5 ms·

response: media doesn't kill people, people kill people?

by cat199 7y ago

csours 7y ago
Means, motive, opportunity. Remove as many as you can. The media can help with motive.
- krapp 7y ago
  Unfortunately, the Second Amendment makes it infeasible to remove means and opportunity.
  - wavefunction 7y ago
    >the Second Amendment makes it infeasible that's only if you accept as default the interpretation favored by firearms activists. And in any case, even if the Founding Fathers had mass shootings in mind when they wrote the Constitution it doesn't mean it's correct or something to simply go along with. The 3/5ths of a human being bit has been dispensed with, for example.
  - kristopolous 7y ago
    Well we could stop ignoring the first half, the "well regulated Militia" and "security of a free State" part. That clause doesn't sound like they mean "unlimited guns for all". Using the context before the comma, the "people" clearly means polis, as in society, not as in the "every human with a pulse" way we use it today. The word "person" is used twice in the BoR, both times referring to individuals. The other 3 uses of "people" clearly refer to the collective polis. This distinction, as people not merely being a plural of person, is laid bare in the fourth amendment: "the right of the people to be secure in their persons", that only makes sense if "people" means the abstract composition.
    - all2 7y ago
      I take you've never tried to buy a weapon. I encourage you to try, maybe take a firearms handling class, go to a range. Be informed about the thing you hate.
      - kristopolous 7y ago
        I've done all those things. My personal consumption history has nothing to do with the meaning of some words written 230 years ago. Your deflection and presumptuous personal attacks doesn't change the words written on that parchment either.
        all2 7y ago
        I did not mean to "deflect", and I do apologize for presuming.
    - jjeaff 7y ago
      What's your point? Every human with a pulse can't get a weapon. You have to be the right age and pass a background check. And in some states, go as far as provide evidence that your life is in potential danger and you need it for protection as well as a letter of recommendation from the local police chief.
      - kristopolous 7y ago
        It means the second amendment gives no individual right of gun ownership, at all. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing. It's absolutely absent, it's not there. There is no right. Perhaps there ought to be an individual right, but the second amendment doesn't have it.
        edmundsauto 7y ago
        Your opinion appears to deviate from the legally accepted interpretation. Regardless of how we got here (per your other comment, about stacking the Court), people in charge disagree with you.
        inagfbdfys6a3nf 7y ago
        The whole point is that the right to self-defense, which means the right to bear arms, pre-dates the Constitution and the formation of our nation. The 2nd Amendment only makes it clear that the government is not infringing upon the right which already exists. For a deeper look at the issue dive into the positive rights vs. negative rights discussion which has been going on for ages. Sometimes it's phrased as positive vs negative liberty. The short version, or my understanding of it, is negative rights means your rights were not given to you by your government, they are inherent, or given to you by God, or they are somehow a part of your very existence. This means your government can only take rights away from you but it doesn't have the power to ever grant you a right. Positive rights on the other hand is the idea that rights are granted by your government. And since they are granted to you they may also be taken away.
        daenz 7y ago
        Bingo. Only clarification I'd make is to this: >This means your government can only take rights away from you but it doesn't have the power to ever grant you a right. My understanding is that the government is unable to grant nor deny you the right, only infringe upon it. The right is always there by virtue of your existence, so it can only be infringed upon.
    - daenz 7y ago
      >Well we could stop ignoring the first half, the "well regulated Militia" and "security of a free State" part. It's well established by SCOTUS that the 2A covers ownership of firearms unconnected to militia use: >District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's Right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. >They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
      - kristopolous 7y ago
        Yes, that ruling is crazy. It took billions of dollars, decades of arm twisting, dozens of case attempts, and packing of the supreme court to get that because it's simply not there. It was a crazy long hard won battle to make that sentence mean something it clearly and obviously doesn't. We also can't just blindly defer to all supreme court rulings. They swap their opinions and contradict themselves quite a bit.
        daenz 7y ago
        You may not like the ruling, but it is intellectually dishonest to spread misinformation about something that the highest court in the land has made very clear.
        kristopolous 7y ago
        It's not intellectually dishonest. Most people know about that ruling already.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Your first argument is wrong: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm. (Also, nobody should be trying to parse the bill of rights as miserly as possible. There’s lots of debatable things in the Constitution. What does the commerce clause mean? What are the exceptions to the freedom of “speech?” But the combination of clarity of this provision and placement in a place in the constitution where a full reading should be encouraged this not one of those things.) Your second example actually proves the opposite. In that context, “your person” is not referring to “you, a person” but “your body.” So the amendment is talking about the right of individual people to be secure from trespass upon their bodies. When the Constitution refers to people as a collective, it capitalizes the term: “We the People.” Your example also contradicts the use of “people” in the first amendment. (Unless you think the freedom of assembly is a collective right, than an individual right applying to groups of persons.) Same thing with the individual right to vote for senators in amendment 17.
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      Justice Antonin Scalia reads Heller(2008) for the majority: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
  - all2 7y ago
    The second amendment is meant to decrease means and opportunity of government. Here we have the give-and-take of foundational law. I put it to you that shootings spring not from accessible weapons, or places to use them, but rather from moral bankruptcy. Christianity instilled morality into the United States, and has driven the country (in part) to seek a "better way". But that influence is dying, and with it the moral influence that was once passed from parents to children. I'm not arguing for religion (though that would work), I'm arguing for the teaching of moral absolutes.
  - mark-r 7y ago
    Why does everybody keep forgetting that there are other ways of killing large numbers of innocent people quickly? Attacking the second amendment won't fix anything.
    - masonic 7y ago
      The public homicides with the greatest death toll are all arson fires, like the Happy Land Social Club massacre. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire
CodeMage 7y ago
Media don't make people smoke, people make that decision. However, it's a decision that's influenced by what's in the media, which is why media are making sure they don't glorify or even normalize smoking. I'm pretty sure you can follow that same logic when it comes to mass shootings.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  Network media has some restrictions on how they portray smoking. Everything else seems to frequently portray smoking as something cool.
cat199 7y ago
apparently, my sarcasm was missed. $5 that this gets report next to 0% coverage in the media though, all the while gun control 'outrage' blows up. we should be looking at this systemically, is my point, and I'm sure the people looking for a quick scapegoat in firearms control and banning the scary looking guns will happily avoid this topic because it's a less preferable bogeyman.
- CodeMage 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

response: media doesn't kill people, people kill people?

by cat199 7y ago

response: media doesn't kill people, people kill people?

csours 7y ago

Means, motive, opportunity. Remove as many as you can. The media can help with motive.

krapp 7y ago
Unfortunately, the Second Amendment makes it infeasible to remove means and opportunity.
- wavefunction 7y ago
  >the Second Amendment makes it infeasible that's only if you accept as default the interpretation favored by firearms activists. And in any case, even if the Founding Fathers had mass shootings in mind when they wrote the Constitution it doesn't mean it's correct or something to simply go along with. The 3/5ths of a human being bit has been dispensed with, for example.
- kristopolous 7y ago
  Well we could stop ignoring the first half, the "well regulated Militia" and "security of a free State" part. That clause doesn't sound like they mean "unlimited guns for all". Using the context before the comma, the "people" clearly means polis, as in society, not as in the "every human with a pulse" way we use it today. The word "person" is used twice in the BoR, both times referring to individuals. The other 3 uses of "people" clearly refer to the collective polis. This distinction, as people not merely being a plural of person, is laid bare in the fourth amendment: "the right of the people to be secure in their persons", that only makes sense if "people" means the abstract composition.
  - all2 7y ago
    I take you've never tried to buy a weapon. I encourage you to try, maybe take a firearms handling class, go to a range. Be informed about the thing you hate.
    - kristopolous 7y ago
      I've done all those things. My personal consumption history has nothing to do with the meaning of some words written 230 years ago. Your deflection and presumptuous personal attacks doesn't change the words written on that parchment either.
      - all2 7y ago
        I did not mean to "deflect", and I do apologize for presuming.
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    What's your point? Every human with a pulse can't get a weapon. You have to be the right age and pass a background check. And in some states, go as far as provide evidence that your life is in potential danger and you need it for protection as well as a letter of recommendation from the local police chief.
    - kristopolous 7y ago
      It means the second amendment gives no individual right of gun ownership, at all. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing. It's absolutely absent, it's not there. There is no right. Perhaps there ought to be an individual right, but the second amendment doesn't have it.
      - edmundsauto 7y ago
        Your opinion appears to deviate from the legally accepted interpretation. Regardless of how we got here (per your other comment, about stacking the Court), people in charge disagree with you.
      - inagfbdfys6a3nf 7y ago
        The whole point is that the right to self-defense, which means the right to bear arms, pre-dates the Constitution and the formation of our nation. The 2nd Amendment only makes it clear that the government is not infringing upon the right which already exists. For a deeper look at the issue dive into the positive rights vs. negative rights discussion which has been going on for ages. Sometimes it's phrased as positive vs negative liberty. The short version, or my understanding of it, is negative rights means your rights were not given to you by your government, they are inherent, or given to you by God, or they are somehow a part of your very existence. This means your government can only take rights away from you but it doesn't have the power to ever grant you a right. Positive rights on the other hand is the idea that rights are granted by your government. And since they are granted to you they may also be taken away.
        daenz 7y ago
        Bingo. Only clarification I'd make is to this: >This means your government can only take rights away from you but it doesn't have the power to ever grant you a right. My understanding is that the government is unable to grant nor deny you the right, only infringe upon it. The right is always there by virtue of your existence, so it can only be infringed upon.
  - daenz 7y ago
    >Well we could stop ignoring the first half, the "well regulated Militia" and "security of a free State" part. It's well established by SCOTUS that the 2A covers ownership of firearms unconnected to militia use: >District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's Right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. >They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
    - kristopolous 7y ago
      Yes, that ruling is crazy. It took billions of dollars, decades of arm twisting, dozens of case attempts, and packing of the supreme court to get that because it's simply not there. It was a crazy long hard won battle to make that sentence mean something it clearly and obviously doesn't. We also can't just blindly defer to all supreme court rulings. They swap their opinions and contradict themselves quite a bit.
      - daenz 7y ago
        You may not like the ruling, but it is intellectually dishonest to spread misinformation about something that the highest court in the land has made very clear.
        kristopolous 7y ago
        It's not intellectually dishonest. Most people know about that ruling already.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Your first argument is wrong: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm. (Also, nobody should be trying to parse the bill of rights as miserly as possible. There’s lots of debatable things in the Constitution. What does the commerce clause mean? What are the exceptions to the freedom of “speech?” But the combination of clarity of this provision and placement in a place in the constitution where a full reading should be encouraged this not one of those things.) Your second example actually proves the opposite. In that context, “your person” is not referring to “you, a person” but “your body.” So the amendment is talking about the right of individual people to be secure from trespass upon their bodies. When the Constitution refers to people as a collective, it capitalizes the term: “We the People.” Your example also contradicts the use of “people” in the first amendment. (Unless you think the freedom of assembly is a collective right, than an individual right applying to groups of persons.) Same thing with the individual right to vote for senators in amendment 17.
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    Justice Antonin Scalia reads Heller(2008) for the majority: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
- all2 7y ago
  The second amendment is meant to decrease means and opportunity of government. Here we have the give-and-take of foundational law. I put it to you that shootings spring not from accessible weapons, or places to use them, but rather from moral bankruptcy. Christianity instilled morality into the United States, and has driven the country (in part) to seek a "better way". But that influence is dying, and with it the moral influence that was once passed from parents to children. I'm not arguing for religion (though that would work), I'm arguing for the teaching of moral absolutes.
- mark-r 7y ago
  Why does everybody keep forgetting that there are other ways of killing large numbers of innocent people quickly? Attacking the second amendment won't fix anything.
  - masonic 7y ago
    The public homicides with the greatest death toll are all arson fires, like the Happy Land Social Club massacre. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

CodeMage 7y ago

Media don't make people smoke, people make that decision. However, it's a decision that's influenced by what's in the media, which is why media are making sure they don't glorify or even normalize smoking. I'm pretty sure you can follow that same logic when it comes to mass shootings.

jjeaff 7y ago
Network media has some restrictions on how they portray smoking. Everything else seems to frequently portray smoking as something cool.

cat199 7y ago

apparently, my sarcasm was missed. $5 that this gets report next to 0% coverage in the media though, all the while gun control 'outrage' blows up. we should be looking at this systemically, is my point, and I'm sure the people looking for a quick scapegoat in firearms control and banning the scary looking guns will happily avoid this topic because it's a less preferable bogeyman.

CodeMage 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law