School Shooting in Knoxville

[RockyTop85]

I haven't started to insult you yet.

Funny thing is, you really didn't bring any coherent arguments to what I said and actually agreed with me by the end Miller was not a good case and ignored the fact the Heller decision challenged the "2A only protects militia weapons" portion.

Again, if Miller had been tried with an actual lawyer making the defense, it might have turned out differently. And regardless, there are significant loopholes with the interstate commerce portion of it. The "Made in Montana" laws show what a farce it is. Nearly every major piece of gun control legislation that's ever been passed has had to be modified or had a sunset clause because it sucked and manufacturers and citizens found a workaround.

You haven’t succeeded, but there’s been an effort.

First thing I said when you brought up all the Miller stuff was that I didn’t care. Here we are, days later, after repeated comments by me clarifying that it’s not particularly relevant to what I’m saying and you’re still harping on it and I still don’t care. It’s almost like that’s all you’ve got.

I didn’t ignore that Miller was changed by Heller, I’ve acknowledged that multiple times, including brushing up on it and rewriting my initial recollection of where the law stands after Heller.

This is no more accurate than me saying you were wrong about the idea that it’s about to rain guns and actually agreed with me by the end.

 

[RockyTop85]

And your statement is complete bull **** as usual. There is no inherent “risk of harm” in a firearm sale. It’s more BS hyperbole from you.

You were on a roll but your anger at having so much “fun” is getting the better of you.

I’ll restate it in a way that should have been apparent from the context: the quantity of harm that can be produced by the improper use of one gun versus the quantity of harm that can be produced by the improper use of one alcoholic beverage.

Or as I explained days ago:

It’s certainly not equivalent to the potential for harm. You can still kill a bunch of people with a gun purchased at a one-off sale. The risk of any harm from a single serving of alcohol is infinitesimal.

 

[NorthDallas40]

You were on a roll but your anger at having so much “fun” is getting the better of you.

No it’s a statement of fact pettifogger. No need for the “you mad bro” deflection.

In an earlier reply you already conceded the alcohol wasn’t the issue as the restraint relied on the individual.

Thus there is no more “risk of harm” associated with a firearm purchase than there is with buying a hammer or a piece of metal pipe, or a shovel, or any other implement.

What’s your win/loss record pettifogger

 

[RockyTop85]

No it’s a statement of fact pettifogger. No need for the “you mad bro” deflection.

In an earlier reply you already conceded the alcohol wasn’t the issue as the restraint relied on the individual.

Thus there is no more “risk of harm” associated with a firearm purchase than there is with buying a hammer or a piece of metal pipe, or a shovel, or any other implement.

What’s your win/loss record pettifogger

Edited for you.

If there’s some other explanation for
someone ignoring the context of a conversation to try to build a strawman, to point and laugh at, you’re more than welcome to write it.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Edited for you.

If there’s some other explanation for
someone ignoring the context of a conversation to try to build a strawman, to point and laugh at, you’re more than welcome to write it.

LMAO it isn’t a strawman pettifogger it’s your own statement. The risk is on the individual not the implement for the cases listed. I don’t blame you I’d back pedal and deflect too.

Boy Luther has absolutely found a kindred soul for his dumbassery

 

[RockyTop85]

LMAO it isn’t a strawman pettifogger it’s your own statement. The risk is on the individual not the implement for the cases listed. I don’t blame you I’d back pedal and deflect too.

Boy Luther has absolutely found a kindred soul for his dumbassery

It’s absolutely a strawman. You’re taking a comparison of two unlike things and saying I’m advocating for one of the things. I’ve been absolutely clear that that’s not the case, which is why I “admitted” that it’s the improper use and not the object itself.

Feel free to read the conversation that has been going on in this thread For several days, I’m not going to try to explain it to you more than that.

 

[NorthDallas40]

It’s absolutely a strawman. You’re taking a comparison of two unlike things and saying I’m advocating for one of the things. I’ve been absolutely clear that that’s not the case, which is why I “admitted” that it’s the improper use and not the object itself.

Feel free to read the conversation that has been going on in this thread For several days, I’m not going to try to explain it to you more than that.

The intent is in the individual not the item/implement. Thus the implement carries no inherent risk. We agree. Thanks for playing, legend in your own mind.

 

[RockyTop85]

The intent is in the individual not the item/implement. Thus the implement carries no inherent risk. We agree. Thanks for playing, legend in your own mind.

View attachment 363074

Yes, we agree. Why else do you think I said you were correct the first time you said it?

I’m not advocating anything.

Otherwise: correct!!!

 

[NorthDallas40]

Yes, we agree. Why else do you think I said you were correct the first time you said it?

LMFAO make up your mind pettifogger!

You can’t have it both ways. If the intent is with the individual and not the implement then there isn’t a risk of harm associated with the implement it’s with the individual, regardless of his implement of choice.

All you are doing is putting forth the usual statist bull **** on why people can’t be trusted so items must be limited for the public’s own good. This is the same dumbassery that got us NFA1934. If the risk is with the individual then the individual will get the implement they need to do whatever harm they desire to do and we don’t need the thought police.

 

[LouderVol]

Sure. I’m not saying there’s no risk of harm from one serving per sale/day/month, or whatever.

I’m saying that risk is not equivalent to the risk of harm from a firearm purchased in a single firearm sale, as a way of showing that the Hog/McDad proposal is more invasive and more risk averse than the Luther proposal.

Number of homicides by firearm in the U.S. 2019 | Statista
10,258 homicides

(unfortunately statista just tracks percentage of gun owners, not guns)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-to-a-new-study-of-global-firearm-ownership/
393,000,000

10,258/393,000,000=0.00026% yes I do mean two ten thousandths of a percentage chance.
again assuming each homicide is a unique gun. and assuming a very low total of guns.

I am saying the risk IS equivalent.
the risk of a gun is SOOOOOOOOO overplayed its ridiculous. can't find specific data on the likelihood for the liver problems vs how much one drinks, but the assumption of >.00026% doesn't seem far fetched.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Number of homicides by firearm in the U.S. 2019 | Statista
10,258 homicides

(unfortunately statista just tracks percentage of gun owners, not guns)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-to-a-new-study-of-global-firearm-ownership/
393,000,000

10,258/393,000,000=0.00026% yes I do mean two ten thousandths of a percentage chance.
again assuming each homicide is a unique gun. and assuming a very low total of guns.

I am saying the risk IS equivalent.
the risk of a gun is SOOOOOOOOO overplayed its ridiculous. can't find specific data on the likelihood for the liver problems vs how much one drinks, but the assumption of >.00026% doesn't seem far fetched.

It’s for your own good. Stop resisting louder.

 

[RockyTop85]

Number of homicides by firearm in the U.S. 2019 | Statista
10,258 homicides

(unfortunately statista just tracks percentage of gun owners, not guns)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-to-a-new-study-of-global-firearm-ownership/
393,000,000

10,258/393,000,000=0.00026% yes I do mean two ten thousandths of a percentage chance.
again assuming each homicide is a unique gun. and assuming a very low total of guns.

I am saying the risk IS equivalent.
the risk of a gun is SOOOOOOOOO overplayed its ridiculous. can't find specific data on the likelihood for the liver problems vs how much one drinks, but the assumption of >.00026% doesn't seem far fetched.

My bad, I misspoke. Post should say “multiple firearm sale,” since that was Luther’s hypothetical.

Assuming you’ve accurately expressed the probability that any gun now in existence in America would have been used in a homicide in the 2019 calendar year and you feel that’s an appropriate data point for comparison, then I’ll agree that limiting alcohol sales to one serving at a time is equivalent to banning all firearm sales.

Therefore, it is not equivalent to banning only multiple firearm sales, which is exactly what I’ve been saying for almost a week, now.

 

[RockyTop85]

LMFAO make up your mind pettifogger!

You can’t have it both ways. If the intent is with the individual and not the implement then there isn’t a risk of harm associated with the implement it’s with the individual, regardless of his implement of choice.

All you are doing is putting forth the usual statist bull **** on why people can’t be trusted so items must be limited for the public’s own good. This is the same dumbassery that got us NFA1934. If the risk is with the individual then the individual will get the implement they need to do whatever harm they desire to do and we don’t need the thought police.

God, you need a win so badly and you just can’t get there.

It’s a discussion about the equivalence of two proposed restrictions:
A restriction on multi-gun sales (proposed by Luther)
And a restriction on multiple servings of alcohol at a single sale (proposed by Hog as amended by McDad).

I’m not “putting forth” anything. Im not advocating anything (see post above where I said this, explicitly). I’m making a comparison between two unlike things and explaining why they are not alike.

I’ve said (repeatedly) that I don’t agree with either of them. Want me to quote that too? There’s no contradiction in my belief that the intent of the user is what matters.

Are you sure you haven’t done time for theft of a jacket?

 

[allvol123]

So this all started when the boy beat up his gf at school. She then went home early and the mom called the cops. I believe that is correct from the latest reports.

 

[LouderVol]

My bad, I misspoke. Post should say “multiple firearm sale,” since that was Luther’s hypothetical.

Assuming you’ve accurately expressed the probability that any gun now in existence in America would have been used in a homicide in the 2019 calendar year and you feel that’s an appropriate data point for comparison, then I’ll agree that limiting alcohol sales to one serving at a time is equivalent to banning all firearm sales.

Therefore, it is not equivalent to banning only multiple firearm sales, which is exactly what I’ve been saying for almost a week, now.

Except no data has been Provided on these multiple fire arm sales. How many in total. What percentage lead to criminal sales later? what has been provided bounced back and forth from 25% to 65% of guns used in all crimes. Hardly reliable. And it doesnt track those back to the sales.

And no metric has been set. What percentage of legal multiple sales going criminals eventually is not acceptable. Is it 1, 1%, 10%? What is the reasoning to establish that multiple sales represent an unacceptable risk that needs to restrict rights? Again no data besides some real mushy numbers with a 40% range.

 

[RockyTop85]

Except no data has been Provided on these multiple fire arm sales. How many in total. What percentage lead to criminal sales later? what has been provided bounced back and forth from 25% to 65% of guns used in all crimes. Hardly reliable. And it doesnt track those back to the sales.

And no metric has been set. What percentage of legal multiple sales going criminals eventually is not acceptable. Is it 1, 1%, 10%? What is the reasoning to establish that multiple sales represent an unacceptable risk that needs to restrict rights? Again no data besides some real mushy numbers with a 40% range.

Not true. Luther did provide a link to some data about a week ago. Pretty sure you even discussed it, but maybe not.

As for the rest, I’m not here for that discussion. Take it up with Luther. See my responses to @NorthDallas40 for why.

My whole point was that the two proposals were not equivalent. That seems true regardless of whether you look at the likelihood that the substance/implement to be... used in a homicide, or the capacity of the implement to cause harm when used inappropriately. So I’m good with leaving it at that. Not going to defend a proposal I don’t agree with.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Not true. Luther did provide a link to some data about a week ago. Pretty sure you even discussed it, but maybe not.

As for the rest, I’m not here for that discussion. Take it up with Luther. See my responses to @NorthDallas40 for why.

My whole point was that the two proposals were not equivalent. That seems true regardless of whether you look at the likelihood that the substance/implement to be... used in a homicide, or the capacity of the implement to cause harm when used inappropriately. So I’m good with leaving it at that. Not going to defend a proposal I don’t agree with.

On reading it the tone is you’re supporting Luther’s stance. I think even louder inferred it.

It confused the issue with your “risk of harm” statement attached to the firearm. You agreed that the burden is on the individual and not the implement so that’s confusing at best.

If your statement is that there is no inherent risk attached to the firearm in the purchase as all risk is attached to the individual then we’re in agreement and there is nothing else to debate. I believe you’ve stated that twice now but my reply to you on this started with your “risk of harm” on the firearm purchase. You are probably attaching the risk to the individual and not the firearm however the verbiage is still pushing restrictions based on thought police narratives. That’s all this is about and where I chimed in.

And to louders point if guns were a problem the statistics would show it. They show exactly the opposite in fact with regards to total firearms in circulation and firearms used in criminal gun violence. He also pointed out how muddy the inference is in trying to determine how many legal purchases go on to result in usage in criminal acts.

 

[RockyTop85]

On reading it the tone is you’re supporting Luther’s stance. I think even louder inferred it.

It confused the issue with your “risk of harm” statement attached to the firearm. You agreed that the burden is on the individual and not the implement so that’s confusing at best.

If your statement is that there is no inherent risk attached to the firearm purpose as all risk is attached to the individual then we’re in agreement and there is nothing else to debate. I believe you’ve stated that twice now but my reply to you on this started with your “risk of harm” on the firearm purchase. You are probably attaching the risk to the individual and not the firearm however the verbiage is still pushing restrictions based on thought police narratives. That’s all this is about and where I chimed in.

And to louders point if guns were a problem the statistics would show it. They show exactly the opposite in fact with regards to total firearms in circulation and firearms used in criminal gun violence. He also pointed out how muddy the inference is in trying to determine how many legal putchases go on to result in usage in criminal acts.

Sure, when two or more people have the same misunderstanding, that’s probably on me. I thought it was clear in the prior conversation, and I assumed someone responding to posts I made in that conversation had read the conversation.

I also agree “risk of harm” was one of those imprecise statements, which is why I amended it to the “capacity for harm when used improperly,” which is more consistent with “you can kill a lot of people with one gun,” which is how I stated it last week. And I know that was apparent from the prior conversation.

So whether it wasn’t clear or whether he didn’t read it all, I’m not sure.

I don’t think his proposal is as “rational and reasonable” as he does.

this was about Luther’s proposal, in response to Rickyvol making the same point Louder did.

My position has been that Heller was okay but McDonald (the case extending 2A to the states) was a mistake and we should let the constitution strictly limit the federal government’s involvement in gun control and more or less give states (or better yet, individual municipalities) the latitude to determine their own risk aversion. I’m sure that’s not much more popular than Luther but I think it’s better than one

 

[NorthDallas40]

Sure, when two or more people have the same misunderstanding, that’s probably on me. I thought it was clear in the prior conversation, and I assumed someone responding to posts I made in that conversation had read the conversation.

I also agree “risk of harm” was one of those imprecise statements, which is why I amended it to the “capacity for harm when used improperly,” which is more consistent with “you can kill a lot of people with one gun,” which is how I stated it last week. And I know that was apparent from the prior conversation.

So whether it wasn’t clear or whether he didn’t read it all, I’m not sure.


this was about Luther’s proposal, in response to Rickyvol making the same point Louder did.

My position has been that Heller was okay but McDonald (the case extending 2A to the states) was a mistake and we should let the constitution strictly limit the federal government’s involvement in gun control and more or less give states (or better yet, individual municipalities) the latitude to determine their own risk aversion. I’m sure that’s not much more popular than Luther but I think it’s better than one

As I said earlier in this I’m not very familiar with McDonald. I’ve read it several times but not dissected or read multiple interpretations of it.

I’ve mostly read up on Heller and Miller. First Miller and just how much of a sham setup it was with the arguments set forth in Miller being gutted by Heller. Grand did bring up one point I’ve never considered in Heller which is Scalia’s insertion of the phrase “in common use at the time” in that Scalia was playing to long game on the current period and guns in circulation now. It’s an interesting take because it absolutely guts the AR-15 restrictions. I think slice has made this reference before also.

 

[RockyTop85]

As I said earlier in this I’m not very familiar with McDonald. I’ve read it several times but not dissected or read multiple interpretations of it.

I’ve mostly read up on Heller and Miller. First Miller and just how much of a sham setup it was with the arguments set forth in Miller being gutted by Heller. Grand did bring up one point I’ve never considered in Heller which is Scalia’s insertion of the phrase “in common use at the time” in that Scalia was playing to long game on the current period and guns in circulation now. It’s an interesting take because it absolutely guts the AR-15 restrictions. I think slice has made this reference before also.

McDonald applies the second amendment to the states.

At this point, Supreme Court 2A case law starts in 2008, for almost any purpose. Whatever the argument is about Miller, its contribution boils down to the “in common use” language now. The language that’s been doing the work in lower court 2A cases is still the “traditionally lawful purpose.” They’ve basically developed the test of looking at the history of the challenged gun law, exactly like the 9th circuit did last month.

 

[NorthDallas40]

McDonald applies the second amendment to the states.

At this point, Supreme Court 2A case law starts in 2008, for almost any purpose. Whatever the argument is about Miller, its contribution boils down to the “in common use” language now. The language that’s been doing the work in lower court 2A cases is still the “traditionally lawful purpose.” They’ve basically developed the test of looking at the history of the challenged gun law, exactly like the 9th circuit did last month.

Yeah I understand the ruling of McDonald but I think to be literate on a case you ought to read both opinions. I just knew the impact of the decision.

And yes I agree that 2008 was a reset basically in viewpoint on 2a but I expect challenges to NFA. I’d seriously doubt that it’s vacated but I think it could very well lose some bite.

I believe after the recent New York case the Court added around ten 2a related cases to its schedule for consideration.

 

[RockyTop85]

Yeah I understand the ruling of McDonald but I think to be literate on a case you ought to read both opinions. I just knew the impact of the decision.

And yes I agree that 2008 was a reset basically in viewpoint on 2a but I expect challenges to NFA. I’d seriously doubt that it’s vacated but I think it could very well lose some bite.

I believe after the recent New York case the Court added around ten 2a related cases to its schedule for consideration.

There was a NY case that was mooted last year, it doesn’t have any precedent value, and they have another NY that is very similar to the 9th circuit case from last month that is riding from conference to conference right now. I’m not sure what else they are looking at. They denied cert on several last year.

McDonald decided the issue of incorporation to the states and then kicked the case back to the circuit court to apply Heller. Most of the discussion is about when an amendment applies to the states. It’s been a while since I read the whole thing but I don’t recall much substantive discussion of the scope of the right.

 

[NorthDallas40]

There was a NY case that was mooted last year, it doesn’t have any precedent value, and they have another NY that is very similar to the 9th circuit case from last month that is riding from conference to conference right now. I’m not sure what else they are looking at. They denied cert on several last year.

McDonald decided the issue of incorporation to the states and then kicked the case back to the circuit court to apply Heller. Most of the discussion is about when an amendment applies to the states. It’s been a while since I read the whole thing but I don’t recall much substantive discussion of the scope of the right.

From reading on McDonald as a part of this discussion if I’ve interpreted what I read correctly a lot of the dissent revolves around using the Fourteenth Amendment to push the 2a and thus collaterally the entire BoR down to the states. The dissent seems to feel that list of shall nots only applied to the federal level and individual state governing is their own business. I believe I’ve inferred you feel that way also. And I will admit that’s a pliable argument worth hearing however if you accept the rights as individual rights it isn’t clear to me that the states should have that power to limit individual rights also. Basically the Feds need to leave the individuals AND the states alone and the states need to leave their citizens alone also. If an amendment prevents the Feds from limiting a citizens right it seeks to reason the state should likewise not be able to limit that citizens right. But I can see where it’s complicated. If the citizens of a state vote for said limitations I’m inclined to let them have at it. I take exception to citizens in one state forcing their views on another state merely by a more populous states larger vote base.

Also... this feels really weird...

 

[RockyTop85]

From reading on McDonald as a part of this discussion if I’ve interpreted what I read correctly a lot of the dissent revolves around using the Fourteenth Amendment to push the 2a and thus collaterally the entire BoR down to the states. The dissent seems to feel that list of shall nots only applied to the federal level and individual state governing is their own business. I believe I’ve inferred you feel that way also. And I will admit that’s a pliable argument worth hearing however if you accept the rights as individual rights it isn’t clear to me that the states should have that power to limit individual rights also. Basically the Feds need to leave the individuals AND the states alone and the states need to leave their citizens alone also. If an amendment prevents the Feds from limiting a citizens right it seeks to reason the state should likewise not be able to limit that citizens right. But I can see where it’s complicated. If the citizens of a state vote for said limitations I’m inclined to let them have at it. I take exception to citizens in one state forcing their views on another state merely by a more populous states larger vote base.

Also... this feels really weird...

I agree with all of that. My objection is less technical and more prudential. Once SCOTUS draws a clear line, the feds can try to fill it and crowd out states like Tennessee, Texas, Georgia, etc who have gone away from gun restrictions. On the other hand the line will also likely limit places like California and Chicago.

As a prudential matter, I’m on the side of people, collectively, being able to choose their degree of freedom/authority, so long as it doesn’t oppress the minority in some irreparable manner. The lower we push those decisions then, IMO, we maximize freedom by allowing people to have a greater share of the vote and to choose their government more easily if they end up in the minority (the way people are moving to Tennessee right now).

Ironically, I think this was what Scalia was shooting for (sans the “in some irreparable manner.”) He basically capped gun laws in place at where they have been “traditionally” which strikes some balance between the property rights of gun owners and the desire for peace of mind among those opposed to firearm proliferation. The fact that DC pushed his hand is arguably a factor in favor of ceding the residential areas around the seat of government back to Maryland or making it a state.

Trying to turn all of that into a technical justification that says incorporation of 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th good (sort of) and incorporation of 2nd bad is complicated.

Edit: pushing issues like abortion, guns, minimum wage, etc. down the municipality ladder would also take some of the attention off of our federal government and there would probably be fewer people like Gaetz, Schumer, Swalwell, and Greene and if there weren’t we wouldn’t have to worry that they were going to **** us all over to buy another segment on [insert cable news channel here].

 

[NorthDallas40]

I agree with all of that. My objection is less technical and more prudential. Once SCOTUS draws a clear line, the feds can try to fill it and crowd out states like Tennessee, Texas, Georgia, etc who have gone away from gun restrictions. On the other hand the line will also likely limit places like California and Chicago.

As a prudential matter, I’m on the side of people, collectively, being able to choose their degree of freedom/authority, so long as it doesn’t oppress the minority in some irreparable manner. The lower we push those decisions then, IMO, we maximize freedom by allowing people to have a greater share of the vote and to choose their government more easily if they end up in the minority (the way people are moving to Tennessee right now).

Ironically, I think this was what Scalia was shooting for (sans the “in some irreparable manner.”) He basically capped gun laws in place at where they have been “traditionally” which strikes some balance between the property rights of gun owners and the desire for peace of mind among those opposed to firearm proliferation. The fact that DC pushed his hand is arguably a factor in favor of ceding the residential areas around the seat of government back to Maryland or making it a state.

Trying to turn all of that into a technical justification that says incorporation of 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th good (sort of) and incorporation of 2nd bad is complicated.

Edit: pushing issues like abortion, guns, minimum wage, etc. down the municipality ladder would also take some of the attention off of our federal government and there would probably be fewer people like Gaetz, Schumer, Swalwell, and Greene and if there weren’t we wouldn’t have to worry that they were going to **** us all over to buy another segment on [insert cable news channel here].

I was going to try and make a point that leveraging the fourteenth to push down the Heller decision was due to the protections of individual rights. But on thinking more I don’t think that’s it all all. I think it’s more what you alluded to in pushing Fed laws down on states and doing it in a consistent fashion. Thus NFA is equally flowed down as is the Heller interpretation. So that’s a push, one win one loss. But uniform in pushing down the federal legislative view.

I guess I’d submit my view would be more in line with the intent of the BoR in limiting government from restricting individual rights and thus flowing that down also. But I’d also submit that should be rhetorical too thus why even invoke the fourteenth. So I think it’s more what you were pointing on using the fourteenth in pushing down a uniform homogenous Federal view of law on the states ... which goes against our founding principle of Federalism. And just so we are all clear here I’m using federalism as the classical government organization of a weak central government with more peer stronger regional governing bodies corresponding to the state legislatures.

In one opinion I read on McDonald they stated that the Court actually rejected the primary argument and merely used McDonald to leverage the fourteenth so as to push the case back to the lower courts while forcing using the Heller interpretation. Which also goes back to the reset on federal firearm legislative views in 2008 and McDonald being the first example of the Court saying “No, use this outline and go try again.”