Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, December 03, 2021

Authorities are searching for the parents of a teenager accused of killing four people in a Michigan high school shooting earlier this week, the sheriff's office confirmed Friday.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"This might be the kind of thing that gets parents to use more precautions with gun safety around their children."

As if their kids harming themselves, their family or others isn't enough motivation?
This will probably have very little impact on how other parents see themselves and their families because little johnny might be a little odd but he would never do anything like that. You know, the exact the same thing many of these parents have said before their own little johnny runs up into classroom like blam blam blam.

#1 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2021-12-03 12:24 PM | Reply

Sensible parents already don't let their children play with guns.
Crazy parents won't care.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 12:26 PM | Reply

#2 | Posted by snoofy

These seem like certifiable parents. Did you see the nut job post/letter to Donald Trump she had after he was elected?

I am glad they are facing charges. Absolute negligence on so many levels.

#3 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2021-12-03 12:45 PM | Reply

"I am glad they are facing charges."

It would be better if they were not able to buy guns in the first place.

But Republicans are terrified that if these sorts of people won't be allowed to buy guns, then they won't be allowed to buy guns either. Which may well be the case, when you get right down to it.

Are there any Republicans who think these parents shouldn't have been allowed to buy guns? Maybe Eberly would like to step up?

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 12:59 PM | Reply

I'm working a new job and my son has had two surgeries... my time to keep up on the news has suffered...

What about these parents backgrounds should have disqualified them from purchasing. Seeing how they treated owning the gun after purchase certainly doesn't help, but how can that be known?

#5 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 01:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It would be better if they were not able to buy guns in the first place.

Would it? To use hind sight makes a poor argument. Couldn't we say this about anything, of course we could, that is why its a stupid argument.

For instance fascist racist claim "wouldn't it be better if illegal immigrants that commit crimes not be able to enter the country in the first place".

Should we close the border? Hell no ...

I would say in both the OpenBorder and 2ndAmendment one should have to take an class; Civics in the former, and NRA in the latter. But even this stretches my envelope of hatred of the Government.

#FreeTheGuns
#OpenTheBorders
#DefundThePolice

#6 | Posted by oneironaut at 2021-12-03 02:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"What about these parents backgrounds should have disqualified them from purchasing."

We'll never know, because a background check was never done.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 02:38 PM | Reply

Since you don't support background checks, asking what in it would be a red flag... it doesn't seem like you're making a sincere argument.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 02:40 PM | Reply

Just to add some facts to the thread:

On the morning of the Nov. 30 shooting, the suspect's parents were urgently called into the high school after one of his teachers found an alarming note he had drawn, scrawled with images of a gun, a person who had been shot, and the words, "Blood everywhere," and, "The thoughts won't stop. Help me."

The day before the shooting, a teacher had seen the suspect searching online for ammunition for the gun in class, which led to a meeting with school officials, the prosecutor said. After being informed by the school about their son's behavior, Jennifer Crumbley texted to her son: "LOL, I'm not mad at you, you just have to learn not to get caught," Ms. McDonald said.

sooo, perhaps the parents kind of dropped the ball buying a gun like a week before

#9 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-12-03 02:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

More like the parents set the ball in motion by buying a gun the week before.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 02:57 PM | Reply

KWRX25 you're a straight shooter, no pun intended.

See any red flags in #9 that justify taking their guns away?

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 02:59 PM | Reply

"The note contained "a drawing of a semiautomatic handgun pointing at the words the thoughts won't stop. help me."

He was literally asking for help. The school tried, though not to the extent they probably could have, and his parents completely ignored his plea. The parents will probably claim they never suspected he was capable of such violence even though he told him exactly what he was planning.
I'm not familiar with what the school policies are but I thought it was pretty much standard for schools to have a zero tolerance policies for threats violence. Why were police not called? Why was he not suspended on the spot and sent home with his parents or taken into custody until his behavior could be investigated and counseling could be obtained?

#12 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2021-12-03 03:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#12 Exactly. If they can find a note like that and the kid is still allowed in school, that is an unbelievable flaw in policy or implementation.

That's not to shift blame from the parents, whom i hope suffer greatly for the monster they created and enabled.

#13 | Posted by JOE at 2021-12-03 03:50 PM | Reply

Well our kid is in jail. It's time to get out of here.

#14 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2021-12-03 03:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#12 ... his parents completely ignored his plea ...

Based upon some things I've been reading (e.g., Jennifer Crumbley texted to her son: "LOL, I'm not mad at you, you just have to learn not to get caught," from #9 above and drudge.com ), I'd say that the parents did worse than ignore his plea.

They seem to have actively pushed him further into the outcome.

#15 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-12-03 03:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And again, what freedoms are we as a society sacrificing to the alter of the 2nd amendment?

#16 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-12-03 03:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The 2nd Amendment doesn't even say what the current-day interpretation deems it to say.

From its inception, all the way up to about 20 years ago, the overwhelming (if not unanimous) interpretation from SCOTUS and every single federal appellate court to address the issue was that a weapon needed to have some nexus to a "well-regulated militia" in order for the Amendment to confer any rights of ownership. It was only when the judiciary (in particular SCOTUS) became stacked with enough FedSoc trainees that the "interpretation" suddenly changed.

#17 | Posted by JOE at 2021-12-03 03:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Congress should pay attention to this. Just as this kid created art work depicting him killing his classmates, Rep Paul Gosar published art work depicting him killing another member of congress.

Such threats should not be allowed. Paul Gosar should be expelled and law enforcement should investigate him for harassing/threating a member of Congress.

#18 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2021-12-03 03:57 PM | Reply

Great. More domestic Terrorists on the loose.

Wanted by the fbi. Maybe they still think a gun will protect them from what they perceive as a tyrannical government?

They should hook up with Steve Bannon.

Being wanted by the DOJ seems to be a common theme among these folks who want to "blow up" our society.

I just hope they enjoy their new careers in the correctional system.

#19 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-12-03 03:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is seriously ------ up, but if there was ever an in-your-face example of why it's going to happen again and again, it's this.

I have a hunch all three are going to end up dead very soon.

But people kill people.

#20 | Posted by bocaink at 2021-12-03 03:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"He was literally asking for help."

Whose job is it to help.
The school?
The parents?
The Second Amendment?

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:03 PM | Reply

Who said I was against background checks?

I'm not sure at all that a bg check would have flagged anything about the school having caught him doing these drawings though.

re-reading though you ask about taking their guns away?... Good question. I'd like to say that in that case authorities 'flagging the child as having issues' would warrant police talking to the parents, asking if weapons are in the house and if they are properly locked. And I wouldn't support them being taken away.

But I have to admit I really paused, as these parents seem like the type that would have scoffed at that, and even rebelled themselves against it.

I ultimately feel these parents are the exception and not the norm.

What I'm left thinking about though is a house with a gun and storage of it as the primary self defense weapon.... in MA there are different rules about having 1 gun not locked and treated as an extension of being 'carried' for home defense. I think reasonable people, given this sort of information about their child, would choose to secure that gun too... but would everyone? Interesting question.

#22 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 04:07 PM | Reply

"Who said I was against background checks?"

Let's do this:
You support background checks for all gun purchases, yes or no?

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:08 PM | Reply

"asking if weapons are in the house and if they are properly locked. And I wouldn't support them being taken away."

Even when the answer is "No, they're not properly locked?"

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:09 PM | Reply

I've said it before and will say it blue in the face: I don't have a problem with gun ownership, I have a major problem with gun nuts. Ironically 99 percent of the people that fear their guns are going to be taken away are the gun nuts.

#25 | Posted by bocaink at 2021-12-03 04:13 PM | Reply

- The 2nd Amendment doesn't even say what the current-day interpretation deems it to say.

"A fraud on the American public." That's how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun.

When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum."

www.politico.com

Dispelling the Myth of the Second Amendment

www.brennancenter.org

Burger was an actual Conservative, unlike the blatant nutjobs of today.

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2021-12-03 04:16 PM | Reply

I do support the concept of background checks for guns... I also support the right of a private sale though. I'd support expanding the bg check infrastructure to support private sales more easily.

To answer your question, in essence I support bg checks for all sales

#27 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 04:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Now there's a report that the parent's attorney had advised them to leave town but he says that they will return if and when they are formally charged. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

OCU

#28 | Posted by OCUser at 2021-12-03 04:17 PM | Reply

They're hiding out at Mar-A-Lago. Trump needed a new maid and janitor after the didn't pay the last ones.

#29 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2021-12-03 04:18 PM | Reply

"I do support the concept of background checks for guns"

Concept my ass.
Are you aware that mandating background checks is illegal, and will never be implemented under the current interpretation of the Second Amendment?

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:19 PM | Reply

www.ojp.gov

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2021-12-03 04:19 PM | Reply

#26 corky...

the summary your link offers:

SUMMARY: Contrary to widespread mythology about the right to keep and bear arms, private militias are not authorized under federal or state law, are not protected by the Second Amendment, and are unlawful in every state.

I haven't seen anyone argue for the creation of a private militia, and link that to 2nd amendment...it's a disingenuous strawman.

#32 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 04:21 PM | Reply

"I also support the right of a private sale though."

I can see how a background check in this regard is unworkable. But there can still be a paperwork requirement which puts the buyer on the hook if they don't somehow self-certify. And common sense requirements like you can't private sell to someone who says they are going to commit gun crime, much like in many states a bartender can't serve someone who appears drunk.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:21 PM | Reply

It's 4:20, so I know why all of your are posting......

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2021-12-03 04:21 PM | Reply

Federal law already requires a bg check for licensed dealers sales Snoofy. So I'm getting your point

#35 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 04:23 PM | Reply

Now there's a report that the parent's attorney had advised them to leave town but he says that they will return if and when they are formally charged. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
OCU

#28 | POSTED BY OCUSER

Ive seen a report where they stopped communicating with their lawyer.

#36 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-12-03 04:23 PM | Reply

Police searching for James and Jennifer Crumbley; attorney says they'll turn themselves in
www.freep.com

...During a hearing that started around noon before Judge Julie Nicholson, a lieutenant with the Oakland County Sheriff's Office said the parents were not in custody. The Oakland County Fugitive Team, along with the FBI and U.S, Marshal Service, are searching for the couple as of Friday afternoon.

"The action of fleeing and ignoring their attorney certainly adds weight to the charges," Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said in a release Friday. "They cannot run from their part in this tragedy."

However, the Crumbleys' attorneys, Smith and Mariell Lehman, said that despite reports, the couple is not on the run and will be returning to the area to be arraigned.

"The Crumbleys left town on the night of the tragic shooting for their own safety," they said in a message to the Free Press:

"On Thursday night we contacted the Oakland County prosecutor to discuss this matter and to advise her that James and Jennifer Crumbley would be turning themselves in to be arraigned. Instead of communicating with us, the prosecutor held a press conference to announce charges.

"The Crumbleys left town on the night of the tragic shooting for their own safety. They are returning to the area to be arraigned. They are not fleeing from law enforcement despite recent comments in media reports."


...

Did they run once they found out they were wanted by law enforcement, and now their lawyers are trying to create a backstory to cover for them?

#37 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-12-03 04:25 PM | Reply

No, it doesn't require a background check.

A background check takes several days to complete.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:25 PM | Reply

I wonder if these parents are militia types, though if they only had one gun at home (recently bought) I would assume no.

The Crumbleys will not be winning Parents of the Year award.

#39 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-12-03 04:25 PM | Reply

- I haven't seen anyone argue for the creation of a private militia

You must be either blind or using a, "a disingenuous strawman"

www.law.georgetown.edu

www.usatoday.com

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2021-12-03 04:26 PM | Reply

We'll never know, because a background check was never done.

#7 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I know you are talking out of your ass as usual, but post a link...

#41 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 04:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I mean NOT getting your point.

There is already a federally mandated bg check.

#42 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 04:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

@#28 ... Now there's a report that the parent's attorney had advised them to leave town ...

Maybe they are taking the mother's advice ... ~don't get caught.~

#43 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-12-03 04:27 PM | Reply

And again, what freedoms are we as a society sacrificing to the alter of the 2nd amendment?

The ones enshrined in the Constitution.

But you are too stupid to understand that.

And no, I'm not going to educate you on this. Pull out a copy of the constitution to educate yourself.

#44 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 04:28 PM | Reply

"They are not fleeing from law enforcement despite recent comments in media reports."

Yeah, but they missed their arraignments.

#45 | Posted by Zed at 2021-12-03 04:29 PM | Reply

The Right-wing takes up the cause of these persecuted parents in 3..2..1

#46 | Posted by Zed at 2021-12-03 04:30 PM | Reply

BTW the school has alot of splaining to do too.

from what we know already, on Monday, Ethan was seen searching for ammunition online, the following day the schools finds him with disturbing notes with guns and blood and dead bodies, literally screaming for help.

WTF was he allowed to stay in school?

#47 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-12-03 04:30 PM | Reply

"And no, I'm not going to educate you on this. Pull out a copy of the constitution to educate yourself."

You don't have an answer, you're just hiding behind your false idol.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:30 PM | Reply

There is already a federally mandated bg check.
#42 | POSTED BY KWRX25

That's not a background check in any meaningful sense of the word.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:31 PM | Reply

The Crumblys are likely seeking refuge at Mara Pedo.

#50 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2021-12-03 04:31 PM | Reply

If you bring a gun into your home, and don't do everything necessary to secure it, then you should be held accountable when it is used in a crime. I been to many burglary calls where the victim claimed their gun is missing from the bedside table, or their sock drawer, or the bedroom closet shelf. I hate to tell you, but bad guys look on your closet shelves, in your bedside table and in your sock drawer for valuables, if they find your gun, even better!

#51 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2021-12-03 04:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- ~don't get caught.~

Yep... and that's a lot easier said than done these days.

At least we know we'll be able to trace their Defense teams funding back to the NRA and Trump's Re-election Campaign.

#52 | Posted by Corky at 2021-12-03 04:31 PM | Reply

Nice link to a page about illegal militias Corky. Of course actually reading the page would show there is nothing about the 2nd amendment other than the mention that it doesn't allow for private militias.

I know the constitution uses the word militia in the 2nd amendment... but that doesn't mean that every mention of a militia is about the 2nd amendment. You seem to not get that.

No REAL look at the 2nd ends with the interpretation that it allows for illegal private militias.

#53 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 04:32 PM | Reply

Lots shootings in Chicago. I don't recall seeing many times where parents were arrested. This seems to be a political persecution because the mother wrote a letter supporting Trump.

#54 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-12-03 04:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#49 but it exists, and I've never argued against it, or said that it shouldn't be expanded.

#55 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 04:33 PM | Reply

And again, what freedoms are we as a society sacrificing to the alter of the 2nd amendment?
The ones enshrined in the Constitution.
But you are too stupid to understand that.
And no, I'm not going to educate you on this. Pull out a copy of the constitution to educate yourself.

#44 | POSTED BY BOAZ

So, by your own words we are sacrificing freedoms enshrined in the constitution at the altar of the 2nd amendment.

You aren't very bright are you?

Again, consider the freedoms we have lost to unbridled gun ownership. For example, look at what schools have to do as a result-act like fortresses, live shooter drills, police stationed in schools.

It really is bizarre.

#56 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-12-03 04:34 PM | Reply

In case there is any confusion, I mean true confusion not the -------- gun fondlers spew:

NICS is not a background check. It's a "are you on a list of prohibited persons" check. It's a simple database lookup, to one database, which is so poorly maintained "The FBI estimates that, on average, about 3,000 people pass a NICS background check each year despite being prohibited under state or federal law from purchasing a gun." giffords.org

You'd never consider merely passing a NICS check a thorough enough background check to hire a teacher or a police officer, for example.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:34 PM | Reply

#54 I'd be shocked if the police could prove that the guns used in shootings in Chi came from a parent, and their negligence in securing it.

Political or not, it's the right thing to do here.

#58 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 04:35 PM | Reply

The pair allegedly gave their son access to the gun, did not secure it in the home, ignored warning signs from their son, and did not cooperate with school investigations into his concerning behavior, Oakland County Prosector Karen McDonald said.

I dont know Visitor, but if the above is true and found to be true, I think they should be prosecuted.

#59 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 04:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#57,

You dont have to pass a background check like you are referring to exercise a constitutional right.

A check to see if you are a convicted criminal, maybe, but not a full on background check if you have done nothing wrong or been convicted of anything.

#60 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 04:37 PM | Reply

I dont know Visitor, but if the above is true and found to be true, I think they should be prosecuted.
#59 | POSTED BY BOAZ

For what, exactly?
Guns don't kill people, according to you.
We shouldn't even be focusing on the gun, according to you.
It's the moral decline, according to you.
His mom wrote a letter praising Trump for defending the Second Amendment, and you agree with those morals.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:37 PM | Reply

"You dont have to pass a background check like you are referring to exercise a constitutional right."

Indeed you don't.
And that's exactly why these kinds of shootings will just keep happening.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:38 PM | Reply

and BTW, are we doing background checks to enable abortions?

#63 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 04:38 PM | Reply

- You seem to not get that.

I seem not to care that you disagree with the great Conservative Justice Burger's REAL look at the 2nd Amendment or the Brennan Center's evaluation.

It's just totally not surprising, considering I'm talking to a seemingly illiterate "libertarian".

#64 | Posted by Corky at 2021-12-03 04:38 PM | Reply

I dont know Visitor, but if the above is true and found to be true, I think they should be prosecuted.

#59 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Why is boaz so anti-2nd amendment?

He really is starting to sound like a liberal holding people accountable and all!

So, Boaz, why do you hate America?

#65 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-12-03 04:39 PM | Reply

And that's exactly why these kinds of shootings will just keep happening.

Actually, no, you are wrong.

They will keep happening because we have a society and culture that is bereft of morals and decency.

And some are mentally ill.

#66 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 04:39 PM | Reply

and BTW, are we doing background checks to enable abortions?

#63 | POSTED BY BOAZ A

WOW, i got whiplash trying to follow THAT logic!

#67 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-12-03 04:40 PM | Reply

He really is starting to sound like a liberal holding people accountable and all!

Nah,

liberals dont hold accountable. Only in this case, it fits your ideology. Everything else you liberals stand for is about avoiding accountability for life's actions.

#68 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 04:40 PM | Reply

#57 Snoofy, so now you're getting into the quality of the bg check.

I think this overlaps what a lot of gun owners ask for; Not new laws but let's enforce the ones we have.

I would say this is a variant of that. We don't need a new law here, but let's make the bg check worthwhile if it exists but is only a rubber stamp.

Sure they'll be debate about how to do that, and what should be in it. But it would be a meaningful way forward for a change.

#69 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 04:41 PM | Reply

Guns don't kill people, according to you.

They dont.

We shouldn't even be focusing on the gun, according to you.

We arent. We are focused on the negligence of the parents..

Do try to keep up.

#70 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 04:41 PM | Reply

They will keep happening because we have a society and culture that is bereft of morals and decency.
And some are mentally ill.
#66 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Sounds like the bulk of ------- cultists, so you may have something there.

#71 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-12-03 04:41 PM | Reply

MURPHY: Let's not pretend we just woke up yesterday in amazement that the records of people who are seriously mentally ill or have been convicted of crimes aren't ending up on the background checks list.

WELNA: Murphy says the problem is not just with the Pentagon. Many state governments have also failed to report cases to the FBI that would prevent people from buying guns. And there's a reason for that.

LAURA CUTILLETTA: The federal government cannot compel the states to send records.
www.npr.org

If you trust gun safety to NICS, you're fundamentally a stupid person.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:42 PM | Reply

"We are focused on the negligence of the parents.."

Negligence with respect to the what Boaz?
You'll never answer. You're not man enough.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:43 PM | Reply

#63

wow... guns AND abortions. Just add "immigrants" and you have the rwing trifecta!

Did you know that you could sell Orange Pee to rwingers if you use those 3 motivators?

Big Corporations do.

#74 | Posted by Corky at 2021-12-03 04:43 PM | Reply

"Not new laws but let's enforce the ones we have."

We do enforce the ones we have.
The ones we have allowed this to happen.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:43 PM | Reply

They will keep happening because we have a society and culture that is bereft of morals and decency.
And some are mentally ill.
#66 | POSTED BY BOAZ

What Boaz will never, ever be able to say, is that letting them have guns is how they kill people with guns.

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:44 PM | Reply

and BTW, are we doing background checks to enable abortions?
#63 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Yes, it's called "how long have you been pregnant?"

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:45 PM | Reply

Nah,
liberals dont hold accountable. Only in this case, it fits your ideology. Everything else you liberals stand for is about avoiding accountability for life's actions.

#68 | POSTED BY BOAZ

www.youtube.com

until 5 minutes ago the government had no right to impinge on your sacred 2nd amendment rights

#78 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-12-03 04:46 PM | Reply

Idiot parents....do they actually think they are going to avoid getting caught?

They'll either be found dead or brought into custody.

Weirdos.

#79 | Posted by brass30 at 2021-12-03 04:49 PM | Reply

Boaz is a simplistic troll.

#80 | Posted by byrdman at 2021-12-03 04:49 PM | Reply

Everything else you liberals stand for is about avoiding accountability for life's actions.

Unless you have power or money....then all bets are off, right?

Accountability, lol

#81 | Posted by brass30 at 2021-12-03 04:50 PM | Reply

#80

Now, now. Let's not be slandering simplistic trolls!

#82 | Posted by Corky at 2021-12-03 04:51 PM | Reply

What Boaz will never, ever be able to say, is that letting them have guns is how they kill people with guns.

Actually no. Your argument is stupid.

Billions of people own weapons for centuries and never killed anyone.

It's about the accountability of the person pulling the trigger. You pull the trigger incorrectly, you get punished for it. That's how a free society works.

You dont punish a free society before they commit a crime.

That's asinine..

#83 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 04:53 PM | Reply

and BTW, are we doing background checks to enable abortions?
#63 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Yes it's called "You're under 18, Do you have your parents consent to have an abortion?"

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:53 PM | Reply

"Billions of people own weapons for centuries and never killed anyone."

Hey Boaz, when you killed people in Afghanistan, what did you use?

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:54 PM | Reply

The ones we have allowed this to happen.

THERE is your problem, right THERE..

Thinking a LAW is going to stop someone from doing something.

The only thing stopping someone from doing something, is themselves.

The law is only there to punish.

#86 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 04:54 PM | Reply

"You dont punish a free society before they commit a crime."

So what you're saying is we don't live in a free society, since I had to complete a background check before I got my job.
That's what you're saying, right?

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:54 PM | Reply

Hey Boaz, when you killed people in Afghanistan, what did you use?

Are you getting dumber and dumber by the day?

False equivalence.

#88 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 04:55 PM | Reply

Yes it's called "You're under 18, Do you have your parents consent to have an abortion?"

Ah, same thing we have for guns. If it's good enough for an abortion, why not for a consitutionally protected gun?

#89 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 04:56 PM | Reply

Michigan School Shooting Suspect, Parents Met With School Officials Hours Before Attack

Yet they still allowed him to roam the halls armed.

www.wsj.com

#90 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2021-12-03 04:56 PM | Reply

You dont punish a free society before they commit a crime.

Are background checks, required training, etc. punishment?

There are things you can do to make society in fact safer.

Issue is, there are groups that want to project what the so called ultimate goal is - meaning zero guns.

Which of course isn't anything close to be true.

#91 | Posted by brass30 at 2021-12-03 04:56 PM | Reply

You should hear Boaz whine about being punished by having to wear a seat belt before he even commits the crime of not wearing one.

It's heart-breaking.

#92 | Posted by Corky at 2021-12-03 04:56 PM | Reply

So what you're saying is we don't live in a free society, since I had to complete a background check before I got my job.
That's what you're saying, right?

No, again, you are stupid and just trying to make up arguments that dont exist.

#93 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 04:57 PM | Reply

"The law is only there to punish."

In that case,
Tell us who gets punished when the law says parents must consent to an abortion when their daughter is under 18.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 04:57 PM | Reply

Are background checks, required training, etc. punishment?

You cant compare this to a car. Driving is a privilege. Owning a gun is a right.

#95 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 04:58 PM | Reply

Tell us who gets punished when the law says parents must consent to an abortion when their daughter is under 18.

The baby.

#96 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 04:58 PM | Reply

You cant compare this to a car. Driving is a privilege. Owning a gun is a right.
#95 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Having a job is a privilege.
One I had to undergo a background check to enjoy.
What's wrong with doing that for guns?
What's wrong with guns being a privilege, and not a right?

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:01 PM | Reply

Yes it's called "You're under 18, Do you have your parents consent to have an abortion?"
#84 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

False in California! They only need to be notified.

A minor may consent to an abortion without parental consent and without court permission. (AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics v. Lungren 16 Cal.4th 307 )
www.csus.edu

#Freedom!

#98 | Posted by oneironaut at 2021-12-03 05:01 PM | Reply

What's wrong with guns being a privilege, and not a right?

But it's not, is it? Our founders made sure YOU couldnt make that distinction.

They saw dumb asses like you coming. And thank God for that.

#99 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 05:02 PM | Reply

Tell us who gets punished when the law says parents must consent to an abortion when their daughter is under 18.
The baby.
#96 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Tell us who gets punished when the law makes gun ownership a right.
Hint: 22 veterans alive today won't be able to answer tomorrow.

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:02 PM | Reply

"False in California!"

You're in California? That would explain why you're such a flake.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:03 PM | Reply

What's wrong with doing that for guns?

Again, owning a gun is not a privilege given to me by the Government, it's a right I have as an American and as a human.

I dont have to negotiate with you on a god given right. I'm not going to explain this to you again.

#102 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 05:04 PM | Reply

Tell us who gets punished when the law makes gun ownership a right.

Facists, communists, socialists and dictators.

#103 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 05:05 PM | Reply

You cant compare this to a car. Driving is a privilege. Owning a gun is a right.

What's the difference?

You can be denied a drivers license for many a reason.

Gun ownership can't have similar policies?

Please explain.

#104 | Posted by brass30 at 2021-12-03 05:05 PM | Reply

Hey Boaz, when you killed people in Afghanistan, what did you use?
Are you getting dumber and dumber by the day?
False equivalence.
#88 | POSTED BY BOAZ

The false equivalence is yours.
You wrote
"Billions of people own weapons for centuries and never killed anyone."
Meanwhile, you personally killed people with guns, and you enjoyed it, and you think it makes you a hero.

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:06 PM | Reply

Again, owning a gun is not a privilege given to me by the Government, it's a right I have as an American and as a human.
I dont have to negotiate with you on a god given right. I'm not going to explain this to you again.
#102 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You didn't even explain it the first time.
You changed horses midstream, without even realizing it.
It's the Second Amendment, not the Second Commandment, Boaz.

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:08 PM | Reply

Gun ownership can't have similar policies?
Please explain.

I dont think I have to explain that to you. You are smart enough to understand I would suppose.

And no, gun ownership cannot have "similar" policies. I said it in my comment why. Gun ownership is a RIGHT, NOT a privilege given by the government.

If you cant understand that, I cant help you.

#107 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 05:08 PM | Reply

#106,

I did explain it. Anyone can understand it.

You are just an idiot.

#108 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 05:09 PM | Reply

Reagan was all for gun control.

#109 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2021-12-03 05:10 PM | Reply

Tell us who gets punished when the law makes gun ownership a right.
Facists, communists, socialists and dictators.
#103 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You're saying 22 veterans will be killed with guns in the fight against fascists, communists, socialists and dictators, today and every day.
Somehow, the dictators made the veterans turn their guns on themselves.
I expect you'll join them someday, Boaz.

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:11 PM | Reply

So if you fail a background check, what happens?

I mean, we have laws today that restrict your God given right to own a gun.

According to what I think you are saying, anyone who breathes on American soil should be allowed to have a gun, zero questions asked?

#111 | Posted by brass30 at 2021-12-03 05:11 PM | Reply

On the morning of the Nov. 30 shooting, the suspect's parents were urgently called into the high school after one of his teachers found an alarming note he had drawn, scrawled with images of a gun, a person who had been shot, and the words, "Blood everywhere," and, "The thoughts won't stop. Help me."

These parents sat in that school meeting and never thought to mention their son's new gun or search his backpack and locker for it.

Even though it was a newly purchased gun they called his "Christmas present" and the mom had gone out practice shooting with him the previous weekend.

It was on their minds often except for when he drew disturbing images of gun violence at school and got them called in to the principal?

Insanity.

#112 | Posted by rcade at 2021-12-03 05:11 PM | Reply

"Gun ownership is a RIGHT, NOT a privilege given by the government."

Boaz thinks countries like Canada and Germany are fascist dictatorships.

#114 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:13 PM | Reply

Gun ownership is a RIGHT, NOT a privilege given by the government.

You're splitting hairs.

Gun ownership is not an absolute right. There are restrictions, as even Antonin Scalia admitted in the Heller decision.

So people can lose the right to own a gun, such as by being convicted of a felony.

That makes it sound more like a privilege to me, because it can be taken away.

#115 | Posted by rcade at 2021-12-03 05:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I'm afraid to ask Boaz if voting is a right or priviledge lol

#116 | Posted by brass30 at 2021-12-03 05:14 PM | Reply

According to what I think you are saying, anyone who breathes on American soil should be allowed to have a gun, zero questions asked?

No Brass, please dont turn into a Snoofy.

Our constitution is clear. American CITIZENS have a right to own a weapon. Period. End of story.

Now, if they commit a crime, then they can have that right abolished or limited. But up to and until a crime is committed, a citizen's right to own a weapon SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

That's what I'm saying.

#117 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 05:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

of course it's not an absolute right.

The law provides us with that answer today.

#118 | Posted by brass30 at 2021-12-03 05:15 PM | Reply

That makes it sound more like a privilege to me, because it can be taken away.

Not the same thing, RCADE. A state can say, no more driving on our roads. They cant say, no more gun ownership.

#119 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 05:16 PM | Reply

"These parents sat in that school meeting and never thought to mention their son's new gun or search his backpack and locker for it."

It makes sense to Boaz.
Why would they mention that he too has that right, just like every other American does.
Especially when, like Boaz, they believe the gun had nothing to do with the gun being used to kill people.

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:16 PM | Reply

I'm afraid to ask Boaz if voting is a right or priviledge lol

voting is a right and an obligation to your nation.

#121 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 05:17 PM | Reply

Boaz - so to be clear - you're against background checks.

And only after the fact - should there be limitations on gun ownership.

#122 | Posted by brass30 at 2021-12-03 05:17 PM | Reply

#120,

You are starting to babbly Snoofy. I think you may need to go to bed and get some rest.

I've kicked your ass enough on this thread today..

#123 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 05:17 PM | Reply

youtube.com

For Boaz

#124 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2021-12-03 05:19 PM | Reply

"But up to and until a crime is committed, a citizen's right to own a weapon SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

And that's why there's so much more gun violence here than there is in the rest of the modern world.

Unless you really think Canada and Germany just have that much stronger morals. You know, Germany, the land of -------- porn, big on morals.

#125 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:19 PM | Reply

Reagan supported and signed the Mulford Act while California governor. It banned the open carry of loaded firearms.

Reagan said there was "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and called guns a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." He also said that "the Mulford Act would work no hardship on the honest citizen."

Why did Reagan make this stand for gun control?

Because Black Panthers started open carry of their guns.

Cops used the new law to arrest a lot of black people and minorities while ignoring white people who were doing the same thing.

#126 | Posted by rcade at 2021-12-03 05:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And no, I'm not going to educate you on this. Pull out a copy of the constitution to educate yourself.

#44 | POSTED BY BOAZ

We've all read the constitution, moron.

You're not "educating" anyone because you can't.

#127 | Posted by jpw at 2021-12-03 05:20 PM | Reply

Boaz - so to be clear - you're against background checks.
And only after the fact

I dont know where you are getting that. Again, stop listening to Snoofy, but at least you are asking relevant questions..

No, I'm not against a "check" of someone before they can purchase a handgun.

There's no need for an extensive background check, just a check to see if they are a felon or mental patient prohibited from owning a weapon.

Anything deeper is a violation of the right.

#128 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 05:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I think you may need to go to bed and get some rest."

Unlike 22 veterans, I won't be blowing my brains out tonight.

Why is there such moral decline in veterans? You're one, you tell us.

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:20 PM | Reply

Anything deeper is a violation of the right.

No, it isn't. There are other good reasons to stop a gun purchase, such as the attempted buyer having a current restraining order against them for domestic violence.

#130 | Posted by rcade at 2021-12-03 05:21 PM | Reply

Gotta go guys, got to take my kid back to Ohio State. [...]

#131 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 05:21 PM | Reply

"There's no need for an extensive background check, just a check to see if they are a felon or mental patient prohibited from owning a weapon."

There's no need for four dead kids in Michigan either. There's no need for 22 veterans.
It's not like we're running out of kids. Or veterans.

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:21 PM | Reply

"Gotta go guys, got to take my kid back to Ohio State."

You sure it's not Kent State?

#133 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:23 PM | Reply

just a check to see if they are a felon or mental patient prohibited from owning a weapon.

I agree, but it just seems a bit contradictory that you seem to think this ownership of guns is absolute (from your past posts) - when it's obviously not (by the law) and now even by the statement you wrote above.

Nothing is absolute, relatively speaking lol

I honestly think we just have different thresholds of gun ownership.

#134 | Posted by brass30 at 2021-12-03 05:24 PM | Reply

"No, I'm not against a "check" of someone before they can purchase a handgun."

LOL, seriously?
The punchline to this joke goes:
We both know what you are, we're just haggling over price.

How can you support a check to use your G-d give rights?
The way you think is a hot mess.

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:25 PM | Reply

There's no need for an extensive background check, just a check to see if they are a felon or mental patient prohibited from owning a weapon.

Anything deeper is a violation of the right.

#128 | Posted by boaz

Why should felons and mental patients surrender their 2nd ammendment right? The constitution says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED doesn't it? So the founders meant for lunatics to have grenade launchers didn't they?

#136 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-12-03 05:26 PM | Reply

#134,

Agreed.

#137 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 05:28 PM | Reply

Even though you don't mean for it speak, I agree with that. I personally think once a debt to society is paid, the right to own a weapon should be restored. Mentally unstable people are different in my opinion and should be regulated.

#138 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-03 05:32 PM | Reply

"Mentally unstable people are different in my opinion and should be regulated."

You think a free society can regulate... people, but not guns.

#139 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I personally think once a debt to society is paid"

How about this:
You use weapons in a crime, the debt is you forever lose the right to weapons.

#140 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:35 PM | Reply

You are starting to babbly Snoofy.

Only people speaking the language of known conflict have become the entire housing military.

#141 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2021-12-03 05:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I personally think once a debt to society is paid, the right to own a weapon should be restored. Mentally unstable people are different in my opinion and should be regulated.

#138 | POSTED BY BOAZ

So you think we should strip the rights of people who have not violated the law but may but we should restore the rights of those who have violated the law and proven they cannot be trusted to own firearms?

Maybe you shouldn't have guns because that is some pretty mentally unstable logic right there.

#142 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2021-12-03 05:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Snoofy, I asked earlier and was redirected to answer numerous questions for you... So now, please, what should be asked, viewed, required, etc... in a bg check that would have flagged these parents to fail the check?

#143 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 05:39 PM | Reply

#138 Boaz, What's your understanding of the difference between "regulated" and "well regulated"?

#144 | Posted by horstngraben at 2021-12-03 05:41 PM | Reply

"I honestly think we just have different thresholds of gun ownership."

Yep. I'd put the threshold at the level of a privilege, not something to be construed as a right. Much like driving a car.
Boaz adamantly denies that there are any negatives at all by enacting this right. It's weird. He must know he's stonewalling.

#145 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:41 PM | Reply

What's yours Horstngraben?

#146 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 05:42 PM | Reply

Now, if they commit a crime, then they can have that right abolished or limited. But up to and until a crime is committed, a citizen's right to own a weapon SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
That's what I'm saying.

#117 | POSTED BY BOAZ

So, a schizophrenic person talking to clouds can own an AR-15

#147 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-12-03 05:43 PM | Reply

"Snoofy, I asked earlier and was redirected to answer numerous questions for you... So now, please, what should be asked, viewed, required, etc... in a bg check that would have flagged these parents to fail the check?"

I can't say because I don't know what might even show up in such a background check.
Her love of gun culture might be something, though.
You ever write a letter to Trump praising him for defending the Second Amendment? I doubt it.

What I would like to see is a system by which the school would know she had recently purchased a gun. A list.
That's perfectly legal and doesn't even fall within the purview of the Second Amendment, but it absolutely causes people like Boaz to become hysterical.

#148 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:44 PM | Reply

Now, if they commit a crime, then they can have that right abolished or limited. But up to and until a crime is committed, a citizen's right to own a weapon SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
That's what I'm saying.

#117 | POSTED BY BOAZ

And when the 2nd amendment right infringes on other rights?

#149 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-12-03 05:44 PM | Reply

Even though you don't mean for it speak, I agree with that. I personally think once a debt to society is paid, the right to own a weapon should be restored. Mentally unstable people are different in my opinion and should be regulated.

#138 | Posted by boaz

The constitution didn't say mentally ill people are different. It said SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. So the founders meant for lunatics to have access to grenade launchers and Gatling guns right?

#150 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-12-03 05:46 PM | Reply

voting is a right and an obligation to your nation.

#121 | POSTED BY BOAZ

owning a gun comes with no obligations though

#151 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-12-03 05:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Even though you don't mean for it speak, I agree with that. I personally think once a debt to society is paid, the right to own a weapon should be restored. Mentally unstable people are different in my opinion and should be regulated.

#138 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You don't live in the real world boaz

#152 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-12-03 05:50 PM | Reply

#151, I don't know I'm pretty sure Rcade made the argument upthread, unwittingly, that voting is a privilege.

#153 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 05:50 PM | Reply

"And when the 2nd amendment right infringes on other rights?"

^
I truly feel like the notion of competing rights necessitating a balancing act is lost on just about everyone.
For example, when pro-gun people flat out deny there's any downside whatsoever to the Second Amendment.
22 veterans will blow their brains out with guns today... but that's not a downside of the Second Amendment. There's always something else to blame, and there's never any way to fix whatever that something else is.

They get mad when the doctor simply asks if you have a gun in the home. That's threatening to them. Having a gun in their hand provides the same comfort an alcoholic gets from having a drink in their hand. Somewhere in there, they know the doctor doesn't want them to have a gun, because of the danger it poses, but they don't want to hear about that.

#154 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#151, I don't know I'm pretty sure Rcade made the argument upthread, unwittingly, that voting is a privilege.
#153 | POSTED BY KWRX25

He did? I thought he said that voting is a right, but rights aren't absolute. We don't let non-citizens vote. In contrast, we do let non-citizens own guns. I'm no lawyer, but it sure seems like the Second Amendment is about as unencumbered a right as we have.

#155 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 05:56 PM | Reply

I also support the right of a private sale though."
I can see how a background check in this regard is unworkable. But there can still be a paperwork requirement which puts the buyer on the hook if they don't somehow self-certify. And common sense requirements like you can't private sell to someone who says they are going to commit gun crime, much like in many states a bartender can't serve someone who appears drunk.

#33 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

The background system is terribly antiquated. Why can't we have a pro-active system? Issue a license to anyone who requests one as long as they can pass the background check. When information goes into the database that says you can't own a gun anymore then your license is revoked.
If I want to sell/loan/gift a gun to someone then they show me their license and I can call an automated number or go to a website and quickly verify that the license is valid and the holder is authorized to possess a gun. Such a system could make it faster, cheaper and easier for everyone from private owners, to licensed dealers to law enforcement to verify that an individual has not lost their right to be in possession of a firearm.

#156 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2021-12-03 05:57 PM | Reply

Soooooooo the parents beat feet outa town and left the kid in jail?

since obviously, they are republicl0wns perhaps the authorities should start looking in Cancun.

#157 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2021-12-03 06:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

This timeline of events leading to the shooting is beyond disturbing:

mobile.twitter.com

#158 | Posted by JOE at 2021-12-03 06:08 PM | Reply

#155.

He made the argument with guns as the topic. Just as easy to replace guns with voting.

---
Gun ownership is not an absolute right. There are restrictions, as even Antonin Scalia admitted in the Heller decision.
So people can lose the right to own a gun, such as by being convicted of a felony.
That makes it sound more like a privilege to me, because it can be taken away.

#115 | POSTED BY RCADE
---

Though there are differences in getting voting rights back... the basic premise of anything that can be taken away is a privilege unwittingly calls voting a privilege.

#159 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 06:09 PM | Reply

"Why can't we have a pro-active system?"

I was reading up on this earlier. If NICS doesn't say "no" within a certain time frame, the sale can proceed.
That timeframe is three days.
Three days is long enough to do more than just a cursory background check. Certainly long enough to say "not until we get some more answers." And, if you're an upstanding person with no criminal record or other disqualifying event, enough time to say "yes." And California has a ten-day waiting period between purchase and delivery. That was deemed legal. Ten days is sufficient time for all but a "I want to be a spy" background check. Who pays for this? A gun tax makes the most sense to me. But, since the benefits are for all of us, a general tax is fine too. Maybe a little of both.

One of the reasons our system doesn't work is we don't have universal health care. Someone like the Virginia Tech shooter doesn't get flagged as a dangerous mental case because of that. Despite the fact that he was very clearly a danger, the system didn't know that. And why didn't it? A common refrain is "enforce the laws we have." There's no law to enforce names getting on the list. And when you demand that law, the gun lovers will say you're infringing on our rights.

Gun lovers really don't mind the gun violence that is so prevalent in America. They really just don't, when the price of stopping it is making it harder for normal people to get guns. You need to wrap your head around that reality if you think you can engage them in "debate."

The problems that liberals see with scrubbing the voter rolls become acutely problematic to conservatives when applied to the no-gun list.

#160 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 06:12 PM | Reply

#156... I hate arguments like this, but I'll ask...

Who will pay for the gun license? Isn't this just a racist policy as it will put an undue burden on the black community. How will they get to the licensing location? insert all the arguments that showing an id to vote have.

How does this factor into your view in 156?

I think he has me plonked... anyone willing to re-post this so hotsauce can see it?

#161 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 06:13 PM | Reply

"the basic premise of anything that can be taken away is a privilege unwittingly calls voting a privilege."

I see what you're saying, but there's a huge bureaucratic difference between a whitelisted privilege and a blacklisted right.
That being said, voting is in many ways necessarily construed as a privilege, because we have to enforce one person, one vote. Just like we really don't like it for people to have driver's licenses in two states at the same time.
There's no corresponding notion of one person, one gun.

#162 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 06:15 PM | Reply

"Isn't this just a racist policy as it will put an undue burden on the black community. How will they get to the licensing location? insert all the arguments that showing an id to vote have."

^
So, you agree with the liberals then? Or just want to make them eat their words?

#163 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 06:17 PM | Reply

"Who will pay for the gun license?"

Make it free, just like Voter ID has to be free or it's considered a Poll Tax.

#164 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 06:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't know that we need universal health care for that.

HIPAA, covers this with the P. All our records are electronically portable due to HIPAA. What your suggesting therefore doesn't hinge on UHC. Lack of Mental Healthcare is closer to the issue in imho

#165 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 06:20 PM | Reply

"What your suggesting therefore doesn't hinge on UHC"

It's a data aggregation problem.
One payer, one provider, one data source.
Compare that with America, there are literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of data sources to integrate into the NICS list.
You can see why that's a problem, I'm sure.

#166 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 06:24 PM | Reply

"All our records are electronically portable due to HIPAA."

Tell me you don't work in health care without saying...

#167 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 06:24 PM | Reply

Make it free, just like Voter ID has to be free or it's considered a Poll Tax.

---- VoterID.

One of the reasons our system doesn't work is we don't have universal health care.

I can only pray that never happens, withholding healthcare because of a political opinion is how evil supporters of universal healthcare are.

#168 | Posted by oneironaut at 2021-12-03 06:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"withholding healthcare because of a political opinion is how evil supporters of universal healthcare are."

How evil is that compared to withholding a gun sale because you want a gun to shoot up your school?

#169 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 06:30 PM | Reply

I don't know I'm pretty sure Rcade made the argument upthread, unwittingly, that voting is a privilege.

The argument I made is that "X is a right not a privilege" is excessively simplistic when the right is not absolute.

Someone can completely lose their right to bear arms or their right to vote by becoming a convicted felon.

#170 | Posted by rcade at 2021-12-03 06:32 PM | Reply

#167 I actually did work in healthcare.

Built a completely automated infrastructure to receive Radiology scans and reports and transform them into a radiology workflow as a service tool.

I've built and secured many infrastructures to HIPAA standards, mostly in AWS.

Because of the portability of requirements, it wouldn't be insurmountable to have the mental healthcare industry submit case records of note into a system like you describe.

It might fire up a few startups like the radiology one I worked at to supply that gateway to a common system, but it wouldn't be much more out of line than when the Fed govt mandated Check21

#171 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 06:36 PM | Reply

"Because of the portability of requirements, it wouldn't be insurmountable to have the mental healthcare industry submit case records of note into a system like you describe."

Surmount this:
Who pays them to do that?
Who hits them with a stick if they don't?

#172 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 06:37 PM | Reply

I'll tell you the only way I think it would actually get done better than it's getting done right now, and since you worked in health care I suspect you'll agree:
If there were financial incentives to report this data to Uncle Sam.
And who's gonna pay for that?

#173 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 06:41 PM | Reply

#163... I don't know that I agree with liberals or not.

What I like to see is a consistency of argument. It's a huge red flag for myself. If I can't answer those two scenarios the same way... I might have to rethink my position on at least one of them.

So it wasn't about making anyone eat there words. Perhaps point out the inconsistency in hopes of generating some inner dialogue.

As it stood though the established Retort stance is that a voter ID is racist, and is too much of a burden, and denies someone their right. The retort stance on gun ID seems to be it's ok. I don't think those two can coexist without a degree of hypocrisy.

Maybe the devil is in the details? _()_/

#174 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 06:44 PM | Reply

#173

Well HIPAA is a HUGE overhead on healthcare, and no one is "paying for it" (of course the consumer is)
And something like this could be paid for the same way HIPAA is. Make it a huge fine if you don't do it.

#175 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-12-03 06:47 PM | Reply

"As it stood though the established Retort stance is that a voter ID is racist, and is too much of a burden, and denies someone their right. The retort stance on gun ID seems to be it's ok. I don't think those two can coexist without a degree of hypocrisy."

There's a big difference though.

Voting as a right is vital to democracy.

Gun ownership as a right is mostly vital to deliberately killing yourself, deliberately killing your wife or girlfriend, or accidentally killing yourself, your wife, or your girlfriend.

This part of the Second Amendment simply isn't true: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

We don't need a well regulated Militia to live securely in a free State. You can't even tell me what a well regulated Militia is, or can you? If you can, show me how the security it provides is necessary, please! Bonus points if you can explain why you and I having a right to bear arms is likewise necessary for the well regulated Militia to do its thang.

#176 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 06:51 PM | Reply

#63 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Wow, so an abortion is tantamount to a mass shooting in your perspective.

This explains volumes.

Thanks for the context regarding your POV. Disgusting, but appreciate it anyways.

#177 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-12-03 07:05 PM | Reply

The law is only there to punish.
#86 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Would that suggest you're against capitol punishment? Since it's been proven to be noneffective as a deterrent?

#178 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-12-03 07:09 PM | Reply

SNOOFY

I guess you could call the National Guard a well regulated militia.

#179 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-12-03 07:10 PM | Reply

Anything deeper is a violation of the right.
#128 | POSTED BY BOAZ

And the general violation of that right (which would lead to what consequences for the person?) isn't worth impeding events like this? Or worse?

At what point are you willing to acquiesce to the idea that the founders did NOT have all the necessary evidence and information available to make a qualified decision that would positively impact future generations as it relates to owning firearms? The people in question were fallible, were they not? Is it really that patriotic to think the 2nd amendment is absolutely perfect as written, specific to our times?

One single guarantee is this: those that implemented the 2nd amendment had no idea how many guns would proliferate through out the generations. If they had this knowledge in hand, do you think the 2nd amendment would still be written as it was?

#180 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-12-03 07:23 PM | Reply

"At what point are you willing to acquiesce to the idea that the founders did NOT have all the necessary evidence and information available to make a qualified decision that would positively impact future generations as it relates to owning firearms?"

You can't convince a man when his mind is made up.
Boaz lost someone close to him from gun violence in his community earlier this year.
He still doesn't think that guns had anything to do with the bullets that killed his friend.

#181 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 07:25 PM | Reply

that voting is a privilege.
#153 | POSTED BY KWRX25

Considering the voting restrictions implemented historically, and now recently, I'd agree that the right to vote is actually just a privilege, especially for that of white men.

#182 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-12-03 07:28 PM | Reply

They get mad when the doctor simply asks if you have a gun in the home. That's threatening to them. Having a gun in their hand provides the same comfort an alcoholic gets from having a drink in their hand. Somewhere in there, they know the doctor doesn't want them to have a gun, because of the danger it poses, but they don't want to hear about that.
#154 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Very interesting analogy. Hadn't considered that perspective.

#183 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-12-03 07:29 PM | Reply

God, guns, and gays.

I know I'll always learn something about the above here on the DR.

Happy Friday, kids.

Enjoy the beer.

#184 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2021-12-03 07:37 PM | Reply

Considering the voting restrictions implemented historically, and now recently, I'd agree that the right to vote is actually just a privilege, especially for that of white men.
#182 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Great point.

#185 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 07:47 PM | Reply

The law is only there to punish.

#86 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2021-12-03 04:54 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

This is the stupidest thing I've read all day, and I've read crap posted by BellRinger, so it's a REALLY low bar. Boaz, if the law doesn't stop people from criming, then why do we have it? Adults understand that their actions have consequences, and those consequences are often what keeps them on the right side of the law. If not, everybody would be driving 100 MPH on the interstate, but most people don't want the huge ticket and to pay higher insurance rates, so they keep it within a reasonable speed. If not for DV laws, a lot more people would be tuning up their spouses every weekend, but they don't because they don't want to go to jail. That's what the law does dummy! Now most people are good, and follow the law because they understand that it's the right thing to do, but those who are tempted to be bad, most of them stay on the right side of the law to stay out of jail, or to not pay a huge fine.

#186 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2021-12-03 08:05 PM | Reply

Lying ------ like "Boaz" are lower than dog crap in a sinkhole.

#187 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-12-03 10:19 PM | Reply

Boaz complains all the time about how society is breaking down.

What kind of society would we have without laws punishing people who break them?

#188 | Posted by rcade at 2021-12-03 10:22 PM | Reply

"What kind of society would we have without laws punishing people who break them"

The kind rich people pay their lawyers and legislators to live in.

#189 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-03 10:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not even an apparent game changer like this is going to further reasonable gun control measures nor change the gun nut mentally in the US. It's hopeless.

#190 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2021-12-04 08:27 AM | Reply

"if they commit a crime, then they can have that right abolished or limited. But up to and until a crime is committed, a citizen's right to own a weapon SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" -Boaz

"I personally think once a debt to society is paid, the right to own a weapon should be restored. Mentally unstable people are different in my opinion and should be regulated." - Also Boaz

So which one is it? Shall not be infringed or shall not be infringed unless you are one of the 1 in 4 adults in the US with a diagnosable mental illness?

#191 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2021-12-04 11:10 AM | Reply

"Not the same thing, RCADE. A state can say, no more driving on our roads."

Weak sauce comrade bozo.

Can a state really do that? For no reason? Has one ever done that? For no reason?

Prove it.

A state will only revoke your driving privileges if you break the law. Just like gun ownership.

Link or lie.

#192 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-12-04 11:59 AM | Reply

Can a state really do that? For no reason? Has one ever done that? For no reason?

Chris Christie did that to Fort Lee, as it turns out. It was quite the scandal. Two aides did jail time. Christie skated.

#193 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-04 12:12 PM | Reply

"Chris Christie did that to Fort Lee, as it turns out."

He closed a lane blocking access to bridge as it happens. As I recall. He didn't say get off the road. In fact he trapped many drivers ON the road. He did not and could not revoke anyone's driving privileges without cause. Also turns out someone committed a crime and went to jail in the process as you pointed out.

Perhaps losing your license when you get too old to drive is a better example? But even that is not without "cause". Its because you've become a danger to others. It's a no brainer. Literally! (Pun not intended but appreciated!)!

Just as losing access to deadly weapons when you become mentally deranged and a danger to others should be a "no brainer".

#194 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-12-04 01:55 PM | Reply

It was a very rare event, and because it was politically motivated, it also turned out to be a crime.

But gun lovers won't hear that.

They're terrified of a government with a list of gun owners.

Even as they sleep safely at night knowing their guns keep them safe from a government that might have a list of gun owners.

It doesn't have to make sense. It just has to pose a dire threat, and then provide the only safe haven.

It's just like Homer Simpson said:
"Alcohol. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems."

They really are addicts. Try talking to a whisky lover, it's like trying to talk to a gun lover. And it often ends the same way, in a self-inflicted death.

#195 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-04 02:08 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort