timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[NCCommish]

I just find it hard to picture what kind of gun regulations could have a significant enough impact to stop this stuff (or make it much less common) without seriously impacting liberties. The whole no-fly, no guns angle is really bizarre given the issues with the no-fly list and would likely have little impact. But what proposals do people think could be sensible?

Only issue I have is the need for people to have these assault rifles. Otherwise, have at it, it's your right. Also I wish someone would put me on a no fly list, it's so much of a hassle now I'd just rather not do it. I've been pretty much everywhere I ever wanted to go, just need to go to Australia. As long as I'm not on a no-sail list, I'm good.

Actually it's only recently this universal ownership right has been a thing. It is a reversal of a couple of hundred years of jurisprudence.

How so? I'm not much into the 2nd amendment, teach me Yoda.

See the Founders believed that a standing army was a tool of tryanny. So they didn't want one. Every man was expected to serve in his local militia when called up. So the Second Amendment is there to make sure they have a gun when they do. That's it. That was the intent. The intent wasn't everyone carrying everywhere. The intent wasn't a loaded gun in every hand. For instance in Boston at the time the Constitution was written it was illegal to have a loaded gun in your house. It was still illegal after ratification. The Founders were very familiar with gun control and they didn't outlaw it in any way. This whole new gun rights crapfest was brought on starting in the 70s by a couple of judges who decided they found a right no one else had seen in 200 years. But of course it isn't the first time that's happened. Sorry for the brevity but history lessons are hard when typing on a phone.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I just find it hard to picture what kind of gun regulations could have a significant enough impact to stop this stuff (or make it much less common) without seriously impacting liberties. The whole no-fly, no guns angle is really bizarre given the issues with the no-fly list and would likely have little impact. But what proposals do people think could be sensible?

Let's talk in legal terms. Is it not illegal for a convict or folks with red flags to purchase guns LEGALLY? My problem starts when we are going to make it difficult just like we do everything in life where we make it hard as hell on the 99% who follow the rules. We have laws on the books now just like we always do. Are those laws enforced? Should people be able to buy guns at trade shows? I guess if they already have a permit to carry a gun then why not?

But we cannot systematically make it harder for regular law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional rights. I might have been swayed 20 years ago on this but not now. I accept that I have a choice like everyone else who decides to stay in America that it is a gun toting gun yielding gun wielding society. Yes we have more murders than any other civilized country and yet most folks feel pretty safe here especially when you get out of the major cities.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I just find it hard to picture what kind of gun regulations could have a significant enough impact to stop this stuff (or make it much less common) without seriously impacting liberties. The whole no-fly, no guns angle is really bizarre given the issues with the no-fly list and would likely have little impact. But what proposals do people think could be sensible?

Only issue I have is the need for people to have these assault rifles. Otherwise, have at it, it's your right. Also I wish someone would put me on a no fly list, it's so much of a hassle now I'd just rather not do it. I've been pretty much everywhere I ever wanted to go, just need to go to Australia. As long as I'm not on a no-sail list, I'm good.

Actually it's only recently this universal ownership right has been a thing. It is a reversal of a couple of hundred years of jurisprudence.

How so? I'm not much into the 2nd amendment, teach me Yoda.

Until 2008 the supreme court read the second amendment entirely in the context of a "well regulated militia".

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I just find it hard to picture what kind of gun regulations could have a significant enough impact to stop this stuff (or make it much less common) without seriously impacting liberties. The whole no-fly, no guns angle is really bizarre given the issues with the no-fly list and would likely have little impact. But what proposals do people think could be sensible?

Only issue I have is the need for people to have these assault rifles. Otherwise, have at it, it's your right. Also I wish someone would put me on a no fly list, it's so much of a hassle now I'd just rather not do it. I've been pretty much everywhere I ever wanted to go, just need to go to Australia. As long as I'm not on a no-sail list, I'm good.

Actually it's only recently this universal ownership right has been a thing. It is a reversal of a couple of hundred years of jurisprudence.

How so? I'm not much into the 2nd amendment, teach me Yoda.

See the Founders believed that a standing army was a tool of tryanny. So they didn't want one. Every man was expected to serve in his local militia when called up. So the Second Amendment is there to make sure they have a gun when they do. That's it. That was the intent. The intent wasn't everyone carrying everywhere. The intent wasn't a loaded gun in every hand. For instance in Boston at the time the Constitution was written it was illegal to have a loaded gun in your house. It was still illegal after ratification. The Founders were very familiar with gun control and they didn't outlaw it in any way. This whole new gun rights crapfest was brought on starting in the 70s by a couple of judges who decided they found a right no one else had seen in 200 years. But of course it isn't the first time that's happened. Sorry for the brevity but history lessons are hard when typing on a phone.

I knew most of the other stuff, but I didn't know about these judges in the 70s.

So how is the right to bear arms in 2015 different from that right in 1970? Was there deregulation or are we talking about the proliferation of these assault rifles, and thus the right to own them? Again, that's the rub for me. I see no reason anyone should be allowed to own an AR-15 or a TAR-21. Home protection, hunting, even protecting yourself from the gubment does not require an assault rifle. It's ridiculous IMO.

Hand guns do the most damage as far as crime and deadS0r Americanos, but I'm reticent to place undue restrictions there for qualified citizens. The handgun problem seems to be on the black market which would be hard to stop regardless of laws.

 

[timschochet]

Watching The Wiz, and they're doing the Michael Jackson song instead of "Born on the Day Before Yesterday".

 

[Limp Ditka]

Watching The Wiz, and they're doing the Michael Jackson song instead of "Born on the Day Before Yesterday".

Take it to The Wiz thread, guy

 

[timschochet]

I just find it hard to picture what kind of gun regulations could have a significant enough impact to stop this stuff (or make it much less common) without seriously impacting liberties. The whole no-fly, no guns angle is really bizarre given the issues with the no-fly list and would likely have little impact. But what proposals do people think could be sensible?

Only issue I have is the need for people to have these assault rifles. Otherwise, have at it, it's your right. Also I wish someone would put me on a no fly list, it's so much of a hassle now I'd just rather not do it. I've been pretty much everywhere I ever wanted to go, just need to go to Australia. As long as I'm not on a no-sail list, I'm good.

Actually it's only recently this universal ownership right has been a thing. It is a reversal of a couple of hundred years of jurisprudence.

How so? I'm not much into the 2nd amendment, teach me Yoda.

See the Founders believed that a standing army was a tool of tryanny. So they didn't want one. Every man was expected to serve in his local militia when called up. So the Second Amendment is there to make sure they have a gun when they do. That's it. That was the intent. The intent wasn't everyone carrying everywhere. The intent wasn't a loaded gun in every hand. For instance in Boston at the time the Constitution was written it was illegal to have a loaded gun in your house. It was still illegal after ratification. The Founders were very familiar with gun control and they didn't outlaw it in any way. This whole new gun rights crapfest was brought on starting in the 70s by a couple of judges who decided they found a right no one else had seen in 200 years. But of course it isn't the first time that's happened. Sorry for the brevity but history lessons are hard when typing on a phone.

Interesting. Was one of the judges Scalia?

 

[timschochet]

I just find it hard to picture what kind of gun regulations could have a significant enough impact to stop this stuff (or make it much less common) without seriously impacting liberties. The whole no-fly, no guns angle is really bizarre given the issues with the no-fly list and would likely have little impact. But what proposals do people think could be sensible?

Only issue I have is the need for people to have these assault rifles. Otherwise, have at it, it's your right. Also I wish someone would put me on a no fly list, it's so much of a hassle now I'd just rather not do it. I've been pretty much everywhere I ever wanted to go, just need to go to Australia. As long as I'm not on a no-sail list, I'm good.

Actually it's only recently this universal ownership right has been a thing. It is a reversal of a couple of hundred years of jurisprudence.

How so? I'm not much into the 2nd amendment, teach me Yoda.

See the Founders believed that a standing army was a tool of tryanny. So they didn't want one. Every man was expected to serve in his local militia when called up. So the Second Amendment is there to make sure they have a gun when they do. That's it. That was the intent. The intent wasn't everyone carrying everywhere. The intent wasn't a loaded gun in every hand. For instance in Boston at the time the Constitution was written it was illegal to have a loaded gun in your house. It was still illegal after ratification. The Founders were very familiar with gun control and they didn't outlaw it in any way. This whole new gun rights crapfest was brought on starting in the 70s by a couple of judges who decided they found a right no one else had seen in 200 years. But of course it isn't the first time that's happened. Sorry for the brevity but history lessons are hard when typing on a phone.

I knew most of the other stuff, but I didn't know about these judges in the 70s.

So how is the right to bear arms in 2015 different from that right in 1970? Was there deregulation or are we talking about the proliferation of these assault rifles, and thus the right to own them? Again, that's the rub for me. I see no reason anyone should be allowed to own an AR-15 or a TAR-21. Home protection, hunting, even protecting yourself from the gubment does not require an assault rifle. It's ridiculous IMO.

Hand guns do the most damage as far as crime and deadS0r Americanos, but I'm reticent to place undue restrictions there for qualified citizens. The handgun problem seems to be on the black market which would be hard to stop regardless of laws.

We actually banned assault rifles for about ten years from 1994-2004 and it was not challenged by the SC. I think the law simply expired.

 

[NCCommish]

I just find it hard to picture what kind of gun regulations could have a significant enough impact to stop this stuff (or make it much less common) without seriously impacting liberties. The whole no-fly, no guns angle is really bizarre given the issues with the no-fly list and would likely have little impact. But what proposals do people think could be sensible?

Only issue I have is the need for people to have these assault rifles. Otherwise, have at it, it's your right. Also I wish someone would put me on a no fly list, it's so much of a hassle now I'd just rather not do it. I've been pretty much everywhere I ever wanted to go, just need to go to Australia. As long as I'm not on a no-sail list, I'm good.

Actually it's only recently this universal ownership right has been a thing. It is a reversal of a couple of hundred years of jurisprudence.

How so? I'm not much into the 2nd amendment, teach me Yoda.

See the Founders believed that a standing army was a tool of tryanny. So they didn't want one. Every man was expected to serve in his local militia when called up. So the Second Amendment is there to make sure they have a gun when they do. That's it. That was the intent. The intent wasn't everyone carrying everywhere. The intent wasn't a loaded gun in every hand. For instance in Boston at the time the Constitution was written it was illegal to have a loaded gun in your house. It was still illegal after ratification. The Founders were very familiar with gun control and they didn't outlaw it in any way. This whole new gun rights crapfest was brought on starting in the 70s by a couple of judges who decided they found a right no one else had seen in 200 years. But of course it isn't the first time that's happened. Sorry for the brevity but history lessons are hard when typing on a phone.

Interesting. Was one of the judges Scalia?

No. I'll link you guys up a good article on this in the morning when I have my laptop available. Typing long posts on the phone or doing links sucks.

 

[Slapdash]

Interesting stuff about the 2nd, looking forward to reading your links tomorrow.

 

[NCCommish]

Interesting stuff about the 2nd, looking forward to reading your links tomorrow.

I'll try to get it before I go to work.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

yeah thanks NCC.

 

[timschochet]

How about the Bruins!!!

UCLA 87 #1 Kentucky 77

Sweet revenge. And Steve Alford's biggest win!

 

[Gr00vus]

How about the Bruins!!!

UCLA 87 #1 Kentucky 77

Sweet revenge. And Steve Alford's biggest win!

Yeah I didn't see that one coming. You have to give Alford credit for having a very aggressive out of conference schedule.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Comment on the latest news story: a "Messianic Jew" is not a Jew; it's a Christian who celebrates Jewish holidays.

Like Jesus?

 

[RCon]

We actually banned assault rifles for about ten years from 1994-2004 and it was not challenged by the SC. I think the law simply expired.

I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that assault rifles are still banned. "Assault weapons" were banned in the 90s, but there isn't really a legal definition of assault weapon, as there is with assault rile.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I just find it hard to picture what kind of gun regulations could have a significant enough impact to stop this stuff (or make it much less common) without seriously impacting liberties. The whole no-fly, no guns angle is really bizarre given the issues with the no-fly list and would likely have little impact. But what proposals do people think could be sensible?

Only issue I have is the need for people to have these assault rifles. Otherwise, have at it, it's your right. Also I wish someone would put me on a no fly list, it's so much of a hassle now I'd just rather not do it. I've been pretty much everywhere I ever wanted to go, just need to go to Australia. As long as I'm not on a no-sail list, I'm good.

Actually it's only recently this universal ownership right has been a thing. It is a reversal of a couple of hundred years of jurisprudence.

How so? I'm not much into the 2nd amendment, teach me Yoda.

Until 2008 the supreme court read the second amendment entirely in the context of a "well regulated militia".

This is Stevens in the dissent:

The view of the Amend­ment we took in Miller - that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.

Here's what the case was about:

Respondent **** Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Fed­eral Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certifi­cate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused.

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

So you're saying that a law which stated that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" because citizens would need it to provide for a well regulated militia and because that is necessary to the security of a free state, actually intended that the government could take every single gun from every single citizen, even a police officer? The amendment before that says the government can't tell a person what he can and can't say. The very next amendment says that the government can't come into a person's house. The amendment after that says the government can't seize a person. The next law says that the government can't deny someone the right to a fair trial, etc. But this law in the middle of all this stuff saying what the government can't do to a person, actually says that it can take all his arms? In fact, if the government violated all of Amendments 1 and 3-10, wouldn't the first thing people do is form a militia and oppose the government? Seems like a pretty important lynchpin to me. It says the power is in the people to form and create the state in the first place.

 

[timschochet]

Saints when we discussed this amendment before, I made the point that it was the only one of the Bill of Rights that explained why it was written. The 1st Amendment for example, doesn't say "Free speech being fundamental to a free state, the right to freedom of speech shall not be infringed", etc.

Surely there's a reason they added in the first part about the militia? Why is it in there?

 

[timschochet]

Comment on the latest news story: a "Messianic Jew" is not a Jew; it's a Christian who celebrates Jewish holidays.

Like Jesus?

Im no expert on Jesus but I don't believe he was a Christian, as that religion started AFTER his death.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints when we discussed this amendment before, I made the point that it was the only one of the Bill of Rights that explained why it was written. The 1st Amendment for example, doesn't say "Free speech being fundamental to a free state, the right to freedom of speech shall not be infringed", etc.

Surely there's a reason they added in the first part about the militia? Why is it in there?

Because it clearly states it is "the right of the people." The USC breaks up rights and powers according to People, States and the Feds. The States and Feds don't have "rights" anywhere. Nowhere in the USC does the State or the Feds ever have power over the People. The law presumes the right of the People to form the militia, not the State, not the Feds, but only the People. Taking away all guns, even from a cop to have in his own home, where it also is clear the government can't go in the next two amendments, totally denies the right of the People to form a militia. The feds and even the State can't get around that by simply entirely preempting and coopting the right to legislate and form the militias themselves. Saying that the Founders inserted a law which actually gives the government to take one kind of property while entirely legislating a right to itself in the midst of numerous rights exclusively belonging to the people and declaring them inviolable is the height of cynicism.

 

[timschochet]

Then why the "well regulated" part? Doesn't that imply government power?

 

[shader]

Comment on the latest news story: a "Messianic Jew" is not a Jew; it's a Christian who celebrates Jewish holidays.

Like Jesus?

Im no expert on Jesus but I don't believe he was a Christian, as that religion started AFTER his death.

Technically he was alive when it started ?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Then why the "well regulated" part? Doesn't that imply government power?

No, regulated there means as in the nature of the arms. An army squad in 1945 was well regulated if it was carrying M-1's, hand grenades and a combination bayonet/digging tool. It means well-equipped.

 

[timschochet]

Comment on the latest news story: a "Messianic Jew" is not a Jew; it's a Christian who celebrates Jewish holidays.

Like Jesus?

Im no expert on Jesus but I don't believe he was a Christian, as that religion started AFTER his death.

Technically he was alive when it started ?

DId He ever convert?

 

[timschochet]

Then why the "well regulated" part? Doesn't that imply government power?

No, regulated there means as in the nature of the arms. An army squad in 1945 was well regulated if it was carrying M-1's, hand grenades and a combination bayonet/digging tool. It means well-equipped.

But it doesn't say well equipped.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Then why the "well regulated" part? Doesn't that imply government power?

No, regulated there means as in the nature of the arms. An army squad in 1945 was well regulated if it was carrying M-1's, hand grenades and a combination bayonet/digging tool. It means well-equipped.

But it doesn't say well equipped.

Two words can mean the same thing, Tim. Regulated is a military term meaning having the arms necessary to be an effective militia.

 

[timschochet]

OK. I've never heard that before. Interesting.

 

[NCCommish]

So as promised:

How the NRA rewrote the Second Amendment

This is an article adapted from the book - The Second Amendment a Biography. It is four pages but worth the read.

 

[NCCommish]

OK. I've never heard that before. Interesting.

Because it's a ridiculous way to define the sentence. Mental gymnastics and gyrations.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK. I've never heard that before. Interesting.

Because it's a ridiculous way to define the sentence. Mental gymnastics and gyrations.

Just so we're clear, you think that in the 1st amendment the USC says the feds can't tell the people what to say or think, 3rd amendment they can't quarter soldiers in our home or really even come in them, 4th amendment the government can't arrest us without evidence, 5th, 6th and 7th amendment the government can't try us unfairly, 8th amendment they can't punish unfairly, and in the 9th and 10th amendment say that if there's any doubt then any disputed right goes to the people.

BUT - the 2nd amendment says that the federal government can 100% preempt the right of the people to form militias and own guns for that purpose, and it's really saying the people have no right at all on that point, should the federal government so choose, is that about it?

 

[NCCommish]

OK. I've never heard that before. Interesting.

Because it's a ridiculous way to define the sentence. Mental gymnastics and gyrations.

Just so we're clear, you think that in the 1st amendment the USC says the feds can't tell the people what to say or think, 3rd amendment they can't quarter soldiers in our home or really even come in them, 4th amendment the government can't arrest us without evidence, 5th, 6th and 7th amendment the government can't try us unfairly, 8th amendment they can't punish unfairly, and in the 9th and 10th amendment say that if there's any doubt then any disputed right goes to the people.

BUT - the 2nd amendment says that the federal government can 100% preempt the right of the people to form militias and own guns for that purpose, and it's really saying the people have no right at all on that point, should the federal government so choose, is that about it?

I think if you read the history surrounsing the amendment it becomes pretty clear what it means and why it was written. I think the history of jurisprudence on the subject makes it pretty clear as well. I think you are grasping for straws with these strained definitions.

 

[NCCommish]

I have a few other links to dust off and I'll drop them as I get the chance. But I will be working 30+ hours in the next 3 days so it will be sporadic.

 

[ATC1]

All right, but let's take the school example. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. After Newtown, ATC1 (I think it was him) made the argument that the elementary school was chosen BECAUSE it was a gun free zone- he called it a "soft target". He argued that schools should not be gun free zones, that it would be safer if responsible teachers and other adults were armed, and that quite possibly that massacre would have been prevented.

How do you respond to this argument?

[SIZE=10.5pt]Prevent would not be completely accurate especially now with the terror threats. However, I don't see how putting a gun in a responsible person's hand in a mass shooting can result in making a bad situation worse. As you said, the Newton shooter shot himself at the first sign of police siren. What if he met resistance a lot sooner? Would he have shot himself in the event someone in the building was carrying? Or let’s say it takes the shooter’s attention away from his targets to a threat. Would that give more time for the police to arrive, or perhaps a chance for a number of people to get away? The recent college shooting Chris Mintz an Army Vet tried to stop the gunman from entering a classroom. Just think if he was able to protect himself and those around him better? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]I will admit the absolute worst that can happen is the shooter gets himself killed or shoots another person in the mist of panic. I think most people by now realize that the best thing to do in the event of a shooting is to find cover or play dead. It certainly isn’t to run toward the shooter. However, let’s say I hit someone in the line of fire. First of all I would be crushed. However, I am not targeting that person, so to get a fatal shot would be less than if the shooter was targeting the person himself. That might seem farfetched to some people, but I don’t think people realize that it takes a good shot to kill someone with one shot. Hence why we usually get more injured then dead even when people are targeted. The Newton shooter was allowed to shoot the victims multiple times at close range. There was just no threat of anyone even rushing him. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]For those saying I could get shot by police. I have not seen a scenario where this has happened, and would have to be a perfect timing scenario because the altercation would last seconds, but in the event. First time I see law enforcement the hands go up. I also don’t think the police would be targeting the person that found cover first. It would be the guy in the open with the AR. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]I hear the phrase more guns is not the solution. I don’t’ see how giving the good guys a fighting chance is not a possible solution. Having an unidentified responsible person in a room carrying a gun allows for quicker response and the element of surprise IF the person decides he has the opportunity to intervene. Doesn’t mean he has too. This goes into the line of tactical gear for police. Not every situation calls for it, but with proper training we get what occurred during the car shootout with police the other day. Suspects dead and no further loss of life. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]I agree with DD and NCC. It is too easy to get a CCP IMO. There should be more intensive training and I think we are coming to that. There are states now that allow people to carry in places they would not normally allow. i.e. State buildings, schools, bars, churches. They are required to jump through more hoops to carry in these places. Perhaps still not to most people’s standards, but it certainly isn’t a “you own a gun? Oh we trust you with carry.” These are also in areas that don’t have a lot of crime, so I don’t know how much of a deterrent it would be. I just hope that there isn’t an incident where someone with a CCP does something to help gun control lobbyist in these places. I think we might be able to reduce that number with more required training. [/SIZE]

 

[Joe T]

OK. I've never heard that before. Interesting.

Because it's a ridiculous way to define the sentence. Mental gymnastics and gyrations.

 

[John Bender]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/donald-trump-poll-cnn-orc-national/index.html

CNN/ORC Poll: Trump alone at the top again

I actually can't believe that soon we could be down to debates with only Trump, Carson and Ted Cruz with Marco Rubio (I don't lump him in with the other 3 as far as being wtf candidates)

 

[Slapdash]

Always a big fan of TimThread though. Tim always ends up being pretty provocative in his statements in other political threads after a while...

 

[John Bender]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/donald-trump-poll-cnn-orc-national/index.html

CNN/ORC Poll: Trump alone at the top again

I actually can't believe that soon we could be down to debates with only Trump, Carson and Ted Cruz with Marco Rubio (I don't lump him in with the other 3 as far as being wtf candidates)

What's also scary, is the fact that the base really seems energized right now. I would love to think Trump vs Hillary = no contest. I'm not so sure at this point. Guys behind Trump seem way more enthusiastic than any of the Hillary stuff I see. I wouldn't like to believe this, but the poll numbers still being this high just seem to say otherwise.

Tim - I hope you don't mind an ignoramus in here trying to discuss stuff but I feel more comfortable here than in the major political threads (less rolling smiley faces as responses)

 

[John Bender]

Always a big fan of TimThread though. Tim always ends up being pretty provocative in his statements in other political threads after a while...

ditto. When this gets fired back up, I enjoy hanging out here. Way better scene IMO.

 

[McGarnicle]

Always a big fan of TimThread though. Tim always ends up being pretty provocative in his statements in other political threads after a while...

ditto. When this gets fired back up, I enjoy hanging out here. Way better scene IMO.

Reminds me of the Office when Oscar, Pam and Toby started the Finer Things Club.

 

[Slapdash]

Always a big fan of TimThread though. Tim always ends up being pretty provocative in his statements in other political threads after a while...

ditto. When this gets fired back up, I enjoy hanging out here. Way better scene IMO.

Reminds me of the Office when Oscar, Pam and Toby started the Finer Things Club.

 

[John Bender]

Always a big fan of TimThread though. Tim always ends up being pretty provocative in his statements in other political threads after a while...

ditto. When this gets fired back up, I enjoy hanging out here. Way better scene IMO.

Reminds me of the Office when Oscar, Pam and Toby started the Finer Things Club.

tim and I get together for some chess occasionally (actually true story)

LEt's discuss the Scandinavian Defense in here IMO - better than that Dutch Stonewall #### you play tim.

 

[timschochet]

We're all ignoramuses in here when it comes to elections, John, especially this year. And that includes all of the so-called experts as well. Not one political pundit on TV or elsewhere predicted that Trump would have this kind of staying power. Not one. I think that if Trump himself was being honest (a rarity) he would admit to being as surprised as anyone else.

The litmus test will be New Hampshire IMO. Iowa tells us little because a caucus is a heavily organized affair. But if Trump wins the primary in NH all bets are off and the panic starts.

I know that in one of the Trump threads a few people including Maurile Trembilay and the Commish have expressed their delight in all this mainly for the upheaval it's causing in our political system. I don't share in their enthusiasm. I'm disgusted and not a little frightened.

 

[John Bender]

Fricken 8% for Rubio

 

[RBM]

I agree Tim, I really don't think Trump saw this coming. Interesting to think about.

 

[timschochet]

Don't want to bore people with a lot of chess discussion but the reason I play the Stonewall and Skandinavian is that they are closed openings I understand. I'm relatively weak on tactics so I want to get through the opening without having to face tactical traps. If I can get into a slow paced middle game and even better yet an endgame my chances of success against club level opponents go up.

Both openings are considered weak and masters rarely play them. The Stonewall locks in the queen's bishop, while the Skandinavian allows white extra development while chasing black's queen around the board. But the level of player that can effectively use these advantages against me is probably too strong for me anyhow.

 

[McGarnicle]

Always a big fan of TimThread though. Tim always ends up being pretty provocative in his statements in other political threads after a while...

ditto. When this gets fired back up, I enjoy hanging out here. Way better scene IMO.

Reminds me of the Office when Oscar, Pam and Toby started the Finer Things Club.

tim and I get together for some chess occasionally (actually true story)

LEt's discuss the Scandinavian Defense in here IMO - better than that Dutch Stonewall #### you play tim.

I won a chess tournament in the 6th grade. I studied one book called Chess in a Nutshell by Fred Reinfeld and just annihilated everyone in my path.

 

[timschochet]

Fricken 8% for Rubio

At least in New Hampshire if not elsewhere, Christie and Kasich are starting to do better. That's at the expense of Rubio. I've been saying for a while that the establishment has got to get behind one guy before it's too late.

 

[John Bender]

Don't want to bore people with a lot of chess discussion but the reason I play the Stonewall and Skandinavian is that they are closed openings I understand. I'm relatively weak on tactics so I want to get through the opening without having to face tactical traps. If I can get into a slow paced middle game and even better yet an endgame my chances of success against club level opponents go up.

Both openings are considered weak and masters rarely play them. The Stonewall locks in the queen's bishop, while the Skandinavian allows white extra development while chasing black's queen around the board. But the level of player that can effectively use these advantages against me is probably too strong for me anyhow.

Been playing the Scandi for a while. Was an easy transition from the Caro Kann (closed, similar pawn structure).

It's actually make a bit of a comeback.

Dutch is still way out of style though, can be refuted with a fianchettoed light square bishop supposedly.

 

[McGarnicle]

We're all ignoramuses in here when it comes to elections, John, especially this year. And that includes all of the so-called experts as well. Not one political pundit on TV or elsewhere predicted that Trump would have this kind of staying power. Not one. I think that if Trump himself was being honest (a rarity) he would admit to being as surprised as anyone else.

The litmus test will be New Hampshire IMO. Iowa tells us little because a caucus is a heavily organized affair. But if Trump wins the primary in NH all bets are off and the panic starts.

I know that in one of the Trump threads a few people including Maurile Trembilay and the Commish have expressed their delight in all this mainly for the upheaval it's causing in our political system. I don't share in their enthusiasm. I'm disgusted and not a little frightened.

I'm less and less worried the more I process it. No one is paying attention yet. Once Trump is forced to get into specifics, he's going to be exposed for the buffoon he is. Plus every shady deal, every dead hooker is going to get scrutinized. He's going to crash and burn imo.

 

[timschochet]

All right, but let's take the school example. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. After Newtown, ATC1 (I think it was him) made the argument that the elementary school was chosen BECAUSE it was a gun free zone- he called it a "soft target". He argued that schools should not be gun free zones, that it would be safer if responsible teachers and other adults were armed, and that quite possibly that massacre would have been prevented.



How do you respond to this argument?

Prevent would not be completely accurate especially now with the terror threats. However, I don't see how putting a gun in a responsible person's hand in a mass shooting can result in making a bad situation worse. As you said, the Newton shooter shot himself at the first sign of police siren. What if he met resistance a lot sooner? Would he have shot himself in the event someone in the building was carrying? Or lets say it takes the shooters attention away from his targets to a threat. Would that give more time for the police to arrive, or perhaps a chance for a number of people to get away? The recent college shooting Chris Mintz an Army Vet tried to stop the gunman from entering a classroom. Just think if he was able to protect himself and those around him better?

I will admit the absolute worst that can happen is the shooter gets himself killed or shoots another person in the mist of panic. I think most people by now realize that the best thing to do in the event of a shooting is to find cover or play dead. It certainly isnt to run toward the shooter. However, lets say I hit someone in the line of fire. First of all I would be crushed. However, I am not targeting that person, so to get a fatal shot would be less than if the shooter was targeting the person himself. That might seem farfetched to some people, but I dont think people realize that it takes a good shot to kill someone with one shot. Hence why we usually get more injured then dead even when people are targeted. The Newton shooter was allowed to shoot the victims multiple times at close range. There was just no threat of anyone even rushing him.

For those saying I could get shot by police. I have not seen a scenario where this has happened, and would have to be a perfect timing scenario because the altercation would last seconds, but in the event. First time I see law enforcement the hands go up. I also dont think the police would be targeting the person that found cover first. It would be the guy in the open with the AR.

I hear the phrase more guns is not the solution. I dont see how giving the good guys a fighting chance is not a possible solution. Having an unidentified responsible person in a room carrying a gun allows for quicker response and the element of surprise IF the person decides he has the opportunity to intervene. Doesnt mean he has too. This goes into the line of tactical gear for police. Not every situation calls for it, but with proper training we get what occurred during the car shootout with police the other day. Suspects dead and no further loss of life.

I agree with DD and NCC. It is too easy to get a CCP IMO. There should be more intensive training and I think we are coming to that. There are states now that allow people to carry in places they would not normally allow. i.e. State buildings, schools, bars, churches. They are required to jump through more hoops to carry in these places. Perhaps still not to most peoples standards, but it certainly isnt a you own a gun? Oh we trust you with carry. These are also in areas that dont have a lot of crime, so I dont know how much of a deterrent it would be. I just hope that there isnt an incident where someone with a CCP does something to help gun control lobbyist in these places. I think we might be able to reduce that number with more required training.

Interesting commentary, ATC. But isn't it getting easier to get a CCW rather than more difficult? Seems like some states are making it easier.