MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Donald Trump's Listening Session With Mass Shooting Survivors Was Really Powerful

The president showed empathy, engagement, and leadership in a way that will surprise many of his critics and supporters alike.

YouTubeYouTubePresident Donald Trump recently concluded a 90-minute "listening session" with survivors of last week's shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Also attending were parents of children killed in shootings at Columbine High and Sandy Hook Elementary and others who had endured violence in various Washington, D.C.-area schools.

It's worth foregrounding that the exchange was genuinely powerful and often moving as children and parents shared their experiences and losses. Trump listened intently and actively throughout and gave the stage to the guests in attendance at odds with his usual modus operandi. He would follow up on and punctuate points but never felt a need to pull the attention back to himself or egomaniacally insist, as he did on the campaign trail, that he alone can fix problems such as school shootings. After more than a dozen people told their stories, Trump asked, "Does anyone have any idea of how to stop [school shootings]?" He minced no words about shooters, calling them garbage, but he also didn't lose contact with the idea that he was there to listen to and comfort the people in the room, not rail against miscreants. In a word, he was presidential, at least in his bearing and temperament.

In terms of substance and policy, there are clear indicators of where the president will head next. The participants underscored feelings of fear, anger, and resentment at what they saw as indifference from politicians at all levels. Students "need to feel safe," said Jason Gruber, who lived through the Florida shooting. The father of a slain student called for definitive action in a voice suffused with barely controlled rage. Parents of children killed in the Sandy Hook and Columbine shootings emphasized the need to detect mental illness at early stages and to make access to schools more difficult for interlopers. The emphasis throughout was much more on protecting schools rather than stripping weapons per se and a number of respondents talked about the need to arm teachers and staff with weapons. ""If you can't stop it from happening," said one parent, who further noted that hundreds of millions of guns are in circulation, "the challenge becomes to end it as quickly as possible."

The idea of arming teachers and staff is clearly something to which Trump is partial. The typical "attack lasts three minutes," he said at one point, "while it takes five to eight minutes for responders to arrive." He further noted that contemporary schools are often large, sprawling complexes and nodded toward reports that a Stoneman Douglas coach, Aaron Feis, who died shielding students, could have ended the shooting if he'd been carrying his firearm. The president talked about teachers and staff volunteering to carry weapons and undergo training for live-shooting situations. Trump attacked the notion of gun-free school zones and promised to improve and possibly expand background checks. He also pushed the idea that mental illness was the deep cause of mass shootings, especially at schools, and seemed to endorse vague forms of preventive detention if it seemed likely that a given individual might be likely to commit violent crime.

There is plenty to worry about in such responses. Even as she called for more funding for mental-health screening and interventions, the mother of a Sandy Hook victim stressed that most psychologically troubled people are non-violent. Virtually all plans to ban "mentally ill" people from owning guns define the term in such a way that a quarter or more of the population would be included. Such policies are also rife with due-process concerns, which are even more troubling when it comes to anything smacking of preventive detention, including the "gun violence restraining orders" that are gaining popularity among conservatives at National Review and elsewhere. Teachers and staff carrying concealed weapons may be preferable to flooding K-12 schools with yet more police (often euphemistically called "school resource officers"), but schools are already failing under the weight of an ever-growing list of non-academic responsibilities. When it comes to school shootings, virtually all have taken place not simply at public schools but at traditional residential-assignment public schools, especially those with heavy gang activity. Whether public or private, schools of choice tend to have fewer disciplinary and violence problems, so shifting toward choice may be an underappreciated means of reducing school shootings.

If you're in a cynical mood, you might want to consider that focusing on measures such as banning bump stocks, increasing the effectiveness of gun background checks, and expanding resources for mental-health programs are easy ways for Donald Trump to appear presidential while blocking out stories about nasty immigration-reform fights and the ongoing Russia investigation. Whatever the motivation, Donald Trump acted today in a way that will give his detractors pause and his supporters a respite from his less-than-presidential antics.

Here's video of the full discussion:

Photo Credit: YouTube

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.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's as if a million cocktail party invites cried out, and then were silenced.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    nice one.

  • Slumbrew||

    (insert gif of Orson Welles clapping)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do YOU have a child or grandchild in an American classroom?
    CHECK MY PROOF
    Current homicide rates (Latest available, UN)
    5.3% United States
    3.0% Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7% Canada
    0.9% UK

    Gun nuts LIE (or are brainwashed). England's gun control saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
    Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years ... We had 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 31,000% higher

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

    What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
    Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
    (You need not know the answers. Merely see a genuine conflict between two absolutes – just one price of individual liberty)

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't like it when Scalia jams this up his ass:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Your name is Toby, Hihnsano!

  • Michael Hihn||

    (sneer)

    Justice Scalia's ruling in Heller, SCOTUS website. A dreaded progressive??? (lol)

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. 'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

    .... as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty..... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Plus, NO rights can be absolute, per the definition of unalienable, because such rights can be in conflict with each other.

    It's scary to ME, how NRA mind control is almost as thorough as Orwell's Newspeak
    "War is Peace,Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength"
    Any variance from that is a thoughtcrime.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano cites Scalia because he's too much of a dumbfuck to read past page 1:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    (chortle)

  • Michael Hihn||

    How is that relevant?

    What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
    Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
    (You need not know the answers. Merely see a genuine conflict between two absolutes – just one price of individual liberty)Left - Right = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano cites Scalia, then claims it isn't relevant.

    Less Than Zero=Dumbfuck Hihnsano's IQ.

  • DesigNate||

    "WHEN they are conflicting or competing"

    You keep saying this, but how are they competing?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Hihnny-poo doesn't know, he's too much of a dumbfuck.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hihnny-poo doesn't know, he's too much of a dumbfuck.

    I'll TRY to dumb 5 centuries of evolving individual liberties

    1) All unalienable rights are ABSOLUTE.
    2) That creates a dilemma when two such rights are conflicting or competing.
    3) Such conflicts can ONLY be determined and resolved by the Judiciary.
    4) And ONLY on a case before it.

    That's HOW our judicial system operates ... since the 14th century. (Like most colonies, we continued English Common Law when we seceded)

    Judges don't sit around theorizing BILLIONS of possibilities. Some complain that "unelected judges are creating rights". … which has been their function since the 14th century (NO right has EVER existed until AFTER a judicial body has RECOGNIZED it in an actual case. This is the core of English Common Law, which began evolving in the 11th century, and became powerful in the 14th.)

    There has been no court test on 2A conflicts yet. Quite normal. It took nearly 200 years for Roe v Wade to recognize and resolve THAT conflict.

    THAT'S WHY the 9th Amendment GUARANTEES to the people all rights not enumerated in the Constitution ... Rights that are NOT not listed … because THE
    FOUNDERS knew how rights had evolved for centuries.Can YOU list those rights?

    See 2/2

  • Michael Hihn||

    2/2

    The PRINCIPLE of conflicting rights is as established as the earth going around the sun.

    ONLY the judiciary can determine and resolve such conflicts -- as a check and balance against conflicts which ONLY the other two branches can create. They MUST resolve the conflict in a way that BEST defends BOTH rights.

    Simple question: How else to resolve a conflict between two rights, when BOTH are absolute.

    (Abortion is a good example. The right to Life is equal to all others, ONLY in the judicial sense, in the case of conflicts. If not, how long would it take government to deny YOUR rights, claiming to "save the life" (or preserve a different right) for a total stranger, 3 states away? All men are created equal, so a fetal child has no greater claim on a woman's rights (or anyone's rights) than a total stranger in China would have.

    ALL of this evolved, over many centuries, from the core principle that ALL fundamental rights are ABSOLUTE. How else would YOU resolve a conflict between two absolute rights?

    It's not as easy as you assume -- especially for a "dumbfuck" like me, with the childish name of "Hiney-poo,' who (you say) wears Depends.

    Any questions?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    But how are they competing?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Which part confuses you?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Where does my right conflict with yours, and yours with mine?

  • Michael Hihn||

    If you ass-ume iit has ANYTHING to do with you and me ... OR NEEDS TO ... you're too damn stupid to grasp it

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano remains too stupid to grasp which rights conflict and how they conflict in a discussion about guns.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano the gasbag brings up abortion because he's too stupid to explain how two rights conflict and how they conflict on the subject of guns.

  • DesigNate||

    That didn't answer my question of how my right to own a gun competes or conflicts with your right to not be killed though.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Why would it have to.?

  • DesigNate||

    Because you asserted that they do?

  • Azathoth!!||

    The right to life is paramount above all others. It is not and cannot be equal to them because you can't have any of the others UNLESS you have life first.

    Rights CANNOT 'compete' because one CANNOT have a right to abrogate the rights of another.

    The Judiciary exists to assist in the proper functioning of written law--it can only uphold inalienable rights--it cannot create or delineate or declare that rights are 'conflicting'.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Your confusion is not grasping they are equal only WHEN IN CONFLICT, constitutionally.
    Because all unalienable rights are absolute.

    How would YOU resolve a conflict between two ABSOLUTE rights? That's a hypothetical because ONLY the judiciary can resolve such conflicts -- as a check against the other two branches who can CREATE such conflicts. Checks and balances, 3 co-equal branches.

    The Judiciary exists to assist in the proper functioning of written law--it can only uphold inalienable rights--it cannot create or delineate or declare that rights are 'conflicting'.

    NOBODY ELSE could do so. It's been their job since the 1400s.

    And NO rights exist which have not been "created" (recognized) by a judiciary or tribunal.
    (think it through), PRECISELY as the founders intended, proven by the 9th Amendment!

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    There are rights GUARANTEED against ALL levels of government. Can YOU name them?
    I didn't think so!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano called for a handgun ban here

  • KevinP||

    With the sole exception of homicide, the UK is a more violent country than the US. You are more likely to become the victim of a crime of violence in the UK than in the US.

    UK is violent crime capital of Europe (Telegraph)


    Quote:
    It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe... By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.
  • Michael Hihn||

    Ignore homicides because ours are nearly 600% higher.
    Three things are certain: death taxes and TOTALLY irrelevant diversions by gun nuts.
    Current homicide rates (Latest available, UN)
    5.3% United States
    3.0% Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7% Canada
    0.9% UK

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You've listed it twice. So just a polite heads up. It's not 5.3%. One in Twenty Americans are not murdered. It's per hundred thousand. Just want to clarify.

    Also, I looked at your link and the number there is 4.88 per hundred thousand on the table. Where did you get 5.3? Just curious.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Thanks for the correction. I just coped the decimals from the chart.

    Somebody else had stated the 5.3, so I used his to avoid a hissy fit. (gasp) And I don't know if his is older or newer than the UN chart. HOWEVER, the 5.3 does make us look even worse than we are, so I'll change than too!

    Thanks again. And again.

    No, I'm not in the market for a car!

  • Ride 'Em||

    Question for you do all countries develop the stats within the same definition. For example I have read the UK only counts it as murder if a trial has been held and a person has been found guilty. Additionally, Japan reports all deaths as suicides if the killer commits suicide.

  • Michael Hihn||

    All I know for sure is you're wrong about Japan.

  • DarrenM||

    This link gives a good description of the situation re: suicides vs. homicides in Japan. The article is from 2013, though. The main takeaway is the incentives involves. It's interesting, but it's not clear how it affects statistics.

    Japan's suicide statistics don't tell the real story

  • Kivlor||

    Just curious, but when you adjust for population, do you adjust for race? Because we know that certain demographic groups are demonstrably more violent and murderous than others...

  • Michael Hihn||

    Fuck off

  • Kivlor||

    So, that's a "no"?

    It's curious that you'd react with such hostility to a very relevant question. If you're comparing different demographics, you may need to adjust for it.

    For example, the 2000 census (closest to your 2004 data) for UK shows a black population of 2%, Indian/Paki/Bangladeshi 3.6% (combined) 91% white.

    Compare with the US in 2000 was 75% white, 12% black...

    Now, adjust for criminality...

  • Brian Whittle||

    What the UK call violent crime and what the USA do is not the same
    The reported rate of violent crime in the US was 403 incidents per 100,000 people–the 466 figure comes from 2007. Second, and more importantly, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports defines a "violent crime" as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

    The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all "crimes against the person," including simple assaults, all robberies, and all "sexual offenses," as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and "forcible rapes."

    It's like counting apples against chickens.

  • Michael Hihn||

    What the UK call violent crime and what the USA do is not the same

    It's not about violet crime at all

    It's like counting apples against chickens.

    Yep ... YOU just confused violent crime with homicide!

  • Diane Merriam||

    Different countries classify crimes differently. For example, in England, it isn't counted as a homicide unless someone has been tried and convicted and often (maybe always, but I'm not sure) multiple crimes committed by the same person in one trial, goes on the books as one crime.

    Mass shootings are different from mass killings. Nobody even has to die for it to be a "mass shooting."

    You did your math really weird. 69.3/0.2 = 346.5 times more.

    Most gun laws are at the state level.

    Homicides per 1000,000 people (Roughly 2/3 of all homicides are gun related so knock 1/3 off these numbers)

    New Hampshire 1.1
    Louisiana 10.3

    You can break the numbers down even further, to specific cities.

    For example, murders per 100,000 - St Louis has the highest at 59.29, followed by Baltimore at 55.37, Detroit at 43.82, and New Orleans at 41.68. (These numbers are total homicides to use the same 1/3 off multiplier.)

    Natural rights, including the right of self-defense, cannot conflict. They do not require any actions on the part of others, only that they refrain from infringing on your rights. One person's right to life doesn't interfere with another's. There is no guarantee that someone might not try to killl you, but if they do, they are infringing on your right. There is no guarantee to be safe from accidents. No one else has to do anything to sustain your life ... that's up to you. All they have to do is ... nothing. All you have to do to respect others' rights is ... nothing.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Natural rights, including the right of self-defense, cannot conflict.

    Conflicting rights have been a principle for hundreds of years. And you don't know what it imeans.

    One person's right to life doesn't interfere with another's.

    Unless they're in conflict. But the conflicts are most often between ANY two DIFFERENT unalienable rights -- which include Life and Liberty, the bundle included in Pursuit of happiness ... and all the many others unenumerated in the Constitution. All such rights are PRECISELY equal IF they are conflicting. All by the very definition of unalienable. They're both absolute, so one cannot be absolute over the other,

    If there's no conviction ... there has been no murder.

    You did your math really weird. 69.3/0.2 = 346.5 times more.

    Percent Correct your error on decimal places and get 3,465% (I'm off by a decimal place, and missed correcting that one, so thanks). The difference between 3,100 and 3,464 is that I rounded to a single decimal place. 5 in 22 years is, per year = 0,22727272 (endless places)

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    Bravo.

  • Bubba Jones||

    school choice is a non sequitur. The shooters will be affiliated with a school no matter what the mechanism.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Well, it's possible that a better environment would lead to less kids going down this road. But I agree that it's far from a sure thing, and I don't think that is the argument Nick was making.

  • Diane Merriam||

    Not always ... there was a guy just a few years ago that went into an Amish school ... no connection whatsoever. It was just there.

  • JWatts||

    Well that was an unexpected article coming from Nick G.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Happy hour to squash the TDS perhaps?

  • LynchPin1477||

    Maybe Nick is fair and Trump usually deserves it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The stuff Trump deserves to get shit about, is rarely addressed on Reason or anywhere else. TDS is much easier. Its much easier to say "everything" Trump does is bad.

    Sounds like Trump acted normal and listened to the opinion of Florida school kids. Some of us already knew Trump acts normal around normal people.

    Trump trolls the media because they are not normal people and thrive off the TDS. It keeps them occupied while Trump can try and roll back government.

  • BigT||

    Matt's on vacation. He would have put a stop to this Trump worship.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Government should listen to The People when they comes all the way to Washington to speak with their government.

    There's a civil way to do that and evidently that happened.

    There is also nothing wrong with Trump not advocating any gun control measures because they violate the 2nd Amendment.

    One more thing to make Trump more popular.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

  • Longtobefree||

    Damn fine idea. Most shooting in a school will be well over 100 yards, and only a rifle will do.
    Kabuki is as Kabuki does.

  • ||

    So far no Hihn.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He must not be able to see your beacon in Canada.

  • Aloysious||

    Now you've done it. Talk about it, it happens.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    YES IT DOES

  • Aloysious||

    Sweet. This should be fun.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Somebody help me my head is jammed up my ass!

    (giggle)

    ((snort))

    AGGRESSION!!

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    [waves garlic]

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Chipper Morning Baculum's aggressor mentality presumes the right to wave garlic at random because he doesn't understand how rights can be in conflict.

    (snort)

    Another racist Ron Paul junkie doll! A bully who believes that he has the right to infringe upon the rights of those who disagree with him!

    Moronic right-wing bully! See it get jammed up his ass here: reason.com/blog/2008/06/12/vio

  • Aloysious||

    Alright, who is parodying Hihn's account? I mean, this is funny and all, but it's missing a certain something...

  • Red Tony||

    It's me.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I am enjoying it. It's great :)

  • Red Tony||

    Thanks. Any suggests for how I can make it more Hihn-like and more overtly parodic? (Yes, I want to do both.)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Hihnny-poo (or at least his spoofer, I remain convinced it's not the actual Michael Hihn) has resorted to spamming comments and wall-o-text/blockquotes that portray his full unHihnged self in all its glory. See the After the Gun Ban article for up-to-date examples.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do YOU have a child or grandchild in an American classroom? CHECK MY PROOF>
    Current homicide rates (Latest available, UN)
    5.3% United States
    3.0% Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7% Canada
    0.9% UK

    Gun nuts LIE (or are brainwashed). England's gun control saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
    Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years ... We had 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 31,000% higher

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

    ad hominem (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

    Aggression The action or an act of attacking without provocation

    psychopath A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't like it when Scalia jams this up his ass:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Your name is Toby, Hihnsano!

  • Michael Hihn||

    (sneer) Truth

    Justice Scalia's ruling in Heller, SCOTUS website. A dreaded progressive??? (lol)

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. 'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

    .... as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty..... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Plus, NO rights can be absolute, per the definition of unalienable, because such rights can be in conflict with each other.

    Anything else?

    It's scary to ME, how NRA mind control is almost as thorough as Orwell's Newspeak
    "War is Peace,Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength"
    Any variance from that is a thoughtcrime.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano cites Scalia because he's too much of a dumbfuck to read past page 1:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    (chortle)

  • Red Tony||

    Oh my fucking god. I was doing the fake Hihnsano as a sort of reverse voodoo curse. AND IT FAILED!

    I am so sorry everybody. So very very sorry.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I am so sorry everybody. So very very sorry.

    No need to apologize. You saved ME the wok of identifying all the 12-year-old mentalities.on the page.

    I NEVER giggle.
    But that's why you do!!!

    (Boldface in defense of multiple aggressions, by a giggler)

  • Diane Merriam||

    The unalienable rights, natural rights, can never conflict. Nobody has to do anything. Your natural rights are the same as anyone else's. No has to do anything for you to have your full natural rights. Those rights don't protect you from accidents. Nobody has to keep you alive. All they have to do to recognize your rights is ... nothing.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The unalienable rights, natural rights, can never conflict.

    500 years of judicial history say otgherwise.

    Your natural rights are the same as anyone else's.

    That' the point!

    No has to do anything for you to have your full natural rights.

    HUH? GOVERNMENT may not deny or abridge ANY rights.

    Those rights don't protect you from accidents. Nobody has to keep you alive. All they have to do to recognize your rights is ... nothing.

    GOVERNMENT. That's what rights are FOR.

  • gormadoc||

    Needs more italics. You have to link directly to one of your comments in the current thread that doesn't address what you say it does one per long post.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide.

  • Michael Hihn||

    >Somebody help me myhead is jammed up my ass!
    (giggle)
    ((snort))
    AGGRESSION!!

    Ummm, YOURS is aggression
    Snorts ate NOT an entitlement. They must be earned.
    (snort)

    Aggression The action or an act of attacking without provocation

    Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening.

    Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

    Stalker A person who harasses or persecutes someone with unwanted and obsessive attention

    Any questions?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Any questions?

    Why did the doctors leave that tumor in your head?

  • ace_m82||

    SPAMMMMMM!!!!!!!!

  • Rockabilly||

    Putin ordered all bots back for reprogramming.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    So far no Hihn.

    But a few of you TEAM RED! sycophants are here.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Yea Team Red's been curb stomping your team quite a bit of late. Good for them for gloating.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Very Presidential! And needed. He was in deep shit from his initial responses. If history holds, he'll likely piss it all away again, with a typically sophomoric tweet storm..

  • DajjaI||

    Yes, this was the day he became our president. He got the public to propose a nationwide network of mental hospitals to protect us from the crazies (which has long been one of his goals). And 'early intervention and treatment' to create lots more of them. Also of course Trump loves this diversion because it will take all the blame for inaction on DACA. Everything's coming together perfectly.

    Actually the solution is simple: round up all the psychiatrists and deport them to where ever they came from or at least to Mexico, and build the wall so they can't get back in.

  • Eidde||

    Would Mexico agree to such an arrangement? What's in it for them?

  • Don't look at me.||

    They will pay for it?

  • DajjaI||

    Exactly. If they complain, just say, "OK and how does that make you feel? The bill is in the mail."

  • JFree||

    Prescription pills

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I blame the courts for the inaction on DACA. They've enjoined Trump from taking the only legal action, commencing deportations.

    It's a sad day when the courts start ordering a President to NOT 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed', and pretend to be defending the Constitution in doing so.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Then the lower court decisions get reversed by the Supreme Court.

    Congress should impeach some of these federal judges.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Jesus, could it be that bloviating Trump is all an act? DID WE ALL JUST LOSE AT 3D CHESS?

  • Eidde||

    This fits with Scott Adams' idea of Trump as a Master Persuader.

    What works in a stump speech wouldn't work in talking to grieving families, so he adapts accordingly.

  • Lachowsky||

    Anyone who has been paying attention already realizes this. Trump plays to his audience. He always has. The people at his rally's want the bombastic bloviations. Victims of school shootings wanted a sympathetic ear. He provides both. He good at that.

  • Eidde||

    Adams realized it when the "experts" were saying Trump wouldn't win.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Oh, please. Every fucking politician ever does this.

  • Eidde||

    Sure, but how well do they do it?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    How do you measure success? Winning elections?

  • Eidde||

    In this particular context? Sure. It doesn't make his policy ideas good or bad, of course.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Talk about low expectations.

  • Eidde||

    Well, sure, the Pres is expected to behave appropriately when dealing with grieving relatives, most non-psychos would be on their best behavior.

    More interesting is how Trump can adapt to whatever situation he's in, to the extent of building his brand and ending up as President. Obviously, not everyone is that good.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Presidents generally are able to do that. Which is a big reason Hillary never got to be president.

    More interesting is how Trump can adapt to whatever situation he's in

    Uhh... okay. You've cited two examples that are basically the opposing extremes of expected behavior, but sure, he's a social chameleon.

  • Eidde||

    I'm relying on Adams. Who knows, maybe Adams is full of crap, tho I doubt it.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Why would you not doubt it?

  • Eidde||

    He predicted the election outcome.

  • Hugh Akston||

    So all it takes for you to buy what someone is selling is one correct prediction?

  • Eidde||

    Yeah, sure, whatever.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The parallels between fascism and alt-right Trumpism are many
    1) Nationalism
    2) Deutschland Uber Alles and America First (uber alles means above all).
    3) Hitler's master race and white supremacy.
    4) Anti-semitism and homophobia, Islamophobia.
    5) A strong-man leader

    Both ONLY the alt-right fights to DEMAND a seat at the teat.

    I say that not for the labels, but WHY Trumpism is a severe threat to American values.
    Yes, Trump is not Hitler. But neither was Mussolini.

  • KevinP||

    There has already been an American President who put American citizens in concentration camps.

    Liberal Democrat and progressive icon Franklin Roosevelt.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

    The dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon Republicans but it always turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.

  • Michael Hihn||

    KevinP, here's a better way to play that.

    Our first New Deal President put US citizens in concentration camps.
    Our second New Deal President murdered US citizens in cold blood, with no trails or even any charges.

    What will our first fascist President do with all the Gitmo prisoners, 17 years, also with no trials or even any charges.

    Liberty is a mutual benefit society.
    Not a members only Country Club.

  • ace_m82||

    Our first New Deal President put US citizens in concentration camps.

    But they were elected by "the will of the people" and therefore could not have violated anyone's rights!

    www.reason.com/blog/2017/06/22.....the-rand-p

    "Hypothetically, assume an entire Congress is elected on the same platform -- single-payer healthcare. Would it then be proper for Congress to do so? Why not? (I assume you answered wrong.)"
    "Do governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed? Is that principle superior to the Constitution?"
    "You have NO power to shit on Will of the People and Consent of the Governed."

    www.reason.com/reasontv/2017/0.....e-will-die

    Government only exists to protect the "right" to choose your ruler, no other rights:

    Me: Government isn't compatible with individual rights (unless there is 100% consent).
    Hihn: INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS MEANS 0.0001% CAN OVERRULE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
    THAT'S DICTATOR RIGHTS, SLAVER. YOUR 'RIGHT' IS TO LEAVE.

    …INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY'ALLOWS THEM TO RESIGN ...FUCKING LEAVE

    Me: By 'liberty' you mean the liberty to leave when they take all you have, enslave you, and kill you?
    Hihn: BEFORE – UNLESS YOU'RE EVEN CRAZIER.

    Government is apparently voluntary as well:

    "Government - like Kiwanis, dumfuck -- is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.
    ITS MEMBERS AGREE, FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY -- TO JAIL THEMSELVES FOR REFUSING TO PAY THE DUES."

    Regardless, God Bless you, Hihn!

  • Azathoth!!||

    1) Nationalism

    Nationalism and Patriotism are two different things.
    You try to force nationalism when you can't engender patriotism.

    2) Deutschland Uber Alles and America First (uber alles means above all).

    First does not necessarily mean 'above'.

    3) Hitler's master race and white supremacy.

    Hitler's 'master race' excluded the bulk of the white population

    4) Anti-semitism and homophobia, Islamophobia.

    It is difficult to ascribe anti-Semitism to the man who refused to continue the fiction the Jerusalem is not the capitol of Israel.

    Likewise, it is difficult to ascribe homophobia to the man who publically motorboated Rudy Guiliani.

    And it is completely normal to be against an ideology that seeks to destroy the very foundations of one's society, that seeks to kill or enslave the people of that society, and that is perfectly willing to use terroristic tactics to accomplish those goals. There is no such thing as 'islamophobia'--one would look just as ridiculous accusing a Jew of 'naziphobia'.

    5) A strong-man leader

    Fortunately, the US has no apparatus to sustain a strong-man leader--as the previous president, a pretender to strongman status, is finding out as his proclamations are removed, one by one, restoring the Constitutional balance he tried so desperately to destroy.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    I take this as your admission that this was all pretty weak. Tomorrow's a new day.

  • Eidde||

    You can take it as an admission that it's a waste of time debating someone who enjoys, shall we say, creatively rephrasing my remarks.

  • IceTrey||

    Have you not read "The Art of the Deal"? Make some outrageous demand and then settle for what you really want.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    I said he was PT Barnum way before the primary ended. Facts have shown that PT Barnum statement is accurate.

  • Juice||

    So, I just took a look over at https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/

    Uh, is the CNN harassing an old woman true? Well, yeah. Um, well, that's fucked up.

    And youtube is warning someone about analyzing video of the activist kids from the Florida school.

    And a kid was suspended for "disrupting" an anti-gun "protest" organized by the school by yelling "I love guns."

    So, uh, what the fuck is going on? This is getting creepy.

  • ||

    Tell me about it.

    The CNN thing should raise eyebrows.

  • Juice||

    I just watched the video. That was pathetic. And then after reading more about it, they're berating this woman for sharing a link on facebook that was supposedly made by Russian trolls or something, but apparently CNN got duped by Russian trolls into covering some anti-Trump rally they organized. Something like that, I don't know. And they didn't just berate her, they showed her full name, middle name and all, and showed her house to everyone too. It wouldn't take much to track her down and threaten her or harm her, so it was definitely an intimidation tactic and maybe even a message to others. Damn, CNN, you're fucking pathetic.

  • Eidde||

    Give the same treatment to the CNN official who approved coverage of the anti-Trump rally.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Give the same treatment to the CNN official who approved coverage of the anti-Trump rally.

    FUCK free speech and freedom of the press.
    snowflakes, left and right

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Less Than Zero=Dumbfuck Hihnsano's IQ.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's IQ.

  • Eidde||

    It's hard to figure out your position.

    Are you describing CNN's activities as "free speech"? I would agree. But then, your posts are free speech, too - that simply means the government can't censor them, not that your posts are intelligible or sensible.

    And if CNN's activities are free speech, then it would likewise be free speech to do to a CNN executive what CNN did to that woman.

  • John||

    Word is she is now being harassed and threatened by CNN's army of brain dead viewers. This is a new low for the media. This is beneath what even I thought they were capable of. And note it was some nice old lady. These assholes are the worst bullies. They would never do this to some crazy redneck who would sick the dogs on them or worse. Pathetic

  • Eidde||

    From their point of view, they're doing the Lord's work by exposing Russian agents who support a fascist President.

    They don't see an elderly woman, they see a black-hearted conspirator against the Lord's anointed (Hillary Clinton).

  • Stephdumas||

    There's might be more than meet the eyes. Former Sheriff Clarke think then some big fat cats, mainly George Soros push for students movements pushing for gun control http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-.....orge-soros

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The same Clarke whose mismanagement led to an inmate dehydrating to death?

  • Nardz||

    Credible suspicion. I watched both the White House town hall and the Florida capital rally (I'm, um, between occupations). The people at the White House seemed pretty genuine (though disappointing that the anti-disarmament crowd was forced to couch their stance in phrases like "we need to remember not everyone has the same opinion" and that "people feel differently and we should respect that" language while the pro-disarmament crowd felt fine calling for an outright ban on "assault weapons"), more and less sure of themselves, but the teens speaking in front of hundreds, if not thousands, of people spoke clearly and confidently using some rather specific language.

  • Nardz||

    I wondered as I saw it, particularly when this (presumably) popular blonde girl with glasses took her turn (Delaney Tarr), if they'd had auditions. That wouldn't, in and of itself, be an unreasonable thing to do - but it's been a very short time to get very organized and very polished. We're talking roughly 163 hours since the shooting stopped to the beginning of the rally. How many hours did they grieve, how many hours did they spend in shock, how many hours did they spend just decompressing with loved ones? How many hours does that leave to a) come up with a plan of activism, b) communicate said plan to wide audience and get an idea of who will be participating, c) arrange transportation, d) make signs/placards, e) choose speakers, f) write speeches, g) practice speeches, h) plan schedule/order of speakers, i) disseminate and adjust said program, j) get home from school day of shooting, k) eat, sleep, talk to friends, etc.
    Money for transportation and arranging for transportation could come from parents, sure. It could come from donations or GoFundMe pages. Still, the logistics of such an act are not inconsiderable. I am very impressed with the poise and determination of these students, but I doubt this was an "organic" demonstration absent professional direction...

  • KevinP||

    Parkland Survivor: Media Using Tragedy To Push Gun Control


    Quotes:
    Brandon Minoff, an 18-year-old survivor of the Florida school shooting, slammed the media for politicizing the aftermath of the deadly incident.

    Minoff, who was previously interviewed by CNN and MSNBC, told Fox News Tuesday that too many media outlets are focusing on gun control rather than the 17 people who died in last Wednesday's shooting.

    "I wholeheartedly believe that the media is politicizing this tragedy," Minoff said. "It seems that gun control laws is the major topic of conversation rather than focusing on the bigger issue of 17 innocent lives being taken at the hands of another human."

    "I know many people who are pro-gun and others who support gun control but it seems that the media is specifically targeting those in support of gun control to make it seem as if they are the majority, and the liberal news outlets are the ones that seem to make the bigger effort to speak to these people, and I'm talking from experience," Minoff explained.

    "And all day Thursday, CNN was interviewing gun experts and specialists to brainwash the audience that gun control is a necessity," he told Fox. "They even have an army of my classmates trying to persuade other students that guns are unnecessary and should be illegal."
  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    CNN gunning for MSNBC's audience.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    And now there's a bunch of proglydyte trash harassing her on her Facebook page.

    And people think i'm out of bounds when I say that these people want you and your children dead.

  • Nardz||

    Progressivism is as fanatical and "fundamentalist" (dogmatic) as Islamism. Both are totalitarian ideologies that rely on faith and zealotry, while demanding the complete submission of their adherents to the collective. Both are psychotic (irrational, delusional, impulsive, and absolute). The difference is that while Islamism demands jihad to create a caliphate on earth with the promise of utopia in the afterlife, Progressivism demands jihad to create utopia on earth - a fundamentally impossible task, but one which also requires the creation of things which must be "fixed".

  • Michael Hihn||

    Progressivism is as fanatical and "fundamentalist" (dogmatic) as Islamism. Both are totalitarian ideologies that rely on faith and zealotry, while demanding the complete submission of their adherents to the collective

    As horrific as the Christian Taliban totalitarians.. :-(

    The difference is that while Islamism demands jihad to create a caliphate on earth with the promise of utopia in the afterlife

    "Kill the infidels' has been commanded by ONLY ONE Holy Book in all of human history. Kill them immediately, even if your brother, spouse, child or friend.
    Deuteronomy 13

  • Nardz||

    From shallow minds come shallow thoughts.
    Christianity begat both Protestantism and Communism.
    "The meek shall inherit the earth."
    "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
    "From each according to his means to each according to his need."
    "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
    Workingmen of all countries unite!"

  • Nardz||

    Protestantism begat Puritanism begat Progressivism.
    From Sinners in the hands of an angry god to social justice warriors.
    From National Socialists to Global Socialists, the difference is merely of rhetoric and reach of ambition.
    Patterns and fundamental structures define.
    For example, pants are pants - be they khaki, blue, brown, black, gray, or any combination of colors... they are still pants - with the same basic form and function.
    Fascism, Communism, Progressivism, Islamism - merely different brands of Totalitarian Socialism.

  • Michael Hihn||

    And it's crackers to slip a rozzer. the dropsy in snide.
    Most days.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm not love with the idea of arming teachers, either. Cops supposedly get training to handle dangerous situations and they still shoot unarmed people, kids included. I worry something similar will happen with teachers, and you can be sure the teachers unions will demand the same legal protections as cops. Maybe teaching self-selects for less trigger happy people (or cops self-select for more trigger happy), but all it will take is one or two incidents, and restrictionists will argue that gun advocates' solutions don't work.

  • IceTrey||

    But cops are selected to be psychopaths.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    And teachers?

  • Eidde||

    The bad teachers don't have the energy to be psychopaths.

    The good teachers better hope they work in a good school, or they'll get constantly sabotaged, which might make them wish they were psychopaths.

  • Lachowsky||

    Cops shoot people they shouldn't because they are largely out looking for trouble. A teacher is in a situation when the need to draw a gun would be exceedingly rare and extremely obvious. I doubt you'd see many innocent students killed by teachers.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I hope so, but hysteria has strange effects on people.

    Anyway, just something to keep in mind. Unintended consequences and all that.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    This is why I prefer professional soldiers, not armed teachers.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Posse Comitatus. But fuck the Rule of Law, says the Authoritarian Right

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Fuck making a post that isn't full of horseshit and hot air, says Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Fuck making a post that isn't full of horseshit and hot air, says Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

    Posse Comitatus is a federal law that heavily restricts the use of federal military for local law enforcement, as suggested by Michael Ejercito to open this thread.

    Here's Cato's description of this federal limitation, for anyone else uneducated in the "bullshit and hot air" of the Act.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Posse Comitatus is a federal law that heavily restricts the use of federal military for local law enforcement, as suggested by Michael Ejercito to open this thread.

    Glad to see you're on board with teachers arming themselves.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Laws can be changed.

    We merely have to pass this simple thirty-two word law to deploy soldiers to secure our schools.

    "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of Defense shall have full authority to use any and all resources at its disposal to keep the people of the United States safe."

  • Michael Hihn||

    Thankfully, there will never be enough votes in Congress to enact your police state

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano self-identifies.

  • Eidde||

    I'm not "in love" with the idea of armed teachers, but I might be more comfortable with the idea than with the alternatives:

    (a) a "gun free school" (except for murderers who wander through the hallways picking off victims at will)

    or

    (b) sending in cops to patrol the school (taking them off the streets and priming them to treat students like they treat suspects on the streets).

  • Iheartskeet||

    I'm not in love with requiring anyone to be armed, but I am in love with allowing concealed carry everywhere, including schools, by anyone legally allowed to do so. In some sates, that could conceivably mean students too.

  • IceTrey||

    Some punk was on earlier saying do something do something. Do what ya idjit? The FBI was told point blank the guy was an armed nut who made many death threats.

  • Lachowsky||

    Perhaps trying to rely on a federal agency who's central purpose is to stop interstate crimes to solve a local problem is the wrong way to go about this.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    But th FBI are very serious people.

    The most serious ever.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Top.Men.

  • IceTrey||

    The internet threats put it in their purview.

  • XM||

    There was no way Trump would have flown off the handle in a meeting like this. He certainly appeared presidential in the recent SOTU and during speech before the Korean congress.

    I think what's more remarkable is that the parents of the victim (if what Nick is saying is true) were much more nuanced in proposing solutions rather than hysterically arguing for blanket gun control. Which tells me that, even in their deepest grief, they're mindful of the constitutional rights of citizens and limitation of the government. I wouldn't blame them if they tearfully argued for total gun confiscation by Australia.

    Trump was never all that friendly to the FBI and now I think it's time for him to clean house or put the whole organization under a microscope. They dropped the ball on Cruz (the latest tip never reaching their field office) and we have a right to know why they stopped investigating the Boston bombers, Omar Mateen, and slew of others.Dylan Roof should never have been allowed to own guns.

  • XM||

    like Australia

  • Michael Hihn||

    Or the UK!

    Do YOU have a child or grandchild in an American classroom?
    CHECK MY PROOF .... ignore any cyber-bullies who jump in to defend their safe zone.

    Current homicide rates (Latest available, UN)
    5.3% United States
    3.0% Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7% Canada
    0.9% UK

    Gun nuts LIE (or are brainwashed). England's gun control saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
    Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years ... We had 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 31,000% higher

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

    What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
    Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
    (You need not know the answers. Merely see a genuine conflict between two absolutes – just one price of individual liberty)

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't like it when Scalia jams this up his ass:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Your name is Toby, Hihnsano!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Reality PISSES OFF Goobers (sneer)

    Justice Scalia's ruling in Heller, SCOTUS website. A dreaded progressive??? (lol)

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. 'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

    .... as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty..... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Plus, NO rights can be absolute, per the definition of unalienable, because such rights can be in conflict with each other.

    Anything else?

    It's scary to ME, how NRA mind control is almost as thorough as Orwell's Newspeak
    "War is Peace,Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength"
    Any variance from that is a thoughtcrime.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Reality pisses off Dumbfuck Hihnsano, who's too stupid to read past page one or say which rights are in conflict or how they are in conflict (walks away laughing):

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano, who's too stupid ... to say which rights are in conflict or how they are in conflict (walks away laughing):

    I'll TRY to dumb it down.

    1) All unalienable rights are ABSOLUTE.
    2) That creates a dilemma when two such rights are conflicting or competing.
    3) Such conflicts can ONLY be determined and resolved by the Judiciary.
    4) And ONLY on a case before it.

    That's HOW our judicial system operates ... since the 14th century. (Like most colonies, we continued English Common Law when we seceded)

    Judges don't sit around theorizing BILLIONS of possibilities. When some complain that "unelected judges are creating rights. … that has been their function since the 14th century (NO right has EVER existed until AFTER a judicial body has RECOGNIZED it in an actual case. This is the core of English Common Law, which began evolving in the 11th century, and became powerful in the 14th.

    There has been no court test on 2A conflicts yet. Quite normal. It took nearly 200 years for Roe v Wade to recognize and resolve THAT conflict.

    THAT'S WHY the 9th Amendment GUARANTEES to the people all rights not enumerated in the Constitution ... Rights they could not lust … because THEY know how rights had evolved for centuries.

    See 2/2

  • Michael Hihn||

    2/2

    The PRINCIPLE of conflicting rights is as established as the earth going around the sun.

    ONLY the judiciary can determine and resolve such conflicts -- as a check and balance against conflicts which ONLY the other two branches can create. They MUST resolve the conflict in a way that BEST defends BOTH rights.

    Simple question: How else to resolve a conflict between two rights, when BOTH are absolute.

    (Abortion is a good example. The right to Life is equal to all others, ONLY in the judicial sense, in the case of conflicts. If not, how long would it take government to deny YOUR rights, claiming to "save the life" (or preserve a different right) for a total stranger, 3 states away? All men are created equal, so a fetal child has no greater claim on a woman's rights (or anyone's rights) than a total stranger in China would have.

    ALL of this evolved, over many centuries, from the core principle that ALL fundamental rights are ABSOLUTE. How else would YOU resolve a conflict between two absolute rights?

    It's not as easy as you assume -- especially for a "dumbfuck" like me, who (you say) wears Depends.

    Any questions?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano blurts out 888s, but can't actually specify how two rights conflict and how they conflict when it comes to guns.

  • KevinP||

    At the turn of the 20th century, the UK had virtually no gun control laws and very little crime. Any person could buy and carry a revolver in his pocket anywhere in the UK. The right to keep and bear arms was slowly extinguished over the 20th century while the crime rate has soared. See page 14 of this UK parliamentary report for a fascinating graph. It shows that the number of indictable offences per thousand population in 1900 was 2.4 and in 1997 the figure was 89.1 - an increase of 37-fold. Since the early 1960s, the homicide rate has more than doubled.

    UK House of Commons Library: A Century of Change: Trends in UK Statistics Since 1900 (see page 14)

  • Eidde||

    Under the English Bill of Rights, the right to bear arms was a tad more limited than in the U. S.

    Basically, the monarch can't prevent Protestants from carrying weapons suitable to their "condition" (social class)...unless Parliament gives the monarch that authority.

  • Michael Hihn||

    KevinP, why are so hysterical over an crease of 37-fold in INDICTABLE OFFENSES (gasp)--- IN BOLDFACE!

    Current homicide rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
    Per 100,000 population
    4.9 United States
    3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7 Canada
    0.9 UK (we are 544% higher)

    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 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 31,000% higher

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

    What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
    Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
    (You need not know the answers. Merely see a genuine conflict between two absolutes – just one price of individual liberty)

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is pissed that he's not going to get the gun ban he wants.

  • XM||

    Old man, the US government cannot confiscate guns of unduly infringe upon second amendment rights. The libs already tried to ban handguns for aesthetic reasons and it was struck down. Of course nothing is absolute. But the government can't stop you from buying guns unless they have cause to believe you're a threat to others.

    You certainly showcases some classic features of a mass shooter. Writing in manifesto style, lots of bold letters and exclamation points. The prevailing opinion of this community is that you're mentally unstable. Maybe that's good enough for the government to place surveillance on you or put you on no gun purchase list without charging you with a single crime.

    And you'e angry. Like, all the time.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (Defense of cyber-bullying)

    Thanks for alerting me. XM. Now please tell us why ABSOLUTE PROOF launched your bullying

    Writing in manifesto style, lots of bold letters and exclamation points.

    Only in defense of cyber-bullying ... AND ridiculing snowflakes who shout down inconvenient facts.

    The prevailing opinion of this community is that you're mentally unstable.

    I just explained why I don't give a flying handshake.

    Maybe that's good enough for the government to place surveillance on you

    (THUG)

    Aggression The action or an act of attacking without provocation

    Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening.

    Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

    psychopath A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.
    (Unless you can can show cause for PROVEN FACTS "triggering" your hissy fit)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano whines about bullying, wants to government to ban firearms.

  • Kivlor||

    No, Hihn indicated that the government can and should decide who can buy and own firearms, and then went on to have a freakout at the idea of them putting him on the no gun purchase list.

    He's getting more unstable as time goes on. Hihn, if you read this, I really hope you get help for the rage you appear to hold deep in you.

  • Michael Hihn||

    He certainly appeared presidential in the recent SOTU and during speech before the Korean congress.

    Until he went back to childish tweet storms and sophomoric name calling.
    One must BE Presidential, before one can ACT Presidential.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Meanwhile, Dumbfuck Hihnsano will always be Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Red Rocks White Privilege
    Dumbfuck Hihnsano will always be Dumbfuck Hihnsano.
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano has a moment of self-awareness.

  • Jerryskids||

    Donald Trump acted today in a way that will give his detractors pause

    For about two seconds. Had Trump been Trump they would squawk loud enough, but they'll say it's even worse when the evil bastard tries to pretend he's not an evil bastard. He might fool some people by his acting all nice and presidential but he won't fool the clear-eyed apples at CNN.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Lil' Taco getting hammered.

  • SimonP||

    Idiotic.

    No, look. Trump is all about the photo op. Putting a bunch of victims in a room for a "listening session" is just about the appearance of action, the appearance of empathy. And I don't believe for a second that it's any coincidence that the victims' message so easily translated into acceptable GOP solutions like "more guns" and "more infringements on freedoms" and not, say, "let's start with a buy back program and just try to get the number of guns on the streets down."

    Fuck you gullible morons. You're falling for the same old schtick.

  • IceTrey||

    Lets end drug prohibition which would lower the murder rate immediately. Then have carry with no license required. Those who cause problems will take a dirt nap.

  • Don't look at me.||

    You mean like having a beer with a couple of guys?

  • DesigNate||

    That's different cause reasons...

  • SimonP||

    No one was celebrating Obama for being "presidential" when he managed to keep his mouth shut for an hour with those two, moron. Not that your whataboutism is relevant anyway.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    No one was celebrating Obama for being "presidential" when he managed to keep his mouth shut for an hour with those two, moron.

    Yes they were, moron.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Trump acts like a narcissistic buffoon:
    He Bad ! Hatey hatey hate hate hate.

    Trump acts with some degree of empathy and restraint:
    He Bad ! Hatey hatey hate hate hate.

  • SimonP||

    I've learned, after about a dozen attempts at acting "presidential," that it has always been an act. This "listening session" is just like the immigration sit-down he had with congressional leaders not that long ago, where he acts one way when the cameras are in the room, and then another when it comes to brass tacks. This example is proving no different: he "acted with empathy and restraint" for about two news cycles; then the NRA got him on the horn and apparently put him on message: "More guns!" Yeah, go figure.

    I'm not buying it any more, and neither should anyone else. Stop being so gullible.

  • SIV||

    Nick sure took his time getting on the Trump Train, but hey #MAGA

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    I've also seen reports that he didn't proposition any of the teenage girls in the room, so I'm ready to put him on the $10 bill.

  • John||

    Another deep thought Ken.

  • Hugh Akston||

    In a word, he was presidential, at least in his bearing and temperament.

    All of his farts were SBD

  • Red Tony||

    +1

    I laughed.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I skimmed the story earlier today about whether libertarian arguments against gun control were effective--it just left me wondering how the arguments could be any more effective in the wake of another tragedy. If the worst we get out of the third big mass shooting in the past year is a bumpstock ban, then the gun lobby and libertarian arguments against gun control must be doing something right.

    Two of those three tragedies involved the FBI dropping the ball in some way or their background check system failing--and those issues should be addressed.

    Trump is throwing the gun-grabbers a bumpstock bone, and, quite frankly, that doesn't impress me much.

    I really don't care how presidential Trump seems.

    If Hillary Clinton had won the election and used these mass shootings to launch a war against the Second Amendment, would it matter how presidential she seemed while she was doing it?

  • esteve7||

    none of that would have mattered, because we would have had a 5th vote on the Supreme Court to rule against the 2nd amendment anyway.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, and the point is that where a president stands on the Second Amendment is far more important than how presidential he or she seems.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Justice Scalia's ruling in Heller, SCOTUS website. A dreaded progressive??? (lol)

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. 'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

    .... as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty..... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Plus, NO rights can be absolute, per the definition of unalienable, because such rights can be in conflict with each other.

    It's scary to ME, how NRA mind control is almost as thorough as Orwell's Newspeak
    "War is Peace,Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength"
    Any variance from that is a thoughtcrime.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    We need more guns to be safe. That actually makes sense until you add nuts with a death wish into the mix.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The robotic mind of brainwashed goobers

    Do YOU have a child or grandchild in an American classroom?
    CHECK MY PROOF .... ignore the cyber-bully stalkers

    Current homicide rates (Latest available, UN)
    5.3% United States
    3.0% Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7% Canada
    0.9% UK

    Gun nuts LIE (or are brainwashed). England's gun control saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
    Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years ... We had 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 31,000% higher

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

    What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
    Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
    (You need not know the answers. Merely see a genuine conflict between two absolutes – just one price of individual liberty)

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is super-mad that his precious gun bans aren't going to be implemented.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't like it when Scalia jams this up his ass:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Your name is Toby, Hihnsano!

  • Michael Hihn||

    (yawn) Bellowing Blowhards be Liars

    Justice Scalia's ruling in Heller, SCOTUS website. A dreaded progressive??? (lol)

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. 'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

    .... as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty....

    Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

    Stalker A person who harasses or persecutes someone with unwanted and obsessive attention

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is still too stupid to read past page 1 of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Poor Dumbfuck Hihnsano, so desperate for a gun ban and he's not going to get it.

    (skips away tittering)

  • XM||

    Why is this guy referencing a court decision that strengthened gun rights and effectively settled that "milita" language?

    It turns out that I don't have to belong to a militia to buy guns in the country. Who knew? The guns used for the purposes of home defense, which aren't fully automatic rifles for grenade launchers, would be legal. Wow!

  • Michael Hihn||

    (posted in defense of aggression ... and open ridicule)

    Restricting weapons to the modern equivalent of flintlock riles and single -shot pistols is ... strengthening gun rights .... if ....

    Justice Scalia's Heller decision

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. 'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.'

    If ....grenade launchers were kept on 18th century homes.
    But XM also says the exact same ruling is ... full of shit!

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is still too stupid to read past page 1 of Scalia's ruling:

    Relevance?
    How does that affect the limitation that protected weapons are ONLY those in common use at the time -- essentially what we now call hunting rifles?

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

  • Sevo||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is still too stupid to read past page 1 of Scalia's ruling:

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano whines about the relevance of Scalia's ruling after citing Scalia's ruling.

  • esteve7||

    CNN's townhall is great. Please Dems, run on repealing the 2nd. See how well that does for you.

    When people bitch about how they hate the NRA, they are really bitching at other people. Bitching that they hate a majority of people because they disagree with them. The NRA doesn't have influence because they spend money (they don't even crack the top 10), it's because millions of people support them and vote. So again, when lefties bitch about the NRA, they really just hate a majority of Americans.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If there were any issue that might save the House for the Republicans this year, it might be if the Democrats made the midterms all about gun control.

    I don't think the Democrats are that stupid.

    They'll conveniently move on to some other topic come Monday.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The NRA makes for a convenient boogeyman for simple-minded progtards who need to fulfill their childish emotional need to have a "Big Bad" to fight against. That's why their only frame of literary reference for anything these days are the stupid Harry Potter books.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Almost as useless as the robotic contards!

    The parallels between fascism and alt-right Trumpism are many
    1) Nationalism
    2) Deutschland Uber Alles and America First (uber alles means above all).
    3) Hitler's master race and white supremacy.
    4) Anti-semitism and homophobia, Islamophobia.
    5) A strong-man leader

    Both ONLY the alt-right fights to DEMAND a seat at the teat.

    I say that not for the labels, but WHY Trumpism is a severe threat to American values.
    Yes, Trump is not Hitler. But neither was Mussolini.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't like it when Scalia jams this up his ass:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Your name is Toby, Hihnsano!

  • Michael Hihn||

    (yawn) Bellowing Blowhards be Liars

    Justice Scalia's ruling in Heller, SCOTUS website. A dreaded progressive??? (lol)

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. 'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

    .... as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty....

    Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

    Stalker A person who harasses or persecutes someone with unwanted and obsessive attention

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano the bellowing blowhard is still too stupid to read past page 1:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Poor Dumbfuck Hihnsano, so desperate for a gun ban and he's not going to get it.

  • Consigliere of the Dark Ones||

    The parallels between fascism and alt-right Trumpism are many

    Donald Trump's promise to restructure the Federal Reserve along Corporatism lines (see chapter 1):

    If I were elected president, the foxes would no longer guard the henhouse. To ensure the safety and soundness of our banking system, we need to fundamentally restructure the Fed's governance system to eliminate conflicts of interest. Board members should be nominated by the president and chosen by the Senate. Banking industry executives must no longer be allowed to serve on the Fed's boards and to handpick its members and staff. Board positions should instead include representatives from all walks of life — including labor, consumers, homeowners, urban residents, farmers and small businesses.
  • John C. Randolph||

    Who is this "Michael Hnnnnn" character, and why isn't he getting his meds?

    -jcr

  • Michael Hihn||

    Profile: John C Randolph (Authoritarian Right)

    Aggression The action or an act of attacking without provocation

    ad hominem (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

    Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening.

    Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

    Stalker A person who harasses or persecutes someone with unwanted and obsessive attention

    psychopath
    1. A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.
    2. The Authoritarian Left
    3. The Authoritarian Right

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Profile: Dumbfuck Hihnsano (Bloated Gasbag)

    psychopath
    1. A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Keep on clinging, and branding the Republican Party with bigotry, backwardness, superstition, corruption, and gun nuttery. The predictable consequences over the next 50 years, as the old clingers take their stale thinking to the grave and today's young people continue to vote, should arrange another nice half-century run of progress for the liberal-libertarian alliance against just about every preference and effort of the right-wingers.

    I am content.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Fortunately, we know why Arty-poo is content, because we know his strategy

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Keep on clinging, and branding the Republican Party with bigotry, backwardness, superstition, corruption, and gun nuttery. The predictable consequences over the next 50 years, as the old clingers take their stale thinking to the grave and today's young people continue to vote, should arrange another nice half-century run of progress for the liberal-libertarian alliance against just about every preference and effort of the right-wingers.

    I am content.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|2.21.18 @ 11:36PM|#
    "I am content."

    Actually, you're a smug, self-righteous asshole:
    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|2.19.18 @ 7:51PM|#
    "The smart, ambitious young people have been departing our can't-keep-up rural and southern communities for generations, leaving at high school graduation, never to return, seeking opportunity and education on liberal-libertarian campuses and in modern, successful communities. It's called bright flight, and it is wrecking right-wing chances with America's young voters."
    Ignoring your assertions posing as arguments, let's see it:
    You claim to be 'libertarian', but so far, all I've seen is run-of-the-mill lefty whining, and I'll bet you were upset when that hag last in November '16. So tell us why you even imagine you're 'libertarian'.
    And then you whine about 'conservatives' and claim this and the Volokh sites are populated by them. Please define 'conservative'.
    BTW, I take you claim as "Rev." every bit as seriously as you claim to be libertarian; a lie. And in doing a web search, I find it seems to be bullshit.
    Now perhaps you think that claiming to be a "Rev." somehow makes your comments more convincing. Coming from a lefty twit, I would not find that sort of bullshit surprising. Care to comment on why you chose a 'sympathetic' handle? Or should we assume the obvious?
    Let's see it, Rev. Put up or shut up.

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|2.21.18 @ 11:36PM|#
    "I am content."

    Actually, you're a smug, self-righteous asshole:
    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|2.19.18 @ 7:51PM|#
    "The smart, ambitious young people have been departing our can't-keep-up rural and southern communities for generations, leaving at high school graduation, never to return, seeking opportunity and education on liberal-libertarian campuses and in modern, successful communities. It's called bright flight, and it is wrecking right-wing chances with America's young voters."
    Ignoring your assertions posing as arguments, let's see it:
    You claim to be 'libertarian', but so far, all I've seen is run-of-the-mill lefty whining, and I'll bet you were upset when that hag last in November '16. So tell us why you even imagine you're 'libertarian'.
    And then you whine about 'conservatives' and claim this and the Volokh sites are populated by them. Please define 'conservative'.
    BTW, I take you claim as "Rev." every bit as seriously as you claim to be libertarian; a lie. And in doing a web search, I find it seems to be bullshit.
    Now perhaps you think that claiming to be a "Rev." somehow makes your comments more convincing. Coming from a lefty twit, I would not find that sort of bullshit surprising. Care to comment on why you chose a 'sympathetic' handle? Or should we assume the obvious?
    Let's see it, Rev. Put up or shut up.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do YOU have a child or grandchild in an American classroom?
    CHECK MY PROOF .... ignore the cyber-bully stalker

    Current homicide rates (Latest available, UN)
    5.3% United States
    3.0% Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7% Canada
    0.9% UK

    Gun nuts LIE (or are brainwashed). England's gun control saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
    Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years ... We had 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 31,000% higher

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

    What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
    Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
    (You need not know the answers. Merely see a genuine conflict between two absolutes – just one price of individual liberty)

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Sevo||

    "Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means"

    Poor Mike; the English language is but a mystery to hihn.
    Fuck off, Mike; your sell-by date is long passed.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Sevo says unalienable rights are NOT absolute! ... the better for him to shit on them even more

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't know what unalienable means, is too stupid to explain which rights are in conflict and how they conflict with each other.

  • Sevo||

    "Sevo says unalienable rights are NOT absolute! ... the better for him to shit on them even more"
    Hihn seems to have problems reading. And with the English language.
    I did nothing of the sort; I called you on your bullshit. Again.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't like it when Scalia jams this up his ass:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Your name is Toby, Hihnsano!

  • Michael Hihn||

    sneer

    Justice Scalia's ruling in Heller, SCOTUS website. A dreaded progressive??? (lol)

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. 'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

    .... as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty..... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Plus, NO rights can be absolute, per the definition of unalienable, because such rights can be in conflict with each other.

    Anything else?

    It's scary to ME, how NRA mind control is almost as thorough as Orwell's Newspeak
    "War is Peace,Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength"
    Any variance from that is a thoughtcrime.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Sneer

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano the bellowing blowhard is still too stupid to read past page 1 of his own link, still too stupid to take a stand on which rights are in conflict and how they conflict:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

  • Sevo||

    Michael Hihn|2.22.18 @ 12:49AM|#
    "sneer"

    LAUGHING at HIHN ALL DAY LONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Hey, Mike? Third-grade kids wouldn't "sneer". They'd be embarrassed.
    You should be.

  • XM||

    Mike's foolproof logic

    "Because no rights are absolute, the government should have carte blanche to do whatever they want"

    Promptly refers to nations that either confiscated guns or banned weapons owned by law abiding citizens, which would be a violation of second or fourth amendment in the United States.

    But remember now, because 80% of respondents to a poll says DACA kids should stay, we should let them, even though they have no constitutional right to do so.

    The guy selectively quoted from Scalia's decision that ultimately contradicts his position, and he copied and pasted it like 5 times. Then he'll declare himself as a victim of some cyber bullying. I'm only half joking when I say he exhibits some classic traits of a mass shooter.

    The guy is a troll and belligerent to anyone who disagrees. Reason should just delete his posts. Hihn will be all like "Reason is censoring me, they're cyber bullies" which will demonstrate once again that he's not a libertarian.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Mike's foolproof logic
    "Because no rights are absolute, the government should have carte blanche to do whatever they want"

    REPEAT: Ummm, government MUST defend BOTH of TWO competing absolute rights since the 14th century

    1) All unalienable rights are ABSOLUTE.
    2) That creates a dilemma when two such rights are conflicting or competing.
    3) Such conflicts can ONLY be determined and resolved by the Judiciary.
    4) And ONLY on a case before it.

    That's HOW our judicial system operates ... since the 14th century. (Like most colonies, we continued English Common Law when we seceded)

    Judges don't sit around theorizing BILLIONS of possibilities. When some complain that "unelected judges are creating rights. … that has been their function since the 14th century (NO right has EVER existed until AFTER a judicial body has RECOGNIZED it in an actual case. This is the core of English Common Law, which began evolving in the 11th century, and became powerful in the 14th.

    There has been no court test on 2A conflicts yet. Quite normal. It took nearly 200 years for Roe v Wade to recognize and resolve THAT conflict.

    THAT'S WHY the 9th Amendment GUARANTEES to the people all rights not enumerated in the Constitution ... Rights they could not lust … because THEY know how rights had evolved for centuries.

    See 2/2

  • Michael Hihn||

    2/2

    The PRINCIPLE of conflicting rights is as established as the earth going around the sun.

    ONLY the judiciary can determine and resolve such conflicts -- as a check and balance against conflicts which ONLY the other two branches can create. They MUST resolve the conflict in a way that BEST defends BOTH rights.

    Simple question: How else to resolve a conflict between two rights, when BOTH are absolute.

    (Abortion is an established example. The right to Life is equal to all others, ONLY in the judicial sense, in the case of conflicts. If not, how long would it take government to deny YOUR rights, claiming to "save the life" (or preserve a different right) for a total stranger, 3 states away? All men are created equal, so a fetal child has no greater claim on a woman's rights (or anyone's rights) than a total stranger in China would have.

    ALL of this evolved, over many centuries, from the core principle that ALL fundamental rights are ABSOLUTE. How else would YOU resolve a conflict between two absolute rights?

    Anything else?

    Fun to watch them go INSANE ... on an elementary issue the know NOTHING about.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Fun to watch them go INSANE ... on an elementary issue the know NOTHING about.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano goes INSANE, remains too stupid to specify how two rights conflict and how they conflict when it comes to guns.

  • SimonP||

    Please Dems, run on repealing the 2nd. See how well that does for you.

    Maybe they'll run on, "Let's stop school shootings finally," instead. I'm sure that will be a rough pitch to make.

    When people bitch about how they hate the NRA, they are really bitching at other people.

    Or maybe they're bitching about a corrupt gun lobbying organization that systematically and routinely pollutes the public discussion around guns and lobbies politicians to block even incremental gun control measures.

    And you know what? Maybe we are bitching about gun rights supporters. Because they're fucking putting us in this position of struggling to find some accommodation that could somehow result in fewer kids dying every year. There's nothing wrong with that. Gun nuts can be idiots. And they are. It's no different from what libertarians are bitching about when they bitch about social welfare programs. A majority of voters support those, too. And at least they don't fucking kill people.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    a corrupt gun lobbying organization

    Proglydytes love their boogeymen.

  • SimonP||

    Proglydytes love their boogeymen.

    Laugh now, while you can. Don't be surprised when reality makes your smugness seem a bit premature. The FBI is investigating the NRA's role in channeling Russian money in support of Trump's campaign. Tick, tock.

    Anyway, speaking of boogeymen... what's going down with the "deep state" theorizing, lately?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Last sentence. NAILED IT

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Laugh now, while you can. Don't be surprised when reality makes your smugness seem a bit premature

    You're not getting that gun ban, soyboy.

    Anyway, speaking of boogeymen... what's going down with the "deep state" theorizing, lately?

    The same thing going down with "PUTIN HACKED THE ELELCTION!!"

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The FBI is investigating the NRA's role in channeling Russian money in support of Trump's campaign. Tick, tock.

    Lol, talk about conspiracy theories.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's a proven fact that the NRA got money from Russia.
    Educate yourself on campaign finance reporting.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates freedom of association.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    My solutions—not only allow certain teachers to bring guns but also allow them to wear bullet proof vests. Also more cameras at schools using AI to detect students with guns in and around campus. Also have all faculty and administrators with ear pieces and mics so they can communicate at all times.

    Also allow MLB pitching coaches to communicate with the catcher and pitcher with headphones.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Also SF media decided long ago to stop covering Golden Gate suicide jumpers...so the media is admitting coverage of events gives people ideas.

  • esteve7||

    I think many are taking the "arm teachers" to mean teachers need to be armed, not that they could choose to be. Prohibiting guns on campus is the problem. My history teacher in high school was ex-navy; if he wanted to carry on campus why shouldn't he be able to?

    There is a reason all mass shootings occur at soft targets, where they expect no opposition. How many mass shootings, or shootings at all, occur at gun shows, gun stores, etc... . I can recall a darwin award winner trying to rob a gun store with a knife http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1993-06.html . "Gun Free Zone" is basically a flashing red sign to terrorists and mass murders that "hey, you won't get any opposition here!".

    It's time to abolish the "gun free zone." The mere possibility of a gun maybe being someplace is a proven deterrent.
    I'm sure leftists understand this but they don't want to. How many of them have "protected by X security system" stickers on their house. How about instead they have a sign in front of their house that says "Gun Free Zone".

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    I support teachers carrying but I doubt it will prevent these school shootings. So the reason school shootings happen is because young males start spiraling into mental illness around 17. So obviously we should install cameras with AI all over schools that alert teachers if a gun is detected but most of these young men have a death wish and want to die. Remember one of our greatest warriors was shot with another service member while armed at a gun range...so obviously more guns can't hurt but it won't necessarily prevent these nuts from killing.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Why are our mass shootings 31000% higher than the UK?

    Why are our intentional gun homicides
    176% higher than Europe or Asia?
    311% higher than Canada?
    588% higher than the UK?
    (Unuted Nations Office on Drug and Crime)

  • Sevo||

    "Why are our mass shootings 31000% higher than the UK?"
    Because they are aiming at YOU.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't like it when Scalia jams this up his ass:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    Your name is Toby, Hihnsano!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Whiney pussy hates reality (sneer)

    Justice Scalia's ruling in Heller, SCOTUS website. A dreaded progressive??? (lol)

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. 'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

    .... as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty..... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Plus, NO rights can be absolute, per the definition of unalienable, because such rights can be in conflict with each other.

    Anything else?

    It's scary to ME, how NRA mind control is almost as thorough as Orwell's Newspeak
    "War is Peace,Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength"
    Any variance from that is a thoughtcrime.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano the crybaby bitch (he can't handle mean words on the internet, just tease him and watch), remains too stupid to read past page 1 of the Scalia ruling he cites:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    He's especially inept at explaining which specific rights are in conflict and how they conflict with each other. That's how you know he's a dumbfuck liar.

  • Michael Hihn||

    He's especially inept at explaining which specific rights are in conflict and how they conflict with each other. That's how you know he's a dumbfuck liar.

    I'll TRY to dumb it down.

    1) All unalienable rights are ABSOLUTE.
    2) That creates a dilemma when two such rights are conflicting or competing.
    3) Such conflicts can ONLY be determined and resolved by the Judiciary.
    4) And ONLY on a case before it.

    That's HOW our judicial system operates ... since the 14th century. (Like most colonies, we continued English Common Law when we seceded)

    Judges don't sit around theorizing BILLIONS of possibilities. When some complain that "unelected judges are creating rights. … that has been their function since the 14th century (NO right has EVER existed until AFTER a judicial body has RECOGNIZED it in an actual case. This is the core of English Common Law, which began evolving in the 11th century, and became powerful in the 14th.

    There has been no court test on 2A conflicts yet. Quite normal. It took nearly 200 years for Roe v Wade to recognize and resolve THAT conflict.

    THAT'S WHY the 9th Amendment GUARANTEES to the people all rights not enumerated in the Constitution ... Rights they could not lust … because THEY know how rights had evolved for centuries.

    See 2/2

  • Michael Hihn||

    The PRINCIPLE of conflicting rights is as established as the earth going around the sun.

    ONLY the judiciary can determine and resolve such conflicts -- as a check and balance against conflicts which ONLY the other two branches can create. They MUST resolve the conflict in a way that BEST defends BOTH rights.

    Simple question: How else to resolve a conflict between two rights, when BOTH are absolute.

    (Abortion is a good example. The right to Life is equal to all others, ONLY in the judicial sense, in the case of conflicts. If not, how long would it take government to deny YOUR rights, claiming to "save the life" (or preserve a different right) for a total stranger, 3 states away? All men are created equal, so a fetal child has no greater claim on a woman's rights (or anyone's rights) than a total stranger in China would have.

    ALL of this evolved, over many centuries, from the core principle that ALL fundamental rights are ABSOLUTE. How else would YOU resolve a conflict between two absolute rights?

    It's not as easy as you assume -- especially for a "dumbfuck" like me, with the childish name of "Hihnsano"' who (you say) wears Depends.

    Any questions?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano whines like a crybaby bitch, remains too stupid to specify how two rights conflict and how they conflict when it comes to guns.

  • Sevo||

    A2, Hihn, read it an weep, you pathetic piece of shit.
    It means what it says.

  • Michael Hihn||

  • Sevo||

    A2, Hihn, read it an weep, you pathetic piece of shit.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    BRAEKING NEWS

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano was too stupid to read past page 1 of the Scalia ruling.

  • DesigNate||

    Probably because they didn't have a problem with those types of shootings (minus gang/drug related activity) before the ban.

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

  • Michael Hihn||

    (snort)

    Probably because they didn't have a problem with those types of shootings (minus gang/drug related activity) before the ban

    That's because a far more strict ban had been enacted eight years earlier .. which you'd have seen at the link ... IN LARGE BOLD TYPE!!

    Hungerford: 19 August 1987

    ...In the aftermath of the incident, Parliament introduced tighter restrictions on gun ownership with the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.

    The Act ((8 years earlier_) banned the ownership of semi-automatic and pump-action rifles, weapons which fire explosive ammunition, short shotguns with magazines and elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles.

    Anyone who wanted to own a shotgun, such as farmers, was told they would need to be registered and would be required to keep it locked in secure storage.

    Registration was also made mandatory for shotguns.

    Yep. Even with those severe restrictions in the UK, our Mass shootings were NOT YET 31,000% higher. Thanks for the correction!

    (minus gang/drug related activity)

    Your memorized slogan missed that this is about MASS SHOOTINGS. But this is ONLY the 3rd time I've had to correct you on this identical point.
    Say ... you're not a hit-and-run assailant are you?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Poor Dumbfuck Hihnsano is mad that he's not going to get his precious gun ban.

  • DesigNate||

    Are you fucking retarded? That was the entire point of the link you fascist bully.

    They instituted a partial ban after their first mass shooting (by all accounts I could find at least). The link even specifies that the Cumbria mass shooting in 2010 was the countries third. So before the first ban there were no mass shootings (I find this hard to believe, but couldn't find anything about shootings previous to that.) and since the first ban there have only been two more.

    Thus, they didn't have the kind of problem with mass shootings that we do so it's not an apt comparisson you fucking retarded monkey.

    You haven't corrected shit you condescending prick.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Are you fucking retarded

    (SNEER)

    The link even specifies that the Cumbria mass shooting in 2010 was the countries third

    BAAAAAAA HAAAA HAAAA

    The third WITH A LONE GUNMAN ROAMING AROUND

    http://www.bbc.com/news/10216955
    The Cumbria incident is the third mass-shooting incident in the UK in which a lone gunman has roamed around seeking out victims.

    So THAT fuckup... leads to THIS fuckup

    So before the first ban there were no mass shootings

    That's a DOUBLE FUCKUP
    1) You fucked up the number of TOTAL shootings
    2) And ANOTHER reading fuckup! OMG

    http://www.bbc.com/news/10216955
    The Cumbria incident is the third mass-shooting incident in the UK in which a lone gunman has roamed around seeking out victims. Each of the previous incidents led to greater restrictions on firearms

    I'll ..... go .....very ..... slowly … for …. you ….

    Cont'd

  • Michael Hihn||

    Part 2

    There .... were ....TWO .....previous .... incidents .... (3-1=2) (Am I going too fast?)

    There ... were .... two .... bans ,...(.called ... 1st ... and ....2nd )

    Each .... ban .... followed .... a .....shooting

    So ... the ... 1st ... ban ... followed .... a..... shooting (still with me, Sluggo?)

    Which... means .... there ... was... a ... shooting ... before ... the ... first ... ban

    But ... YOU ... say

    So before the first ban there were no mass shootings

    (SNORF)

    They didn't have the kind of problem with mass shootings that we do

    THEY HAD ENACTED A BAN!!!

    you fucking retarded monkey.

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

    i only take this time to PROVE (for readers) how totally mindless are the robotics minds of the NRA's puppets, dancing on a string Conservatards. They'll make any excuse … tell any lie … for political gain … with NO sanctity of human life

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Michael Hihn||

    (lol) Read it again,

  • KevinP||

    Perhaps you would like to move to the UK?

    With the sole exception of homicide, the UK is a more violent country than the US. You are more likely to become the victim of a crime of violence in the UK than in the US.

    UK is violent crime capital of Europe (Telegraph)


    Quote:
    It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe... By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.
  • Michael Hihn||

    Lemme 'splain it for you, Lucy.

    Their non-homicide violence is much higher than ours ... likely because their homicides are only 17% as great as ours (per capita) ... probably from their very strict gun laws, ya think?

    So ... what you're saying is that. in the UK, you're over 5 times more likely to get the shit kicked out of you than having your head blown off. Is that because it's kinda hard to kill somebody with a hammer? Or a bow and arrow? Whaddaya think?

    As an aside, MIGHT it be possible that we have so many ARMED bad guys ... BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed?

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

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Poor Dumbfuck Hihnsano is mad that he's not going to get his precious gun ban.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Never promoted one. (yawn)

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    I think many are taking the "arm teachers" to mean teachers need to be armed

    Because that's what being said, and not that teachers should be allowed to carry if they please.

    And my understanding is that the school did have an armed guard, so not the softest target. Deterrents can only do so much, especially against the truly crazy.

    Wayne Allyn Root is right: the solution is armed drones monitoring every school.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    You just need cameras with AI. The same tech that will power autonomous cars could alert faculty if a gun is on the campus.

  • Sevo||

    Trump did nothing more here to 'solve the problem' than Obama ever did; paid lip service to a hope, offered sympathy to the emoters, and waved on the way out the door.
    I did see one later comment regarding his use of some notes, but that is really straw-grasping by the TDS-afflicted; no one ever wanted to hear Obo off-script. Not even Willie Brown, for pete's sake.
    So, like Obo, he will do nothing, because there really isn't a lot that can be done, and like Obo, he'll get credit for 'doing something' as a result. It is passing strange that he had to do nothing of substance in response to a deranged murderer to be credited with 'doing something' as was Obo forever: Emoters are the plague upon the human race.
    A-2, Hihn. Read it and weep, you pathetic piece of shit. And "Rev"? please tell us; you've been called on bullshit.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Justice Scalia's ruling in Heller, SCOTUS website. A dreaded progressive??? (lol)

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. 'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

    .... as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty..... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Plus, NO rights can be absolute, per the definition of unalienable, because such rights can be in conflict with each other.

    What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
    Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
    (You need not know the answers. Merely acknowledge a genuine conflict between two absolutes – just one price of individual liberty)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't like it when Scalia jams this up his ass:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    (You need not know the answers. Merely acknowledge a genuine conflict between two absolutes – just one price of individual liberty)

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is too much of a dumbfuck to specify how two rights conflict and how they conflict when it comes to guns.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Umm, why would I not like MORE proof from Scalia???

    The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    WHY does it violate? YOU hate the reason!
    BECAUSE handguns were in common use during the 1800s, taken by citizens to militia duty ...
    ... also why Scalia, in the the SAME reason, reaffirmed that 2A protects ONLY weapons in common use at ratification ... LIMITED by the militia clause to the modern equivalent of flintlocks and single-shot pistols ... ... for rifles, the equivalent of today's hunting rifles .

    This is WHY the NRA was POWERLESS to challenge the ban on assault-type weapons for ten long years ... It could only be repealed or expire, could NOT overturned. Affirmed by Antonin Scaliia

    "Dumbfuck Himndsano says we had an assault weapons ban! (chortle)

    1994 Assault Weapons Ban

  • Sevo||

    Michael Hihn|2.22.18 @ 12:25AM|#
    "Do YOU have a child or grandchild in an American classroom?"

    BTW, isn't this wonderful?
    Hey, Mike! Should we ignore, oh, A1 for they chilluns, you slimy piece of shit?

  • Lachowsky||

    You guys really ought to try and petition Reason to do something about Hihn. When he's active, this place is unreadable.

  • Ken Shultz||

    We can't really do anything about it, or he'll discuss our posts with the Koch brothers and have the whole place shut down.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (snort) That's the Ken we LOVE!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Aggression The action or an act of attacking without provocation

    Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening.

    Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

    Stalker A person who harasses or persecutes someone with unwanted and obsessive attention

    psychopath
    1. A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.
    2. The Authoritarian Left
    3. The Authoritarian Right

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Michael Hihn||

    SHUT DOWN ALL OPPOSING VIEWS ... IS DONE ONLY BY CAMPUS SNOWFLAKES, Right?

    You guys really ought to try and petition Reason to do something about Hihn. When he's active, this place is unreadable.

    Left - Right = Zero
    LIBERTARIANS ROCK

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is crying like a bitch because his precious gun ban isn't going to happen.

  • Slumbrew||

    Tampermonkey + 'Full Reason' is working well for me:

    https://github.com/sthgrau/greasonable/

    Hinfection innoculation

  • Michael Hihn||

    Sevo, how is that remotely relevant to what I said?

    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 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 3,100% higher
    Do you know any religious folks who care about "sanctity of life" -- not just fetal lives?

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

    What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
    Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
    (You need not know the answers. Merely see a genuine conflict between two absolutes – just one price of individual liberty)

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Lachowsky||

    Public schools that are forced to educate the uneducatable is part of the problem. Some kids deserve to be kicked out of school long before they can build up a desire to shoot the place up. No child left behind and the like insures that genuine whack jobs get to stay in the school, actively shitting up the place, and not learning. Some kids don't belong in school.

  • KevinP||

    We need to put an end to GUN FREE ZONES that have become killing zones for the disarmed and defenseless. The American public is coming around to this point of view.

    Washington Post-ABC News Poll Feb 2018


    Quote:
    Q: (You may have heard about the mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida this week.) Do you think this event could or could not have been prevented by allowing school teachers to carry guns?
    A: Could have been prevented: 42%

    And teachers have heard the message.

    Sheriff offers free CCW class for teachers, 250 sign up in 24 hours
    http://www.fox19.com/story/375.....o-teachers

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do YOU have a child or grandchild in an American classroom?
    CHECK MY PROOF

    Current homicide rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
    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 ... We had 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 31,000% higher

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

    What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
    Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
    (You need not know the answers. Merely see a genuine conflict between two absolutes – just one price of individual liberty)

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Eidde||

    I thought "unalienable" referred to Americans' obligation to pass their rights, unimpaired, to their descendants.

  • Michael Hihn||

    GREAT SATIRE ... a breath of fresh air in this home of drive-by shooters!!!
    (Seriously, that is a GREAT play on words)

  • Eidde||

    Hmmm...I must have said something wrong to get praised by Hihn...

  • Michael Hihn||

    Huh? I said it was FUNNY
    Classy response to a compliment

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't like it when Scalia jams this up his ass:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Teachers union refuses, But fuck 'em. Fox and and the goobers RULE!

    How many teachers would do so?

  • Iheartskeet||

    Well done Reason. A pretty well balanced review of Trump's performance and proposals, without the usual '"oh, by the way, he is Satan incarnate, and Hitler too".

    When he does bad, call him out, when he does well, he ought to at least get a sober assessment.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    There could be a cultural side benefit of requiring all teachers to be armed with guns. The policy would dissuade anti-gun hippies from becoming teachers.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Lol THIS THIS THIS^

  • Cyto||

    Donald Trump acted today in a way that will give his detractors pause

    No it won't. Not even for one tiny second.

    Here's how I know....

    During this morning's commute I listened to 3 radio stations. The old-guy hard rock station morning show guy was on his every-day-since-the-shooting rant about gun control.

    The Christian morning show wasn't fully on the topic at the time, but did have multiple mentions of the children speaking out.

    The pop station morning crew was talking about whether some chick who was upset that her man was on facebook liking bikini and underwear photos of a waitress at a restaurant he frequents was crazy to be upset about it. So they know their target audience.

    So I hopped on CNN when I got to my desk.

    21 headlines about gun control - all on the anti-Republican, pro gun control slant

    One headline on another topic:Techs biggest companies spread conspiracy theories. Again.

    The one headline mentioning Trump directly: "Student slams Trump's 'terrible idea'"

    So can we stop pretending that there isn't a coordinated agenda at work here? 22 out of 22 above-the-fold headlines being partisan hit pieces is pretty definitive.

  • Cyto||

    So what does the other side think of Trump's listening session?

    Head on to HuffPo.

    At a "listening session" with victims of gun violence on Wednesday, President Donald Trump needed a reminder to listen.

    We know this because Trump ― or one of his advisers ― helpfully wrote it down on a cheat sheet he carried into the meeting.

    So no... they are not going to give him any credit for anything under any circumstances.... ever.

  • Michael Hihn||

    For needing a cheat sheet?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Have you ever considered that you MIGHT just be brainwashed? Even a little? How would you know?

    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 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 31,000% higher

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

    What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
    Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
    (You need not know the answers. Merely see a genuine conflict between two absolutes – just one price of individual liberty)

    Left - Right = Zero

    As an aside, MIGHT it be possible that we have so many ARMED bad guys ... BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work in both directions, like the nuclear arms race did? In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

  • ace_m82||

    "Rights", according to Hihn:

    www.reason.com/blog/2017/06/22.....-p#comment

    "Hypothetically, assume an entire Congress is elected on the same platform -- single-payer healthcare. Would it then be proper for Congress to do so? Why not? (I assume you answered wrong.)"
    "Do governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed? Is that principle superior to the Constitution?"
    "You have NO power to shit on Will of the People and Consent of the Governed."

    So Hihn doesn't believe in any unalienable rights, as the majority can simply vote their way into giving government the power to stomp on any "right" you may claim.

    www.reason.com/reasontv/2017/0.....e-will-die

    Government only exists to protect the "right" to choose your ruler, no other rights:

    Me: Government isn't compatible with individual rights (unless there is 100% consent).
    Hihn: INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS MEANS 0.0001% CAN OVERRULE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
    THAT'S DICTATOR RIGHTS, SLAVER. YOUR 'RIGHT' IS TO LEAVE.

    …INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY'ALLOWS THEM TO RESIGN ...FUCKING LEAVE

    Me: By 'liberty' you mean the liberty to leave when they take all you have, enslave you, and kill you?
    Hihn: BEFORE – UNLESS YOU'RE EVEN CRAZIER.

    Government is apparently voluntary as well:

    "Government - like Kiwanis, dumfuck -- is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.
    ITS MEMBERS AGREE, FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY -- TO JAIL THEMSELVES FOR REFUSING TO PAY THE DUES."

  • eyeroller||

    Reason has posted a bunch of articles about this shooting, and I have seen almost nothing point out that mass shootings are NOT a significant threat, and we should STOP worrying about them.

    That is really disappointing. "Reason" should be the one place to get away from the "I'll prove I'm sympathetic by wringing my hands and coming up with solutions" stuff.

    It is very important to understand what is a threat and what is not. I don't know the exact statistics on this stuff, but the chance that your child will be killed in a mass shooting is lower than almost every other imaginable threat.

    If there were a disease that killed 50 people a year, no one would propose structural changes to combat it.

    The correct reaction to mass shootings is no reaction. Stop publishing a million headlines. Stop trying to draw everyone's attention and make the threat seem far greater than it is.

    I don't know why everyone wants to believe mass shooting are a huge threat when they aren't. Maybe we're all a bunch of silly drama queens.

  • Cyto||

    I had some similar thoughts, minus the Reason-shaming.

    There is a rational discussion to be had. And step one is always identifying the problem. It is often the most difficult step.

    In this case, there is a general consensus that we have to "do something to protect our students".

    There are a thousand other agendas, but this one has a lot of consensus.

    So back to your point..... if stopping mass shootings at schools is the problem, you first have to ask "what is the cause of these shootings?" I think it is a pretty fair to speculate that school shootings are largely driven by the fact that the example is out there for people to emulate.

    What is the frequency and size pre-Columbine and post-Columbine. I'd wager we are talking about "close to zero" and "a small but regular-ish number".

    So It might be fair to postulate that our outsized reactions and public handwringing is a large factor in these types of shootings. Absent the presence of this idea in the zeitgeist, there's a good chance that this disturbed kid never thinks of acting out in this way.

    Remember "going postal"? It never happened. Until it happened. Then it was kind of a thing for a while. Now... not so much.

    Of course, this points to an impossible solution: Stop bringing attention to these shootings. You might as well propose unicorn horn as a cure.

  • eyeroller||

    No, I'm not saying "too much reaction causes mass shootings, and that's a problem".

    I'm basically saying there is no problem.

    To the extent that "there is a general consensus that we have to do something to protect our students", THAT ITSELF IS THE PROBLEM.

  • Michael Hihn||

    YOU are the problem.

    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 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 3,100% higher

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

    What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
    Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
    (You need not know the answers. Merely see a genuine conflict between two absolutes – just one price of individual liberty)
  • ace_m82||

    "Rights", according to Hihn:

    www.reason.com/blog/2017/06/22.....-p#comment

    "Hypothetically, assume an entire Congress is elected on the same platform -- single-payer healthcare. Would it then be proper for Congress to do so? Why not? (I assume you answered wrong.)"
    "Do governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed? Is that principle superior to the Constitution?"
    "You have NO power to shit on Will of the People and Consent of the Governed."

    So Hihn doesn't believe in any unalienable rights, as the majority can simply vote their way into giving government the power to stomp on any "right" you may claim.

    www.reason.com/reasontv/2017/0.....e-will-die

    Government only exists to protect the "right" to choose your ruler, no other rights:

    Me: Government isn't compatible with individual rights (unless there is 100% consent).
    Hihn: INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS MEANS 0.0001% CAN OVERRULE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
    THAT'S DICTATOR RIGHTS, SLAVER. YOUR 'RIGHT' IS TO LEAVE.

    …INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY'ALLOWS THEM TO RESIGN ...FUCKING LEAVE

    Me: By 'liberty' you mean the liberty to leave when they take all you have, enslave you, and kill you?
    Hihn: BEFORE – UNLESS YOU'RE EVEN CRAZIER.

    Government is apparently voluntary as well:

    "Government - like Kiwanis, dumfuck -- is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.
    ITS MEMBERS AGREE, FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY -- TO JAIL THEMSELVES FOR REFUSING TO PAY THE DUES."

  • Robert||

    Solution: Next time a mass shooting happens, torch the bldg. to disguise the crime. We just say the victims died in the fire. There was no shooting. People don't panic over the fact that fires occur.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll assume your own children are grown.

  • eyeroller||

    The numbers are even lower than I thought. According to the Washington Post, 176 children/teenagers have been killed in mass shootings over the last 50 years.

    That's less than 4 per year.

    It's important to understand what is a threat and what is not. Car crashes are a small threat. Accidental poisoning is a small threat. Mass shootings cannot be reasonably called a threat at all.

  • Robert||

    Mass shootings are not a threat. Shootings generally are, albeit a small one. But my point is, you're safer vs. being shot when you're in a school than when you're not. So why focus on schools?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Because schools are full of kids, and adults are highly protective of kids, so you can get them to agree to irrationally excessive measures to protect them. "Do it for the children!"

    Yeah, if we were rational this effort would be put into fighting gang shootings, but that wouldn't have the same potential of producing gun control laws to reduce the rights of the law abiding, so it's not a priority.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Here are some hard number in mass shootings. One lesson from this, painful to me, was seeing how much total bullshit is "tribal knowledge" among gun activists. But I'm the guy who often closes with Left-Right = Zero

    FACT: After England's 2nd gun control (1996) they had ONE mass shooting in 22 years
    Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years ... We had 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 3,100% higher

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

    What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
    Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
    (You need not know the answers. Merely see a genuine conflict between two absolutes – just one price of individual liberty)

    2/3 of Americans now support restoring the assault weapons bani (unprotected since 1939). I suspect that would increase sharply if people knew the Parkland shooter killed 17 and injured 20 ... in 3 minutes And it was Reagan who supported a ban on the AK-47 as not a hunting weapon and not needed for defense of a home. 2/3 also for stricter gun laws and "Congress isn't doing enough.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't like it when Scalia jams this up his ass:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

    BECAUSE handguns were in common use during the 1800s, taken by citizens to militia duty ...

    Ujmm, that's the SAME reason Scalia used to reaffirm that 2A protects ONLY weapons in common use at ratification ... LIMITED by the militia clause to the modern equivalent of flintlocks and single-shot pistols ... ... for rifles, the equivalent of today's hunting rifles .

    It's also WHY the NRA was POWERLESS to challenge the ban on assault-type weapons for ten long years ... It could only be repealed or expire, could NOT overturned. Affirmed by Antonin Scaliia

    Anything else?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends that he hasn't been calling for a handgun ban after getting owned like Kunta Kinte by Scalia's own words for the last week.

  • Iheartskeet||

    I thought Reason did reasonably well, as they came out swinging that these were rare and that we better watch closely that our civil rights don't get tossed overboard. I'll say that given the progressive-light sympathies of some of the contributors now (my perception) I was pleasantly surprised.

  • Michael Hihn||

    tmass shootings are NOT a significant threat, and we should STOP worrying about them.

    You've been massively brainwashed

    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 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 3,100% higher

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute – not even Life --- WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what "unalienable" means

    What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict?
    Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
    (You need not know the answers. Merely see a genuine conflict between two absolutes – just one price of individual liberty)

    Left - Right = Zero

    As an aside, MIGHT it be possible that we have so many ARMED bad guys ... BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Doesn't it work in both directions? In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. HOW? and WHY? (let the bullshit flow)

  • ace_m82||

    "Rights", according to Hihn:

    www.reason.com/blog/2017/06/22.....-p#comment

    "Hypothetically, assume an entire Congress is elected on the same platform -- single-payer healthcare. Would it then be proper for Congress to do so? Why not? (I assume you answered wrong.)"
    "Do governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed? Is that principle superior to the Constitution?"
    "You have NO power to shit on Will of the People and Consent of the Governed."

    So Hihn doesn't believe in any unalienable rights, as the majority can simply vote their way into giving government the power to stomp on any "right" you may claim.

    www.reason.com/reasontv/2017/0.....e-will-die

    Government only exists to protect the "right" to choose your ruler, no other rights:

    Me: Government isn't compatible with individual rights (unless there is 100% consent).
    Hihn: INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS MEANS 0.0001% CAN OVERRULE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
    THAT'S DICTATOR RIGHTS, SLAVER. YOUR 'RIGHT' IS TO LEAVE.

    …INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY'ALLOWS THEM TO RESIGN ...FUCKING LEAVE

    Me: By 'liberty' you mean the liberty to leave when they take all you have, enslave you, and kill you?
    Hihn: BEFORE – UNLESS YOU'RE EVEN CRAZIER.

    Government is apparently voluntary as well:

    "Government - like Kiwanis, dumfuck -- is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.
    ITS MEMBERS AGREE, FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY -- TO JAIL THEMSELVES FOR REFUSING TO PAY THE DUES."

  • Michael Hihn||

    "Government - like Kiwanis, dumfuck -- is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION. -- ITS MEMBERS AGREE, FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY

    -- TO JAIL THEMSELVES FOR REFUSING TO PAY THE DUES."

    STRAWMAN!
    HOW MANY MEMBERS WOULD STAY ... AND NOT QUIT ... OTHER THAN YOU?
    (SMIRK)

  • ace_m82||

    STRAWMAN!

    Hihn, you realize that you just called "strawman" on yourself, right? What you quoted was itself a quote of you...

    HOW MANY MEMBERS WOULD STAY ... AND NOT QUIT ... OTHER THAN YOU?

    Argumentum ad populum, another fallacy. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano really wants that gun ban!

  • SimonP||

    It is very important to understand what is a threat and what is not. I don't know the exact statistics on this stuff, but the chance that your child will be killed in a mass shooting is lower than almost every other imaginable threat.

    As are the odds of dying in a terrorist attack, being killed in a robbery on the street, etc.

    Your argument might have some merit if you were, say, arguing that attention should be on lowering gun deaths generally, or focusing our efforts on reducing traffic violence (which kills far more children every year), or addressing some other issue next to which the threat of school shootings is demonstrably less pressing. But that's not what you're arguing. You're trying to argue that school shooting should just be normalized, as an unavoidable, unremarkable fact of life, without any basis for believing that this kind of nonchalant attitude will somehow actually reduce their occurrence.

    And yet you scold Reason for not being reasonable. You're wading into the debate without any evidence whatsoever, making a ridiculously unsupported assertion. Take your toys and go home.

  • Michael Hihn||

    GREAT SimonP

    And ... their logic ... since only one person has been killed by a potato peeler ... why make it illegal?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is MAD that he's not going to get that gun ban he desperately craves.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (snort) WHERE?

  • Michael Hihn||

    (snort) WHERE?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms his senility.

  • Naje||

    I'm sorry but while the shooting was a horrible occurrence, the ones calling themselves survivors without anything actually happening to them beside just being there is an insult to actual survivors, like cancer survivors, accident survivors, others with actual injuries caused by something tragic or those overcoming some disease. Those who were there and not injured were unwilling participants or whatever, by just not survivors.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Hmm. Well, agree they play it up a bit much, but I think the label is accurate.

    If you were on a ship that sank, but managed to get on a lifeboat without your feet even getting wet, we'd still call you a survivor of the sinking. So, if you were at the school when it was attacked, I'd say you are a survivor, whether injured or not.

    I think the problem is their self-assumed moral authority.

  • Heraclitus||

    Gillespie, this is embarrassing. Trump literally had crib notes telling him platitudes that would make him "sound presidential". Even you should know when you have been played. You can do better than this. Just ignore it. There was no reason to write about this listening session. It was designed to appease. It's goal is to look presidential while doing nothing until people forget about things and go back to porn stars and bots.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The gullible can talk about the perceived "genuine empathy." Reason-based adults will focus on the president's decision to go all-in with the gun nuts.

  • Michael Hihn||

    They are his base -- the nasty ones. The authoritarian right.

    FUCK individual liberty, equal, unalienable and/or Go-given rights,

  • ace_m82||

    What does Hihn by "rights"? Let's look at his own words:

    www.reason.com/blog/2017/06/22.....-p#comment

    "Hypothetically, assume an entire Congress is elected on the same platform -- single-payer healthcare. Would it then be proper for Congress to do so? Why not? (I assume you answered wrong.)"
    "Do governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed? Is that principle superior to the Constitution?"
    "You have NO power to shit on Will of the People and Consent of the Governed."

    www.reason.com/reasontv/2017/0.....e-will-die

    Government only exists to protect the "right" to choose your ruler, no other rights:

    Me: Government isn't compatible with individual rights (unless there is 100% consent).
    Hihn: INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS MEANS 0.0001% CAN OVERRULE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
    THAT'S DICTATOR RIGHTS, SLAVER. YOUR 'RIGHT' IS TO LEAVE.

    …INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY'ALLOWS THEM TO RESIGN ...FUCKING LEAVE

    Me: By 'liberty' you mean the liberty to leave when they take all you have, enslave you, and kill you?
    Hihn: BEFORE – UNLESS YOU'RE EVEN CRAZIER.

    Government is apparently voluntary as well:

    "Government - like Kiwanis, dumfuck -- is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.
    ITS MEMBERS AGREE, FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY -- TO JAIL THEMSELVES FOR REFUSING TO PAY THE DUES."

  • Michael Hihn||

    What does Hihn by "rights"? Let's look at his own words:

    1) People have a right to form voluntary associations. (gasp)
    2) Voluntary means, by definition,
    .....a) nobody is forced to join,
    .....b) nobody is forbidden to resign

    So, again, you'e full of shit on principles.
    And full of shit on applying them,

    Yes ... if the Congress voted single-payer health ... unanimously .. it would be within their power to do so ...

    ......... unless overturned by SCOTUS, chump
    We call it checks and balances.
    In a government established by the consent of the governed.
    Who the FUCK are you to forbid that?
    Under what authority can you MANDATE anarchism, against the wishes of 98% of Americans?
    And then WHINE that they have no right to ignore you, precious snowflake.

    While you suck the same teat of liberty you "argue" should not exist. (The mentality of Rothbardian an-caps. An authoritarian MENTALITY does not need a government, merely the ability to sneer at the majority of Americans)

    1) People have a right to form voluntary associations. (gasp)
    2) Voluntary means, by definition,
    .....a) nobody is forced to join,
    .....b) nobody is forbidden to resign

    LEAVE, slaver.

  • ace_m82||

    Yes ... if the Congress voted single-payer health ... unanimously .. it would be within their power to do so

    Power, perhaps, but in violation of "rights" (and the Constitution, assuming it's not amended first).

    We call it checks and balances.

    We call it tyranny.

    In a government established by the consent of the governed.

    1933 Germany.

    Who the FUCK are you to forbid that?

    One free man.

    Under what authority can you MANDATE anarchism

    Do unto others... Even the silver rule, which would be something like, "Don't initiate force."

    While you suck the same teat of liberty you "argue" should not exist.

    Government didn't create "rights", nor freedom (nor law). All predate government by a long time.

    People have a right to form voluntary associations.

    Government is not voluntary.

    Voluntary means, by definition,
    .....a) nobody is forced to join,
    .....b) nobody is forbidden to resign

    I didn't have a choice, I was born into it. Also, tell the South in 1865 about how they were "free to leave it"!

  • Michael Hihn||

    1) People have a right to form voluntary associations. (gasp)
    2) Voluntary means, by definition,
    .....a) nobody is forced to join,
    .....b) nobody is forbidden to resign
    LEAVE, slaver.


    I didn't have a choice, I was born into it.

    LEAVE slaver,

    Also, tell the South in 1865 about how they were "free to leave it"!

    SLAVERY WAS NOT VOLUNTARY!

  • ace_m82||

    LEAVE slaver,

    No. Molon Labe.

    SLAVERY WAS NOT VOLUNTARY!

    Correct. Neither is government. But none of that addresses the question if they were free to leave the US or not.

    Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?

    Do elections ensure that "rights" are protected or not?

  • Michael Hihn||

    SLAVERY WAS NOT VOLUNTARY!

    Correct. But none of that addresses the question if they were free to leave the US or not.

    NOW you don't know if slaves were free to leave the US!
    Tell us .. what rights did slaves have?

  • ace_m82||

    NOW you don't know if slaves were free to leave the US!

    Not the slaves, the states!

    Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?

    Do elections ensure that "rights" are protected or not?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Not the slaves, the states!

    NOW you don't know the Confederacy seceded!
    Followed by EVEN CRAZIER OMFG

    Were the Jews in Germany in the 1940s free to leave?

    ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did.
    YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!!

    http://www.historynet.com/fdr-st-louis.htm
    SEPTEMBER 2009 — To his critics, Franklin Roosevelt's response to the Holocaust was epitomized by his June 1939 decision to refuse political asylum to more than 900 passengers aboard the German ocean liner St. Louis. The passengers, nearly all of them Jewish refugees, had the lights of Miami in sight when the United States government refused them permission to disembark. Roosevelt did not respond to pleas for help. The ship returned to Europe, and the Holocaust claimed more than a third of those who returned to the Continent.

    How many times can you make a TOTAL fool of yourself on a single page?

    Do elections ensure that "rights" are protected or not?

    Answered at least five times.

    STOP HARASSING ME, THUG,

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano melts down because he's a crybaby bitch dumbfuck.

  • ace_m82||

    NOW you don't know the Confederacy seceded!

    Does it make you feel bad to lie anymore? Or have you fully killed your conscience?

    ANOTHER MASSIVE FUCKUP!!! Of course they could,,.,.and many did.
    YOU THINK HITLER WANTED THEM TO STAY!

    Oh, so why didn't he just deport them? RIIIIIIGGGGHHHT, because he wanted them DEAD. I can't believe you're defending the Nazis!

    How many times can you make a TOTAL fool of yourself on a single page?

    Thus far, zero. You, on the other hand, can do it every time you hit "submit".

    Me: Do elections ensure that "rights" are protected or not?
    Hihn: Answered at least five times.

    I must have missed that. I'm sure it would be really easy to post it again, right?

    Oh, right, maybe you'll say PEOPLE AREN'T INFALLIBLE, but that doesn't actually answer the question.

    So, do elections protect rights, or not? If yes, then the Nazis protected rights. If not, then "the will of the people" doesn't protect rights, and "the will of the people" is a meaningless appeal and your entire argument is wrong. So, defend Nazis, or admit you're wrong (or throw a fit). We see you're defending Nazis, because you're incapable of admitting you're wrong.

    So, in the 1933 Germany, 1932 US, and 1940-1944 US, were "rights" protected by the elections or not?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Also, tell the South in 1865 about how they were "free to leave it"!

    NOW you don't know the Confederacy seceded!

    Does it make you feel bad to lie anymore?

    Whines when called out. (sneer)

  • ace_m82||

    Whines when called out.

    No, you try to play confused (well... more confused) when you've lost the argument. You lie, cheat, and steal and try to say it's "the will of the people" and is therefore somehow OK.

  • Michael Hihn||

    We call it checks and balances.

    We call it tyranny.

    WE DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT EITHER?

  • ace_m82||

    It's not a "right". It never was. It was a method of attempting to defend against tyranny (that failed).

    You have the right to do everything other than initiate force, election or no election. No election can change that.

  • Michael Hihn||

    YOU'RE A PUSSY! AND A TEAT-SUCKING ENTITLEMENT WHORE.
    Your REJECT and ATTACK American values ... say we have no right to create or sustain those values .. WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION. You WHINE that they have to right to "violate my rights." THOSE rights, whatever you babble about, DO NOT EXIST HERE yet. (keep reading, student)

    YOU FULLY RETAIN YOUR RIGHT TO … LEAVE. And THAT is where you were FJNALLY baited to reveal your ignorance.

    You're NOT here VOLUNTARILY, you whine . You were " born into it." ARGGGHHHHH

    SO WERE THE BOAT PEOPLE OF VIETNAM .. AND CUBA … WHO HAD THE BALLS TO LEAVE A GENUINE OPPRESSIVE REGIME

    WORSE, your TOTALLY bullshit Nazi analogy BLEW UP IN YOUR SNARKY PUSS … when YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW that thousands of Jews left or escaped Nazi Germany … you smug PUSSY.

    JEWS … CUBANS ... VIETNAMESE FOUGHT AND DIED FOR THEIR LIBERTIES … to escape the most oppressive regimes in human history ... While you, AND YOUR FELLOW WHINING PUSSIES say you're HELPLESS to leave the freest society on earth because … you were "born into it."

    BULLSHIT. You suck the teat of America's liberties, because …. YOU FEEL ENTITLED TO SOMETHING YOU'VE NEITHER CREATED NOR SUPPORTED. A self-righteous Welfare King - by definition!

    Cont'd

  • Michael Hihn||

    Part 2

    ***ONE MORE TIME

    1) Governments drive their JUST powers from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. (Jefferson AND Rand)

    2) You DEMAND that YOUR DIFFERENT VALUES carry the same weight as AMERICA'S VALUES ... you arrogant prick

    3) You snarl they have no right to "violate my rights" -- but THOSE rights (whatever you're babbling about today --- DO NOT EXIST in America yet (are not yet protected) --- by the Consent of the Governed .. WHICH IS BOTH JUST AND MORAL IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

    4) THAT is why Ayn Rand RIDICULED Rothbardians (the only libertarians at the time)

    Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand

    15. GOVERNMENT FINANCING IN A FREE SOCIETY
    "Any program of voluntary government financing is the last, not the first, step on the road to a free society - the last, not the first, reform to advocate. ... It would work only when the basic principles and institutions of a free society have been established. It would not work today."

    WHY would it not work yet? WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

    She said the same about Galt's Gulch

    P.S. You confuse moral philosophy with political philosophy, and and are WAY out of your death.

  • ace_m82||

    Governments drive their JUST powers from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. (Jefferson AND Rand)

    That is what they said, but they are wrong. Voters vote to take away all "rights" (they initiate force). What you did was an "Appeal to Authority". What I did was an "Appeal to reason".

    You DEMAND that YOUR DIFFERENT VALUES carry the same weight as AMERICA'S VALUES

    Oh, no, "my" values of not initiating force (silver rule) have more weight than any "American" value of initiating force.

    You snarl they have no right to "violate my rights" -- but THOSE rights (whatever you're babbling about today --- DO NOT EXIST in America yet

    Assuming that word soup could be true, then they are are not "unalienable", because they can be taken away by the whim of the voter. Democracy is truly the "god that failed". www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra.....hat_Failed

    WHY would it not work yet? WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

    Yes, people are evil and selfish. That doesn't make initiations of force OK or moral. The thing that initiates force (twice, by definition, aka "government") cannot bring you "rights" any more than a magic wand can.

    You confuse moral philosophy with political philosophy, and and are WAY out of your death.

    There is no difference, and those who would argue otherwise want to feel good about their coveting, stealing, and murdering.

    But, regardless of your moral ineptitude:

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Non-responsive diversions (yawn)

  • ace_m82||

    Yes, actually answering your quoted points, point by point, is definitely "non-responsive diversions".

    When was the last time you actually answered something I asked (let alone everything I said!)?

  • ace_m82||

    YOU'RE A PUSSY! AND A TEAT-SUCKING ENTITLEMENT WHORE.

    Nope.

    Your REJECT and ATTACK American values

    If initiations of force are those values, then yes.

    You WHINE that they have to right to "violate my rights." THOSE rights, whatever you babble about, DO NOT EXIST HERE yet.

    "Rights" are innate.

    YOU FULLY RETAIN YOUR RIGHT TO … LEAVE.

    Like the Jews in Germany did?

    YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW that thousands of Jews left or escaped Nazi Germany

    Everyone knew that. For some reason, the Nazis were attempting to stop them!

    While you, AND YOUR FELLOW WHINING PUSSIES say you're HELPLESS to leave the freest society on earth...

    Not the freest. Also, I can leave, but I'm not going to. I have the right to do all but initiate force regardless of where I am. Whether the government recognizes that right is another question.

    BULLSHIT. You suck the teat of America's liberties...

    No, I retain my innate right to do everything other than initiate force. Government didn't invent it and has no right to take it away.

    Continued...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online