Psychology/Psychiatry

The Puzzle of Identifying Future Mass Murderers Cannot Be Solved by Psychiatry, Background Checks, or Red Flag Laws

If "the notion that we can identify mass killers before they act" is a "fiction," the conventional policy responses to mass shootings are unlikely to be effective.

|

Writing in The New York Times, psychiatrist Richard Friedman notes that "experienced psychiatrists fare no better than a roll of the dice at predicting violence." He therefore thinks it is unrealistic to rely on the mental health system to identify future mass shooters and stop them before they kill anyone, as Donald Trump has suggested. Yet Friedman argues that "more effective policies might involve gun control, including enhancing background checks and expanding so-called extreme risk protection orders, which would allow law enforcement to temporarily remove firearms from people deemed potentially violent."

Those policies, of course, rely on identifying people who are prone to violence. Is there any reason to think that background checks or "extreme risk protection orders," authorized by so-called red flag laws, will accomplish that task better than "experienced psychiatrists"?

Since past violence is a good predictor of future violence, there is a rational basis for background checks that focus on people convicted of violent crimes, although the significance of such records declines over time. But the current background check system goes far beyond people convicted of violent crimes.

Federal law also bans gun possession by people convicted of drug offenses and other nonviolent felonies; people who have ever been subjected to involuntary psychiatric treatment, regardless of why or of how much time has elapsed; illegal drug users, including cannabis consumers (even in states where marijuana is legal) and people who use medication prescribed for someone else or who use it in a manner not authorized by their own prescriptions; and unauthorized U.S. residents, regardless of whether they have demonstrated any violent tendencies.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union, which maintains that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to arms, argues that "the categories of people that federal law currently prohibits from possessing or purchasing a gun are overbroad, not reasonably related to the state's interest in public safety, and raise significant equal protection and due process concerns." In this context, proposals to "enhance" or expand the current background check system (by adding more data or requiring background checks for private firearm transfers, for example) mean that more people will be unjustly stripped of their Second Amendment rights even though they pose no public safety threat. Nor are background checks a very effective way to stop mass shootings, since the perpetrators of such crimes (including last weekend's attacks in El Paso and Dayton) typically do not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records.

Red flag laws aim to identify people who pose a threat to themselves or others but are not already disqualified from gun ownership. Such laws allow judges to consider a wide range of evidence, including the psychiatric evaluations that Friedman dismisses as no more accurate than a roll of the dice. In Florida, for example, judges hearing petitions for gun confiscation orders "may consider any relevant evidence." That opens the door to literally anything a judge considers relevant, including unsubstantiated allegations, misconstrued conversations, and controversial or offensive social media posts. This permissive approach to evidence, combined with vague standards and the looming fear of denying an order in a case where the respondent ends up killing himself or someone else, helps explain why the approval rate for final "risk protection orders" in Florida is 95 percent.

There is no solid evidence that red flag laws, the oldest of which (Connecticut's) was enacted two decades ago, prevent homicides. But there are anecdotes. The New York Times describes the case of a San Diego car dealership employee who "told his co-workers that he would shoot up the place if he were fired" and who "praised the man who had carried out the Las Vegas massacre." There was also a man who "told his fiancée he wanted to shoot her in the head" and "threatened to kill her ex-boyfriend." Another man "told co-workers that he wished his supervisors would die, and that he could invite them hunting so it would look like an accident."

San Diego's city attorney, Mara Elliott, obtained gun confiscation orders against all three of those men under California's red flag law. It is hard to tell from the sketches in the Times article whether the men's threats (especially that last one) were in earnest, and it is impossible to say whether any of these men would have followed through on them. But it certainly makes sense to be concerned about people who own guns and have threatened to use them. "Of the first 100 restraining orders [Elliott] obtained," the Times says, "one in seven involved people who had threatened violence at a workplace or a school, and about 10 percent involved people who made threats on social media."

That accounts for less than a quarter of the orders. What about the rest? Based on the track record of red flag laws in Connecticut and Indiana (the first two states to enact such statutes), I'd guess most or all of them involved people who were deemed suicidal. Were they actually suicidal?

Even the most generous estimates, based on a method that may not be reliable, suggest that 90 to 95 percent of people who lose their Second Amendment rights under red flag laws because they are deemed a threat to themselves would not actually have committed suicide. Whether or not you think those odds are good enough to suspend someone's constitutional rights for a year or more (and whether or not you think the government should be in the business of stopping people from killing themselves), it is notable that red flag laws are sold as a way to prevent murder but are mainly used to prevent suicide.

When you combine the focus on suicide with the dubious evidence and vague standards for gun confiscation orders, it seems clear that the vast majority of people subject to these orders do not actually pose a threat to others. The other side of the coin is that red flag laws do not necessarily identify people who are in fact bent on violence. Connecticut's red flag law did not prevent the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, even though the perpetrator was conspicuously troubled and had contact with the mental health system. It is unclear that even last year's attack at a high school in Parkland, Florida, which prompted the recent spate of red flag laws, would have been prevented by the availability of gun confiscation orders.

The red flags that in retrospect identified Nikolas Cruz as a future mass murderer were not so clear at the time, because they were not all visible to any single person or agency with the ability to act on them. Things might have been different if the FBI had followed up on a telephone tip it received a month before the attack from "a person close to Nikolas Cruz." The FBI said "the caller provided information about Cruz's gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting."

The FBI said that information, which was received on the bureau's general tip line, "should have been forwarded to the FBI Miami Field Office, where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken." If that had happened, agents probably would have talked to the same people reporters interviewed after the shooting: Cruz's current and former neighbors, the couple who took him in after his mother died, his coworkers at a local Dollar Store, and staff and students at the high school.

Such an investigation would have drawn together the various strands of Cruz's story: his disturbing social media comments, his volatility, his cruelty to animals, his fights and disciplinary record at school, his weapons, and his troubles at home, where his mother repeatedly called the police for help in managing him. Such an investigation would have revealed Cruz as a potentially dangerous person to be watched, if not someone actively plotting mass murder.

But that did not happen. So the question is, given what people knew before the attack, who would have initiated the process of taking away Cruz's guns?

Probably not Cruz's mother, who let him keep his guns despite her problems with him. Probably not the police officers who came to the house at his mother's behest, who did not seem to view Cruz as a serious threat. Probably not the social workers who visited the home in 2016, who concluded there was little risk that Cruz would harm himself or someone else. Probably not the people he was living with at the time of the shooting, who made him keep his guns in a safe but said they did not realize how troubled he was.

Even in this paradigmatic "red flag" case, in other words, it is doubtful that a red flag law would have made a difference. As the Times notes, red flag laws "depend on people to call the authorities about someone before they act," and "many mass shooters are never reported."

Another challenge, as the Times also notes, is that red flag orders expire unless there is reason to extend them, as they must if we are to retain any semblance of due process. So while the 24-year-old perpetrator of the Dayton attack "composed lists of people he wanted to kill or rape" when he was in high school, any order issued at the time would have expired by now. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine is nevertheless pushing a red flag law in response to the Dayton shooting.

Advocates of red flag laws concede they are not a complete solution. But given the ratio of mass murderers stymied (possibly more than zero) to harmless people unfairly stripped of their constitutional rights (the vast majority of respondents), it seems like a pretty ham-handed approach.

The basic problem, as Friedman explains before ignoring it, is that "the notion that we can identify mass killers before they act is, as yet, an epidemiologic fiction." I wish that were not the case. I wish there were ways to accurately predict which very few of the country's many angry oddballs will one day commit mass murder. But wishing it does not make it so.

NEXT: Does Walmart Really Think a 30-Second Clip of Call of Duty Will Traumatize Us All?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Writing in The New York Times, psychiatrist Richard Friedman notes that “experienced psychiatrists fare no better than a roll of the dice at predicting violence.”

    Well that settles it. When someone goes to buy a gun, he’ll have to roll 1d20…

    1. And if he rolls a 20, what then?

      1. A natural 20 will be the only legal way to buy a gun

      2. Food for thought: what percentage of mass shooters come from broken homes where they were raised by their mother and not their dad?

        1. Good Lord, Reason, get this site fixed. Every comment I post shows up as a reply to some random comment instead of a new comment on its own

          1. Look at the border of the posting window.
            If it’s red, you’re seen as making a reply. AND it says “CANCEL REPLY,” next to “LEAVE A COMMENT.”
            If it’s black, you should be good. That’s how to tell, and why not try it now — just cancel if testing.

            I’ve been an Internet professional and web designer for over 25 years. You might also try clearing your cache. OCCASIONALLY, that fixes all sorts of weird things, depending on the browser, etc.
            If you can’t find clearing cache in your settings, google “clear cash” (in quotes) and your browser name (quotes irrelevant). The ODDS are that it’s on your end, or everyone would have the problem, also on every comment, and I did say the odds.

            1. Hihn has been a troll here for a long time.

              1. (boldface in defense of yet more aggression.
                And to highlight the ridicule!)

                Hihn has been a troll here for a long time.

                YOU are the troll, who got his ASS whupped ,.. for the FUCKING STUPID claim that ….. GUN REGULATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

                https://reason.com/2019/08/09/the-puzzle-of-identifying-future-mass-murderers-cannot-be-solved-by-psychiatry-background-checks-or-red-flag-laws/#comment-7889279

                1. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

            2. You’ve been a web designer?????

              Hihn, you’re full of shit. I’ve seen your website. My name is on it. I half expect a flying toaster screen saver to pop up if I stay away for too long.

              1. ANOTHER FUCKUP BY THE UNICORN

                YOU’RE FULL OF SHIT … THE WEBSITE WAS PUBLISHED OVER 20 YEARS AGO … SAYS THAT IT’S AN ARCHIVE … AND IS DORMANT

                TELL IS WHAT WEB DESIGN TECHNOLOGY WAS IN 1993?

                THAT’S NOW SEVEN MASSIVE FUCKUPS … WHY NOT STOP ASSAULTING ME … SINCE YOU CLEARLY SUCK AT IT?

                *****AND THE …. HATRED THAT CONSUMES YOU….

                (posted in self defense form multiple assaults by a raging hater … punishing ME for HIS fuckups)

                1. If it was published over 20 years ago, it wouldn’t have my name on it. Fail.

                2. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

    2. Rolling against his Wisdom score, I guess?

      1. Looks like someone wants only clerics to have guns.

        1. Well heck, the wizards don’t need them–that’s what spells are for.

    3. psychiatrist Richard Friedman

      He was a hoot on MASH.

      1. That was his father, Sidney Friedman!

  2. Cruz was subjected to autism ‘treatment’ from an early age. This is indoctrination into ‘impulse control disorder’ and the results are often disastrous as you might expect. Similar story for Sandy Hook. Mommas don’t let your children be diagnosed with autism. Background checks won’t help because they will target the good guys. However I would not be opposed to an assault weapons ban. Why? Because I will gladly defend your free speech even if you use it against me. I will not extend you the same courtesy on gun rights. A ban on a class of weapons if applied fairly will not instigate people to violence, and we will still be able to defend ourselves from tyranny.

    1. Have a look at how “assault weapons” ban have been applied, its never done fairly. The very fact they you are creating this “class of weapon” for the sole purpose of banning it makes it unfair, that’s why no two states that ban them define the class the same way

      1. Its almost like life is unfair. Boohoo.

        1. So you admit that “assault weapons” laws are applied arbitrarily and capriciously. You’re almost there!

          1. All laws are applied arbitrarily and capriciously. Do you think that this somehow moves the needle? We pass laws to stop some of the bad stuff some of the time.

            1. Isn’t it already illegal to wander into a place and randomly shoot people? If so, it seems like more law isn’t a really great answer.

              1. That seems like a non-sequitur to me. The problem isn’t punishment after the fact. The problem is that we seem incapable of deterring these incidents. If your argument is that we shouldn’t be in the crime-deterrence business, that’s fair enough I won’t bother you since at that point, it’s a fundamental disagreement that will have to be decided at the ballot box.

                1. The threat of capital punishment is as much deterrence as the average person needs. If somebody’s not deterred by the threat of death, what would you suggest as a more effective deterrence?

                  1. There is little to no evidence that capital punishment _ever_ works as a deterrent.

                    This is because people never imagine that it will happen to _them_: if they ever get caught, they can simply tell their side of it and everyone will understand. At least that’s my theory.

    2. We’ve already tried an assault weapons ban. Indeed, the template used by mass murderers for their mass shootings — Columbine — happened in the middle of the last assault weapon ban.

      As to perceived fairness of the ban….the last time this class of weapons was made illegal, the AR15 went from being an obscure rifle to the most popular rifle in America. People bought the AR15, even if they had to do it in configurations to satisfy the ban, to spite the law, because even then, people thought the ban was unfair.

      In fact, there were people who became gun nuts — ie, the AR15 was their first gun, and they became gun rights proponents — because they thought that the assault weapon ban was arbitrary, useless, and unfair.

      So, considering all this, how in the world would “a ban on a class of weapons” be applied fairly?

      1. So, Barbara Streisand effect?

    3. “…However I would not be opposed to an assault weapons ban. Why? Because I will gladly defend your free speech even if you use it against me. I will not extend you the same courtesy on gun rights….”

      Fuck off, slaver.

    4. I will still defend your right to use your gun rights against me if I use my gun rights against you. Meantime, I’ll work to retain my gun rights because people like you want to use other forms of force to take them.

  3. Nor are background checks a very effective way to stop mass shootings, since the perpetrators of such crimes (including last weekend’s attacks in El Paso and Dayton) typically do not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records.

    Ah, HA!! Anyone *without* a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record in their background check should not be permitted a weapon.

  4. Advocates of red flag laws concede they are not a complete solution. But given the ratio of mass murderers stymied (possibly more than zero) to harmless people unfairly stripped of their constitutional rights (the vast majority of respondents), it seems like a pretty ham-handed approach.

    Let me get this straight… Assuming that at least 1 mass murder was stymied (more than zero), your position is that we should’ve let a few people have their lives ended so a salesman somewhere could continue to go hunting and target shooting for a year?

    I think the 2nd amendment is critical to securing a free nation. But gun ownership is about responsibility too. How about, if you own a gun, you acknowledge that you have a responsibility to your fellow citizens to not make threats involving said gun. Its not that hard to both own a weapon and not talk about shooting up your place of work. That is, if you are stable individual.

    1. There are laws that prohibit threats of criminal violence.

      1. So you think we should lock the salesman up instead of momentarily take away the tools he threatened to use to carry out his threats?

        You’d rather take away more freedoms more permanently instead of a very narrow set of freedoms only temporarily curtailed?

        1. Congratulations, you managed to be both illogical and disingenuous!

          1. Nice argument!

        2. So you think we should lock the salesman up instead of momentarily take away the tools he threatened to use to carry out his threats?

          Yes. Because

          1) just because he threatened using violence with that tool doesn’t mean his violent impulse isn’t going to find some other tool when you take that one away from him, and

          2) “Momentarily?” Will this be measured in the same units we use to time “speedy trials?”

          1. Tbh, I would think that you would’ve brought up due process concerns, which, in my opinion, is a much stronger argument against what I was saying.

            1) just because he threatened using violence with that tool doesn’t mean his violent impulse isn’t going to find some other tool when you take that one away from him, and

            I think its reasonable to prioritize threats and neutralize those that are highest on the list.

            2) “Momentarily?” Will this be measured in the same units we use to time “speedy trials?”

            Well, it is the government we’re talking about here.

            1. It’s not all that inconceivable that a person just blowing off steam when making a threat will then go on to become angry and resort to arson to kill those who were involved in taking his guns away.

              In other words, Red Flag laws have as much potential to cause murder as it does to prevent it.

              Seriously, if the guy is such a threat that we should be taking away his guns, why are we letting him walk free? It’s not as if guns are the only — or worse, the most effective — way to kill lots of people!

              1. It’s not all that inconceivable that a person just blowing off steam

                I totally agree.

                when making a threat will then go on to become angry and resort to arson to kill those who were involved in taking his guns away.

                Okay now you lost me. Are we seeing an increase in murder in states with red flag laws?

                Seriously, if the guy is such a threat that we should be taking away his guns, why are we letting him walk free?

                Because its both preferable and more fiscally responsible to take away only 1 freedom temporarily than it is to take away all freedom for huge swaths of time?

                It’s not as if guns are the only — or worse, the most effective — way to kill lots of people!

                We preemptively track, find and arrest people that try to make homemade explosives all the time. I don’t think we need such measures for guns considering how many peaceful and defensive uses they have.

                1. “Okay now you lost me. Are we seeing an increase in murder in states with red flag laws?”

                  Perhaps not, but have we seen a decrease in murder in States with red flag laws? If not, then we’re unjustly forcing people, at great expense in time and money, to reclaim the one right you so cavalierly want to take away from them; in the meantime, that one person is now defenseless while the claim wends its way through the courts.

                  If the person we take guns away isn’t a threat, then maybe it’s ok to just leave that person with his guns. If that person is a threat, though, then why isn’t this a serious provocation? If, as you say, red flag States haven’t seen an increase in murder, then maybe, just maybe, the people who lost their guns weren’t threats in the first place!

                  “We preemptively track, find and arrest people that try to make homemade explosives all the time. I don’t think we need such measures for guns considering how many peaceful and defensive uses they have.”

                  To what extent does that prevent people who are determined to make explosives from creating explosives? And to what extent has this harmed innocent hobbies, like experimental rocket building? I have heard stories of amateur rocket experimentalists having to prove to the BATFE that their fuel shouldn’t be regulated, by eaiting their fuel. Now, you wouldn’t want to do this with toxic fuel, but the fuel the BATFE wanted to regulate was made out of edible material. (Indeed, sugar is an excellent oxidizer, and is even a major ingredient in several different rocket fuels.)

                  Have these regulations really made us safer? I sincerely doubt it.

                  “Because its both preferable and more fiscally responsible to take away only 1 freedom temporarily than it is to take away all freedom for huge swaths of time?”

                  Is it preferable, though? If the person is a genuine threat, we haven’t done much to neutralize the danger, have we? If the person isn’t a genuine threat, though, we have just committed ourselves to additional burdens to the court system, combined with requiring the person to spend time and money to restore his one right.

                  And now that I think about it, I have to ask the question: is it really the greater burden, to arrest a given person, evaluate the threat that that person represents over the course of a day or two, and then keep him imprisoned further, if, indeed that person is a threat, but otherwise let that person out into the wild again, than it is to send a SWAT team to remove the guns, hope that the team can find all the guns, but leave the “threat” alone afterwards — hoping against hope that the person didn’t have guns squirreled away somewhere, or that they don’t just decide to go to the gas station and put something in a little red can that can be just as deadly as guns?

                  1. Wait a minute now… “Red flags” are carried by the gap-toothed hicks in fly-over country, right? And “Blue flags” are carried by the likes of the violent thugs of “AntiFa”, right? The guns of the “Red flag fliers” will be confiscated, and the guns of the “Blue flag fliers” will NOT? I have seen NO mention of the “Blue flag fliers” in this context!!! Is thins NOT some highly suspicious political bias going on here?!?!

                    1. Financed by George Soros.
                      And Rodney Dangerfield.

                    2. Hihn, fuck off and die.

              2. This is what worries me. What if the laws work as advertised?
                Someone really raises a “red flag,” threatening to harm himself or others. So the cops bust in his door, slap him with a warrant, handcuff him (officer safety), ransack his house, take his property, humiliate him in front of his family and neighbors. Then they unhook him and leave.
                “Look, the bomb is ticking. Let’s give it a good whack and see what happens.”
                Will we hear how many potential suicides, prodded to really off themselves, choose another method after a raid?
                Or how many people with a grudge just go get another gun, perhaps by killing someone they know has one?
                Or how many will use another method of mass murder?
                “Massive fire at Kyoto animation studio kills at least 33, Japanese authorities say”
                https://abcnews.go.com/International/20-feared-dead-blaze-kyoto-animation-studio-injured/story?id=64410099
                They compare it to the 1916 knife attack that “only” killed 19.
                These “red flag” laws are supposed to be about mental health, but they have no mental health component.

    2. “”But gun ownership is about responsibility too. How about, if you own a gun, you acknowledge that you have a responsibility to your fellow citizens to not make threats involving said gun.””

      You should. If I own a car I acknowledge that I have a responsibility not to run people over. That doesn’t mean my neighbor will be as responsible with his car. What makes little sense is trying to take my car or make it harder for me to get a car because of my neighbor’s behavior.

      1. No, it makes perfect sense. In fact, I bet you even had to get a license before you could go buy the car.

        1. And I bet you thought that was clever. Driver’s licenses don’t do a damn thing to stop psychos from killing people with their cars.

          And you don’t need a fucking license to buy a car; you need one to legally drive on a public road.

          1. And I bet you thought that was clever. Driver’s licenses don’t do a damn thing to stop psychos from killing people with their cars.

            So you don’t think that requiring a license to drive is a restriction on freedoms? You don’t think that the license requirement in the first place was driven by a need for public safety after people were ran over by unsafe drivers operating motor vehicles?

            Also, we take drivers licenses away from people that are deemed mentally incompetent (including psychos).

            1. Driving is fundamentally considered a privilege, not a right.

              1. Indeed. I’m just addressing TrickyVic’s response to my OP. I wasn’t the person that tried to draw the bad comparison. I’m working with what I was given.

            2. One huge difference is that no one has the constitutional right to drive a car. We do have the right to move about from place to place, but there are other mechanisms available for that purpose. We do have the constitutional right to own a firearm.

              And just because the state may take away a person’s driver’s license it doesn’t stop that person from driving. How many news stories have you seen lately in which an unlicensed driver caused a serious accident? And why do you have “uninsured motorists coverage” tacked onto your insurance? Because irresponsible humans will be irresponsible, and you get to clean up the mess and pay for it.

              1. One huge difference is that no one has the constitutional right to drive a car. We do have the right to move about from place to place, but there are other mechanisms available for that purpose. We do have the constitutional right to own a firearm.

                I agree. A constitutional amendment should be the one and only method for abridging people’s right to keep and bear arms. Full stop.

                And just because the state may take away a person’s driver’s license it doesn’t stop that person from driving. How many news stories have you seen lately in which an unlicensed driver caused a serious accident? And why do you have “uninsured motorists coverage” tacked onto your insurance? Because irresponsible humans will be irresponsible, and you get to clean up the mess and pay for it.

                I understand what you’re saying here, but I’ve never been easily persuaded by the “well, its going to happen anyway so fuck it” argument. I think we should look at the costs and benefits of different policies and try to apply them as locally as possible so they can remain flexible. I think humans are exceptionally good problem solvers and we should use that evolutionary advantage to the best of our ability.

                1. but I’ve never been easily persuaded by the “well, its going to happen anyway so fuck it” argument.

                  Everyone is persuaded by that argument for something they like. People of all political stripes like cars and alcohol, even though each one alone kills far more people than guns and are even deadlier combined. And yet people tolerate the risks alcohol and cars pose to the public and would never in a million years ban them or even make the acquisition of them as difficult as gun grabbers want to make for guns.

                  1. You took out all the context to my argument. The entire portion about “cost and benefits” which would absolutely apply to your argument about cars and alcohol.

                    1. Why do you ignore the benefits that guns have on society, then?

                2. There’s a difference between banning something like murder because it’s inherently evil, and banning guns or cars because people *might* use them to commit murder. There’s nothing inherently evil about using a gun or a car, and there are even great benefits to using them.-

                  In your insistence that we can license guns like we do for cars (which we don’t license, anyway — we only license drivers), you overlook one thing: it’s never been established that the licensing of cars or the registering of cars has done a darn thing to preserve lives. Indeed, there’s even a study or two that suggests safety inspections have had absolutely zero effect on the safety of our cars. Yet you are confident that requiring licensing will make us safer.

                  How many States have moved from “may issue” carry permits to “shall issue”? Quite a few. How many States have moved from “shall issue” to “Constitutional Carry”, ie, the State’s recognition of the right to carry a gun without a permit, so long as you can own that gun legally? Again, quite a few. In how many States have murder and violence increased because of this gradual loss in the strictness of gun licensing?

                  Surely, if licensing increases safety and decreases violence, then we have quite a few States that can show us this. It’s up to you to study the populations and show the connections!

                  1. +100

                3. “I think humans are exceptionally good problem solvers.”

                  Yes, they are. Unfortunately, humans are also exceptionally good at solving problems that don’t exist, or trying to solve problems to which no solution exists, or even believing that they have solved a problem, when all they have done is make things worse.

                  Sometimes — indeed, most of the time — the best solution is to just stop banning and regulating everything, and let individuals decide for themselves how they are going to live each day! After all, humans are exceptionally good problem solvers, so there’s no reason to believe that only bureaucrats and lawmakers are good problem solvers.

                4. DC v Heller Page 114
                  The second independent reason is that the protection
                  the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment
                  permits government to regulate the interests that it
                  serves.

                  Scalia Heller Page Page 2

                  2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
                  It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
                  manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:
                  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues…
                  Miller’s holding (1939) that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
                  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

                  Pages 54-56 are a VERY lengthy list of gun prohibitions at and around ratification. Scalia was an originalist; “founders intent”

                  1. As a slimy piece of shit, would you please fuck off and quit stinking up the place.

            3. TrickyVic’s comparison is valid. When someone harms another with a car, no one seriously considers making it more difficult for everyone to get a car.

              And your driver’s licensing point is a red herring. They have nothing at all to do with whether someone might commit violence with a car.

              1. When someone harms another with a car, no one seriously considers making it more difficult for everyone to get a car.

                I think its at least an imperfect comparison. One is a constitutional right, the other has been affirmed to be just a privilege many times over. That being said, I was willing to accept the comparison without protest because I don’t like to nitpick, I like to give the person I’m talking to the benefit of the doubt (at least until they start insulting me or being otherwise abusive). The comparison, for what we’re discussing, is good enough and therefore I treated it as such from the get-go. I was just acknowledging someone else’s post that the comparison is not perfect.

                And your driver’s licensing point is a red herring. They have nothing at all to do with whether someone might commit violence with a car.

                I think your argument would be stronger if you connected what you said before this with what you’re saying here. The licensing point isn’t as strong when considered in the context of “When someone harms another with a car, no one seriously considers making it more difficult for everyone to get a car.” So… if my neighbor kills someone with a car, no one talks about restricting EVERYONE’s access to a car. That’s a valid point. I’d argue that this goes back to the fact that this is a very imperfect comparison. Cars are absolutely crucial to the American economy. Guns, although the sale of them is part of our economy, are not relied upon by hundreds of millions of the population go to get food every day. It’s not a great comparison from multiple angles.

                1. Except that people have gotten along fine without cars for ages. They certainly could get along fine with cars that can only go 15 miles per hour. It may mean the economy has to be drastically restructured, but tens of thousands of lives would be saved every year.

                  1. That seems silly. No one is going to go back to a car-less society. Our economy would shrink millions of times over. It’d be a disaster. The same thing cannot be said for guns.

                    I’ve said a few times that a cost and benefit analysis must be applied when considering these policies. The idea that cars and guns have the same cost-benefit seems incorrect to me.

                    1. Too many people only see the costs of guns — the lives lost to suicide and murder (which more often than not is merely gang warfare) — and ignore the benefits of guns — the the lives and property saved because someone had a gun and the ability to say “f*** off” to someone trying to kill them.

                    2. That seems silly. No one is going to go back to a car-less society.

                      Have we forgotten AOC and her mass transit plans including overnight trains that the commies love so much?

              2. TrickyVic’s comparison is valid. When someone harms another with a car, no one seriously considers making it more difficult for everyone to get a car.

                His massive fallacy is exposed here:

                https://reason.com/2019/08/09/the-puzzle-of-identifying-future-mass-murderers-cannot-be-solved-by-psychiatry-background-checks-or-red-flag-laws/#comment-7889455

                1. Slimy remains from a septic tank like you should fuck off and not smell up the place.

            4. “…we take drivers licenses away from people that are deemed mentally incompetent (including psychos).”

              But yet, many still manage to drive a car and kill people, both intentionally and unintentionally.

              Any law is only as good as the people that follow it.

              1. I understand what you’re saying here, but I’ve never been easily persuaded by the “well, its going to happen anyway so fuck it” argument. I think we should look at the costs and benefits of different policies and try to apply them as locally as possible so they can remain flexible. I think humans are exceptionally good problem solvers and we should use that evolutionary advantage to the best of our ability.

                1. I wasn’t implying “so fuck it”. I was just pointing out that any law doesn’t work if the people don’t follow it. A red flag law can be evaded by someone simply by restricting what they say or post online. Yes, humans are good problem solvers, but that’s true for both those who follow the law *and* those who chose not to and find ways to work around the law.

                  I agree that policies should be applied at a local/state level nearly all the time. Federal one-size fits-all laws tend to hurt more than it helps, IMHO.

                2. No, I think the argument/foundational principle is we don’t restrict the freedom of innocent people to try and stop bad people from misusing theirs. Laws only affect the behavior of law abiding citizens anyhow (at least in the way they’re supposed to).

      2. Irrelevant, Vic.

        There are not all kinds of cars, like 30 a month running people over, all across America, with TONS of evidence showing some sort of new traffic regulation would effectively stop it

        And it comes down to knowing you could stop all the carnage and deaths, but refuse to do so, which makes you (the generic you) culpable.

        That’s like saying, “Speed limits should be repealed, because I always drive 100 mph, and have never caused damage or debt.”

        Regulations are not punishment, and MANY things can be done here, with no violations of 2A. Universal background checks are most obvious, which is why 90% of Americans want one, 80% strongly, and background checks do absolutely nothing to YOUR rights. Nothing at all,.

        Fot mass shootings, a ban on semi-automatics has been constitutional for 80 years. Which means even Australia-type confiscations would be perfectly constitutional, or bans on large magazines.

        If no rights violation, then there’s no justification for complaining (other than the right of free speech).

        1. I should not have said “stop ALL” deaths, which is a trigger for many, even though irrelevant,

          Some of us actually believe in sanctity of human life, even the vast majority of NON-libertarians. What would Jesus say? (He already did)

          1. As a slimy piece of shit, you should fuck off and die.

          2. “What would Jesus say?”

            “But now,” he said, “take your money and a traveler’s bag. And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one! For the time has come for this prophecy about me to be fulfilled: ‘He was counted among the rebels.’ Yes, everything written about me by the prophets will come true.”

            “Look, Lord,” they replied, “we have two swords among us.”

            “That’s enough,” he said.

            1. Has no relevance to sanctity of life. To what you did cite, from the Sermon on the Mount, WITH contect

              >38 “You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two

              Total, abject submission.

              1. “Has no relevance to sanctity of life.”

                Has total relevance. Your own life is worth enough to protect it, even with deadly force.

                “Total, abject submission.”

                Wrong. None of those were deadly attacks, only small, obnoxious aggressions (the last one only ever done by the State). When your life is in peril, you may defend yourself.

                Of course, Hihn, expecting you to know anything about Scripture is laughable. It’s not like I’ve explained this to you several times already…

                1. “Has no relevance to sanctity of life.”

                  Has total relevance. Your own life is worth enough to protect it, even with deadly force.

                  ahh You don’t know what it means! Sanctity of life means LIFE, all of life, not just yourself. Or EVERY life in existence. AND NOTHING TO DO WITH SELF-DEFENSE

                  Now, you even bungle the words of Jesus Christ IN BOLDFACE

                  38 “You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two
                  “Total, abject submission.”</A

                  Wrong. None of those were deadly attacks, only small, obnoxious aggressions (the last one only ever done by the State). When your life is in peril, you may defend yourself

                  ARE YOU DRUNK? That’s THE WRONG VERSE

                  Of course, Hihn, expecting you to know anything about Scripture is laughable.

                  After THAT massvie fuckup (OMFG).
                  I knew where to find the verse I know is there.
                  I pasted it in my comment.
                  I made it boldface.
                  AND YOU STILL COULDN’T READ IT

                  STRIKE THREE! YOU ARE OUT.

                  Another self-righteous Christian this ATHEIST knows more than.
                  And I have NEVER in my life met ANYONE so TOTALLY clueless on SANCTITY OF LIFE!

                  You always give self-righteous snark on the Bible or the religion … and ALWAYS screw up.. I now have a pious Christian who cannot read the words of Jesus Christ in boldface … and NO IDEA what sanctity of life means. … while lecturing ME on scripture

                  “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
                  Proverbs 16:18

                  1. “Sanctity of life means LIFE, all of life, not just yourself. Or EVERY life in existence. AND NOTHING TO DO WITH SELF-DEFENSE”

                    It has everything to do with self-defense. The LORD is a God of justice, of repayment for debts incurred. The cost of a life is a life. Attempting to take a life is “putting up” yours as possible (and eventual) payment.

                    “Now, you even bungle the words of Jesus Christ IN BOLDFACE..
                    ARE YOU DRUNK? That’s THE WRONG VERSE”

                    No, Hihn, you’re just off your meds again. What I said was perfectly coherent.

                    “I knew where to find the verse I know is there.”

                    You did. And just as the devil misrepresents (a part of) Scripture, you’ve done the same. When I proved you wrong (again), you whined (again).

                    “Another self-righteous Christian this ATHEIST knows more than.”

                    You will never know more about what I study every day than I do, Hihn. Love is more powerful a motivator than hate, and your hatred of God and everything he stands for is evident to all. Your assertion here is proof of Genesis’ first sin, which is pride. Your inability to be corrected has caused almost every conflict you’ve ever had on this site.

                    “To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate arrogant pride, evil conduct, and perverse speech.”
                    “When pride comes, disgrace follows, but with humility comes wisdom.”
                    “Before his downfall a man’s heart is proud, but humility comes before honor.”
                    “A man’s pride will bring him low, but a humble spirit will obtain honor.”
                    “‘The terror you cause and the pride of your heart have deceived you, O dwellers in the clefts of the rocks, O occupiers of the mountain summit. Though you elevate your nest like the eagle, even from there I will bring you down,’ declares the LORD.”

                    Keep arguing against people who know better, Hihn. It’s served you well thus far, right?

    3. “”Assuming that at least 1 mass murder was stymied (more than zero), your position is that we should’ve let a few people have their lives ended so a salesman somewhere could continue to go hunting and target shooting for a year?””

      Cool, now do cars and drunk driving.

      1. Owning a car should require a basic set of safety skills, something like a license. And owning an operating a car comes with a set of responsibilities, such as making sure that you are in a functional state of mind and unimpaired while operating the vehicle.

      2. So any restrictions are justified if we “save just one life”. Now you do baseball bats and kitchen knives.

        1. Nice try but I didn’t even say anything close to that.

        2. Hell, all he has to do is address driving and yapping on a cell phone! It’s illegal in most states, but has it stopped anyone?

          1. Following this logic… so you think, that because people murder others, despite it being illegal, we should legalize murder?

            I don’t see how that could be what you really think. I think you need to flesh out your argument a bit more.

          2. Umm, England has had one mass shooting in the 22 years since the most recent gun control. (banning hand guns)

            Adjust for population and that’s the US equivalent of 5 mass shootings in 22 years, one every 4+ years.

            We’ve had 250 in 7 months. Do the math..
            Our rate is 2,000,000 % higher.
            0.2 per year vs over 400 per year.

            Australia also had one in 22 years. Their population is roughly half the UK, so their equivalent is roughly 11 in 22 years., one every 2 years.

            These are human lives, LOTS of human lives, and several of you are playing word games? Is not the defense of human life a core function of government. Dores “sanctity of life” apply to only fetuses? .

            1. You forgot to tell us the rates of mass shootings before the ban.

              Without that information, for all we know, mass shootings in Great Britain have increased since the ban.

              (Incidentally, there is one thing we know: the murder rate increased slightly immediately after the ban, but has since decreased slightly, for a net change of 0 murders. Great Britain is so bewildered by this outcome, they are now trying to figure out how to ban knives.)

              1. You forgot to tell us the rates of mass shootings before the ban.

                That’s not relevant.

                Without that information, for all we know, mass shootings in Great Britain have increased since the ban.

                Read what I said,

                (Incidentally, there is one thing we know: the murder rate increased slightly immediately after the ban, but has since decreased slightly, for a net change of 0 murders. Great Britain is so bewildered by this outcome, they are now trying to figure out how to ban knives.)

                That’s bullshit — on MASS murders. My source is the BBC, which also has SOME of the bans history you asked about..

                https://www.bbc.com/news/10216955

                I look forward to seeing your source.

                Elsewhere on the page, where I reported data on intentional homicides. UN data, per 100,000 people
                5.3 United States
                3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
                1.7 Canada
                0.9 UK

                Umm, if the UK rate went up slightly , would it be 1.5 theirs versus 6.3 ours, homicides per 100,000? How is that meaningful?

                My turn. How is it that British police can patrol, unarmed?
                If we need guns to protect us from bad guts, what are the odds that the bad guys are armed because our good guys are so heavily armed. MANY cultures have unarmed police. Do they have NO bad guys??? (I trust you haven’t swallowed the crazy bullshit about No-Go Zones in London’s Muslim areas.)

                1. “That’s bull**** — on MASS murders.”

                  So you only care about people who get killed in groups, then. You don’t care about people who die alone with their head bashed in with a hammer.

                  “Umm, if the UK rate went up slightly , would it be 1.5 theirs versus 6.3 ours, homicides per 100,000? How is that meaningful?”

                  It would be meaningful because the laws are supposed to reduce murder. America’s murder rate has been going down since States have been passing “Shall Issue” Concealed Carry Permits and passing Constitutional Carry laws; if Great Britain’s crime rate has flatlined, or even gone up during this same time period, isn’t it safe to conclude that gun bans are just plain stupid?

                  “My turn. How is it that British police can patrol, unarmed?”

                  They don’t. British police do use weapons.

                  As for a source about the ineffectiveness of gun laws: “The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales” by Gary A. Mauser.

                  http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.585.8899&rep=rep1&type=pdf

                  1. “That’s bull**** — on MASS murders.”

                    So you only care about people who get killed in groups, then.

                    That is worse bullshit. I addressed YOUR question. about MY data, which was about mass murders.

                    You don’t care about people who die alone with their head bashed in with a hammer.

                    You’re blaming me for YOUR fuckup, as explained just above.

                    I’m done with you.

                    1. “That is worse bullshit. I addressed YOUR question. about MY data, which was about mass murders.”

                      No you didn’t. You only said that a change in time is irrelevant. If it turned out that Great Britain had an *increase* in mass murder since the gun ban was passed, you’d literally be advocating for a policy that kills people. But you’re not willing to take time for that analysis. Why?

                      “I’m done with you.”

                      That’s only because to you, proper statistical analysis is kryptonite. It’s as if you’re afraid that you’ll find out that your policy — to ban guns — won’t be the panacea you think it is.

                    2. We all hope the pathetic piece of shit known as Hihn fucks off and dies.

      3. The actual numbers, mass shootings, adjusted for population
        Per year
        UK 0.2
        US 426

        Anything else?

        1. Yes. Show us how those numbers changed over decades. If nothing has changed, despite changes in the law, then maybe, just maybe, there’s no sense in regulating guns after all.

          Oh, and f*** off, slaver.

          1. How is that even remotely relevant? Even if true?

            MANY countries, not just England, have police patrolling … unarmed. Do they have NO bad guys? Might our bad guys have guns ONLY because our good guys are so heavily armed?. That’s exactly what fueled the nuclear arms race.

            Oh, and f*** off, slaver.

            You insist on being fully armed to some degree … but proud to be a bully, when Trump wants to ban guns to … bullies. Hardly a wise tactic.

            And it’s me defending rights here. Does human life have any meaning for you at all?

            1. England has had to increase the number of their armed police officers since the ban. I’ve been to England myself — lived there for a couple of years, even — and it’s not *nearly* the peaceful paradise you make it out to be. I’m literally safer living in rural United States than I was when I was in Birmingham and Nottingham.

              And perhaps our bad guys have guns because they do things that are illegal, and are willing to kill to protect their turf. Shouldn’t we legalize drugs before we criminalize guns?

              “And it’s me defending rights here. Does human life have any meaning for you at all?”

              Yes, human life has meaning for me. Which is why I want to be prepared to defend it, when cretins break in my door, or when they attack me on the street.

              If you’re not a bully, then why do you want to send police over to take away my guns? In the meantime, I keep my head low, watch out for trouble, and leave when I’m afraid that fighting might erupt. Yet you want to take my guns?

              1. And perhaps our bad guys have guns because they do things that are illegal, and are willing to kill to protect their turf.

                1) FROM WHO
                2) You impy only other bad guys, which proves my point.

                .Shouldn’t we legalize drugs before we criminalize guns?

                Human lives?

                Yes, human life has meaning for me. Which is why I want to be prepared to defend it, when cretins break in my door, or when they attack me on the street.

                So … only your life matters.

                If you’re not a bully, then why do you want to send police over to take away my guns?

                Why are you bullying me. I never said that. As a libertarian, I seek an open dialog for once. And I know it’s not my decision. which would make me an authoritarian, right?

                In the meantime, I keep my head low, watch out for trouble, and leave when I’m afraid that fighting might erupt. Yet you want to take my guns?

                Repeating a lie does not make it true. That’s not remotely relevant to anything I said.

                1. “You impy only other bad guys, which proves my point.”

                  Who do you consider bad guys?

                  “So … only your life matters.”

                  So you would rather me and my family die at the hands of a drug-crazed maniac looking for a trinket to steal so he could get his next fix, which will likely kill him because illegal drugs aren’t exactly known for quality control? That’s assuming, of course, the SWAT team doesn’t break into his home first, and kill him for holding a Playstation paddle.

                  Of course, if it isn’t me who has to face this, it could very well be my neighbor. After all, you want to disarm all of us!

                  “Why are you bullying me. I never said that. As a libertarian, I seek an open dialog for once. And I know it’s not my decision. which would make me an authoritarian, right?”

                  I’m not bullying you. I’m not hunting you down to hurt you. Nor am I promulgating silly statistics and insisting that guns should be made illegal.

                  1. “You imply only other bad guys, which proves my point.”

                    Who do you consider bad guys?

                    It was YOUR question and YOUR situation — bad guys protecting … which means from other bad guys .. thus proves my point. Street gangs are not the general population.

                    I have no time for your mind-games
                    Bye.

                    1. If you factor out the street gangs — who don’t count, when it comes to gun laws, because they’re already using guns banned from their own use (due to multiple felonies) in cities that have practically banned them — then you’ll find that the remainder of America, which is awash in guns, is the most peaceful place on Earth. You have no qualms to try to take the guns away from these peaceful citizens, all because gangs can’t settle their differences in court systems, so they resort to violence instead.

                      Are you sure you’re libertarian?

                      “I have no time for your mind-games…Bye.”

                      Does this mean you’ll leave the rest of us alone then, to peacefully carry our guns, hurting no one?

                      If so, then good! It’s about time!

            2. “How is that even remotely relevant? Even if true”

              And I forgot to answer your question. It’s relevant because it’s possible that mass murder has increased since the gun ban. Why would we want to pursue policies that result in death? Doesn’t human life have any meaning for you at all?

              1. And I forgot to answer your question. It’s relevant because it’s possible that mass murder has increased since the gun ban.

                What do they ban?

                My BBC source shows a decline after each step. They moved incrementally. Banning handguns was last, and I was surprised they had done that at all.! This is a news story, so it only covers the major events which caused each step.

                http://www.bbc.com/news/10216955

                Do you know the Dayton shooter killed — was it nine? — in 32 seconds? And that a ban on semi-automatics has been constitutional since 1939? Affirmed by Scalia in Heller?

                1. Your link is from government propaganda. Try this one instead:

                  http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.585.8899&rep=rep1&type=pdf

                  And the claim that a ban on semi-automatics has been Constitutional since 1939 is absurd: you are referencing the Supreme Court Miller decision, which, if taken seriously, means that a ban on machine guns is unConstitutional, because they were used in the trenches of WWI (and still used by soldiers to this day), and thus should be available for individuals for militia use. And I’ve seen before how you’ve looked at Scalia’s plain language from Heller, and concluded the opposite, to justify the “Constitutionality” of a gun ban — so I apologize for having absolutely no faith in your ability to interpret law.

                  Again, you say you’re a libertarian, but the fact is, you’re just as Statist as any Republican or Democrat, particularly on this issue. You would rather have us depend on the police for our lives, than respect our ability to protect our lives without them.

                  1. (my tone and boldface are self-defense from multiple assaults by a stalking bully who insists …. THERE WERE MACHINE GUNS IN THE 18TH CENTURY …. AND PROMOTES A “LIVING CONSTITUTION” )

                    MASSIVE FUCKUP!

                    The REASON semi-automatic rifles have been banned since 1939 is ….. (lol) … 2A protects ONLY the weapons that were in common use at our founding …. brought from home for militia duty

                    which, if taken seriously, means that a ban on machine guns is unConstitutional, because they were used in the trenches of WWI (and still used by soldiers to this day),

                    ********** THERE WERE NO MACHINE GUNS IN THE 18TH CENTURY.*******

                    ********** THERE WERE NO MACHINE GUNS IN THE 18TH CENTURY.*******

                    ********** THERE WERE NO MACHINE GUNS IN THE 18TH CENTURY.*******

                    For Miller, do I believe some crazed alt-right drive-by assassin …. or ANTONIN SCALIA?

                    Scalia in Heller, page 2
                    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

                    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues…

                    ******* Miller’s holding (1939) that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

                    ((Pages 54-56 are a VERY lengthy list of gun prohibitions at and around ratification. Scalia was an originalist. EPSILON is promoting a “living constitution.”

                    Again, you say you’re a libertarian

                    ********** THERE WERE NO MACHINE GUNS IN THE 18TH CENTURY.*******

                    ********** THERE WERE NO MACHINE GUNS IN THE 18TH CENTURY.*******

                    AND YOU PROMOTE A “LIVING CONSTITUTION” — WHICH IS PROGGIE TIME.

                    THIS IS THE AUTHORITARIAN RIGHT,

                    (Will he punish me AGAIN for HIS fuckups … with ANOTHER ONE — his sixth?)

                    .

                    1. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

                    2. “********** THERE WERE NO MACHINE GUNS IN THE 18TH CENTURY.*******”

                      This reminds me of a quote from Tenche Cox from 1788, talking about the Second Amendment.

                      “The power of the sword, say the minority…, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.”

                      The Miller decision that you like so much essentially said “We don’t see what a sawed-off shotgun has to do with serving in a Militia. We thereby declare the law taxing sawed-off shotguns to be Constitutional.” In other words, had some lawyer been present (which hadn’t been, because Miller had disappeared), the case might have been made that sawed-off shotguns were used in the trenches of WWI, and thus have a valid Militia use.

                      But, in any case, I think it’s clear that the Founding Fathers would have been comfortable with peaceable citizens owning machine guns. It’s what the Second Amendment is for, after all.

                    3. Are you just self-parodying? Because it’s obvious that Miller applies to contemporary weapons and therefore weapons in common military use at the time of the decision, just like you can use the device you typed your comment on to express your First Amendment rights. You don’t need a quill pen or an 18th century printing press.

                    4. ********** THERE WERE NO MACHINE GUNS IN THE 18TH CENTURY.*******”

                      This reminds me of a quote from Tenche Cox from 1788, talking about the Second Amendment.

                      Cowardly diversion. Like reading poetry during the 9/11 assault. Do I believe your lame sarcasm? Or TWO SCOTUS rulings, one of which you LIE about, as documented in what you “responded” to?

                      The Miller decision that you like so much

                      I AM NOT ANTONIN SCALIA. I HAVE NEVER ISSUED A RUING. Please pay attention.

                      And why do you people SNEER at binding legal precedents, if they are in-con-veeeeeeen-yent. And …

                      Miller had disappeared), the case might have been made that sawed-off shotguns were used in the trenches of WWI, and thus have a valid Militia use.

                      … and Scalia says you’re full of shit … ALSO CITED IN WHAT YOU REPLIED TO.

                      I cite, and link to the actual ruling, and page number.
                      You DARE to say ONE PARAGRAPH is “essentially” AN ENTIRE RULING! ARE YOU FOR REAL?

                      And you say WWI was fought by a citizen’s militia ,… BRINGING GUNS FROM HOME!!!

                      You blew it, EVEN if we DID fight WWI with a militia. AGAIN on what you already read. PROTECTED WEAPONS ARE THOSE IN USE “AT THE TIME” — WHICH IS RATIFICATiON.

                      Brainwashed GUNTARDs say “at the time” means currently. You also FAILED to notice … why else would Scalia list three pages of regulations THEN in effect (at ratificaion) i to support the limit to weapons at ratification?

                      AND the phrase, at the time, is in a paragraph that LITERALLY discusses the TIME of ratification.

                      So … another fuckup .. with no sources,
                      Are you a victim or a brainwasher?.

                    5. Bill Everman
                      Are you just self-parodying? Because it’s obvious that Miller applies to contemporary weapons and therefore weapons in common military use at the time of the decision,

                      Obvious to WHO?

                      One more time,

                      Scalis (in Heller) . page 2
                      https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

                      Miller’s holding (1939) that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons b>in the 18th century. etPp. 54–56.<

                      You lose either way. Is Scalia pointing to the 8th century? If he’s pointing to 1939 he “obviously” told you that Miller was supported by “prohibiting dangerous and unusual weapons” … in 1939.

                      Sadly, many NRA loyalists have been manipulated, for political purposes, into swallowing that “at the time” means currently …. or at the time of the Miller ruling. “Obviously” a blatant falsehood.

                      1) See the quote marks. He’s quoting Miller. If it’s so obvious to you., then you’ve obviously read Miller, have seen the complete section and context for “at the time.” So please cite it for us, with a link and page number like I do.

                      2. Here’s WHY you need the cite. It’s “obvious” to you that SCALIA fucked up. Prove it. With a source link, as I did

                      3) You “obviously” don’t know he was quoting Miller. Miller says “at the time” while discussing militia service. He’d have to be illiterate to say “at the time” … meaning NOW (1939)… while supporting his ruling by 18th century prohibitions .

                      Even worse for your “obviously” … this is how YOU read Scalia.

                      Your interpretation
                      ‘” Miller’s holding (1939) that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time in 1939″ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. ((in the 18th century)) Pp. 54–56.

                      So click the link. Go to page 54.

                      Why would restrictions in the 18th century “obviously” support 1939?

                      Scalia was a LOT more explicit on this point, to anyone who’s READ Heller, even to ridiculing claims similar to yours..

                      Are you just self-parodying?

                      It’s not ME I’m parodying. And those words set my tone for this response

                      I now await YOUR proof, linked source and page number.

      4. Cool, now do cars and drunk driving.

        Simple (for a libertarian focused on rights, over all, as a guiding moral principle.)
        Answered here:
        https://reason.com/2019/08/09/the-puzzle-of-identifying-future-mass-murderers-cannot-be-solved-by-psychiatry-background-checks-or-red-flag-laws/#comment-7889455

        1. Stuff it up your ass and die, Hihn.

    4. your position is that we should’ve let a few people have their lives ended so a salesman somewhere could continue to go hunting and target shooting for a year?

      I think a better way to frame it would be “so a poor working person living in a high crime area can continue to defend themselves against thieves and looters.” Doesn’t sound quite so trite when you put it that way.

      1. “so a poor working person living in a high crime area can continue to defend themselves against thieves and looters.”

        So the salesman was threatening his coworkers because they are thieves and looters? Seems unlikely.

        Or are you suggesting that people in high crime areas are prone to threatening their coworkers and/or other erratic behavior that would lead to their thieving looting neighbors to call the police and have that person’s guns removed?

        1. So let’s say the salesman, with no criminal history of any kind, vehemently denies the allegations. How many affidavits does the DA need to submit to the judge to get the order put into place?

          1. I don’t know. This should be sorted out after the constitution is amended to allow for it in the first place.

            I don’t know what other states are currently doing, so maybe you can let me know and we can discuss it?

            1. I dont know either. But it seems like legitimate due process protections would take the teeth out of any red flag law. Those laws certainly wont work as intended (even as intended by the good guys) if due process is respected, which is what makes us nervous.

              1. Just defining the trigger is impossible.

                And mental health is almost irrelevant. If some asshole is matching in Charlottesville, assaulting people with a club and wearing a riot-tye shield (which means he or she CAME to inflict violence) then confiscating their guns would be far more justified than reading tea leaves on future purchases.

                Several dozen people assaulting peaceful and unarmed people with clubs is not free speech and not freedom of assembly, last I checked,

                1. Get screwed with a rusty chain saw, Hihn.

        2. It’s well known that entirely fake charges of child abuse have been concocted to make sure that custody of children go to one parent over the other. Why is it absurd to believe that someone wanting to kill a neighbor wouldn’t first accuse that neighbor of having erratic behavior, so that all their guns could be removed?

          Heck, why isn’t it difficult to believe that a coworker can claim that his fellow worker said this about them, just out of spite?

          Yes, guns are tools that can be abused, often with devastating consequences. Why is it so difficult to accept that Red Flag laws are also tools, and that they can be employed to devastating effect, too?

          1. Far more rational to simply ban, and confiscate, from all the violent rioters, both left and right, like Charlottesville and Portland.

            And more effective.

            1. Stuff it up your ass and die, Hihn.

            2. Why not just jail violent rioters? And how do you predict who’s going to become a violent rioter?

              And if you can’t predict who’s going to be a violent rioter, why do you want to ban guns from everyone who’s minding their own business, and leave them defenseless from violent rioters?

              Why are we so quick to forget the Korean Americans who were able to protect their businesses in the LA riots, because they owned AR15s and semi-automatic pistols, at a time when the police refused to protect them?

              1. And how do you predict who’s going to become a violent rioter?YWTF?.
                How do you see ANYTHING about PREDICTING …. which is the exact opposite of what I said?
                .

                “Far more rational to simply ban, and confiscate, from all the violent rioters, both left and right, like Charlottesville and Portland.”

                PSSST
                VIOLENT RIOTS IN THOSE TWO CITIES … ALREADY HAPPENED!
                A VIOLENT RIOTER HAS ALREADY RIOTED …. VIOLENTLY … BY DEFINITION!!!

                “FAR MORE RATIONAL” responds DIRECTLY to YOUR opposition to Red Flag laws … so you are PRECISELY BACKWARDS

                1) Red Flag Laws are both stupid and unconstitutional (DeWine’s in Ohio is Constitutional)

                2) Far better to disarm PROVEN initiators of violence. DUH.

                ****IT’S YOUR FUCKING PRESIDENT THAT WANTS “PREDICTIONS” — mental health…. so MINE is FAR more targeted than his! Only NOW do realize you have literally no understanding of the issue.

                Why else would you babble irrelevancies …. incoherently … against someone who AGREES WITH YOU on “predicting” being dumb?

                ****CAN *** YOU *** HEAR *** ME *** NOW? ***

        3. Or are you suggesting that people in high crime areas are prone to threatening their coworkers and/or other erratic behavior that would lead to their thieving looting neighbors to call the police and have that person’s guns removed?

          You’re getting close. I’m suggesting you’re providing an easy way to temporarily disarm your neighbor, if you know what I mean.

    5. “Let me get this straight… Assuming that at least 1 mass murder was stymied (more than zero), your position is that we should’ve let a few people have their lives ended so a salesman somewhere could continue to go hunting and target shooting for a year?”
      Yes. Does that answer your question?

      “I think the 2nd amendment is critical to securing a free nation. But…”
      So no you don’t.
      Fuck off, slaver.

    6. Good lord, we can’t even ask people to show ID to demonstrate that they are who they say they are and that they live in district they are trying to vote in without it being a crime against humanity, but you want to put 2nd Amendment rights into the hands of 3rd parties who may have an axe to grind?

      You know that a lot of soon-to-be ex-wives lie and accuse their husbands of sexually and/or physically abusing them and/or their children in divorce proceedings? Think they won’t stoop to claiming threats to get guns taken too?

      Given that DFACS snatches kids out of homes on the flimsiest of pretexts, think they won’t do a gun complaint while they’re at it?

      We know that law enforcement is in love with civil forfeiture, where they can just take your money and stuff without charging a crime or anything. The abuses there are rampant.

      What is lacking in all these cases are strong due process and presumption of innocence.

      Given the tiniest of tiny fractions of gun owners who become mass shooters or tiny fraicton of gun owners who murder even one other person, the actual efficacy of red flag laws at preventing mass murder or even every-day murder will likely pale beside the number of innocent people thrown under the bus by this system.

  5. ” . . . people who have ever been subjected to involuntary psychiatric treatment, regardless of why or of how much time has elapsed . . .”

    Which will eventually include those targeted by red flag orders, no doubt.

    “shall not be infringed”. It ain’t that hard people, read it and weep.
    Now call your representative and senators and demand a repeal of the second amendment, of STFU.

  6. Clearly, we need some Minority Report type shit.

  7. Telling people that something is beyond the power of Almighty Government will generate much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

  8. Most mass shooting, by the common definition of mass shooting, are gangbangers shooting other gangbangers.

    Which does not fit into the narrative of loner white dude playing video games.

    Just saying.

    1. Or, the “white nationalist.”

      As master of the “big lie” Goebbels remarked, “If it were not for the existence of Jews, we’d have to invent them.”

  9. Red flag laws do not go far enough.

    * Any licenses to practice law or medicine should be suspended.
    * any form of intimate contact or relationship should be prohibited.
    * Wearing a distinctive badge on the left sleeve should be mandated.

    This is just common sense.

    1. Misek wants a star of david on the sleeve.

  10. Police: El Paso shooting suspect said he targeted Mexicans

    Boy, Lefties sure don’t care about Mexicans.

  11. Time travel will be the cure for all our ills.

  12. “Even the American Civil Liberties Union, which maintains that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to arms…”

    So shouldn’t they be the “American (some) Civil Liberties Union”?

    1. American Nanny Liberties Union?

    2. But, but, muh Militia!

      What part of the “people” having the right to keep and bear arms do these progs not understand?

  13. I agree psychiatrist can’t predict a mass murderer. However, when some middle schooler is telling girls about his rape murder fantasies of them and then creating rape and kill list in high school, it doesn’t take a psychiatrist to figure out he needs some help. And by helping him you may well prevent a sadistic rapist and serial killer or mass murderer. Or maybe he would have just turned out fine on his own. But doesn’t hurt to talk to him.

    1. Red Flag laws are bullshit though.

      1. +100

    2. Likewise every alt-right marcher in Charlottesville. Or the Portland antifa.
      We should confiscate all weapons from such people. Why are they not in prison, for the mass assault and beating-with-clubs of unarmed people standing peaceably. That’s a PROVEN connection between mental health and criminal violence (and one murder)

      1. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

  14. The FBI seems to do a reasonalbe job of surveillance on persons with overseas interests on the internet and local Muslims involved in putative attacks. They seem to stop them before the perps actually set their plans in motion.”

    I suspect this is through the use of computer programs run by NSA like the top secret Echelon program that pulls suspicious words out of electronic communications. How much Big Brother are we willing to accept to stop a relatively small number of deaths and injuries in the big picture.???

  15. So, the obvious conclusion is that we need the type of stricter regulations that have been so massively successful … everywhere on earth..

    Inconvenient facts (fully documented)

    Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
    5.3 United States
    3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7 Canada
    0.9 UK

    FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
    Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … We had 250 in 7 months. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 426.7 per year = 2,130,000% higher mass shootings
    But gun control has never worked. Anywhere! 🙂
    (Australia had one in 23 years).

    Inconvenient questions:

    1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first?

    2) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did?

    3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

    4) What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict? Which prevails? Who decides? And why?

    NOT advocating gun grabs, just want HONEST debate – the difference between libertarians and the bellowing blowhards of the Authoritarian Right.

    ”shall not be infringed” The ISSUE is WHICH ARMS shall not be infringed. As Scalia confirmed in Heller

    Libertarians: speaking Truth to Power, both left and right, for over 50 years.

    1. SNEER. Fun fact: America has a higher non-gun violence rate than France has a TOTAL rate.

      Now, before you get all high-and-mighty about how many mass shootings America has vs Great Britain, would you please do me a few favors?

      First, calculate the mass shooting rates of Great Britain before and after they banned guns. It might just be the case that mass shootings are rare in Great Britain, period.

      Second, examine Great Britain’s murder rate, before and after their gun bans. A murder by hammer or by stabbing leaves a person just as dead as a murder by gun.

      Third, for the love of all that is holy, when you talk about mass murder, will you please stop focusing on guns? Japan recently had a mass murder event that left about as many dead as the Virginia Tech shooting, yet we’ve barely heard about it. Apparently people like you are convinced it’s ok to commit mass murder, so long as it’s not done by gun. So my third task: please redo this analysis, only this time, focus on all mass murder, and all murder in general. Violence doesn’t stop being violence just because a gun isn’t involved!

      And stop pretending to be a libertarian, Hiln. Libertarians respect the right to life, and that includes the right to defend your life, when you are attacked unprovoked. You’re not fooling anyone.

      1. First, calculate the mass shooting rates of Great Britain before and after they banned guns. It might just be the case that mass shootings are rare in Great Britain, period.

        How would that be relevant?

        Second, examine Great Britain’s murder rate, before and after their gun bans. A murder by hammer or by stabbing leaves a person just as dead as a murder by gun.

        Look again.
        1) The issue is mass shootings.
        2) But I also reported intentional homicides. That would include beating somebody to death with a frozen pizza.

        Third, for the love of all that is holy, when you talk about mass murder, will you please stop focusing on guns?

        For the love of GOD, will you stop all these many evasions and diversions … when guns are the topic of the page.

        Japan recently had a mass murder event that left about as many dead as the Virginia Tech shooting, yet we’ve barely heard about it.

        It’s a foreign country.

        Apparently people like you are convinced it’s ok to commit mass murder, so long as it’s not done by gun.

        ‘Apparently people like you think mass murders committed by bombing people from airplanes is … meaningful.
        What other methods of mass murder do you allege are … significant. And, again, I already gave you all intentional homicides.
        I’ll remind you … again … that the topic of this page is guns

        So my third task: please redo this analysis, only this time, focus on all mass murder, and all murder in general. Violence doesn’t stop being violence just because a gun isn’t involved!

        As soon as you answer my question. What other methods of mass murder do you are … significant. With no more diversions, would be appreciated.

        And stop pretending to be a libertarian, Hiln. Libertarians respect the right to life, and that includes the right to defend your life, when you are attacked unprovoked. You’re not fooling anyone.

        I never denied a right of self-defense, and EDUCATED libertarians understand the moral principle of conflicting rights, as being fundamental to the issue and context.
        You IGNORED my four questions, which would have answered most of your own.
        And keep evading and diverting from the issues here.
        I can’t say if your fooling othera, but you failed to fool me by your very first question. ,… and all the others.

        If you wish to continue this, stop evading (my four questions) and diverting (the issue IS guns). I already commented on NON-GUN homicides, which you either ignored or misunderstood.. And the fifth question is what other methods of mass murders you allege to be significant (other than aerial bomb runs).

        Your being a snarky shithead does not go well with all the evasions, diversions and errors. Your comment that “people like me” think mass murders without guns are acceptable was totally irrational and unjustified .. since you failed to read what I wrote about about all intentional homicides. By your “logic” I could assume you are interested in ONLY mass murders, correct? I have not done so.

        What’s a Hiln?

        SNEER

        1. “It’s a foreign country.”

          So is Great Britain, so I guess that their mass murder rate should nothing to us. Incidentally, there are also similar events that have happened in the United States, but they don’t get the news attention that gun deaths do (so I don’t remember them as well, and you seem to be completely unaware of them), because REASONS, I guess.

          “If you wish to continue this, stop evading (my four questions) and diverting (the issue IS guns).”

          No, the issue is murder. Guns are only one tool for committing it.

          “And the fifth question is what other methods of mass murders you allege to be significant (other than aerial bomb runs).”

          I consider all of them to be significant. You insist that it’s only significant if only guns are involved.

          “I already commented on NON-GUN homicides”

          Wasn’t it me who brought up the fact that the United States has a higher non-gun murder rate than the full murder rate of France?

          “Your being a snarky **** does not go well with all the evasions, diversions and errors.”

          Since when is demanding a full data analysis an evasion, a diversion, or an error? It’s only an evasion and diversion of your tactic of using incomplete statistical analysis to justify banning guns.

          “By your “logic” I could assume you are interested in ONLY mass murders, correct?”

          No, I’m interested in the whole statistics cabootle. I want to understand everything. It is you who wants to sweep certain types of death under the rug.

          The fact is, America doesn’t have a gun problem. It has a suicide problem. It has a murder problem. Taking away guns from people who don’t commit suicide or murder isn’t going to fix this, particularly when people already have a history of doing these things without guns.

          1. “It’s a foreign country.”

            So is Great Britain, so I guess that their mass murder rate should nothing to us.

            You asked why mass murders there were not reported as prominently as out own … implying yet another wacky media conspiracy.

            And you forgot your own issue

            “It’s a foreign country”

            1. Fuck off, you slimy piece of shit.

        2. Fuck off, Hihn.

    2. Kindly fuck off, Hihn. You’ve said on past threads you’re perfectly fine with the state killing gun owners who refuse to turn over their guns that can hold more than ten rounds.

      1. The TRUTH is .. that question was some goober sneering that he would refuse to turn over a large magazine if he law required him to do so. He puffed out his chest (I assume) and said he would resist violently. In that case, he would be shot. Why wouldn’t he be?

        I’ll assume that your memory is faulty, not a liar.
        But why such an emotional diversion from the hard facts of reality?
        Punishment? Vengeance? Why?

        1. Fuck off, Hihn.

        2. Your own words condemn you.

          Considering that there are a lot of gun owners who are like this, you are more than happy to send government thugs to kill otherwise innocent gun owners over something as silly as the size of a magazine.

          Of course, such bans are necessary because 10-round magazines are only good for killing innocents, right? Which is why, I guess, (1) that, just as in the original assault weapons ban, police will be exempt from the 10-round rule, and (2) why you’re comfortable with police having them — after all, if they can’t shoot innocent people, then why even bother having a police force?

          1. You fucking psycho..

            The TRUTH is .. that question was some goober sneering that he would refuse to turn over a large magazine if the law required him to do so.

            1. Fuck off, Hihn.

            2. And thus you confirm that the law would result that the law would result in the deaths of otherwise innocent people.

              You strike me as the type who would be happy to shoot the person hiding the slaves in his barn for refusing to return those slaves to their plantation because the law required him to do so.

              1. And any reading of history will tell you, pace B. Franklin:
                ““Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
                Pretty sure Churchill amended that to point out you not only deserve neither, you get neither.
                Hihn is a tired, pathetic piece of shit who seems to have lost any ability of thought some time back.

              2. And thus you confirm that the law would result that the law would result in the deaths of otherwise innocent people

                Get a brain transplant.
                if the law requires him to do somethinG … And he doesn’t … HE IS NOT INNOCENT IF HE BREAKS THE LAW

                HE IS NOT INNOCENT IF HE BREAKS THE LAW

                HE IS NOT INNOCENT IF HE BREAKS THE LAW

                HE IS NOT INNOCENT IF HE BREAKS THE LAW

                AND ……

                ***THERE WERE NO MACHINE GUNS IN THE 18TH CENTURY
                https://reason.com/2019/08/09/the-puzzle-of-identifying-future-mass-murderers-cannot-be-solved-by-psychiatry-background-checks-or-red-flag-laws/#comment-7889671

                1. Please make the world happier, smarter and better; fuck off and die.

                2. He really is un-hihn-ged.

                  1. ANOTHER ONE .. mpercy … says there were machine guns in the 18th century!!!

                    How low can a guntard sink, when they’ve totally lost???

            3. The TRUTH is .. that question was some goober sneering that he would refuse to turn over a large magazine if the law required him to do so.

              And now you do what they told you.

              1. If the law requires it. duh.

                I continued, in the parts you ignored. When he said he would resist, which is WHY (he said) 2A exists (bullshit), I said he’d be shot.

                I didn’t choose it I didn’t order it, despite the shamefully dishonest claims by some.

                Reality, accept it. NONE of which would be my fault.
                I assume you know how laws are maintained and enforced identically, on all laws (in any jurisdiction )

                So … what’s your point?

                1. Fuck off Hihn

                2. And now you do what they told you.

                  1. Yes, if I don’t obey a law, I will be punished. So would you be.

                    ***And you’re wrong about machine guns n the 18th century!
                    https://reason.com/2019/08/09/the-puzzle-of-identifying-future-mass-murderers-cannot-be-solved-by-psychiatry-background-checks-or-red-flag-laws/#comment-7889671

                    1. Fuck off, Hihn.

                  2. Why is Sevo ALWAYS so enraged by facts.

                    Now HE joins the list of folks PISSED that there were no machine guns in the 18th century. What is it with these people?

    3. Fuck off, Hihn.

    4. 1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first?

      The closest and most exposed target.

      1. Probably a kid, if the armed teacher is a wimp.

        1. The shooter yuer is as fucking stupid as … y

          Readers: THIS why I must badger them to answer the simple questions. They cannot, because a legitimate answer would expose their fallacies. The ONLY “safe” answers MUST be silly … precisely as you’ve just seen by Sevo and Unicorn Abattoir.

          I will now likely be punshed for THEIR fuckups, yet again.

          1. ??? should be

            “The shooter is as fucking stupid as … you?”

            1. How many SROs have been killed in school shootings?

              Stupid, indeed.

              1. How many teachers are armed?

                If teachers are thought to be armed”

                1. How many SROs are “thought” to be armed? How many have been killed in school shootings?

                  1. It took me about 30 seconds on google to find several SROs who’d been shot. One was killed, in Baltimore last year. Others may have been killed, I didn’t study them all.

                    You’re also wrong that machine guns existed in the 18th century. .
                    https://reason.com/2019/08/09/the-puzzle-of-identifying-future-mass-murderers-cannot-be-solved-by-psychiatry-background-checks-or-red-flag-laws/#comment-7889671

                    1. Fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

                    2. NOW he’s pissed that SROs were both shot and killed .. another NRA myth. demolished.

                      I’ll TRY to dumb it down. The bullshit

                      If a shooter enters a school, sees a School Resource Officer, who is a trained, armed and uniformed law enforcement officer … what are the odds the shooter won’t turn around and leave?

                      SROs are not teachers.

                      Nor does a school have a dozen or more SROs, all over the school. Nor are they always even in every school.l
                      Nor are there many in the entire country (%)
                      Simple math: SROs are far less likely to be there, where the shooter enters. You can’t get shot if you’re not there!.

                      It took me about 30 seconds on google to find several SROs who’d been shot. One was killed in Baltimore.
                      https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/baltimore-county/bs-md-co-school-officer-medical-emergency-20181112-story.html

            2. Fuck off, Hihn. And die. Someplace where we can’t smell you.

      2. Armed mass murder walks into a school ,… believes that teachers are armed, but ….. doesn’t care?.

        If YOU were the one walking in and armed, but for a noble purpose … you believe ten or more people are armed ,,, for the purpose of shooting you … YOU WOULD NOT CARE???

        REALLY???

        BUT .. you also say you NEED a gun … BECAUSE bad dudes are …. armed for the purpose of shooting you. But, if you say you would NOT use your gun to protect yourself ….. try again.

        Will you distort this response also?

        1. Armed mass murder walks into a school ,… believes that teachers KNOWS that SROs are armed, but ….. doesn’t care?.

          Yes. The evidence bears that out.

          1. Is that evidence as bad as claiming SROs are not shot, when I found several on Google, in maybe 30 seconds. A Baltimore SRO was killed.
            https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/baltimore-county/bs-md-co-school-officer-medical-emergency-20181112-story.html

            More MAY have been killed but I didn’t study all the listings, since I only need one link. You keep claiming evidence for various things, but never a link, all talk. As an adult, if I have no link to to a source, I say nothing. And I have maybe 2 dozen here

            I’m still waiting for your “evidence” that machine guns existed in the 18th century!

            1. Fuck off, Hihn.

              1. STILL WAITING

                EVIDENCE

                MACHINE GUNS EXISTED IN THE 18th CENTURY

        2. Fuck off, Hihn.

  16. Even if you could legally ban all guns, convince millions of gun owners to peacefully give up their guns, and prevent a black market from forming like it does for every other item that government bans, and that led to zero mass shootings; I would no sooner trade my liberty for some false promise of security. What do we stand for as libertarians if not liberty?

    I wouldn’t expect you to give up your religious freedom, even if it meant no more terrorism. I wouldn’t expect you to give up your freedom of speech, even if it meant no more bigotry or racism. I wouldn’t expect you to give up your property, even if it meant nobody was ever hungry again.

    FUCK. OFF. SLAVER.

    1. YOU say NO MASS SHOOTINGS
      Then you FUCKUP and say you have no security!!!!

      FUCK. OFF. SLAVER.

      And I never said what you blame me for saying, .

      1. Fuck off, Hihn

      2. Hihn, just tell us what other rights you would gladly give up if it meant no more bad stuff ever. Speech? Religion? Warrantless searches? Just think how safe we could be if we had no freedom!

        1. YOU say NO MASS SHOOTINGS
          Then you FUCKUP and say you have no security!!!!

          FUCK. OFF. SLAVER.

          And I never said what you blame me for saying, .

          1. So there aren’t other rights that you would give up for security. Thanks for playing the game.

            1. You crazy, pathetic fucksrtick.

              I said you LIED … after fucking up BIGLY … everyone can see you lied … both times.

              There are NO rights I would give up for security
              Why do you ALL suffer the same mental and moral deficiency

              Okay, try this … if an assault weapons ban is restored .. what liberty does ANYONE LOSE … when NOBODY has a right to own one?

              Thanks for losing the game.

              DC v Heller P 114 (near bottom) (my emphasis)


              “.. The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves….”
              https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf11111

              1. The courts have long held that the Constitution can mean whatever they want it to at any time they want to read it again. So what. I don’t need courts or a piece of parchment to have rights.

                Does Scalia surmise from where government derives their power to regulate guns? Even if I didn’t have a “right” to them, what allows them to regulate them in the first place? I don’t really see that in the enumerated powers anywhere.

                1. The courts have long held that the Constitution can mean whatever they want it to at any time they want to read it again.

                  As each argument explodes in your face, you make daffier and daffier claims. This may be the worst.

                  So what. I don’t need courts or a piece of parchment to have rights.

                  Nobody said or implied that … so why do you defend trampling on others’ rights, where the “courts and parchment” and NEEDED to DEFEND rights.

                  Government does not grant rights, and nobody here has said otherwise. Government DEFENDS rights, which is what so many on your side have denied and would deny.

                  Does Scalia surmise from where government derives their power to regulate guns?“Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers by consent of the governed.” (from memory)

                  <blockquote Even if I didn’t have a “right” to them, what allows them to regulate them in the first place?The constitution that you “sneer” at here.

                  I don’t really see that in the enumerated powers anywhere.

                  Golly, you act as though only your rights matter. WE have rights, including those never enumerated. You’ve just said that the judiciary has no power to defend individual rights, and that your rights are somehow superior to other people’s.

                  Where is your such right enumerated???? Be specific.

                  1. Fuck off, Hihn.

                  2. It takes a real moron to claim that me owning a firearm competes with anyone’s rights. Tens of millions of law abiding gun owners stand in contrast of your theory of conflicting rights here.

                    What rights are conflicting for the law abiding gun owners?

                    Because people have been incited to violence by the spoken and written word. People have been incited to violence by religious differences. Criminals have been freed because of unreasonable searches and seizures. Which of these rights would you give up for the false promise of security?

                    1. It takes a real moron to claim that me owning a firearm competes with anyone’s rights

                      And a total retard to assume ANYONE said such a thing. It’s the RIGHT not your ownership.

                      Tens of millions of law abiding gun owners stand in contrast of your theory of conflicting rights here.

                      It’s not my theory, it’s a fundamental core of unalienable rights, since the 17th century. And what sort of person says fundamental rights are determined … A VOTE???… PROGGIE MORALITY!

                      What rights are conflicting for the law abiding gun owners?

                      Life is the most obvious,. And your question reveals a major fallacy in NRA propaganda You confuse rights with laws, apples and oranges.

                      On mass shootings alone, the UK has 0.2 per year, we have over 400. The conflict is gun ownership vs human life. DUH.
                      The two are precisely equal.

                      Conflicting rights are how I gave one example of WHY court rulings were made, to the uneducated.. The rulings are what matter

                      1) 2A protects ONLY the modern equivalents of weapons which in common use at our founding, brought from home for militia service … pistols and single-shot rifles … since a 1939 ruling.

                      2) We no longer use a militia to defend America, We’ve had a professional military for quite some time now.

                      3) 2A is NOT an unlimited right, also for 80 years. Do I believe you or Antonin Scalia and Heller?

                      Scalia in Heller. Page 2
                      https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

                      2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues…

                      Miller’s holding (1939) that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

                      ((Pages 54-56 are a VERY lengthy list of gun prohibitions at the era of ratification. Scalia was an originalist. If you insist on defending a “living constitution,” you might do better at Slate, HuffPost and/or Daily Kos.

                      DC v Heller p 114
                      The second independent reason is that the protection
                      the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment
                      permits government to regulate the interests that it
                      serves.

                      You have no daylight.

                      Which of these rights would you give up for the false promise of security?

                      Another dishonest question. NOTHING I’ve said has ANYTHING to do with giving up or abandoning rights. If this is your confusion on conflicting rights — do they no longer teach this in high school?. When two rights are in conflict — abortion is an easier one for amateurs to grasp — ONLY SCOTUS is empowered to resolve the conflict — as a check on the executive and legislative — and they are obliged to resolve it in a way that best protects BOTH rights — because the rights are precisely equal.

                      The problem arises, because the two main tribes want it ALL THEIR WAY, abortion again the simplest to grasp. So they seek to impose their preferred right by state force.

                      And that’s why God invented libertarians.. It’s morally impossible to get it all you own way, right or left, when both rights are equal. This is the friction between the Authoritarian Right and and Authoritarian Left.

                      Unalienable Rights. Deal with it. .

                2. Kovalensky … ANOTHER cowardly evasion!

                  >Okay, try this … if an assault weapons ban is restored .. what liberty does ANYONE LOSE … when NOBODY has a right to own one?

                  C’mon be a man. YOU CAN DO IT.
                  Or so I thought

                  1. Rights cannot come into conflict, Hihn. You have the right to do anything other than initiate force.

                    The SCOTUS ruled in Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Wickard v. Filburn, Kelo, and Korematsu. They come to the conclusion they want and make up “logic” later. It’s obvious.

                    Rights exist outside of the State. They existed before it, and will outlive it.

                    1. That makes NO sense.

                      And you authoritarian bigots are revealed by your OBSOLETE priority of non-aggression … which traces directly to the KKK.

                      It takes NO force to
                      1) Deny women’s suffrage
                      2) Deny mixed marriage
                      3) Deny marriage equality.
                      4) etc. etc. etc.

                      Umm, denying equal rights kis AUTHORITARIAN

                      And most of the leadership of an-caps, Rothbardians, Miseans et al, have a sordid history of racial and/or homophobic bigotry.

                      I know you LOVE to beat his to death, by evading the issue , switching to other discredited fallacies.

                      Do NOT respond, this time, unless you explain how and why it takes the initiation of force to DENY the equal rights I listed. Ot any others.

                      Rights exist outside of the State. They existed before it, and will outlive it.

                      YOU violate that
                      YOU deny equal rights
                      YOU deny the right to form governments.
                      YOU are stuck with Rothbard er al, because Ayn Rand TOTALLY rejected your philosophy and values. HONORED the consent of the governed, because the ONLY alternative is AUTHORITARIAN.
                      YOU know more about non-aggression than the person who restored it from antiquity? WTF??? Did Henry Ford know nothing about cars?

                      And you PROVE your contempt, by your claim, that SCOTUS has NO power, delegated by consent of the governed. If you cannot abide it, LEAVE, THIS IS NOT A DICTATORSHIP.

                      If you stay, you are a MOOCH … demanding the wealth and liberty of America … created by people you CLAIM had NO right to CREATE what you DEMAND. Logic?

                      An anarchist with no principles.

                  2. “That makes NO sense.”

                    Proof by Assertion. Try again.

                    “And you authoritarian bigots…”

                    Calling an an-cap “authoritarian” is very Orwellian, and classic Hihn.

                    “It takes NO force to
                    1) Deny women’s suffrage
                    2) Deny mixed marriage
                    3) Deny marriage equality.
                    4) etc. etc. etc.”

                    It takes the State to do all of these. It initiates force twice, once when it taxes, and again when it enforces it’s monopoly on the use of force.

                    “And most of the leadership of an-caps, Rothbardians, Miseans et al, have a sordid history of racial and/or homophobic bigotry.”

                    Proof by Assertion and Fallacy of Composition. Classic Hihn.

                    “YOU deny equal rights”

                    Everyone has the right to do anything other than initiate force.

                    “YOU deny the right to form governments.”

                    No, there are lots of types of governments that don’t initiate force. The State (which is what you mean when you say “government”) initiates force twice, just by existing. So no, you don’t have the “right” to initiate force.

                    “Ayn Rand TOTALLY rejected your philosophy and values”

                    Not totally, no, but regardless, I don’t worship her like you apparently do.

                    “YOU know more about non-aggression than the person who restored it from antiquity?”

                    A. She didn’t.
                    B. Yes. Generally, knowledge increases over time.

                    “If you stay, you are a MOOCH … demanding the wealth and liberty of America … created by people you CLAIM had NO right to CREATE what you DEMAND.”

                    I love your assertion, that without your beloved State, there would be no wealth or liberty. You think you need to stomp on rights in order to protect them! You think you need to steal to protect property!

                    Logical consistency was never your strong suit, Hihn.

                    “If you cannot abide it, LEAVE, THIS IS NOT A DICTATORSHIP.”

                    Your worship of “democracy” notwithstanding, if a State can say “love it or leave it”, is that any claim to liberty? You can leave everything you have (the IRS) and be “free”? Who owns my land, Hihn? The State, or yours truly? Why should I have to sell what I’ve made with my own hands to be free? When did I sign the “social contract”? Is not immediately killing a tyrant (or thousands of them) an act of consent?

                    Is murder OK if a democracy does it? Is theft? Is rape?

                    We all know you won’t answer, and you won’t win, so just give up, Hihn. Get back on your meds, please.

          2. Hihn, really, seriously, no fooling:
            Get someone to start a rusty chain saw and jam it up your ass.
            The world will be measurably more intelligent and a better place and your relatives will be able to shed crocodile tear and breathe a sigh of relief since you not longer embarrass them.
            Fuck off and die, you pathetic piece of shit.

            1. Poor loser.

              1. Fuck off, Hihn

  17. It is nothing other than reality; some small part of the population is intent on harming and or killing others. It is part of the human condition.
    They will employ the tool(s) they find at hand, and if a gun isn’t available, it will be a knife, a motor vehicle, an explosive, or for that matter, an airplane.
    We cannot guarantee safety; when we try, we end up with bureaucratic disasters like TSA, wherein we yield our time and freedom for absolutely nothing.
    The gun-grabbers claim of ‘saving just one life’ is bullshit on the face of it; guns save lives in particular circumstances (ignored by nearly the entire mass-press), so, no the attempt fails under utility.
    Given that our freedoms are unalienable, it fails under principle.
    Simply, it fails other than the empty claim of ‘doing something..

    1. I POSTED THE FACTS FOR ALL INTENTIONAL HOMICIDES, REGARDLESS OF WEAPON.

      here are the FACTS ,… and a link to the source (UN data)
      Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
      5.3 United States
      3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
      1.7 Canada
      0.9 UK

      PROVEN wrong.

        1. Not even the same topic (lol)
          Nor how you described it above.

          1. Fuck off, Hihn

          2. BTW:
            “Not even the same topic (lol)”
            The Hihnsane piece of shit responded to the argument presented with some random numbers and claimed “SNEER, SEE? SEE?, SEE? SNIFFLE, SNIFFLE!!!!!!!!!!!”

            1. They are NOT random numbers, psycho..

              THIRD REPEAT FOR THE MENTALLY DEFICIENT: OFFICIAL UN DATA … INCLUDING A LINK.

              You’re just pissed because PROOF is PUBLICLY HUMILIATING you.

              ALL intentional homicides (means all forms of murder, lol)
              5.3 United States
              3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
              1.7 Canada
              0.9 UK

              Your CONTEMPT for human life is DISGUSTING.
              But typical of you alt-rightists

              1. Fuck off, Hihn.

                1. Sevo HATES to be PROVEN a liar … SO MANY TIMES
                  So why not just stop?

      1. Fuck off, Hihn

      2. BTW, Hihns claim of “proof” is obviously that sort employed by those who think random numbers “prove” a point.
        “EU = 32%, Canada =63%, Japan = 13% SEE?! SEE!? SEE!? SNIVEL!!!!!!”

        1. It’s UN data, with a link to the source.

          Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population
          5.3 United States
          3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
          1.7 Canada
          0.9 UK

          1. Notice that the fucking ignoramus Hihn responds to an argument regarding whether it is possible to use government coercion to ‘solve’ the problem with random statistics from various countries.
            Hihn is a fucking piece of shit, but Hihn is also incapable of dealing with the arguments he finds here.
            Fuck off and die, Hihn

            1. Notice that the fucking ignoramus Hihn responds to an argument regarding whether it is possible to use government coercion to ‘solve’ the problem with random statistics from various countries This is what he REALLY said.

              BTW, Hihns claim of “proof” is obviously that sort employed by those who think random numbers “prove” a point.
              “EU = 32%, Canada =63%, Japan = 13% SEE?! SEE!? SEE!? SNIVEL!!!!!!”

              He lies AND ,… doesn’t know what random numbers are!! And shown him the link to “UN data FIVE TIMES.!

              SEE?! SEE!? SEE!? SNIVEL!!!!!!

              1. Fuck off, Hihn.

              2. Fuck off, you pathetic scum bag.

                1. BURNED HIS SORRY ASS AGAIN … WITH PROOF AGAIN
                  (sneer)

      3. Yeah, your facts prove Sevo is right. Some small part of the population is intent on harming and or killing others. It doesn’t matter what country it is. Not a single country will have a homicide rate of 0.0.

        1. Why do you AGAIN shit ll over human life????.

          This deplorable told me:
          I agree with Sevo, in the worst case numbers, our death toll would drop from 476 mass shootings per year to 0.2. OF COURSE hundreds of lives would be saved …. BUT SEVO AND I SAY LET THEM EAT CAKE BUT LET THE DIE BECAUSE …. THERE WOULD STILL BE HOMICIDE DEATHSiF EVEN one DEATH REMAINS, WE MUST ALLOW 1300 TO DIE.

          (If you came here with the link from my blog … they are even crazier than I reported his morning!!)

          1. “our death toll would drop from 476 mass shootings per year to 0.2”

            But not 0.0. You proved Sevo right.

            1. Again, if gun control, still allowed one person to die, why do you and Sevor claim that “justifies” NOT saving 1300 lives?

              We should repeal all laws against theft?
              Or even murder.Sorry, I can’t avoid ridicule when TWO of you say say NO law or regulation is justified unless the matter is totally eliminated.

              Do you have a wife and/or daughter. Do THEY support the demand, by you and Sevo, to decriminalize RAPE?

              Amirite that you are PROUD to type such totally imbecilic things … like your assertion that machine guns existed in the 18th century!

              https://reason.com/2019/08/09/the-puzzle-of-identifying-future-mass-murderers-cannot-be-solved-by-psychiatry-background-checks-or-red-flag-laws/#comment-7889671

              ,

              1. Die, Hihn. Just die and make the world a better place.

                1. REPEAT: Again, if gun control, still allowed one person to die, why does Sevo claim the regulations FAILED … which “justifies? NOT saving 1300 lives?

                  HOW BARBARIC IS THAT?

                  This is how STUPID it is!
                  We should repeal all laws against theft?
                  Or even murder.Sorry, I can’t avoid ridicule when TWO of you say say NO law or regulation is justified unless the matter is totally eliminated.

                  Do you have a wife and/or daughter. Do THEY support the demand, by Sevo, to decriminalize RAPE?

                  They walk among us. And they BREED.

          2. Fuck off, Hihn.

  18. One thing that puzzles me is why do we favor concealed carry vs open carry?

    1. Who favors one over the other?

  19. “What’s a Hiln?”

    A slight misspelling of the name of a pathetic piece of shit who Hihnfects this site with Hihnsanity, you fucking pathetic piece of shit.

  20. No fan of the guy, and, no, I’m not going to claim he ‘shares libertarian values’. He is just occasionally too honest for his own (PR) good:
    “Neil deGrasse Tyson is facing backlash after tweeting about shooting deaths”
    […]
    “In the tweet, the astrophysicist and author coolly referred to the mass shooting deaths in Ohio and Texas, suggesting they pale in comparison to deaths from other causes, namely illness and accidents.
    By comparing the loss of 34 people over the weekend to deaths caused by illness and accidents, many people felt Tyson was downplaying the role that gun violence plays in American society.
    On Twitter, the response was fierce and immediate, with tens of thousands of Twitter users responding.”
    https://www.kdrv.com/content/news/520551022.html

    So ‘many people’ ‘felt’ that the facts were really irrelevant here, sort of like that fucking ignoramus Hihn.
    How…………………..
    pathetic.

    1. Who you call Hihn …. is the ONLY one who posted ANY relevant facts … WITH LINKS TO THE SOURCE …. NOT like the DEAD links posted by a different aggressor, for the wrong topic.

      Here’s another one!

      DC v Heller P 114 (near bottom) (my emphasis)

      “.. The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves….”

      https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

      (now … see more blind rage and desperation bullshit In fairness to them, thy are victims. Like all tribal loyalists, left and right, brainwashed and manipulated by the political elites Pawns of the ruling class Not their fault. )

      1. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

        1. Apparently, proving you wrong, violates what you “feel” is your “safe space,” and keeps ‘triggering” you.

          I got an email this morning, perhaps last night, which predicted, jokingly, that if I said, “This is the month of August,” at least five of you people would screech, “Fuck of and die,” or equivalent, accuse me of treason, and try to get me banned from the site.

          I laughed. Then I considered the vast amounts of evidence supporting what he said … like you screaming “fuck off and die” 17 times as you stalk me down this page. The adults in the room, if seasoned on the Internet, know precisely WHAT you’re doing, and WHY. We’ve seen it for decades..

          Your gang stalks me down the page, screaming insults after virtually all my comments, apparently trying to destroy my credibility … and explicitly say that goal … but any credibility I have has been EARNED by posting PROOF, of either an original source or another of your non-stop lies.

          It’s called “shooting the messenger,” a special type of ad hominem attack.

          You don’t like the message, cannot refute it … so you shoot me… shoot to kill … or bellow that I should kill myself.

          That impresses your fellow cyber-terrorists. But the adults in the room are not tribal puppets. MATURE people consider the facts, if it’s one of their issues, then decide. I give facts. That’s what adults do.
          Since I provide the ONLY facts, it’s impossible for you to succeed … with the adults in the room. 80-90% of readers in online forums never comment, some out of fear. THEY are not here to attack anyone, so many or most are libertarians.

          And adults.

          But you don’t even care, Your ilk gets their satisfaction from the attacks alone. Makes you feel manly, and/or emulates Trump’s notion of toughness. (lack of ego, low self-esteem)

          On the larger scale, you people have a nearly unbroken of losses, since the death of Genghis Khan.

          God bless.

          1. Fuck off, Hihn. And die.

            1. Apparently, proving you wrong, violates what you “feel” is your “safe space,” and keeps ‘triggering” you.

              I got an email this morning, perhaps last night, which predicted, jokingly, that if I said, “This is the month of August,” at least five of you people would screech, “Fuck of and die,” or equivalent, accuse me of treason, and try to get me banned from the site.

              I laughed. Then I considered all the vast amounts of evidence supporting what he said … like you screaming “fuck off and die” 17 times as you stalk me down this page. The adults in the room, if seasoned on the Internet, know precisely WHAT you’re doings, and WHY. We’ve seen it for decades..

              You stalk me down the page, screaming insults after virtually all my comments, apparently trying to destroy my credibility … and explicitly say so … when any credibility I have has been EARNED by posting PROOF, of either an original source or another of your many lies.
              It’s called “shooting the messenger,” a special type of ad hominem attack.
              You don’t like the message, cannot refute it … so you shoot me… shoot to kill … or bellow that I should kill myself.
              That impresses your fellow cyber-terrorists. But the adults in the room are not tribal puppets. MATURE people consider the facts, if it’s one of their issues, then decide. I give facts. That’s what adults d.
              Since I provide the ONLY facts, it’s impossible for you to succeed … with the adults in the room. 80-90% of readers in online forums never comment, some out of fear. THEY are not here to attack anyone, so a large percentage are libertarians. And adults.
              But you don’t even care, your ilk gets their satisfaction from the bullying attacks alone. Makes them feel manly, and/or emulates Trump’s notion of toughness.
              On the larger scale, you people have a nearly unbroken of losses, starting with the death of Genghis Khan.
              God bless.

              1. Fuck off, Hihn.

  21. I earned $4500 last month by working online just for 4 to 6 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this Website. If You too want to earn such a big amount of money then come and join us.

    >>>>COPY THIS WEBSITE>>>>

    >>>>>>>>> Home Online Earning <<<<<<<<<<<

    1. Why not, it makes more sense than anything Hihn says…

  22. Like sorcery and related items, psychiatry only works if you believe in it — or if the pshrink confines, drugs, and surgically mutilates one’s brain.
    Being termed mentally troubled is simply today’s version of being accused of being a witch.
    Ways of getting rid of disliked persons in the absence of actual evidence of crimes.

  23. More Scalis (re Heller) . Now page 2 (prox mid-page)
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
    It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
    manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:
    For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues…
    Miller’s holding (1939) that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
    ((Pages 54-56 are a VERY lengthy list of gun prohibitions at and around ratification. Scalia was an originalist. Anyone here who opposes any/or all regulation is seeking to impose a “Living Constitution.”
    And we no longer defend America with militia; we’ve used a professionarifesiona mitaru for sone tie now,

    1. fuck off, Hihn.

    2. And yet the definitions of the organized and unorganized militias still exist in the CFR.

      1. Unicorn Abaittoir
        And yet the definitions of the organized and unorganized militias still exist in the CFR.

        My emphasis added

        ” 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.”

        A professional military does that now. For quite some time now.

        ***In 1956,Governor Orval Faubus activated the Arkansa state MILITIA … but NOT to defend the security of a free state. He used armed force to keep 9 black kids from registering at Little Rock’s Central High School President Eisenhower sent armed troops, authorized to us force if necessary … to defend the rights of 9 kids, from … a MILITIA! Faubus caved.

        That was a major landmark in the Civil Rights era. But you side with Faubus … and the Klan … against the Constitution, and against equal, unalienable and/or God-Given Rights.

        I cannot blame you. Like so many Americans, you are a victim.

        Manipulated and brainwashed by the political class, here in service of the NRA, which is the political tool of gun manufacturers. Bernie’s Bots. and Elizabeth’s, just have a different ventriloquist.

        Anything else?

        1. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

        2. A professional military does that now….Anything else?

          Yes, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Sections 311 and 312.

          Anything else?

          1. ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!!!

            A professional military does that now….Anything else?

            Yes, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Sections 311 and
            312.>

            (laughing like hell!l)
            CALL FOR A PADDY WAGON. ORDER HIM A STRAIGHT JACKET,!

            1) HE CLAIMS THE PROFESSIONAL MILITARY HAS BEEN DISBANDED. WE HAVE RESTORED A CITIZENS MILITIA TO DEFEND AMERICA!

            2) AND HE HAS PROOF!

            3) IN TITLE 10, THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, THE TITLE ON ON …. WAIT FOR IT ….ENERGY ! … DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY … NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,… ETC.

            4) STRANGE, BUT …. I BELEEB IN HIM!! …. IT WILL BE IN SECTIONS 311 AND 312.

            5) ……

            6) …..

            7) THOSE SECTIONS DO NOT EXIST! OMFG

            8) WHY DOES HE SAY THE MILITARY CAN BE DISBANDED, THE MILITIA RESTORED, TO DEFEND AMERICA … WITH A REGULATION …. BY BUREAUCRATS! … DON’T NEED NO STEENKING LAW!!!

            https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=a28bdf0b39d8751f0622748142846db9&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title10/10tab_02.tpl

            I HAVE UNDERESTIMATED HIM. HE HAS ACHIEVED SOMETHING FAR BEYOND WHAT I THOUGHT POSSIBLE,.

            YES HE DID!

            This is WAY more INSANE than his snarling, sarcastic claim that … machine guns existed in the 18th century..

            Lesson on cyber-bullies, They absolutely cannot help themselves.
            Have lost ALL control over their thoughts and actions … they will ATTACK and ASSAULT until they DIE. As their mind rots away, exiting the body as farts. Through their ears.

            And attend Trump rallies ….

            Anything else?

            All I have left is ….. pity.

            And physical pain from laughing so hard.

            Oh, wait … are you another sock of Sevo?

            1. Fuck off, Hihn.

        3. It takes great mental contortions to not consider the statements made and the reality of the framing of the Constitution to think that the militia is the professional military, or National Guard, or for law enforcement, or even that military-style arms are not included as arms the people arm expected to keep and bear. The militia and the people’s right TKBA is the exact antithesis of “A professional military does that now.”

          The root of the 2nd is to allow the armed people to stand up to an army of the federal government, should it ever come to that.

          Consider the reality of the birth of this nation. The Militia–the people–had overthrown a despotic government. Recognize that one of the things that despotic government had tried to do was disarm the people–because unarmed people are easier to rule by force–and that it was, in part, armed citizenry that fought that war. The Founders were creating a government, and knew that someday the government they were creating could become despotic despite all the check and balances and would need the militia to rise again to preserve Freedom.

          The Founders were keenly against maintaining a standing army. For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty, and James Burgh called a “standing army in times of peace, one of the most hurtful, and most dangerous of abuses” while others said called a standing army “that great support of tyrants” more often set loose upon the citizenry than against the armies of other nations in war.

          So the Constitution has multiple protections that are supposed to protect against a federal government running roughshod over the people: the 2nd, and the prohibition about funding standing army for more than 2 years.

          1. HOW CRAZY CAN A GUNTARD BE BRAINWASHED???

            The root of the 2nd is to allow the armed people to stand up to an army of the federal government, should it ever come to that.

            READ IT MANIPULATED TOOL OF GUN MANUFACTURERS

            Consider the reality of the birth of this Nation

            LAME
            Consider the reality of …. THE AMENDMENT.

            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.”

            HEY, SPARKY!
            The Militia is a government managed function
            YOU SAY THE GOVERNMENT IS GONNA REVOLT AGAINST ITSELF!!!

            Since the militia no longer provides the security of a free state … THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION for the amendment. Literacy 101
            If SCOTUS was empowered to do so, 2A would have been repealed decades ago.

            1. “YOU SAY THE GOVERNMENT IS GONNA REVOLT AGAINST ITSELF!!!”

              Civil war. Revolutionary War.

              “Since the militia no longer provides the security of a free state”

              Wrong.

              “READ IT MANIPULATED TOOL OF GUN MANUFACTURERS”

              American colonists. Viet Cong. Afghanis (twice). Dozens of other examples of winning against a bigger military with non-professional soldiers.

              1. “YOU SAY THE GOVERNMENT IS GONNA REVOLT AGAINST ITSELF!!!”

                Civil war. Revolutionary War.

                The American Revolution was launched and won by the government of England!

                The south did not secede and form its own government? Is US History a fabrication of the Deep State? George Soros?

                “Since the militia no longer provides the security of a free state”

                Wrong.

                You think private citizens brought guns from home … to fight two world wars, Korea, Viet Nam and so many others? The Army Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard do
                not exist? They’re urban legends as exposed by snopes!

                You must be an an-cap

                1. The American revolution was launched by (English) colonial governments.

                  “The south did not secede and form its own government?”

                  It did. The States revolted against their own government.

                  “You think private citizens brought guns from home … to fight two world wars,”

                  Not what I said. Old School Hihn Strawman.

                  “The Army Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard do not exist?”

                  They do. Standing armies existed from Washington’s Presidency until now. During that time, official militias also existed in various forms until 1903. Now there is only the unorganized (and unofficial) militia.

                  Hihn, you know I’m an an-cap. I’ve argued with you lots of times. I have a Word doc saved with all your best logical inconsistencies, just in case I need it.

        4. “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
          – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

          “[I]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. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
          – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

          “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
          – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

          “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
          – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

          “No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.”
          -Richard Henry Lee, Gazette (Charleston), September 8 1788

          “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
          – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

          “The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
          -Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

          1. “The root of the 2nd is to allow the armed people to stand up to an army of the federal government, should it ever come to that.”

            The Constitution does not ‘grant’ rights; the Constitution limits the actions of government.
            Shitbag Tony and the imbecilic Hihn hope to show that it is the other way around, which simply shows that neither of them has the faintest clue regarding the experiment in which we are still involved.
            Hihn and shitbag? Please die a long and painful death. It is nothing other than what you wish for the rest of us.

            1. (laughing) Tell us why you LIE about the second amendment, and that anyone who disagrees with your loony notions, like these, somehow believes that the state creates rights. NO EVIDENCE = SLANDER = PUNK.

              READ the second amendment. My emphasis

              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.

              The militia no longer defends America, and the “security” of a Free state

              State is GOVERNMENT. duh.
              The security of the GOVERNMENT.

              If an amendment guaranteed the security of your house, would you retain the right to burn it down? This is not rocket science,

              Further, our government is limited by its Constitution, with disputes decided by the judiciary … NOT by the bellowing of some trashmouth red neck bully.

              And like Trump, you make wild-ass statements without a speck of proof. Like who believes the state creates rights.

              There’s another core principle at play here. Personal Accountability for one’s actions. And how does “defining” rights give YOU your ASS-umed power over others, and your responsibility to ACKNOWLEDGE (not just define) EVERYONE’S Rights? We libertarians understand both the source of rights. and the RESPONSIBILITIES of rights.

              Crawl down from your ivory tower. Your rights are innate, some phrase that ias God-given … but ADULTS know that rights are USELESS unless others defend them Not rocket science

              That’s how liberty REALLY works, I agree to respect and defend yours, in return for you doing likewise. Or you’re a mooch

              Liberty is a mutual aid society. Not a members-only country club.
              Stop mooching.

              Please die a long and painful death. It is nothing other than what you wish for the rest of us.

              You’re crazier than ever. YOU are MOOCHING off OUR rights, granted to you.

              SLANDER is NOT a respect for rights..

          2. The Constitutional Convention REFUSED to ratify that.
            NO

          3. The Constitutional Convention REFUSED to ratify that.
            None of it has any status at all.

          4. NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment.
            Newspapers are not the Supreme Law of the Land.
            And … believe it or not … we no longer defend “a free state” with a militia.

            See. our militia was preferred at the time, to oppose a professional army. The second Amendment was to insure no future government could disband the militia by seizing our tr citizen’s guns.

            A militia national defense was abandoned, and replaced with professional soldiers, when the militia was no longer capable of defending the nation.

            Militias still exist, but no longer fulfill the 2A responsibility.

            There has been only one significant militia action in 60 years, that I know of, perhaps much longer.

            In 1957, Arkansas Governor, Orval Faubus, activated his state militia, armed force, to stop nine kids from enrolling in Little Rock’s Central High. Eisenhower sent armed troops, authorized to use force, if necessary.

            Faubus caved. He later justified his action, saying he was defending the voters of his state from what some now call “abuse of power by unelected judges,” the KKK-originated notion that states have powers that were never delegated, that Founders did NOT create three EQUAL branches, to provide checks and balances, under separation of powers, and (apparently) that Arkansas didn’t really ratify the Constitution — or that Faubus didn’t give a shit for the Constitution anyhow.

            The upshot is that militias now have less power than nine children, for over 60 years now, after having earlier lost the responsibility of defending America.

            In his Heller ruling, Scalia re-affirmed an earlier ruling (Miller 1939) that the militia clause as the purpose of the amendment, provides the de facto limit on what types of weapons are protected.

      2. And we no longer defend America with militia; we’ve used a professional military for quite some time now.

        And yet the definitions of the organized and unorganized militias still exist in the CFR.

        Boldface alone failed, so …
        AND WE NO LONGER DEFEND AMERICA WITH MILITIA; WE’VE USED A PROFESSIONAL MILITARY FOR SOME TIME NOW.

        ** CAN ** YOU ** HEAR ** ME ** NOW?

        (Five bucks says he, or a fellow gang member, will punish me AGAIN, for his own fuckup. Any takers?

        ===

        “Why doesn’t he just stop the assaults that keep exploding?”
        He needs them to feel manly. So does Trump. Psychology 101

        (My tone and boldface in defense of repeated aggressions and assauts, by one of several serial stalkers)

        1. Fuck off, Hihn.

          1. (Five bucks says Sevo, or a fellow gang member, will punish me AGAIN, for his own fuckup. Fuck off, Hihn.,

            To be fair, it’s no achievement to predict the actions of a deeply committed psychopath.
            1) Imagine the very worst possible.
            2) Bet on that.

  24. All gun control is unconstitutional.

    1. That leftwing progtard Antonin Scalia says you’re both wrong and hopelessly uneducated on the issue..

      DC v Heller (Page 114, very botton
      The second independent reason is that the protection
      the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment
      permits government to regulate the interests that it
      serves.

      Now page 2, Heller

      2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
      It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
      manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:
      For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues…
      Miller’s holding (1939) that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

      https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
      ==============
      ((Pages 54-56 are a VERY lengthy list of gun prohibitions at and around ratification, which SCOTUS has used to show original intent …. for 80 years.

      Scalia was an originalist. ANYONE who is anywhere near LC1789’s assertion is promoting a “Living Constitution.” They defend originalism, only when convenient to a political agenda.

      PLUS

      The NRA was powerless against the assault weapons ban … for ten long years. Some say the NRA was blocked by the same Deep State Conspiracy that was used to neuter Melania’s chihuahua..

      1. Hihn, please fuck off and die.

        1. Maybe later. When I stop having so much fun!

          1. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

            1. LOVE to trigger so much rage and hatred … in violation of your Safe Space, snowflake.

              It takes NO effort by me!!!!

  25. Holy fucking shit the Clinton death machine’s reach is long. Looks like they got to Jeffrey Epstein in prison last night. I mean, good riddance and all, but holy shit it’s scary the way those motherfuckers can take out anyone they want to.

    1. NEVER DO THAT AGAIN WITHOUT A SATIRE ALERT.
      I’m sure there are others who, like me, spit coffee all over their monitor.

      1. Make the world a better and smarter place; please fuck off and die.

    2. OMG I didn’t know Trump has tweeted that INSANE Clinton conspiracy.
      This one is even crazier than the pizza shop.
      And birtherism.
      And his Electoral College margin
      And his promise to pay off the entire debt in 8 years, but already added more 8-year debt than Obama did AFTER 8 years. … and just added even more.

  26. It boils down to the fact that (as Yogi Berra or someone like that once said) it’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

    It used to be that if someone was acting in a threatening way but hadn’t yet committed a crime, he’d be “bound over to keep the peace” – post a bond or go to prison. But that was before the law of attempts was broadened so much that many of the kind of concerning acts formally dealt with by peace bonds had become crimes in themselves.

    1. Make far more sense to actually confiscate all the weapons of KNOWN violent aggressors, than reading tea leaves about future possibilities!

      One obvious example, the nazis and racists who marched in Charlottesville … carrying clubs and wearing riot-style shields, many wearing nazi helmets. They CAME for violence, and launched a large group assault against several dozen unarmed people, beating them with clubs. Because nazis and racists.

      1. Fuck off, Hihn.

  27. Gun owners will never surrender their guns or their right to own them, it is not negotiable. In reality any real effort to confiscate guns from individuals would require military intervention, not local law enforcement, and that is never going to happen either.

    1. Wanna bet? There is no such right, according to that liberal scum bag, Antonin Scalia (in Heller), plus 80 years of SCOTUS precedent (Miller, 1939).

      https://reason.com/2019/08/09/the-puzzle-of-identifying-future-mass-murderers-cannot-be-solved-by-psychiatry-background-checks-or-red-flag-laws/#comment-7889604

      P.S. Do NOT allow political manipulators to cause your death.

      1. Fuck off, Hihn.

        1. DC v Heller p 114

          The second independent reason is that the protection
          the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment
          permits government to regulate the interests that it
          serves.

          Scalia, page 2

          2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
          It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
          manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:
          For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues…
          Miller’s holding (1939) that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
          https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

          ((Pages 54-56 are a VERY lengthy list of gun prohibitions at and around ratification. Scalia was an originalist; EVERYONE who opposes any and all regulation is defending a “Living Constitution.”
          They support originalism only when it’s con-veeeeeeeeeen-yent to their political agenda,

          1. Fuck off and fie, Hihn.

          2. Rather than taking the POV that you’re utterly wrong about what Heller says (again), I’ll just tell you that the Supreme Court is wrong about nearly everything.

            Dred Scott
            Korematsu
            Wickard v. Filburn
            Plessy v. Ferguson
            Kelo

            The Supreme Court holds that growing wheat on your own property, for your own consumption, is “interstate commerce”, but Major League Baseball isn’t!

            You have the right to do anything other than initiate force. If you don’t initiate force, you have the right to do it.

    2. The good thing is gun hoarders are an increasingly small and irrelevant minority.

      It’s so cute how they think they can take on the feds. The feds can kill you from the sky without any risk to a single human fed.

      1. It’s cute how those Continentals think they can take on the British military. It’s cute how those Viet Cong think they can take on the American military. It’s cute how those Afghanis think they can take on the Soviet military. It’s cute how those Afghanis think they can take on the American military.

        (Those are just the popular ones.)

        BTW, as to your assessment that there are fewer “gun hoarders” – Are those like car hoarders? Or stamp hoarders? Anyhow, if you call and ask me how many guns I have in my house, I’ll tell you to “go pound sand”, as I don’t want you to know. Makes getting statistics difficult, especially as team blue fanaticize more and more about taking them by force.

  28. The best predictor of mass shootings is a gun-free zone. That’s where 98% of all mass shootings have occurred, which shows that psychopaths seek those out.

    Every other solution proposed relies on the concept of efficient and competent governance at all levels, as well as a degree of telepathy on the parts of bureaucrats, gun dealers, and psychiatrists.

    1. A Wal-Mart in Texas is not a gun-free zone.

      People who were there and packing guns admitted to running away in terror once the shooting started. Because that’s what happens.

      How many more people have to die because people like you don’t want to give up their childish Rambo fantasies?

      1. “How many more people have to die because people like you don’t want to give up their childish Rambo fantasies?”

        Shitbag here wants to know how many people have to die as a result of not having a weapon to defend themselves………….
        Ooops. Sorry. Shitbag is, again, full of shit.

        1. PEOPLE DO NOT DIE FROM BEING SHOT TO DEATH.

          If WE need guns because the bad guys have them.
          And bad guys need guns because the good guys have them.
          What happens if NEITHER has guns?

          In five different countries, POLICE don’t need guns! (ones on daily patrol)

          EXPLODES Sevo’s “brain.”

          1. “What happens if NEITHER has guns?”

            Then the biggest guy with the biggest club rules everyone.

            God made man. Sam Colt made man equal.

  29. Seems like the states are going to move forward in Gun control even in Republican held states like Gov of Ohio. Dewine is writing or having written for him a Protection law that adds due process is the most draconian way called protection orders. Your Girlfriend can say you seem violent and you drink to much, the first part is way he defined it for the Dayton shooter exgf. Who stated just that, not even mentioning any Alcohol. Call her exGF is particularly troubling as it was one date and he took her to deliver a nasty you die letter to another Ex girlfriend residence and while on this wonderful first day went on to explain how suicidal he was and put a gun in his mouth some five times but did not have the courage to go through with it. Seems like a red Flag to me and anyone else, however this is one person who could just as well been spurned. Me TOO much? However the accused now has to go to court to clear his name, spend money and time, This is absolutely a terrible system. However it is being sold by Republican Governor, although to be fair to Repubs he has been on this issue for some time, and just put Millions into a new health law funding’s to give Psychiatric drugs to as young as 3 year olds diagnosed by a quasi scientific medical industry that has failed in every way for over 100 years.

    I am for Red Flags, but not to increase the number of those under the care of Psychiatrists given Psychotic Drugs which the very label states promotes violence and suicidal thought. In fact, Youth at 13 year or older that receive any Psychotic Drugs which label states high risk of Suicidal and Violent behavior should be red flagged. Somehow we need to include Japan Style Health Care to this field that determines results in payment and heavy consequences for failure. The court system them must pay all costs of those red flagged for the hearing when he wants to obtain a weapon because they on wrong so much of the time.

    1. Nobody goes to court, having to prove innocence.

      It’s GUILT that must be proven. “Innocent until proven guilty.”

      1. Except in these Red Flag laws…

  30. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this – four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily……. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
    >>=====>>>> payhd.com<<=====<<<<

  31. Shame we can’t train dogs to signal when corrupt cops and politicians are present.

  32. Even if we give up our legal guns, there will still be an estimated 80-100 MILLION illegally owned guns in the country. And guess who will be armed, and who will be unarmed?
    I have a couple solutions to these shootings — rather barbaric but they inflict zero physical pain. It’s DETERRENCE that is important, not revenge.
    Check out my controversial solutions. Libertarians might even like them.
    Or not.
    EXCERPT: For those monsters who die in their murderous act, horribly mutilate their bodies — sharing the grisly photos with anyone they felt anything for. And perhaps the photos merit broader posting. See how they like THIS publicity!

    For those who are captured alive, the sentence should be life imprisonment — in TRULY solitary confinement — ZERO human contact. Apparently this leads to insanity for the killer. And probably eventual suicide. And both of these hard-nosed policies need to be announced NOW to have a deterrent effect.
    https://riderrants.blogspot.com/2019/08/two-barbaric-yet-humane-deterrents-to.html

  33. The “elite” know psychiatry is just barely more accurate than tarot cards. The purpose is to get people to willingly accept intimate secret snooping into their lives.

  34. Federal law only requires background checks if buyign from a dealer. Won’t pass a check? Just buy your gun from a private sale.

    About 10 states have added laws so that all gun purchases requrie a background check. Won’t pass a check. Don’t worry, there are 40 states, usually adjacent to yours, that will let you buy a gun with no check via private sale.

    Result?

    The states with the weakest gun control laws become the biggest exporter of guns for criminals in the country.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/t3EVHqDx0vZ1RpK8MYCNbMrlN2Y=/1484×0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/4H7OHBYLRA7PRMZLHWMIOFEKBA.png

    Chicago finds that 60% of crime guns came from out of state.
    California otu of state crime guns is about 60% as well.
    New York? About 75% .

    universal background checks would cut criminals off from the easiest source of guns. And it could cut gun homicide by half.

    1. Why are guns coming from out of those states? Because most of them are sold in the free states! You have no idea how statistics work, do you?

      There is no way to enforce universal background checks without registration. You want that so you can steal and oppress.

      How many mass shooters passed their background checks? How many didn’t go through a check but would have passed them anyhow?

      How many mass shootings took place in “gun free” zones? 94%

      https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

  35. Inconvenient facts (fully documented) (ignore the screeching guntards)

    Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
    5.3 United States
    3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7 Canada
    0.9 UK

    Have you ever considered that you MIGHT be manipulated? Even a little? How would you even know, deep in a tribal cave?

    cont’d

    1. FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
      Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … We had 250 in 7 months. Do the math.
      Mass Shootings Per year
      UK = 0.2 per year
      US = 426.7 per year = 2,130,000% higher mass shootings
      “Sanctity of Life”? WHEN?

      But YOU “think” gun control has never worked. Anywhere! OMG
      (Australia had one in 23 years).

      Inconvenient questions:

      1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first? (DOUBLE-DUH

      2) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did?

      3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

      4) What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict? Which prevails? Who decides? And why?

      NOT advocating gun grabs, just want HONEST debate – the difference between libertarians and the bellowing blowhards of the Authoritarian Right.

      ”shall not be infringed” They beat their chests and bellow … nonsense, evasions and bullshit. … PROVES how they’ve become witless tools of the political elites. The ISSUE is WHICH ARMS shall not be infringed. Why is this rocket science to these people?

      Left – Right = Zero
      Libertarians: speaking Truth to Power, both left and right, for over 50 years.
      Listen now to their death rattle, amidst the shrieking and bellowing.

      1. Hihn, everyone knows that’s you. Once I proved you wrong (again), you simply used a different handle to try the same old tactics again.

        You ought to know that comparing 2 countries is notoriously problematic, given the different cultures and differing way they measure anything. Nothing’s a “murder” in the UK until the person is convicted!

        The only way to reliably measure what happens is to look at a certain area and study what happens when the State recognizes more or recognizes less of it’s citizen’s right to own weapons. You don’t do this, because it doesn’t show what you want it to.

        There is no way to enforce universal background checks without registration. You want that so you can steal and oppress.

        How many mass shooters passed their background checks? How many didn’t go through a check but would have passed them anyhow?

        How many mass shootings took place in “gun free” zones? 94%

        https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

        1. TWO MILLION PERCENT

          1. Aww, can’t deal with the truth Hihn. So sad!

            94% of mass shootings in the US happen in gun free zones. Read it and weep!

  36. Sullum is correct, for once.
    As we see worldwide. The only thing that works is a combination of banning ALL semi-automatics this time, and banning large magazines, which has produced shooting deaths to 45% to 95%, compared with ours.

    Sorry, goobers, but government does have the OBLIGATION to defend the right to life in all cases, not just those YOU prefer.

    1. Hihn, no one says “goobers” but you.

      The State is the biggest murderer of all time. There is no comparison. Nothing murders or steals more than the State. Nothing oppresses more.

      https://reason.com/2014/05/15/be-antigovernment-and-proud/

      Nothing would be better than banning guns …from the State!

      1. The State is the biggest murderer of all time.

        YOUR OWN LINK PROVES YOU A PSYCHO LIAR OMG
        It includes EVERY country … for the entire 20th century … Nazi Germany, North Korea, China, N Korea, Cambodia, etc, all at their worst..

        It’s easy to be brainwashed … on what you WISH was true … without the brains to spot BLATANT irrelevance.

        You also fucked up “goober,” which means you are one

        onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/goober
        May 12, 2013 · goober: [noun] a goofy, silly, or slightly strange person

        Now you can lie, then say the lie proved me wrong. Great for your tiny ego … but adults will click your link. And mine.

        Only puppets believe what they want to. And goobers..

        1. Hihn can’t even get through a sentence without messing up. I said:
          “The State is the biggest murderer of all time.”

          Hihn: “YOUR OWN LINK PROVES YOU A PSYCHO LIAR OMG
          It includes EVERY country…”

          Which is to say, the states of those countries. Proving my point.

          Carry on, Hihn. Along with your endless mistakes, you bring endless entertainment.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.