Active shooter?

[pErvinalia]

The best part is that there is none.

[devogue]

Anyway, most gun nuts would LOVE to do 144 hours of tactical wanking.

Nah, I ain't wastin' 3 1/2 weeks of my drinking time, I'll jes shoot the motherfuckers and feed 'em to the gators.

A tactical wank for me is a 20 second quickie in to a sweet wrapper beside my bed before the kitten catches on and jumps on my furiously wagging hand.

[Scot Dutchy]

FFS!

[Brian Peacock]

[JimC]

I read a recent article (can't find a link at the moment) where a primary school in the US has buckets of rocks in each classroom for students to throw at a rampaging gunman...

You couldn't make this shit up...

[Joe]

I read a recent article (can't find a link at the moment) where a primary school in the US has buckets of rocks in each classroom for students to throw at a rampaging gunman...

You couldn't make this shit up...

That was in my local paper this morning. They didn't put it on their website, but here's a link. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/24/us/penns ... index.html

[pErvinalia]

Give the kids guns. It's the only way to make sure they will be safe.

[Forty Two]

Down with clear backpacks! This unconstitutional outrage will not stand, man!

[pErvinalia]

It's not the answer, though. They want a solution, not a bandaid.

[Forty Two]

You're right about that, but when your activism and protest is a demand for government to restrict people's rights in order to obtain safety, then the government will oblige.

[mistermack]

Is there such a thing as a right to not feel threatened? I think that's a fairly fundamental right, and it clashes with the right to bear arms.

In your own home, you have a right to ban people from carrying weapons, if it makes you feel threatened.
Likewise, in public, the nation have the right to ban people from carrying weapons, if they want.
It's balancing one right against another, and the people have the choice.
It's not a case of restricting one set of rights in a vacuum.

In the USA, they screech about the right to bear arms like the Muslims do about Islam, with about the same amount of logic.

"IT IS WRITTEN" is the argument. Fucking moronic.

[Forty Two]

Is there such a thing as a right to not feel threatened? I think that's a fairly fundamental right, and it clashes with the right to bear arms.

It doesn't really make much sense. A right to feel or not feel a certain way? I mean, one's feelings are their own, so people can feel one way or another. Obviously, you have freedom of thought, which includes what you feel and don't feel. But, If we said that each individual has a right "not to feel threatened" by other private citizens, then the universe of things that would have to be stopped in order to make sure every invidual doesn't "feel" threatened is pretty darn broad.

What about people who feel threatened if they see someone with a hoodie walking down the street towards them? What about people who feel threatened because someone else plays violent video games, or reads evil books?

Plus, fundamental rights are rights vis-a-vis the State or the government. You have a right to free speech, as against government prior restraint, but if you go to your neighbor's house and mouth off during poker night, he can kick you out.

The government/state has the obligation to preserve public order and the common welfare, subject to the limitations on government/state conduct (that it fulfill its obligations without infringing on the fundamental rights). None of the other fundamental rights is an amorphous right as against or vis-a-vis other private citizens.

In your own home, you have a right to ban people from carrying weapons, if it makes you feel threatened.

or even if they don't. It's not a question of you justifying your decision by your feelings - it's your power over your property. You have property rights over your home, so you can kick the person out for any reason or no reason.

Likewise, in public, the nation have the right to ban people from carrying weapons, if they want.

That depends on whether or not the government/state is limited by an overarching, controlling document or constitution which says otherwise. The contract between the people and the government or state is the constitution. If the people delegated powers to the government/state, but carved out an exception (speech, for example), then the government/state does not have that "right" (better word is "power" or "authority.") People have rights. Governments have obligations, and limitations.

It's balancing one right against another, and the people have the choice.
It's not a case of restricting one set of rights in a vacuum.

When you are talking about government action in an area where the government is acting within its delegated authority, AND is not infringing on a fundamental right, we are left with a balancing of the "interests" of various persons in that society. However, where there is an individual, fundamental right (as against government/state action), then the government action in question is outside of the authority granted to it by the consent of the governed.

In the USA, they screech about the right to bear arms like the Muslims do about Islam, with about the same amount of logic.

Well, actually, you have missed the logic. The logic is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government. Thus, the logic is that if the government makes a law which does infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then it is unconstitutional (i.e., not within the powers delegated to the government by the governed). So, the question left for debate is whether a particular government action does, in fact, infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In my view, there are regulations that can be imposed which do not infringe on the right to keep and bear "arms." The Devil is in the Details. However, the second amendment does mean something, and until amended or repealed, it must mean something, for the good of the Republic itself.

"IT IS WRITTEN" is the argument. Fucking moronic.

That isn't the argument. The argument is more like this:

1. The government gets its power from the consent of the governed.
2. The governing document which "constitutes" (creates) the government is the constitution. That document creates the government and its structure, and delineats the powers delegated to each branch. In the US's case, there are three branches - Legislative, Executive and Judicial - and they have the powers set forth in the Constitution. In addition, they were subjected to certain limitations - such as the legislative branch being subjected to the first amendment, which says that there shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and/or petition their government for redress of grievances, etc. What that means is that the powers delegated to the government to legislate is limited such that the government may not make laws which infringe into these areas. The fundamental rights limit the power of the government. In addition, the government in the US has had its power limited by an amendment which restricts its power to legislate in a way which infringes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
3. I law which prohibits someone from keeping and bearing arms, they say, infringes the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Therefore, it is outside the government's power and authority to do it, absent amendment or repeal of that amendment.

The legal issues get more complicated when viewed in light of the 14th amendment to the US constitution. Prior to that amendment, the US Constitution did not apply in any way to the individual state governments (like Maryland, Florida, New York, California, etc.). That's because the US Constitution "constituted" the United States (federal) government. The state governments were "constituted" via their own state constitutions, and their power and limitations were not subject to the federal constitutional provisions (and often would be different). I.e., for the first 80-90 years of the US, the "bill of rights" only applied to limit the conduct of the federal government, and if states didn't have a "free speech" right in their constitutions, then they would not be subject to the "First Amendment" at all. However, after the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the language of that amendment was interpreted to limit the power of the states to do certain things. The amendment itself says that the "states" my not do x, y or z, etc. The US Supreme Court used that amendment to "incorporate" the fundamental rights in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, into the 14th Amendment's due process and liberty clause, and thus made them applicable to the states regardless of whether the state constitution addressed the issue or not. Over the ensuing decades, the SCOTUS pretty much made all the fundamental rights applicable to the states, and thus were limitations on California's power to legislate to the same extent as they were limitations on federal power. Eventually, that included the Second Amendment.

The import there is that there was a time when States and municipalities could regulate the fuck out of guns, and even bar them. A lot of old west town - far from being the gunfight stadiums they are thought of by some people nowadays - were free of guns - with guns being illegal to be carried around in town. Take Tombstone -- Gunfight at the OK Corale town - Wyatt Earp and the Clanton Cowboys, etc. You could carry your gun when traveling into town, or when leaving the town, but while in town, you had to check your gun with the Sheriff. No carrying in town. The Gunfight at the OK Corale occurred when the Clantons and McLaurys were ostensibly on their way out of town -- but shit got real and the Earps and Doc Holliday and the Cowboys threw down.

So, the logic is much different than you suggest. And, your logic about a fundamental right to not feel a certain way is not particularly clear, and does not seem logical. Can you lay out this fundamental right? As against whom? What are the parameters of this right? Does it include anything that makes people feel threatened, or just guns? What's the logic?

[mistermack]

TLDR.

But as to the first bit, you'd soon bleat, if you felt threatened.
If I feel threatened, it's for a reason. Not some whim in my head.

I presume you're the same.

[Brian Peacock]

You're right about that, but when your activism and protest is a demand for government to restrict people's rights in order to obtain safety, then the government will oblige.

Hmm. I think they just don't want to be shot at in their classrooms, churches, nightclubs, concerts and shopping malls any more. The government is the only authority they can appeal to, isn't it?

Did you watch the video I posted btw? Forget what the gun-lobby meme-factory is pumping out and look at the faces in the crowd, listen to their cheers and their enthusiasm, hear the message behind the rhetoric: "We don't want to live like this any more." People are tired of living with the fear of well-arned random nutters with a grudge, and tired of picking up the pieces when that fear is given a face. These young people don't want a future like that - and they're passionate about it.

[Rum]

The thought of sitting in a McDonalds and the possibility that they guy at the next table might open fire at any moment. That must be a fear in the mind of many an American. It must be horrible to live with.