27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Anyone can post and discuss breaking news that interest them (please respect posting guidelines and be sure to reference properly).
Forum rules
Please be sure to check our forum's Rules & Guidelines

27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby toucana on November 5th, 2017, 5:09 pm 

Sutherland_Springs.png
Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church - Wilson County Texas

At least 27 people have been killed and another 30 are seriously injured after a lone gunman attacked the congregation of a small Baptist church in Sutherland Springs Wilson County Texas USA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41880511

The gunman, who is reported to have been killed by police in the aftermath, entered the church and opened fire at around 11:30 local time (17:30 GMT).

Police official Albert Gamez Jr confirmed the number of fatalities to CBS News.

"The details are kind of sketchy but what I know right now, what they're telling me, like 27 deceased and over 20, 25 injured," Mr Gomez Jr said. "They're talking about the shooter is dead also," he added.

One witness, Carrie Matula, told NBC News: "We heard semi-automatic gunfire… we're only about 50 yards away from this church."

"This is a very small community, so everyone was very curious as to what was going on."

The church is located in the 500 block of 4th Street in the small, south Texas town about 40 miles south east of San Antonio.

Some survivors have been taken to Brooke Army Medical Center via medical helicopter. Their conditions are not known.

The FBI and the Texas Rangers, as well as agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives, have secured the area around the church and are investigating.

https://www.ksat.com/news/shooting-sutherland-springs-church-gunfire-mass-shooting-airlife
User avatar
toucana
Chatroom Operator
 
Posts: 846
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Location: Bristol UK
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby someguy1 on November 5th, 2017, 7:28 pm 

This is sickening.

Is it the guns? I don't know. It's rural Texas. If your pickup doesn't have a shotgun rack people look at you funny.

There's a sickness in the soul of America. Until it's addressed this will only get worse.

If you step back and pretend to be a man from Mars observing all of this, you note that the country that's been invading and drone bombing and torturing with wanton abandon in the Middle East and North Africa, without any of it even being questioned by anyone; also experiences awful and unexplainable violence at home.

If you're a Martian, you see that. If you're a member of the government, you don't see it. The American people are starting to see it. That's one reason they chose Trump's anti-interventionist talk over Hillary's history of warmongering. [Putting aside that Trump's sadly been captured by the maniac warmongers].

That's not the only factor. But it's a factor ignored by everyone, since we have an army of "volunteers" and mercenaries. The volunteers of course being the kids for whom killing brown people in the desert is a career opportunity. The children of the deplorables.

So nobody sees the wars, the torture, the drone bombing. Nobody cares. Nobody connects it with daily life in the "homeland." Not there's a phrase for you. Part of the insanity of our foreign policy.

I think if we ever got our foreign policy and warmongering straightened out, things would be a lot better at home.

Just my opinion.

Sad as hell though. Really sick at heart about these shootings. About this shooting. People in church. 27 dead. Sick to my stomach about this one. I think Las Vegas and NYC and now this one have just gotten to me.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 582
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby Braininvat on November 5th, 2017, 8:21 pm 

WARNING: POST CONTAINS FRANK AND UNRESTRAINED COMMENTS.

The vast majority of mass shootings are done by those who own their guns legally. In other countries where there are frequent mass shootings they...wait, sorry, there are no other countries with anywhere near this frequent mass shootings. Which means that this is a peculiarly American problem (as SGuy notes) and that we have to come up with an original solution to the problem. Because that's sort of the basic purpose of government: we, the people, solve problems and do our best to ensure the wellbeing and safety of the people. So, step one, shut the goddamn **** up about an amendment that was designed to ensure a COLLECTIVE right to have guns for the maintenance of a civilian militia back in the 18th century. It never was intended to mean "any goddamned fool can go out and buy an assault rifle and turn himself into his own Crazytown Bugfuck Militia and start picking off random innocent people because he's not happy with his life right now." So all you pea-brained redneck cracker dipshits can stop pretending you are Constitutional scholars and cram all your hillbilly conspiracy theories way up where the moon don't shine.

I'm trying to be a little clearer in my prose on issues of the day. I expect there are some asterisks up there, when this posts.

PS - I don't think Trump's base voted for him due to their innate pacifism. But that's an interesting theory and I will mos def look into it.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5844
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby someguy1 on November 5th, 2017, 8:34 pm 

Braininvat » November 5th, 2017, 6:21 pm wrote:It never was intended to mean ...


Numerous court rulings have established that the second amendment pertains to individual and not collective gun rights.

I am not arguing pro or con 2nd amendment here. I am simply posting a factual clarification of what you wrote.

Your opinion, to which you are entitled, happens to conflict with the learned legal opinion of every court that has ever consider the issue. When you say that the opposite of your opinion is only held by ignorant people, you are being factually incorrect. The opinion that the 2nd amendment pertains to individual gun rights is the contemporary standard in American jurisprudence. That is a fact, which I bring to your attention simply so that you can clarify your own thinking. I take no stand on whether the judges are right. Only that in every case where it's ever come up, courts always rule for individual gun rights.

You may certainly argue that all the appeals court judges are inbred morons. But at least be clear that this is the claim you're making. That your interpretation of the Constitution is right; and that every judge who has ever ruled on this issue is not only wrong, but is advocating for mass murder.

Many on the left these days show that tendency. To ascribe the quality of evil to those who disagree with them. It's not productive IMO.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 582
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby someguy1 on November 5th, 2017, 10:10 pm 

ps --

Report: Texas Church Attacker Fled After Good Guy with a Gun Shot at Him

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/11/ ... -gun-shot/

It's from Breitbart so take it as you will.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 582
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby BioWizard on November 5th, 2017, 11:09 pm 

someguy1 » 05 Nov 2017 09:10 pm wrote:ps --

Report: Texas Church Attacker Fled After Good Guy with a Gun Shot at Him

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/11/ ... -gun-shot/

It's from Breitbart so take it as you will.


Well good thing Mr good guy did that then! Cause if he didn’t, maybe the attacker would’ve killed even more than 27 innocent people. He might’ve killed 28, or maybe even 29. And THAT would’ve been a tragedy. Fortunately, the presence of more guns helped avert it and stopped the (probably semi-automatic machine’s) death toll at a measly 27 or so. Phew, dodged that bullet.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12691
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby zetreque on November 6th, 2017, 1:07 am 

3D printer technology, an individual can probably build any gun they want. Still need bullets though. Could probably make those too if they can get a hold of gun powder and salt peter is it?
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3175
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby wolfhnd on November 6th, 2017, 1:11 am 

These kind of attacks may not be preventable by restricting firearms. The worst domestic terrorist use fertilizer. It's the motives not the means that have to be addressed as far as we know.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4342
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby Braininvat on November 6th, 2017, 1:13 am 

SG - nice try, but U.S. V Miller long held sway as a collectivist interpretation, until the Roberts court ruled in DC V Haller in 2008. And several SCt justices, like JP Stevens, have consistently argued against the narrow Haller interp. No offense, but I can tell you haven't really studied this issue in any depth - the clue was your rather smug and incorrect assertion that my opinion "....happens to conflict with the learned legal opinion of every court that has ever consider the issue...." Nope, I got lots of company.

This is from the Brown Political Review, for your edification.....

http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/04/the-second-amendment-individual-or-collective-rights/

Until the Roberts Court reexamined the issue of collective vs. individual gun rights in 2008, the most recent ruling on the matter was the 1939 case, United States v. Miller. Over seventy years ago, the Court unanimously ruled that if a particular type of weapon – in this case, a sawed-off shotgun – does not clearly have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” This ruling was widely accepted as an affirmation of the collectivist, militia-based interpretation, even by typically staunch liberty advocates like the ACLU. Over the next several decades, gun laws significantly constrained firearm purchases made by non-militia individuals for non-militia purposes.


Feel free to try and bullshit your way past me again. I look forward to it.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5844
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby wolfhnd on November 6th, 2017, 1:15 am 

I have covered this before but even the current gun regulations are unconstitutional. Private storage and private carry are necessary to not infringe on the own and bear clause. Obviously central storage and control are features of a state military not a militia.

If you think a militia is outdated then the only lawful course is to repeal the second amendment through the prescribed process. Ignoring those laws you find inconvenient creates a dangerous atmosphere.
Last edited by wolfhnd on November 6th, 2017, 1:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4342
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby zetreque on November 6th, 2017, 1:20 am 

wolfhnd » Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:11 pm wrote:These kind of attacks may not be preventable by restricting firearms. The worst domestic terrorist use fertilizer. It's the motives not the means that have to be addressed as far as we know.


I'm interesting in just the overall state of well-being and emotional state of US Citizens over the past 12 months. Has anyone looked into the most recent numbers of shootings, suicides, murders, etc over the past 12 months compared to the past 8 years or so?

All the hate isn't going away and what is happening is people are forming even more divisive groups. I'm sure there are going to be strong anti atheist views that will live on around the area of this shooting for many years now since that was one of the main characteristics of this particular shooter it seems.

People are getting brainwashed and bigoted against all sorts of groups and stereotypes. It doesn't bode well for emotional well being of society. I am still of the opinion that gun control is worthless if we are in such a state of distress due to population growth, illness due to poor diet, growing poverty, lack of access to education, birth control, quality health care, environmental toxins, and rampant deceptive product marketing. Unfortunately I don't see an easy way out of this mess. Looking at it again today, I really don't think Trump has that big of following in comparison to the whole, but he has a large enough one to really cause problems if ANY entity impeaches or takes him out to cause an upset. We are in a serious state of distress right now and gun control is just one tiny issue in the grand scheme of things.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3175
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby wolfhnd on November 6th, 2017, 1:26 am 

zetreque

I tend to agree.

Strict gun control would however reduce gun violence based on a review of the Australian experience. That experience however indicates it takes decades before the effects are significant and the restrictions must be sufficiently draconian that they could not be imposed in the U.S.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4342
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby Braininvat on November 6th, 2017, 1:35 am 

wolfhnd » November 5th, 2017, 10:15 pm wrote:I have covered this before but even the current gun regulations are unconstitutional. Private storage and private carry are necessary to not infringe on the own and bear clause. Obviously central storage and control are features of a state military not a militia.

If you think a militia is outdated then the only lawful course is to repeal the second amendment through the prescribed process. Ignoring those laws you find inconvenient creates a dangerous atmosphere.


To your first sentence:

not before 2008. See my Brown Review link.

Amendments have often been added, repealed, or had their basic interpretation changed in response to changes in society. As I said, there are a lot of ignorant rednecks who couldn't even tell you what most of the other amendments are, who think they are constitutional scholars on their oh-so sacred 2nd. And they aren't. And they don't even know how SCt works, or what US v. Miller was about.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5844
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby zetreque on November 6th, 2017, 1:36 am 

The whole gun control debate is absurd to me when we have a government that is creating hate, non-inclusive, non-representative, partisan, dictatorship, arrogant, selfish governing. If things are not done about that, we are in for a lot worse going forward guns or no guns. If you look out there on twitter, facebook, youtube, or any other internet area where people can leave comments, the comments are horrendous. Sometimes I wonder if these people are even speaking English or living in the same reality. That guy that assaulted Rand Paul has people going on his facebook page with bullying insulting comments moments after the incident before anyone knew anything about why it happened between two neighbors. I don't fear cases of people with assault rifles nearly as much as what I fear what is happening to society. We have a disease in our government that is creating the idea that there is one right and one wrong way of thinking. That isn't representative or compassionate about all life. That spreads ignorance and lies. Greedy, confusing, chaotic garbage. If that's really the kind of society people want to live in, let them go around killing one another for all I care.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3175
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby Braininvat on November 6th, 2017, 2:01 am 

The gun control/2nd Amend. debate is well worth having. While we're waiting for you to figure out how to fix all the crazy people and make civilized society more nurturing, I am going to advocate restricting access to guns. It makes it a bit harder to kill lots of people. Saying that there are other ways to kill people is not an argument, it's a lame excuse to sit on your ass and do nothing. People watch popular media, and they see heroic figures blasting away with guns, and their minds snap in that direction. They make killing really easy. Point. And shoot. Preferably with an assault rifle with a big clip. Compassion is great, sure, and saying we aren't going to let non-soldiers walk around with weapons designed for mass murder is a compassionate step.

You want protection? Lock your damn door and window. Get a big dog. Put in a safe room. Make sure you have a charged cellphone, to call 911. I used to do stats for the DOJ, designing and updating databases. You know how rare it is for someone to actually have a total stranger invade their home and shoot them? Extremely. F--ing. Rare. You are about 100,000 times more likely to be shot by a family member or acquaintance or roommate who grabbed your gun and used it on you. Have you ever noticed that people who invoke the scenario of guns-saved-us, never seem to have actual figures for those incidents? There's a reason for that. They are in the grip of a mind-bendingly stupid mythology of vigilante glory. And it's...yes....wait for it....DEPLORABLE.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5844
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby zetreque on November 6th, 2017, 2:05 am 

No one is so upset about all the millions of Animals being abused and murdered around the planet and I doubt anyone can make a case to me over how a human life is more important than an animal life. So yeah, I'm not concerned about these shootings when large primates, elephants, rhinos, lions, dolphins and even smaller creatures are being slaughtered. If taking guns away from Americans (who often indirectly contribute to mass wildlife murder and extinction) can solve those problems globally then I'm all for it.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3175
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby wolfhnd on November 6th, 2017, 2:58 am 

Braininvat » Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:35 am wrote:
wolfhnd » November 5th, 2017, 10:15 pm wrote:I have covered this before but even the current gun regulations are unconstitutional. Private storage and private carry are necessary to not infringe on the own and bear clause. Obviously central storage and control are features of a state military not a militia.

If you think a militia is outdated then the only lawful course is to repeal the second amendment through the prescribed process. Ignoring those laws you find inconvenient creates a dangerous atmosphere.


To your first sentence:

not before 2008. See my Brown Review link.

Amendments have often been added, repealed, or had their basic interpretation changed in response to changes in society. As I said, there are a lot of ignorant rednecks who couldn't even tell you what most of the other amendments are, who think they are constitutional scholars on their oh-so sacred 2nd. And they aren't. And they don't even know how SCt works, or what US v. Miller was about.


I wouldn't be so confident that a court case or even a series of cases is definitive. Our legal system is the stepchild of the English common law tradition. The problem is that tradition often is in conflict with our constitutional republic origins. The English tradition has in my opinion enabled or encourage progressivism.

Many people may believe that progressivism is a recent development associated with leftist ideology but it's roots are deep in American history. Perhaps an example will illustrate it's dangers. The most remarkable progressive in our history may be none other than Teddy Roosevelt. It was not his view that the U.S. had simply a manifest destiny but that a good deal of law should not be allowed to impede that destiny.

Panama illustrates the progressive mindset adequately. I would agree with Roosevelt that a Canal through the isthmus of Panama was necessary for the economic and military well-being of the U.S. I wouldn't agree that ignoring the sovereignty of Columbia and staging a circumspect "revolution" was the best way to go about achieving that end.

Many legal traditions have come and gone in the U.S. but the constitution has with few exceptions been preserve. Some of those traditions that have been overturned truly represent progress. Civil rights being an excellent example. But the foundation for civil rights was laid out in the 13th Amendment. It is even the case that the courts by imposing taxation to enable desegregation overshot their constitutional authority. Gun control however is not a case where the conflict between majority rule and individual rights is unavoidable making it necessary to recognize a hierarchy of rights. The constitution tradition is even clearly on the side of gun owners because individual liberty in our tradition always Trump's public interest.

Progressivism itself is in conflict with the traditions of the enlightenment. Liberalism is at it's core about protecting the rights of the individual in opposition to the more collectivist traditions of class distinctions that proceeded it. A constitutional republic is specifically designed to prevent democratic tyrant. There are limitations on what deemed necessary by the majority can be imposed. Progressivism under minds the constitutional republic by making assumed necessity not individual rights the arbiter of legality.

In any case U.S. vs Miller is a horrible example. The federal position was more or less unchallenged and the court ruling was in part based on a sawed off shotgun not being a militia weapon.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4342
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Look at ME!!!

Postby Faradave on November 6th, 2017, 12:20 pm 

Crowds and weapons are always handy. People are social and like to gather. Take away guns and there are still vehicles, arson, fertilizer, poisons, etc.

It used to be that if a person got seriously distraught to the point that "sorrows" could no longer be drowned or medicated, suicide was the chosen way, often accompanied by the thought, "They'll be sorry when I'm gone!" But that only generates a modicum of notice, compared to the hundreds or thousands of electronic "followers" which seem to be an everyday expectation now. Got a free coffee with those donuts? The world must take notice on Instagram.

I don't use a pocket pad (e.g. cell phone) device, which makes me a bit of an outcast. I can't recall the last time I had a conversation or shared an entertainment of any sort, even with my wife and kids, that wasn't interrupted by their staring down and poking at those things. Useful no doubt, they also greatly amplify a natural impression of self-centeredness. It's not just gaining access to the world. The whole world now has access to you, how dare they not follow? Celebrities, politicians and all your popular friends have large followings but trivial little you?

Terrorists, of course, are desperate for followers, and have always led the pack in terms of quick and easy means to this, the more terrible the better for them. Each of their successes breed others, even among lone wolves, unassociated with a particular cause. The cause seems to have become, "You'll all be following me now!" even if I'm dead. Interesting that these same devices also provide universal access to high-scoring, shoot-'em-up training.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1616
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby Braininvat on November 6th, 2017, 12:54 pm 

Wolf, after you meandered off into the negatives of British common law, and case law, and progressivism, you finally had one last paragraph that was on the specific point I raised:

In any case U.S. vs Miller is a horrible example. The federal position was more or less unchallenged and the court ruling was in part based on a sawed off shotgun not being a militia weapon.


And yet thousands of jurists found Miller to be a solid case for decades afterwards, and it propelled many rational restrictions on gun ownership. So your argument boils down, there, to "I say it's horrible." SCOTUS was unanimous on Miller, and the sawed-off shotgun has been seen as a pretty good analogy to many other types of firearm, and firearm modification, that have cropped up in the decades since. A law-abiding citizen does not need a sawed-off shotgun. This establishes a principle of testing the functional status of guns before we say it's okay for everyone to have one. It's a pretty basic principle in law - we don't let everyone purchase dynamite or dangerous chemicals or pseudoephedrine remedies in amounts that could make meth. Your assertion that "individual liberty in our tradition always trumps public interest" is absurd. I am not free to drain my sewage pipe into my backyard, or pour used motor oil down the storm drain, or dynamite tree stumps in my yard, or drive in many states with studded tires, or drive drunk, or for that matter, own a fully automatic weapon. Common sense, not ideology, drives our understanding that such laws keep our environment and our infrastructure more hospitable in a nation where most people live close to other people. We have laws against hard drugs that can cause instant addiction and do great harm esp. to the young and uninformed who are at a risk-taking age. Few have a problem with that.

Your liberty to swing your arms stops at my nose, as the saying goes. (that's actually a great metaphor when talking about freedoms like unregulated coal burning for energy) Freedom from the destructive and careless conduct of others is one of the most important liberties there is, in a modern urban society.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5844
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby Braininvat on November 6th, 2017, 1:08 pm 

Faradave, I think you are correct that there is a strong narcissistic element in a lot of these terrible mass murders.

One thing I find really interesting is that if a black person shoots people, he's a bad dude, acting out his rage.

If a Muslim shoots people, he's a terrorist, he's been "radicalized."

If a white person shoots people, he's MENTALLY ILL.

Anyone else notice the idiotic subtext in parsing the news this way? It suggests that white people are inherently so good and decent, that the only way they can shoot a bunch of people is to have a psychotic break.

I will start to listening to all these pop culture narratives when they stop segregating their mass shooters by skin color and ethnicity, and start focusing on the simple fact that some people just break down and go completely nuts when their lives go to shit on them.

Why did the "background check" on this Texas guy not seem to discover that he was court-martialed and then imprisoned for beating up his wife and child? He was legally sold an assault rifle in 2016. Passed the test. Do you conservatives really want your kids and grandkids growing up in a nation where we legally sell guns to people with a clearcut history of violence towards others?? Or do such loopholes make you feel all warm and fuzzy about your "liberty"?
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5844
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby Forest_Dump on November 6th, 2017, 7:57 pm 

Braininvat wrote:One thing I find really interesting is that if a black person shoots people, he's a bad dude, acting out his rage.

If a Muslim shoots people, he's a terrorist, he's been "radicalized."

If a white person shoots people, he's MENTALLY ILL.


I think you are forgetting that some of those white guys shooting at cops or threatening to blow up government buildings, etc., are righteous militia members etc who are just out to protect the constitution, prevent the tyranny of the government, etc. Nothing crazy about them.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8721
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby Serpent on November 6th, 2017, 8:45 pm 

There is no possible debate.
A sparsely populated new nation that couldn't afford a standing army wanted its voluntary militiamen to maintain their own muskets - therefore:, all Americans are entitled to a private cache of whatever new WMD's are invented, for whatever purpose they desire, with no restrictions, in perpetuity.
This is not a gun issue; it's a sanity issue. Sanity-checks, safety instruction, or any kind of licensing test, would be an infringement of civil rights.
This is not a political issue, it's a polarization issue, and there is equal fault on all sides: murderous neo-nazis, trigger-happy police, peaceful demonstrators, cabals that congregate in schools and churches, mobs that gather at concerts and ballgames.
This is not a polarization issue, it's an economic issue: some misguided left-wing liberals in their safe, cushy middle-class suburbs just don't care that their proposed legislation would destroy jobs in the arms manufacturing industries.
This is not an economic issue, it's a moral issue: if everyone embraced old-fashioned Family Values and went straight, none of these tragedies would happen.
Anyway, this is not the time to talk about issues: it's a time to pile flowers and teddy-bears on a sidewalk, cry on camera and lie about praying for people whose names one doesn't care enough to remember.

There is no possible debate to be had on this clusterfuck of issues. The people who need to discuss solutions no longer speak the same language or hear the same news or live in the same country.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby someguy1 on November 6th, 2017, 9:16 pm 

Serpent » November 6th, 2017, 6:45 pm wrote: There is no possible debate to be had on this clusterfuck of issues. The people who need to discuss solutions no longer speak the same language or hear the same news or live in the same country.


If the Dems ever want to win another election, wouldn't they want to make the attempt to understand the deplorables? And if so, shouldn't even the most doctrinaire anti-qun advocate make the effort to understand the pro-gun position? Starting with the culture of the people you don't like?

When you say "there is no possible debate to be had," you are saying that you will virtue-signal and claim the moral high ground; but you will NOT engage in reasoned debate with people you disagree with.

This makes many people feel better. But those who desire to actually get things done in our democracy, have a duty to themselves and their own cause, to make the attempt to understand the other side.

It the debate is polarized, take the initiative to unpolarize it. Instead of demonizing people, try to understand where they're coming from. Not for any moral reason. You can do what you like. But as a practical one. To maybe stop alienating the very people whose votes you need to get back into power.

As long as all the Dems can do is screech, they alienate many sensible independents (such as myself) who agree with many of their causes, but deplore their recent close-mindedness, anger, sense of entitlement, condescension, and rejection of rational debate.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 582
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby Braininvat on November 6th, 2017, 9:38 pm 

Guess that's why you ignored my earlier reply to your post yesterday. You're just too sensible! I still think that Brown Political Review link I offered, on the SCOTUS history, might be helpful to you.

I live in a place where I am keenly aware of the thinking of pro-gun NRA types. Unfortunately, it turns out to be driven by mythology (Wyatt Earp, anyone?) and lack of knowledge of historical context for Constitutional law issues. I have learned that feigning respect for ignorance is a pretty dishonest approach. And respecting lies promulgated by partisans and the NRA, or people who follow those lies in mindless lockstep, is just not going to happen. As soon as people look at the publicly available data from the FBI and other DOJ offices, it's immediately apparent that the whole mythology of "guns save lives" is bogus, and driven by fear and paranoia.

I think David Brooks nailed it (link is in one of these threads) when he wrote that the gun culture is one where guns are a proxy issue for the larger issue of people fearing the loss of white rural culture in a nation that is increasingly urban and brown.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5844
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby someguy1 on November 6th, 2017, 10:13 pm 

Braininvat » November 6th, 2017, 7:38 pm wrote:Guess that's why you ignored my earlier reply to your post yesterday.


I was annoyed that you called me smug, I thought it was out of character. Rather than snark back I just kept my mouth shut. I think we're all pretty emotional about this awful killing. I know I am.

Braininvat » November 6th, 2017, 7:38 pm wrote: You're just too sensible!


I hope you mean that and it's not sarcastic. I'm a lifelong social liberal in absolute despair at what's happened to the left. I do happen to believe in gun rights in the abstract. But it's not a core issue for me. In fact you are correct when you noted that I'm not up on the legal literature. It's not an issue I care about much one way or the other. There are 58 million gun owners and they vote, so you're not going to disarm them. I just don't get worked up over it.


Braininvat » November 6th, 2017, 7:38 pm wrote: I still think that Brown Political Review link I offered, on the SCOTUS history, might be helpful to you.


I did read it. I wasn't aware of the Miller case. I read the Brown article and I Googled around and found some other article claiming that Miller was a bad decision and that Heller straightened out the misunderstandings. I get the feeling that one could spend their life arguing the question. So I agree that I was uninformed about the history of gun laws. But I found arguments on both sides of the Miller/Heller debate and it's not a subject I care enough to have an opinion on or read more about.

I've been to rural Texas. Guns are part of life. Incidents like this one are incredibly rare. It's a tragedy. I just don't think the reflexive gun-grabbing (didn't you mention the Australian example, or was that someone else?) of the left is helpful at a time like this. Just like the right's reflexive Muslim-banning after the NYC truck attack isn't helpful.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 582
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby Serpent on November 6th, 2017, 11:44 pm 

someguy1 » November 6th, 2017, 8:16 pm wrote:If the Dems ever want to win another election, wouldn't they want to make the attempt to understand the deplorables? And if so, shouldn't even the most doctrinaire anti-qun advocate make the effort to understand the pro-gun position? Starting with the culture of the people you don't like?

Okay, that's two non-issues I left off the list: winning elections is one.
There is no 'pro-gun position'. There is a hugely rich and powerful commercial lobby no politician dares to oppose - regardless of what their constituents might prefer. There is an utterly craven commercial communications media that milks the tragedies, but never informs people of the real statistics, and keeps on making ever more violent entertainments for a nation of adrenaline-junkies.
And the other, of course, is Culture. Now there's a subject Americans can pay endless lip-service to, without ever approaching an understanding of their own culture, let alone an honest appraisal or frank discussion of its contribution to the escalating craziness.
But sure, what hay, put it on "The Dems"; that's a solution.

When you say "there is no possible debate to be had," you are saying that you will virtue-signal and claim the moral high ground; but you will NOT engage in reasoned debate with people you disagree with.

Though I always appreciate having my words translated back to me, what I thought I said was that there can be no debate between the people involved (of which I am not one) who operate in different experiential realities - and it's easier to kick the problem down a blind alley of NewSpeak.
(Virtue-signal?)

This makes many people feel better. But those who desire to actually get things done in our democracy, have a duty to themselves and their own cause, to make the attempt to understand the other side.

The above short paragraph contains five fallacies.

The sixth, and most symptomatic of the underlying problem, is that you're framing this as a partisan disagreement on a single issue, where any critical comment is presumed to come from the other party.
You just don't seem to get how big, how deep, how old, how faceted, how insidious, how pervasive this clusterfuck of issues really is.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby someguy1 on November 7th, 2017, 12:59 am 

Braininvat » November 6th, 2017, 11:08 am wrote:Why did the "background check" on this Texas guy not seem to discover that he was court-martialed and then imprisoned for beating up his wife and child?


Turns out that the Air Force forgot to notify the FBI database, so that he passed his background check. Clerical error. Typical bureaucratic bungling. No new laws would have prevented this tragedy, but people simply following the existing ones would have kept him from buying guns.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-tex ... story.html
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 582
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby Braininvat on November 7th, 2017, 10:56 am 

Thanks, I saw that news after I had posted my question. And yes, that's a case (as often happens) of just needing to enforce an existing law. And no, I wasn't being sarcastic, when I said you were sensible to steer past my post - it was a self-deprecating joke indicating that I can understand not wanting to go deep into the legal wrangling over the past decades.

I think maybe Serpent is pointing towards what David Brooks was talking about, that the "clusterf--k" of issues is about a bigger cultural divide where a lot of people's ideas are deeply ingrained in rural or urban traditions. I heard Brooks talk about this on the PBS Newshour a while back - now there is a liberal who doesn't scream or screech, and has a calm and clear eye on things. He mentioned the rural tradition of self-reliance and protecting your own family and being part of a small community that worships and generally thinks in a very similar way and does not trust a remote federal government too much to solve their problems. Guns become a proxy for all those ingrained and hard-to-articulate attitudes. Urban folk, OTOH, experience life differently, they are surrounded by a very diverse range of people, and the introduction of guns into the mix rarely goes well. Guns become more symbolic of civil disorder and strife.

Those two mindsets do need to examine their assumptions and then talk to each other about what is myth and what is reality.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5844
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby Serpent on November 7th, 2017, 11:57 am 

That PBS is a screaming far-left extremist organ and needs to be shut down. It never even demanded to see Obama's birth and baptism certificates.
(Shut-It-Down! Shut-It-Down!)

I like David Brooks, but I think he has to rein in quite a lot, to be perceived as fair. Fair-and-balanced has come to mean giving equal time, equal weight, equal credence to BS, spin and fact.
I also think the American national malaise goes deeper and is bigger than just bipolar disorder. It's not urban vs rural, or white vs. black or christian vs. muslim, or anglo vs. hispanic, or conservative vs. liberal, or progressive vs traditional or internationalist vs. isolationist, or north vs. south, or intuitive vs. cerebral, or macho vs. pacifist, or states right vs. federalist, or individualist vs. collectivist or ..... It's all of those, plus rich vs. everybody else.
You can't have a reasoned discussion among people who have had their vocabulary and numeracy abstracted away, and been conditioned to discourse in chanted slogans and tractor-caps.

(I won't do it again, but was tickled to discover that censor-bot doesn't watch late-night talk shows.
A tiny revenge for Philip K. !)
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2579
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: 27 Killed In Texas Church Massacre

Postby RJG on November 8th, 2017, 11:49 am 

For what it is worth...

I live in this small rural community. I live within 7 miles of the killer’s home, and own property near where he ended his life. My daughter was a classmate of his at New Braunfels HS. She says he was a little weird, but just seemed like a normal “skater dude” (…whatever that means?). Heck, I may have even met this dude and his family, as he was in my daughter’s drama class and school plays.

Virtually everyone here owns guns, and ‘multiple’ guns I may add. And a majority of us carry our guns in our vehicles or on our person. It is just the way of life around here.

I grew up back east (New England area) and formed the opinion that guns were bad, scary, and evil, …that is, until I married a Texas girl, and settled here in rural Texas. I have since changed my view on guns. Although I don’t personally own one, not yet anyways, (but my wife owns plenty!), I don’t view the ownership of guns as scary, or a problem, as I once did. In fact, I now see it as a necessity to a civil society.

From my perspective, the crime around here is ‘low’ because of guns. Nobody is foolish enough to break into anyone’s house, or rob a local business, around here as most homeowners and shop owners are “packing” and are not afraid to defend themselves. We recently had a couple of (foolish) guys try to rob a jewelry store at a local mall near here. They learned the hard way that crime does not pay, by the “pistol packing” customers in the jewelry store. One robber died, and the other was wounded and arrested.

It seems to me that, without citizens having the right to carry guns, this would only encourage more crime, ...not deter it. Maybe the city of Chicago is going about it the wrong way? Taking away and restricting citizen gun ownership in the hopes of reducing crime, only seems to make matters worse.

Again, this is just my viewpoint. Please do not berate or pound on me because my viewpoint differs from yours.
User avatar
RJG
Member
 
Posts: 707
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Next

Return to News Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests