 1980 referendum.

The idea that "good guys with guns" would take on "the bad government" & win a convincing military & moral victory is pure fantasy on the part of gun lovers. In real life, what I see is many examples where having heavily armed protagonists results in endless conflict & violence. In most cases, there are multiple religious, ethnic, social or political factions, within & without the "official" government, battling each other. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Colombia, the Congo, Northern Ireland ... the historical examples are endless. And, of course, the obvious example in US history is the Civil War.

 

[Scaff]

And, of course, the obvious example in US history is the Civil War.

Ssshhh, that's just the exception that proves the rule............

.........oh wait, no it's the norm.

What was also forgotten in the use of Spain as an example is the long history of separatist violence and terrorism. The 'good guy' with the gun ends up being the 'bad guy' killing the innocent and/or spreading terror.

 

[Dennisch]

And so it begins.

 

[Blood Eagle]

A DEA agent also famously shot himself in the foot with an assumed unloaded gun in a classroom but it's ok because only military and law enforcement should be allowed to have guns.

 

[Michael88]

A DEA agent also famously shot himself in the foot with an assumed unloaded gun in a classroom but it's ok because only military and law enforcement should be allowed to have guns.

People often forget that law Enforcement and Military personnel do not consist of Demi-Gods but of ordinary humans with some formal training. They make mistakes, have emotions, have bad days and feelings just like you. Not trying to put down people in those branches but those that say only they should have guns forget that they are just humans too.

Also people often expect them to have way more training than they actually have, and they often have unrealistic ideas about their actual capabilities.
(Except special branches)

 

[Blood Eagle]

People often forget that law Enforcement and Military personnel do not consist of Demi-Gods but of ordinary humans with some formal training. They make mistakes, have emotions, have bad days and feelings just like you. Not trying to put down people in those branches but those that say only they should have guns forget that they are just humans too.

Also people often expect them to have way more training than they actually have, and they often have unrealistic ideas about their actual capabilities.
(Except special branches)

Yeah I mentioned earlier in this thread that people should stop glorifying military and law enforcement because there is still the human element. That and your typical pencil pusher military member has probably fired a weapon a handful of times during basic training to never fire one again or even be issued one. Your typical law enforcement officer may never fire his/her weapon on duty ever and go to the range once a year. I am not one of those who think only LE/Military should be the only ones armed. Much of my life has been spent around a gun be it Military service, actual war, being a contractor and armed vessel security. At those levels, mistakes rarely happen but they can and do in some form or another. 100% of mistakes can be avoided by following by following 3 or 4 simple rules. Society is not ready to accept that there will never be a time when a mistake will never happen. Especially when there is an agenda to push.

 

[UKMikey]

I know it's none of my business but I don't understand how an incident like this makes the case for there being more guns in classrooms or that people think shooting themselves in the foot is ok.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I know it's none of my business but I don't understand how an incident like this makes the case for there being more guns in classrooms or that people think shooting themselves in the foot is ok.

It doesn't make a case either way. It's an isolated incident. There will probably be other isolated incidents. Accidents happen. Just like anything else whether to carry guns in the classroom should be evaluated in it's entirety. Do you discontinue sports in school because hundreds of thousands of kids are injured every year.

 

[TexRex]

Do you discontinue sports in school because hundreds of thousands of kids are injured every year.

If that sport is indoor skeet shooting with unauthorized firearms...you'd better believe it.



Yeah, it's an isolated incident, but it's an isolated incident that shouldn't have happened because gun possession was not permitted on campus regardless of the teacher's carry status and/or supposed training, and that the teacher's fate is so ambiguous as of the article's publishing is absolutely astonishing to me. I want the injureds' families to receive piles and piles of money because of this, and I want that teacher out of the classroom permanently if not incarcerated.

 

[Mr Tree]

It doesn't make a case either way. It's an isolated incident. There will probably be other isolated incidents. Accidents happen. Just like anything else whether to carry guns in the classroom should be evaluated in it's entirety. Do you discontinue sports in school because hundreds of thousands of kids are injured every year.

Yeah mate incidents happen. It's isolated

And yeah we should really ba' sport the slightest thing that goes wrong people get serious and lifethreatening injuries [where is that rofl smiley]

Seriously conflating the dangers of sports to the dangers of firearms is laughable. And to be honnest that's what this entire debate revolves around.

Saying it's culture or history yet never providing means of slow change towards those attitudes as it's cultural anyway. Conflating it with way less lethal weapons (now even sports ) or weapons that don't have the ability to cause as much mayhem in as sgort of a time and acting as it's exactly the same....

I could deal with that if with that solutuons where offered but they are not. It's used to dismiss other points of view without having to look for solutions.


I'm going to do exactly the same thing as you did to me:
Since you don't propose any solutions you must be ok with kids being murdered in schools! That's how I see it so it must be that way.

Enjoy

 

[Johnnypenso]

If that sport is indoor skeet shooting with unauthorized firearms...you'd better believe it.



Yeah, it's an isolated incident, but it's an isolated incident that shouldn't have happened because gun possession was not permitted on campus regardless of the teacher's carry status and/or supposed training, and that the teacher's fate is so ambiguous as of the article's publishing is absolutely astonishing to me. I want the injureds' families to receive piles and piles of money because of this, and I want that teacher out of the classroom permanently if not incarcerated.

So what you are saying is there are rules in place already about this sort of thing and the rules were broken and someone got hurt.

Yeah mate incidents happen. It's isolated

And yeah we should really ba' sport the slightest thing that goes wrong people get serious and lifethreatening injuries [where is that rofl smiley]

Seriously conflating the dangers of sports to the dangers of firearms is laughable. And to be honnest that's what this entire debate revolves around.

I wouldn't conflate the dangers of high school sports to the danger of firearms because hundreds of thousands of kids are injured and several die each year while participating in sports. This is an isolated incident of someone breaking the very rules put in place to ensure safety so the question is asked about how this makes the case for guns in the classroom and the answer is obvious. A single incident in which all the rules and safety protocols were broken doesn't make a "case" one way or the other.

Saying it's culture or history yet never providing means of slow change towards those attitudes as it's cultural anyway. Conflating it with way less lethal weapons (now even sports ) or weapons that don't have the ability to cause as much mayhem in as sgort of a time and acting as it's exactly the same....

I could deal with that if with that solutuons where offered but they are not. It's used to dismiss other points of view without having to look for solutions.


I'm going to do exactly the same thing as you did to me:
Since you don't propose any solutions you must be ok with kids being murdered in schools! That's how I see it so it must be that way.

Enjoy

There are only 2 answers IMO. Change the 2A or impose regulations that conform with the 2A and don't infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to own firearms. There are already a pile of laws and regulations in place and none of them helped stop the latest tragedy, all of the incidents before it and likely none will stop the next one either.