A good day to reflect on gun violence

Home Forums Politics A good day to reflect on gun violence

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 14 posts - 76 through 89 (of 89 total)
  • Author
  • #759437


    one other thing i can’t understand

    why the same people who are willing to be gunned down in public to protect the right of people to own guns that can gun people down in public

    are violently opposed to a woman’s right to choice




    I am speaking specifically about the rights of gun owners and they are rights. I am fine with reasonable restrictions. But as far as we know the gunman in this latest instance of violence in Seattle was until now a law abiding citizen. His rights should not be revoked without due cause. As to the accusations against him. If they are true, I believe the witnesses are in part morally culpable for his actions which may have been prevented had he been convicted.

    As to the red herring you brought up. The supreme court has already ruled that they have a constitutionally protected right to choose. I defer to the court and the constitution. They really are separate issues. The abortion issue is more about religion then freedom. I do suggest that staying on topic might lead to better discussion for all parties involved.



    Because…. the anti-federalsts were smart, In the event government were to raise standing armies, accountable the government, the people had a ways and means to fight back. Make no mistake about it.. we will defend gun rights. Don’t for a minute imagine we won’t, it would be a serious miscalculation,. The founders wanted us capable of defeating state sponsored armies, or militias. Yes JoB the means to prevail I care more about gun rights that your right to choose,

    waterworld,,, I am susggesting that if a domestic abuser, not convicted, but arrested, may encourage the DA to use more aggressive intent to prosecute,,, including more heat on the original complaintee…. when the cases fall apart, they are generally dismissed.



    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of States

    f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Scary to liberal thought… but necessaey… said if before the citizen trip wire is to be as armed as police, sheriffs, federal troops etc…

    Assume all states trend towards despotic… and at the point of a gun.

    Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” announced the Amendment’s purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., “the

    right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Moreover, the prefatory clause’s history comported with the Court’s interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists’ concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.



    I have a right to domestic tranquility and liberty, your insistance on gun rights is imposing on both of those much more important rights specified in the main body of the Constitution.

    The overall resistance to adequate health care, including mental health treatment, makes the prospect of any untreated nut with a few bucks, who hasn’t attepmted a massacre yet, being able to get guns to do so.



    Ed Sane

    “The abortion issue is more about religion then freedom.”


    but you think those who knew about a mental condition the shooter had and chose not to treat were morally culpable for his murder?

    it seems i was more on topic than you thought.



    I am speaking directly about his past incidents with the law. If you witness a crime (even as a victim) and fail to participate in the judicial process you are in part morally culpable to the criminals future crimes if they are in fact related. Because it could have in part been prevented. This is of course conjecture. The law is the fabric which holds our society together. Without it would be chaos. Those who refuse to participate in the system only create more chaos, its not different then the ‘don’t snitch’ mentality.

    We’ve been talking about the proper restrictions on firearm ownership. I think its just to point out that had there been a conviction in his previous alleged crimes. He would not have a legal right to possess such a weapon. The system only works when you work with it.




    “The system only works when you work with it.”

    the sad truth is that our system doesn’t work…

    it makes lethal automatic weapons available to seriously disturbed individuals whose rights protect them from mental health treatment for increasingly violent rhetoric and actions subsequently endangering us all.

    i nearly lost my daughter at Virginia Tech…

    a last minute change of plan saved her life

    but not those of her fellow students

    I think it’s time we asked ourselves if the lives of innocents are really worth the rights we are protecting.

    i vote no.



    what does the NRA call 5 murdered by gun people ?

    acceptable losses.



    The NRA would call then terrible losses as would you, But i am going to keep my right to bear arms even with those terrible losses… how ya think you are going take them..curious how that plan will be enforced..I suspect your local PD will tell you go get them yourself… leave us out of any plan you have to try and enforce it…. There is a reason it is the the second amendment… it was foremost in the minds of the founders. The supreme court does not measure or weigh one constitutional right over the other. The Supreme Court has ruled on the issue… your domestic tranquility doesn’t trump my gun rights.



    And on another thread, kootch, you call out JoB for “living in a different time”, or words to that effect.



    Betty T

    I recently saw on the news that the police had stopped a car, for whatever reason. They showed a lot of guns and some stolen merchandise that had been confiscated. Any idea where all the guns came from? Probably were to be sold along with the stolen items?

    Our jails are too full now, criminals being released early. Many are arrested, make bale and back out among us again. Good chance they never go back before the courts for whatever charged. Free til get arrested again.

    All this fuss because of the Racer Cafe shooting. He was legally carrying although mentally shouldn’t have been. I heard the statement that they can’t refuse permits except to felons, not mentally disabled. I really don’t know anyway as there are so many people out and about carrying rage around with them that are probably carrying legal or not.The problem may be increasing as to all the cuts helping people with mental issues and their meds. Then there are those with short or extreme tempers who don’t think they have a problem in the first place.

    I don’t believe in gun control but also don’t believe private persons need automatic weapons.



    OMG…Carson !!!! I was just thinking about you the other day, wondered if we would ever see you on here again. So good to see you post again !

    Hey, guys, Carson was here !!!! :)



    Kootch: I think I understand what you are saying. I basically agree, and I agree with EdSane to a certain extent. If I understand the information that has emerged over the last couple of days, the 2008 case involved an attack on his girlfriend. Assuming this Stranger article is accurate — http://tinyurl.com/2008assault — Stawicki might have been contemplating using a firearm on that occasion, but police arrived in time to prevent it. The girlfriend left him after this incident, but at some point before trial, she recanted her statements to the police and the case was dropped. In 2010, when Stawicki was arrested in Ellensburg, it was for allegedly assaulting his brother, but I haven’t seen any details.

    I understand EdSane’s point that it is important that domestic-violence victims testify against their attackers, so the person will be convicted, lose the right to possess firearms, and, one hopes, not commit crimes involving firearms in the future. I also appreciate how terrifying the prospect of testifying against a domestic abuser can be. Victims who testify often face an enormous risk of future harm (Charles Campbell comes to mind, for instance), and there’s not a lot of protection available to victims after they testify. Restraining orders are notoriously ineffective against bullets. Rather than holding a former victim morally culpable for a horrendous series of murders that she assuredly did not anticipate, we should figure out how to provide meaningful protection to victims following the prosecution of their abusers.

    The situation with Stawicki’s family is different, but I’m not sure I feel differently about them in the big picture. For one thing, I don’t know what led to the dismissal of the 2010 case involving Stawicki’s brother. Also, I have read other reports saying that Stawicki’s family had tried to get his weapons permit revoked due to his mental health issues, but were told Stawicki was not considered a danger to himself or others. Where the underlying issue is mental illness, not criminal propensity, perhaps the law should provide for mental health evaluation of permit-holders once the issue is raised by family members. If an evaluation showed serious mental health issues, and unwillingness to seek treatment, and arrests for violent behavior, maybe that should be enough to revoke the permit.

Viewing 14 posts - 76 through 89 (of 89 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.