26 thoughts on “Walk Up Not Out

  1. Um, nice idea but it kind of misses the point. And, while it’s always nice to be nice, doesn’t this attempt to put the blame on the survivors of the Parkland shooting? (If they were only nicer to the outsider! )

    It’s rather the same way that the blame was put on women in the case of Elliot Rodgers (the shooter in California who was furious because hot women weren’t throwing themselves at him and begging him to have sex with them) — many people online were just like “Some woman should have taken one for the team and f*cked him — it would have prevented this shooting.”

    The walk out is about pressuring our government to make SENSIBLE GUN LAWS. Trying to co-opt it into something entirely different is a swing and a miss.

    4+

    • I think doing both might be a good idea, though I doubt them walking out of school will help bring about sensible gun laws. Too many lawmakers depend on the donations from the NRA to change their minds and act ‘sensibly’.

      1+

  2. NRA political donations represent a tiny fraction of donations when compared to dem donations from Unions, PP, Soreoooze, Bloomersberg or a dozen other dem hack contributors. So, let’s keep it real.

    This was a failure on numerous levels of Big Gubermint that can’t do their job. If they can’t or won’t do their jobs under current law, adding more isn’t going to accomplish anything.

    When my neighbor gets picked up for their 2nd, 3rd or 4th DWI, I’m not required to put a locking device on my vehicle in order to drive.

    The 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights wasn’t named a Bill of Suggestions and is actually found in the document, unlike some other unfounded rights that have magically appeared over the years.

    4+

    • The right to personally possess a firearm magically appeared in 2008, despite the explicit wording of “well regulated militia” in the document.

      As for “NRA political donations represent a tiny fraction of donations when compared to dem donations…”, I call [citation needed].

      4+

      • As for “NRA political donations represent a tiny fraction of donations when compared to dem donations…”, I call

        There’s really no point in doing that. The initial line is comparing the totals of over a dozen donors to one. As it is, the actual NRA numbers range as high as $70+ million dollars when one takes in account straight up donations and Internet ads or field operations, including get-out-the-vote efforts. But really, what’s the point of making such a ridiculous statement? When someone can’t make a one to one comparison then they admit to not having a point. It’s a stupid statement to misdirect the real issue.

        Another related issue is if the NRA funneled Russian money into the elections. If so, I would think we could have the entire lot of D.C. Republicans in court since it is illegal to use foreign money to influence federal elections.

        0

  3. When money from the NRA becomes more important to the point that they would rather see children die than even consider a solution that could help prevent that from happening, may their dark souls (if they have one) burn in hell.

    5+

  4. Geo. Look up Alexander Hamilton’s Federal Paper 29, which deals exclusively with the Second Amendment. The definition of “well regulated militia”, as the Paper tells you, is what we today call the National Guard. No where in the Paper does it give the right to ordinary citizens to bear arms.

    4+

    • I’m guessing it was easier for the Founding Fathers to imagine an AR-15 than Twitter. Should the First Amendment not apply to what people use nowadays to spread their words and ideas because it’s different than what was available back then?

      Do you think the Founding Fathers ever imagined an individual would be able to instantaneously communicate to millions of people?

      0

      • The First Amendment has limitations. All cases that has put limits on speech happens to be speech that does harm. So, while your comparison is nothing more than a straw man, we can put the basic aspects of “arms” to be limited to handguns for protection and single shot rifles and shotguns for hunting. Then we can categorize all weapons that fit what AR-15s are to be put into a category that are only designed to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. Anyone who says they need for hunting, suck at hunting and should get out of the sport.

        3+

            • I can see we are going to disagree over the reason for the second amendment without any likelihood of common ground, so I’m respectfully going to bow out of an in depth debate about it.

              I come to Jonco’s little place on the web for some light-hearted laughter and stress relief from work and honestly just don’t have the energy for a circular debate (and doing it on a phone isn’t fun what a pain!).

              I do appreciate your arguments and the respectful nature in which you’ve discussed this with me. If more would do that, on both sides, I think common ground could be established to fix this. I absolutely see your side, understand where you are coming from and wish we could collectively find a solution that works for all (solving the problem while maintaining he rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their country).

              Feel free to claim victory tonight and poke fun at me for bailing! I look forward to debating you in the future over the quality of Jon’s posts. 🙂

              0

      • Twitter hasn’t been used to murder dozens of innocent kids in just a few minutes. I believe some think that most people who are asking for sensible gun laws want to ban each and every gun in the country. I don’t think that’s the case at all. I certainly wouldn’t want that, nor do I believe most people would.

        3+

        • No, but I bet social media has contributed to more suicides in this vulnerable population than kids killed in school shootings.

          Regardless, it doesn’t mean we can’t address both issues, though, and I think this post of yours (#walkupnotout) probably relates more to social media being a part of the problem that needs to be addressed as well.

          This tragedy was a failure of the system that should have been prevented before it happened. But nobody did anything. Nobody followed up.

          What sensible gun law would’ve prevented this that isn’t already in place?

          1+

          • If rapid firing assault rifles weren’t readily available this individual or another similar mad person probably wouldn’t have been able to kill as many people as he did so quickly. So banning assault rifles like they were before might be one big step.

            3+

            • Jon, as I stated to CAI, I’m going to bow out of the discussion. B&P is one of my happy places on the web and a source of stress relief and humor during an otherwise long and stressful day (thank you for that). I’m wishing I hadn’t engaged at this point—not because it’s not an incredibly important discussion, but because I would just rather not do it here in a place that’s supposed to be lighthearted and humorous to me, particularly when I know we’re not going to see eye to eye. I’ll concede the argument in favor of turning to some of your funny stuff (and hope we can all collectively figure this tragic issue out).

              Sorry if this come across as a cop out. I just don’t have it in me tonight to continue.

              0

              • I was going to say the same thing. I feel I’m not as articulate getting a point across as many others on here are. That doesn’t mean I’m wrong or right, just that we all have opinions and it’s good to share them civilly.

                1+

          • but I bet social media has contributed to more suicides in this vulnerable population than kids killed in school shootings. but I bet social media has contributed to more suicides in this vulnerable population than kids killed in school shootings.

            IF this true, the odds are they used a gun to kill themselves.

            This tragedy was a failure of the system that should have been prevented before it happened.

            That system is called legalized bribery. It’s what the NRA does to buy politicians to make sure they do nothing.

            Nobody followed up.

            Follow up, why? What did he do that was illegal to justify any law enforcement agency to follow up?

            0

        • I believe some think that most people who are asking for sensible gun laws want to ban each and every gun in the country.

          This is true, but it’s a tactic to change the argument. All the arguments against guns that I have seen have not been about all guns, but rather a particular type. As I mentioned once before, it’s still legal to own a machine gun. One has to pay more to do so and enjoy paperwork, so why not apply the same process to what essentially are weapons of war. Certainly an 18-year-old is less likely to want to deal with a lot of paperwork.

          1+

  5. That paper is not the Constitution nor the defining text of what the second amendment means. If we’re going to look at past written words as guidance on what the founding fathers intent was, there are dozens of examples showing their intent was for people to be armed, including Hamilton talking about individual citizens.

    “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

    “[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

    “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

    0

    • The first two references ignore the fact and the context that the arming of citizens verbiage was for the purpose of a militia as the Founding Fathers were against a standing army. As for Jefferson’s usage of Beccaria, it was not used nor directed to be about the Second Amendment. It comes from Jefferson’s Legal Commonplace Book when he was studying law. The book included summarizations of reports of English judges and speaks to natural law and its moral philosophy. While his common books provided a guide to his philosophies in creating the Constitution, that quote was not part of the discussion or debates regarding the Second Amendment and is a reach to say it is.

      But if you wish to hang your argument on Beccaria, he also said, “Crimes are more effectually prevented by the certainty than the severity of punishment.” So if the punishment of a mass shooting doesn’t prevent it from happening, then what makes a mass shooting certain to happen? Answer: A weapon that fires multiple rounds quickly. Therefore, we need to remove that “certainty.”

      There also is the problem of a misguided belief that “a well-regulated militia” and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” are two separate thoughts, when in fact they are not. There are spurious arguments that debate punctuation and the meaning of words at the time of the writing of Second Amendment to sway that meaning. Those arguments are much of what the Heller decision is about.

      Addressing the second point first, since Heller, there have been dozens of cases in lower courts that have upheld district gun laws. Their decisions have suggested there is an individual right, but society, too, has a right to protect itself. So there would seem to be limits to the Second Amendment that are acceptable.

      As for the first issue of grammar, the phrase “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” is known in grammar as an absolute construction and is defined as a supplementary adjunct that contains a subject, is subordinate in form but, crucially, has no syntactic link to the main clause, but still has a logical relationship which is clear from the context:
      This done, she walked off without another word”.
      Reaching the river, we pitched camp for the night.”

      Perhaps what is needed to truly understand the meaning of the Second Amendment, is to try reading it with one extra word that helps grasp the absolute clause, and also in doing so, clarifies the meaning: [Since] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      2+

      • This was supposed to be a nested reply to Paul, not out here on its own. He appeared to be using 29 to make what seemed like a specific point that Hamilton only talked about militias being armed and as a result the second amendment was not talking about an individual’s right to bear arms. I was just pulling these quotes to show that Hamilton has, in fact, as well as others, talked about citizens being armed in other works.

        0

        • That’s because Hamilton was chiming in on the debate of having the militias under the control of the federal government or under civilian control, a national militia vs a state militia, and the expenses of a standing army were among the many issues in the debate of a national defense. Pulling out quotes without filling in the discussion around them can be misleading.

          The series of Federalist Papers regarding this had nothing to do with an individual’s right to guns and was more about those civilians being ready to serve in a militia.

          Context. Context. Context.

          1+

  6. It’s refreshing to see so many people aware of the actual history, intent, and purpose of the 2A — so many people online who are 2A fanatics have somehow managed to skip right over the first half of the amendment — the half that sets the conditions for the second half — the half that is the RESPONSIBILITY that goes with the RIGHT.

    2+

Leave a Comment

wp-puzzle.com logo

This blog is kept spam free by WP-SpamFree.