Why did Tim Kaine call for gun control after the Ohio State rampage

[Shadow Wolf]

No, it was because he was apparently terrible at killing people.

Most people who go on such rampages are rarely trained killers. But it just so happens it's much easier to kill with a gun than with just about anything else that's likely an option.

 

[Revoltingest]

A "gun wielding guy" saved the day, but had the perp had a gun it's extremely at least a few would have been killed.
And just think. If we had fewer guns, rather than more and more and more, we'd have more attacks like this.

Fewer guns leads to more attacks?
I disagree.
But even if fewer guns meant fewer gun attacks, this would
be to advocate based upon 1 effect, while ignoring the others....
- Guns are useful for self defense.
- Guns are a constitutionally guaranteed liberty.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Fewer guns leads to more attacks?

Not fewer guns leading to more attacks, fewer guns leading to more attacks involving gunless perps.

- Guns are a constitutionally guaranteed liberty.

So? We had muskets when that was written. The entire document needs updating.

 

[Revoltingest]

So? We had muskets when that was written. The entire document needs updating.

Consider that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was not about the technology of the day, but rather the function of the arms, ie, militarilyy capable small arms. We had more than mere "muskets", which typically refer to smoothbore long guns. We also had "rifles", which had greater accuracy, albeit with slower reloading. This evolution of technology & accompanying changes in military tactics were occurring as the country was formed.

If the Constitution were intended to enshrine only the technology of the day, then we'd have no protection of electronically transmitted speech. I argue that the founders were aware that technology evolved (Franklin & Jefferson being a force behind this as scientists), & intended the Bill of Rights would cover additional human activities.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

If you are saying that because it was an Army base those in the military there had firearms then I suggest you do a little research before making a statement.
FYI Only military police and civilian police were allowed to carry firearms on that base. In actuality it was a softer target than most U.S. towns and cities (in some states).

You and @Neo Deist are right.

I was very hasty in using that as an example. I'm from Texas and it was literally the first thing that popped into my head.

Thanks for keeping me honest.

 

[Underhill]

Comey isn't responsible for Hillary's behavior, which is readily available for judgement.
I don't know how to judge Comey, except to say that he appears inconsistent.
And even this could be due to pressure from above.
Should we not judge our fellow man (or woman or other)?
(Remember that I'm not a Xian, so I have no restrictions.)

Seems a bit contrary to what you have said in the past.

You can't have it both ways. Pressure from above let Clinton off the hook and handed Trump 5 percentage points 2 weeks before the election? Seems more than a little counter intuitive.

 

[Underhill]

Consider that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was not about the technology of the day, but rather the function of the arms, ie, militarilyy capable small arms. We had more than mere "muskets", which typically refer to smoothbore long guns. We also had "rifles", which had greater accuracy, albeit with slower reloading. This evolution of technology & accompanying changes in military tactics were occurring as the country was formed.

If the Constitution were intended to enshrine only the technology of the day, then we'd have no protection of electronically transmitted speech. I argue that the founders were aware that technology evolved (Franklin & Jefferson being a force behind this as scientists), & intended the Bill of Rights would cover additional human activities.

I agree. But you would also have to admit the founders had no idea what the future would bring. They were writing the constitution based upon information of the day. For example, they were concerned that the country would face threats from the French, the indians... even the Brits, all of which have gone away. They were also concerned that a new despot would take over and the people would need to revolt, something that hasn't happened in our history.

Now the bigger threats come from crazies and criminals getting a hold of weapons. A fact that the right seems to ignore while cranking up the revolutionary war rhetoric, which is about as relevant as 1870's barn building techniques.

 

[Revoltingest]

Seems a bit contrary to what you have said in the past.

How so?
I often pass judgement on people.....
Hitler
Reagan
Alec Baldwin

You can't have it both ways. Pressure from above let Clinton off the hook and handed Trump 5 percentage points 2 weeks before the election? Seems more than a little counter intuitive.

To have it both ways would suggest making conflicting claims.
I don't see how you infer this.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree. But you would also have to admit the founders had no idea what the future would bring.

Sure, they wouldn't have known the specifics.
And things are now likely more fantastic than they imagined.
But still....they were able to observe change during their lifetime,
so I presume they'd expect it to continue.

They were writing the constitution based upon information of the day. For example, they were concerned that the country would face threats from the French, the indians... even the Brits, all of which have gone away.

So you say.
But @oldbadger looks pretty threatening to me.
Anyway, we do face threats from others, eg, China, Russia, ISIS.

They were also concerned that a new despot would take over and the people would need to revolt, something that hasn't happened in our history.

We've been fortunate.
But we shouldn't get complacent.
(Although some sore losers from the last election ought to calm down.)

Now the bigger threats come from crazies and criminals getting a hold of weapons. A fact that the right seems to ignore while cranking up the revolutionary war rhetoric, which is about as relevant as 1870's barn building techniques.

This is where we have fundamentally different weltanschauungen.
I oppose giving up the power to revolt, which would be to give our government too much power over us.
I don't think we're made safer by being made impotent, & depending entirely upon government to
protect us from bad guys. That's weak, & it doesn't work....cops don't protect us....their job is
making chalk outlines after the crime.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I agree. But you would also have to admit the founders had no idea what the future would bring. They were writing the constitution based upon information of the day. For example, they were concerned that the country would face threats from the French, the indians... even the Brits, all of which have gone away. They were also concerned that a new despot would take over and the people would need to revolt, something that hasn't happened in our history.

Now the bigger threats come from crazies and criminals getting a hold of weapons. A fact that the right seems to ignore while cranking up the revolutionary war rhetoric, which is about as relevant as 1870's barn building techniques.

This is a great point.

If you consider the 8th amendment, it is very nonspecific about what an excessive bail is, or what a cruel or unusual punishment consists of.

This is by design, suggesting that the interpretation of the 8th amendment requires us to consider the tech/norms of the day, and filter it through cultural perceptions.

Those who constantly cite the 2nd amendment seem to want to take it literally. . . Ignoring the cultural norms and tech of the day.

Remember, 90% of Americans want some common sense restrictions on gun sales.

90% is a cultural norm.

 

[Neo Deist]

You and @Neo Deist are right.

I was very hasty in using that as an example. I'm from Texas and it was literally the first thing that popped into my head.

Thanks for keeping me honest.

Much respect for being able to admit that.

 

[esmith]

This is a great point.

If you consider the 8th amendment, it is very nonspecific about what an excessive bail is, or what a cruel or unusual punishment consists of.

This is by design, suggesting that the interpretation of the 8th amendment requires us to consider the tech/norms of the day, and filter it through cultural perceptions.

Those who constantly cite the 2nd amendment seem to want to take it literally. . . Ignoring the cultural norms and tech of the day.

Remember, 90% of Americans want some common sense restrictions on gun sales.

90% is a cultural norm.

The problem with your statement "Remember, 90% of Americans want some common sense restrictions on gun sales." is that the majority of Americans have no idea what the laws are.
You get a lot of rhetoric from various media sources that do not have any idea what the laws are either. Either that or the media really doesn't care because mentioning a regulation/law in a story is generally contrary to the agenda of a considerable number of them. In addition a story on gun laws do no not sell.

 

[Underhill]

How so?
I often pass judgement on people.....
Hitler
Reagan
Alec Baldwin

To have it both ways would suggest making conflicting claims.
I don't see how you infer this.

In the past you have commented that the reason Clinton has had it easy is the administration. Now you are saying the same people may have ordered Comey to act in Trumps interest...

 

[Underhill]

Sure, they wouldn't have known the specifics.
And things are now likely more fantastic than they imagined.
But still....they were able to observe change during their lifetime,
so I presume they'd expect it to continue.

So you say.
But @oldbadger looks pretty threatening to me.
Anyway, we do face threats from others, eg, China, Russia, ISIS.

We've been fortunate.
But we shouldn't get complacent.
(Although some sore losers from the last election ought to calm down.)

This is where we have fundamentally different weltanschauungen.
I oppose giving up the power to revolt, which would be to give our government too much power over us.
I don't think we're made safer by being made impotent, & depending entirely upon government to
protect us from bad guys. That's weak, & it doesn't work....cops don't protect us....their job is
making chalk outlines after the crime.

The myth is that we have that capability. We haven't had the capability for many decades. It's another example of the shift in technology. The notion that the people could overthrow an army of tanks, automatic weapons and fighter jets is a bit far fetched. Even with our help the Syrians couldn't do it, against a despot with no where near our countries capability.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the past you have commented that the reason Clinton has had it easy is the administration. Now you are saying the same people may have ordered Comey to act in Trumps interest...

I didn't say that.
Only that his inconsistent behavior could be due to management.
Perhaps his actions which damaged Hillary were from his own intention.
And backing off could be orders from Obama via Lynch.

 

[Revoltingest]

The myth is that we have that capability. We haven't had the capability for many decades. It's another example of the shift in technology. The notion that the people could overthrow an army of tanks, automatic weapons and fighter jets is a bit far fetched. Even with our help the Syrians couldn't do it, against a despot with no where near our countries capability.

Use your imagination....
We don't need to beat tanks, missiles or bombers.
Revolution is much more door to door than that.
Why do you think we still have an army which still
goes around the world wielding small arms?

 

[Underhill]

Use your imagination....
We don't need to beat tanks, missiles or bombers.
Revolution is much more door to door than that.
Why do you think we still have an army which still
goes around the world wielding small arms?

With the support of our smart bombs and missile frigates...

The reality is, if our 'Ever-Victorious, Iron-Willed Commander' Trump had the support of the military (the real limit to power in most democracy's) the American people armed with a bunch of hunting rifles would be a nuisance.

The chance of that happening I rank right up there with the chances of us meeting our alien compatriots from planet Whiskey Prime...

 

[Kuzcotopia]

The problem with your statement "Remember, 90% of Americans want some common sense restrictions on gun sales." is that the majority of Americans have no idea what the laws are.
You get a lot of rhetoric from various media sources that do not have any idea what the laws are either. Either that or the media really doesn't care because mentioning a regulation/law in a story is generally contrary to the agenda of a considerable number of them. In addition a story on gun laws do no not sell.

Please don't automatically dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as either manipulated or misinformed by the media. I see this a lot with conservatives. I get the 15-year old right wing media meme on the vast untrustworthiness of the MSM. . . But 90% of this country is not misinformed or manipulated. No one who is not already a consumer of right-wing media will ever buy that belief.

I mean, what if MY argument was that anyone with a anti-gun restriction position is just uninformed, manipulated by the gun lobby and the financial interests of the gun-making industry?

I know that's not true. That's a really crappy argument that shows you no respect.

90% of Americans want this. That is not media manipulation and misinformation.

 

[Revoltingest]

With the support of our smart bombs and missile frigates...

The reality is, if our 'Ever-Victorious, Iron-Willed Commander' Trump had the support of the military (the real limit to power in most democracy's) the American people armed with a bunch of hunting rifles would be a nuisance.

The chance of that happening I rank right up there with the chances of us meeting our alien compatriots from planet Whiskey Prime...

So little imagination....
What good are smart bombs when the enemy is closely mingled with friendlies?
What would happen if our military used such weaponry against it's own?
Their ranks would not be so united as they observed this, & were then ordered
to go door to door taking us out.
The problem is that you only imagine how gov could crush revolution, not how
it could succeed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Consider that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was not about the technology of the day, but rather the function of the arms, ie, militarilyy capable small arms. We had more than mere "muskets", which typically refer to smoothbore long guns. We also had "rifles", which had greater accuracy, albeit with slower reloading. This evolution of technology & accompanying changes in military tactics were occurring as the country was formed.

We still didn't have Glocks, AK-47s, or semi-auto shotguns. Shooting rampages like we see today would not have been possible when the Constitution was written.