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

[Revoltingest]

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.

Time marches on, toots!

I know it's not a very cromulent response, but it just had to be said.
Btw, there are worse things than the occasional mass shooting....
- People unable to defend themselves against criminal perps.
- People who are toothless in the face of oppression.
- People willing to neuter themselves in a blind lust for security provided by an all powerful government.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Time marches on, toots!

I know it's not a very cromulent response, but it just had to be said.
Btw, there are worse things than the occasional mass shooting....
- People unable to defend themselves against criminal perps.
- People who are toothless in the face of oppression.
- People willing to neuter themselves in a blind lust for security provided by an all powerful government.

I'm not for getting rid of guns. I'm for reasonable measures that keep illegal guns off the streets and make it harder for those who shouldn't have them from getting them. Collectively, we have to realize guns are a tremendous responsibility, and considering it a right of every citizen is just not plausible (and, yes, I have heard argued for literally every citizen regardless of background). Really, I don't care that people stock pile for doomsday, I care that people who clearly shouldn't have gotten them "walked into Walmart" and got their guns. And, very clearly, the claims that guns help with gun problems are proving themselves false. Yes, an armed officer of the law shot the perp dead, but I think we can all at least agree that given it did happen, it's fortunate the attacker did not have a gun.

 

[oldbadger]

But @oldbadger looks pretty threatening to me.

You wimp!
You could put little Smew in a large pocket..... If you took her helmet off, of course.

I only heard about the Ohio incident when I saw a post on RF. A lot of these incidents don't make it into our news, maybe.

It's all been debated and turned over and over so many times. I don't think that anything will change in the US about guns for decades, if ever.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not for getting rid of guns. I'm for reasonable measures that keep illegal guns off the streets and make it harder for those who shouldn't have them from getting them. Collectively, we have to realize guns are a tremendous responsibility, and considering it a right of every citizen is just not plausible (and, yes, I have heard argued for literally every citizen regardless of background). Really, I don't care that people stock pile for doomsday, I care that people who clearly shouldn't have gotten them "walked into Walmart" and got their guns. And, very clearly, the claims that guns help with gun problems are proving themselves false. Yes, an armed officer of the law shot the perp dead, but I think we can all at least agree that given it did happen, it's fortunate the attacker did not have a gun.

Well now you're just being boring.
I've no argument with that.

 

[esmith]

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.

I do not automatically dismiss everyone who disagrees with my opinion on laws governing the sale and procession of firearms. We all should know that there are reasons for laws and this includes firearms laws.
However, I would have to disagree with you on your point about manipulated or misinformed by the media. The majority of the media does support the agenda of those opposed to firearms, they may not come right out and lie but they do manipulate the truth or misrepresent the facts or not tell the entire story. I still stand by statement that the public is uninformed about laws about firearms and firearms themselves. Now it probably isn't 90% but I would have to say it is in excess of a majority by a large margin.
I know you want examples of manipulation or misinformation about firearms. Therefore let look at a couple of examples where misinformation, manipulation or admission of the facts about firearms can be seen.
I am addressing legally in the following since illegally almost anything is possible.
You can own a automatic firearm without any problem
You can purchase a firearm over the internet without a background check
If a firearm is illegal in your state all you have to do is go to another state and purchase it
You can go to another state and purchase a firearm and bring it back to your state
You can go to another state and give or sale your firearm to someone

Now I know that even people that are adamant supporters of the 2nd Amendment get the laws wrong let alone the general population.

 

[esmith]

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.

how about the Boston Massacre of 1770?

 

[Underhill]

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.

Listen, I am not arguing that government would have an easy time of it. In fact, exactly the opposite. Because our country does not have a distinct military class structure, such a thing would be damn near impossible to arrange as the soldiers are people with family and friends among the masses.

There in lies my point. Arms are not a solution in this case. Have we seen a bunch of governments, in democratic societies, encroaching on the rights of their citizens because they are unarmed? No. Most of Europe along with parts of Asia have much more onerous gun rules than we do. So I just don't buy the argument that guns are our line in the sand protecting us from government. That may have been true in 1780. Today, not so much.

In fact I would point out that those times where government did cross a line, it was in most cases (every one I can think of) with the willing cooperation of the vast majority of the people.

 

[Underhill]

how about the Boston Massacre of 1770?

Soldiers firing on a mob of protesters? Not exactly the same thing as a lone killer killing multiple. By my reckoning 9 soldiers each fired one shot. If they had automatic weapons it may have been worse. But I don't see a lot of parallels otherwise.

 

[Revoltingest]

Listen, I am not arguing that government would have an easy time of it. In fact, exactly the opposite. Because our country does not have a distinct military class structure, such a thing would be damn near impossible to arrange as the soldiers are people with family and friends among the masses.

There in lies my point. Arms are not a solution in this case. Have we seen a bunch of governments, in democratic societies, encroaching on the rights of their citizens because they are unarmed? No. Most of Europe along with parts of Asia have much more onerous gun rules than we do. So I just don't buy the argument that guns are our line in the sand protecting us from government. That may have been true in 1780. Today, not so much.

In fact I would point out that those times where government did cross a line, it was in most cases (every one I can think of) with the willing cooperation of the vast majority of the people.

We are fortunate that revolution is an unlikely event.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

how about the Boston Massacre of 1770?

That supports my point that the weaponry then is not like it is today. Then, that was an entire squad: today, one person could have easily killed that many, and more.

 

[esmith]

That supports my point that the weaponry then is not like it is today. Then, that was an entire squad: today, one person could have easily killed that many, and more.

Ever think what a person with a musket with a rifle bayonet attached could do to a group of unarmed person?
That's OK I understand your passion. Just think, we that are opposed to further gun control will not have anything to complain about for at least 4 more years and if the Dem's don't get their act straightened out possible for the next 16 years or more. Wow just think about it 16 years. Why in 16 years I will be over 90 years old.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ever think what a person with a musket with a rifle bayonet attached could do to a group of unarmed person?

Struggle to get off more than one shot. Seriously - would a shooter expect people to hold still while the musket is reloaded?
As for a bayonet, my point has been than not having a gun (or, specifically, the ability to fire more than one bullet) makes it less likely people will die.

That's OK I understand your passion. Just think, we that are opposed to further gun control will not have anything to complain about for at least 4 more years and if the Dem's don't get their act straightened out possible for the next 16 years or more. Wow just think about it 16 years. Why in 16 years I will be over 90 years old.

Hate to burst your bubble, but in four years Millennial will be one of the major potential voting demographs, and in eights years they are expected to become the majority voting demograph while the iGeneration begins to vote. There won't be 16 years of Republican rule. If the Dems can find someone who stands similar on issues as Bernie and has the charisma and knack for public speaking like Obama, they will have a shoe in over Trump in 2020 (don't forget, Trump did loose the popular vote by over 2 million votes).

 

[esmith]

Struggle to get off more than one shot. Seriously - would a shooter expect people to hold still while the musket is reloaded?
As for a bayonet, my point has been than not having a gun (or, specifically, the ability to fire more than one bullet) makes it less likely people will die.

You do not really seem to understand what a determined person can do with a very long pointed weapon. Look we are never going to agree on what you think the laws on firearms should be; so I'm done discussing the subject unless you can bring forth a different argument that really makes any sense.

Hate to burst your bubble, but in four years Millennial will be one of the major potential voting demographs, and in eights years they are expected to become the majority voting demograph while the iGeneration begins to vote. There won't be 16 years of Republican rule. If the Dems can find someone who stands similar on issues as Bernie and has the charisma and knack for public speaking like Obama, they will have a shoe in over Trump in 2020 (don't forget, Trump did loose the popular vote by over 2 million votes).

As long as we keep the EC those millennials will have as much voice in choosing the President as you liberals did this year. As long as the Republicans do not screw-the-pooch and get and keept he economy moving again they have an excellent chance of being the dominate party. Your has-been Democrat leaders still can not face why they now have the smallest number of Democrats in State and Federal government.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You do not really seem to understand what a determined person can do with a very long pointed weapon. Look we are never going to agree on what you think the laws on firearms should be; so I'm done discussing the subject unless you can bring forth a different argument that really makes any sense.

The reality is you're not wanting to accept you was trying to argue against me, but using points that support my position. What can one person with a musket and bayonet do? Minus the one not too accurate shot, realistically, given they likely aren't trained for it, probably less damage than if they had a sword. What really are the chances the perp is going to know exactly where they have to stab to make a guaranteed fatal injury? Someone with training, they are going to do damage regardless, but such things are rarely seen here. Someone without training will hurt people, but their chances of killing someone are dramatically less than using even the most basic of modern firearms.

Your has-been Democrat leaders still can not face why they now have the smallest number of Democrats in State and Federal government.

Republicans only have the Senate by three or four seats. An anti-Trump alliance of Democrats and Republicans will make the Senate unfavorable for Trump. The Republicans only control the House because of carefully-micro-planned gerrymandering. The popular election wasn't even close.
Like it or not, everything--everything save for the establishment--indicates Conservatives and Republicans are not in favor of the public in general, and their appeal is in continual decline. They'd completely wither and die, having long been replaced by the Libertarian party if it wasn't for the things designed to keep the slave owning South from getting too much power.
It's long overdue we take Jefferson's advice and rewrite the damn thing.

 

[esmith]

The reality is you're not wanting to accept you was trying to argue against me, but using points that support my position. What can one person with a musket and bayonet do? Minus the one not too accurate shot, realistically, given they likely aren't trained for it, probably less damage than if they had a sword. What really are the chances the perp is going to know exactly where they have to stab to make a guaranteed fatal injury? Someone with training, they are going to do damage regardless, but such things are rarely seen here. Someone without training will hurt people, but their chances of killing someone are dramatically less than using even the most basic of modern firearms.

All I am saying is that the argument you and others are using that the Constitution was written when only muskets were in use is invalid. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the type of weapon only that we have the right to own firearms. The Constitution is not a work in progress that some assume it is.

[QUOTE="Shadow Wolf, post: 4980106, member: 2558"Republicans only have the Senate by three or four seats. An anti-Trump alliance of Democrats and Republicans will make the Senate unfavorable for Trump. The Republicans only control the House because of carefully-micro-planned gerrymandering. The popular election wasn't even close.
Like it or not, everything--everything save for the establishment--indicates Conservatives and Republicans are not in favor of the public in general, and their appeal is in continual decline. They'd completely wither and die, having long been replaced by the Libertarian party if it wasn't for the things designed to keep the slave owning South from getting too much power.
It's long overdue we take Jefferson's advice and rewrite the damn thing.[/QUOTE]

Seems you really don't understand what happened in the last election just as the fading hierarchy of the Democratic Party does not understand. The country is tired of the liberal/progressive story-line. Ask yourself in the past 8 years how many States have gone from Democrat control to Republican control, how many seats have the Democrats lost in Congress. The Democrats have lost the trust of the working class as can been seen in the 2016 election. If this Republican controlled government accomplishes what they have said they want to accomplish, how many Senate seats do you think the Dem's will lose in 2018. There are 10 Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2018, with the mood of the nation how many do you really think will survive. Look at the following article and tell me that the Dem's are not in very serious problems.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/several-democrats-facing-2018-re-election-states-trump-carried/
They, the Dem's are increasingly being forced farther and farther left and that killed them in 2016. No Republican in their right mind will go against what the Republican majority want, if they do they know they will be dead (politically when they come up for reelection. By the way only 5 Republican Senators are up for reelection in 2018.

The country has rejected the liberal/progressive mind set except for the sheeple in the large urban areas and the brainwashed children that have no idea how to work for a living. No not all millennial's are brainwashed, there are many that can see you can't get something for nothing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All I am saying is that the argument you and others are using that the Constitution was written when only muskets were in use is invalid.

It's indeed very valid because you couldn't shoot thousands of bullets a minute or shoot a target over a mile away. The best military firepower then required people to stand not even a field's length apart, with armies taking turns firing volleys because it takes time to reload a musket, and it's impossible to get the distance you can with even the most "spray-and-pray" of assault rifles.
It would be like writing a law regulating explosions, and saying everyone can have them because, in a relative term of example, these explosions are only like the little gun powder paper wraps that pop when you drop them, and a few centuries later we know have the atomic bomb, forcing us to really question if everyone should have a right to these or not.

 

[esmith]

It's indeed very valid because you couldn't shoot thousands of bullets a minute or shoot a target over a mile away. The best military firepower then required people to stand not even a field's length apart, with armies taking turns firing volleys because it takes time to reload a musket, and it's impossible to get the distance you can with even the most "spray-and-pray" of assault rifles.
It would be like writing a law regulating explosions, and saying everyone can have them because, in a relative term of example, these explosions are only like the little gun powder paper wraps that pop when you drop them, and a few centuries later we know have the atomic bomb, forcing us to really question if everyone should have a right to these or not.

But the legal civilian population does not have firearms that can shoot thousand of rounds a minute. Oh I see you been listing to the no-nothings. An AR-15 has a maximum effective rate of fire of around 45 rounds a minuter and about 700 rounds minute max rate of fire. If you would stop and think...why did the military do away with fully automatic spray and pray infantry weapons and went to the idea of 3 round burst mode (illegal for majority of civilians) and basically semi-auto weapons. Tell me where a civilian can purchase an nuclear weapon or hand grenades When you decide to debate sensibly I might think about it. Until then bye.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But the legal civilian population does not have firearms that can shoot thousand of rounds a minute.

That is, however, a basis for restricting and regulating in various ways the second amendment. We, the civilians, are already restricted from various weapons because the potential for danger and great damage is just too high. And even the guns we can acquire are far deadlier than anything dreamed of when the Constitution was written. And with rapid fire and shotguns, your really don't even have to know where the kill zones are to just blast away and hit them. With a musket, or most any other firearms in 1776, you more or less pointed and fired because the bullet wasn't going straight. Today, for a number of guns at various ranges, we aim, point, and have the bullet go exactly where we intend it to. Really, in terms of technological advances, the guns of 1776 and the guns of today are like comparing the horse-drawn carriage to an electric car. And we really started to regulate the transportation technology around the time vehicles became motorized and dangerous, and our regulations on guns have not caught up to the technological advances. Or we could compare the first computers, which were so simple and basic they required no regulation, to today's cell/smart phone, which do have regulations against certain illegal activities, with some very heavy penalties for getting caught. But with guns our laws have not kept up with the times.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The country has rejected the liberal/progressive mind set except for the sheeple in the large urban areas and the brainwashed children that have no idea how to work for a living. No not all millennial's are brainwashed, there are many that can see you can't get something for nothing.

You can believe that, but the statistics prove they only win because of gerrymandering and the EC. It's a Conservative pipe-dream that the country rejected Leftist ideology, because it in-fact keeps voting for it, but those votes are denied.

 

[esmith]

That is, however, a basis for restricting and regulating in various ways the second amendment. We, the civilians, are already restricted from various weapons because the potential for danger and great damage is just too high. And even the guns we can acquire are far deadlier than anything dreamed of when the Constitution was written. And with rapid fire and shotguns, your really don't even have to know where the kill zones are to just blast away and hit them. With a musket, or most any other firearms in 1776, you more or less pointed and fired because the bullet wasn't going straight. Today, for a number of guns at various ranges, we aim, point, and have the bullet go exactly where we intend it to. Really, in terms of technological advances, the guns of 1776 and the guns of today are like comparing the horse-drawn carriage to an electric car. And we really started to regulate the transportation technology around the time vehicles became motorized and dangerous, and our regulations on guns have not caught up to the technological advances. Or we could compare the first computers, which were so simple and basic they required no regulation, to today's cell/smart phone, which do have regulations against certain illegal activities, with some very heavy penalties for getting caught. But with guns our laws have not kept up with the times.

You could argue to your blue in the face, but you and others have nothing to put forward other than....we don't like them and they are bad, do something. Nothing new just more simplistic rhetoric.
When you have reasonable ideas I would be willing to discuss them I might be willing to discuss them with an open mind. But they have to be reasonable, effective, and do not further the limitations of law abiding citizens in owning and carrying firearms.