• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

An attempted mass killing this weekend.

28kfps

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
1,534
Location
Pointy end and slightly to the left
An attempted mass killing this weekend. Killed one, another person was critically injured. Two others were taken to hospitals in serious condition 8 others injured, dozens running for their lives. The perpetrator armed himself with a full auto Dodge.

Not making light of such a horrendous and sad issue however, applying the anti gun thinking we should have laws to stop such act. Like making it illegal to drive on the sidewalk. We should require the weapon to be registered, the operator to have a license.

As most derange, unhinged idiot lawbreakers, such laws, and requirements mean nothing to them. So we should sue all car manufactures for making such a weapon which when operated by a derange, unhinged idiot can be used to kill and injure a large group of civilians.

Maybe we can encourage a brainless billionaire to start a mayors lacking commonsense activist group in hopes of forcing car manufactures to make their vehicles out of sponge rubber and Styrofoam because if it saves just one life when operated by a derange, unhinged idiot it would be worth it.

At the legal vehicle owners expense the government should require all legal vehicle owners when doing their daily routine to tow an armored secure lockable trailer behind their vehicle. When a vehicle is parked unattended, it must be locked and secured in the trailer after removing the tires and wheels. Wheels and tires to be locked in a separate container and drain the fuel into a lockable EPA approved container meeting all state, county, city, national and UN fire codes. All in an effort to keep the derange, unhinged idiot lawbreakers from taking it. If it saves just one life, it is worth it.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
An attempted mass killing this weekend. Killed one, another person was critically injured. Two others were taken to hospitals in serious condition 8 others injured, dozens running for their lives. The perpetrator armed himself with a full auto Dodge.

Not making light of such a horrendous and sad issue however, applying the anti gun thinking we should have laws to stop such act. Like making it illegal to drive on the sidewalk. We should require the weapon to be registered, the operator to have a license.

As most derange, unhinged idiot lawbreakers, such laws, and requirements mean nothing to them. So we should sue all car manufactures for making such a weapon which when operated by a derange, unhinged idiot can be used to kill and injure a large group of civilians.

Maybe we can encourage a brainless billionaire to start a mayors lacking commonsense activist group in hopes of forcing car manufactures to make their vehicles out of sponge rubber and Styrofoam because if it saves just one life when operated by a derange, unhinged idiot it would be worth it.

At the legal vehicle owners expense the government should require all legal vehicle owners when doing their daily routine to tow an armored secure lockable trailer behind their vehicle. When a vehicle is parked unattended, it must be locked and secured in the trailer after removing the tires and wheels. Wheels and tires to be locked in a separate container and drain the fuel into a lockable EPA approved container meeting all state, county, city, national and UN fire codes. All in an effort to keep the derange, unhinged idiot lawbreakers from taking it. If it saves just one life, it is worth it.

Apt analogy, is there a link to the story?
 

Black_water

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2013
Messages
125
Location
On The Border in AZ
Not to make light of it, but when Gifford's got shot here in Tucson, I pointed out very clearly that her attacker could have done much more damage with a car than he could have with a gun.

Even if we had incidents like this one every week, nothing would ever be done. Politicians do not care about saving lives, unless it is their own. You cannot mount a rebellion by driving cars, using bats etc.

We all know why they want gun bans and it has nothing to do with saving lives.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/04/venice-beach-crash-video_n_3703376.html Found it.

Black dodge avenger, must be an assault vehicle. If they would limit the number of tires this wouldn't happen.

The logic of anti-gunners, for loose definition of "logic" is easily attacked by analogizing to vehicle incidents. There is no right to drive in the constitution (vs RkBA) and the average person sees vastly more risk from vehicle "violence" as compared to firearms violence. We have all kinds of sentence enhancements in various jurisdictions for using a firearm in the commission of various crimes, but Im not aware of any (are there any?) vehicle enhancements for using a vehicle in the commission of a crime.

Certainh vehicle types are substantially more likely to be the means used in "vehicle violence" but libtards don't call for bans, etc. They are primarily concerned with SUVs for gas guzzling, though

Ive heard them whinge about "saturday night specials" which are simply firearms inexpensive enough for more people to be able to afford them (and statistically speaking, lower income demographics are more likely to be the victims of gun violence0, BUT i don't see them whinge about inexpensiev vehicles as "monday afternoon" specials that should be banned

Even in my profession, in most years more of us are killed via vehicles , whether accidental or intentional incidents, than via firearms

Fatality rates increase substantially at higher speeds, so where are the antis calling for limiters to be installed to keep vehicles from going too fast?

and etc.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
I am demanding the President speak to the American people and:

1) Demand that all private automobiles be limited to 2 cylinders. There is no reason that anyone needs more than 2. Vehicles with 8+ cylinders are used in the military... and rightfully so. They have the training to handle such vehicles.

2) Immediately demand legislation forbidding those who are nonimmigrant aliens, felons, those convicted of any violent misdemeanor, and those who are under terms of an order of protection from possession of any personal vehicle.

3) Demand legislation to limit gas tank capacity to 1 gallon. By limiting tank capacity to 1 gallon of either gas or diesel, lives will be saved because a person would not want to drive in a manner that would increase fuel consumption, such as the person responsible for the Venice Beach tragedy did. Additionally, this common-sense restriction would limit the area needed to be searched after these tragic events. It is a small inconvenience to demand drivers fill up every 10-35 miles if it saves one life.

4) Change the age for purchase of a private vehicle to 21 years old if purchased from a dealer. Although private party purchase of vehicles may be determined by individual states, I suggest a common age in all states. Possession of a vehicle is allowed for those under 21 only if they have a signed/notarized copy of a permission slip from parent/guardian AND is under direct supervision of a person over 21 licensed to drive.

Besides these commonsense immediate restrictions on these weapons of death, I demand that the President coordinate the establishment of a panel composed of citizens who have loved ones that have been killed or seriously injured by private vehicles. This panel will present a report to Congress within 90 days outlining other policies or legislation that can be enacted to stem the flow of blood in the streets. When will enough be enough?
 
Last edited:

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
The logic of anti-gunners, for loose definition of "logic" is easily attacked by analogizing to vehicle incidents. There is no right to drive in the constitution (vs RkBA) and the average person sees vastly more risk from vehicle "violence" as compared to firearms violence. We have all kinds of sentence enhancements in various jurisdictions for using a firearm in the commission of various crimes, but Im not aware of any (are there any?) vehicle enhancements for using a vehicle in the commission of a crime.

Certainh vehicle types are substantially more likely to be the means used in "vehicle violence" but libtards don't call for bans, etc. They are primarily concerned with SUVs for gas guzzling, though

Ive heard them whinge about "saturday night specials" which are simply firearms inexpensive enough for more people to be able to afford them (and statistically speaking, lower income demographics are more likely to be the victims of gun violence0, BUT i don't see them whinge about inexpensiev vehicles as "monday afternoon" specials that should be banned

Even in my profession, in most years more of us are killed via vehicles , whether accidental or intentional incidents, than via firearms

Fatality rates increase substantially at higher speeds, so where are the antis calling for limiters to be installed to keep vehicles from going too fast?

and etc.

There's no right to drive in the constituion? There's no right to breath either. :uhoh:
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
There's no right to drive in the constituion? There's no right to breath either. :uhoh:

True that. So don't piss off Obamaco and his murderdrones, though or he might revoke your permit to breathe

That aside, the operative difference between breathing and driving is only one is an "other regarding" activity that kills and maims thousands of people per year.

As a libertarian, I don't think the state has interest/authoritah in regulating self regarding behavior. That's why all drugs should be legal, prostitution should be legal, etc.

However, when it comes to activities, like driving, that are substantially injurious to other parties, like driving , the state has a high interest in regulation

Driving is unique from carrying a firearm in that it is not constitutionally protected. RKBA *is*

That's why it's just for the state to require licenses to drive, but UNJUST for them to requiire permits/licenses to conceal carry

Imo, shall not be infringed means just that

Any regulatory scheme that infringes on the RKBA is unconstitutional imo. Constitutional carry should be the law of the land, but constitutional driving (the right to drive without regulation) should NOT be

I'm somewhat OK with rescinding RKBA if the person has been convicted of at least a VIOLENT felony, but the fact that people can't RKBA because of a garden variety felony like writing a check on a closed account imo is violative of the 2nd amendment

cheers
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
True that. So don't piss off Obamaco and his murderdrones, though or he might revoke your permit to breathe

That aside, the operative difference between breathing and driving is only one is an "other regarding" activity that kills and maims thousands of people per year.

Driving kills NO ONE. Driving incorrectly does. Hmmmm... Cars don't kill people, people kill people?

As a libertarian, I don't think the state has interest/authoritah in regulating self regarding behavior. That's why all drugs should be legal, prostitution should be legal, etc.

However, when it comes to activities, like driving, that are substantially injurious to other parties, like driving , the state has a high interest in regulation

As a libertarian, you should study a bit more about "liberty". Driving is injurious to no one. It also doesn't matter if the state has a "high interest" in regulating something if it has not been given the constitutional authority to regulate.

Driving is unique from carrying a firearm in that it is not constitutionally protected. RKBA *is*

That's why it's just for the state to require licenses to drive, but UNJUST for them to requiire permits/licenses to conceal carry

Imo, shall not be infringed means just that

Not even close to correct. You probably meant that driving is not an "enumerated" right, but the "right to travel" is protected by the 9th and 10th amendments. It is unjust for a state to require a license where it has no constitutional authority to do so.

Any regulatory scheme that infringes on the RKBA is unconstitutional imo. Constitutional carry should be the law of the land, but constitutional driving (the right to drive without regulation) should NOT be

I'm somewhat OK with rescinding RKBA if the person has been convicted of at least a VIOLENT felony, but the fact that people can't RKBA because of a garden variety felony like writing a check on a closed account imo is violative of the 2nd amendment

cheers

You are one of millions that have accepted the loss of our right to travel... you even spew the rhetoric we've been told to make us feel better about it. Please take some time to understand the word "liberty", especially as it pertains to our right to travel.

Our 2A right will evaporate similarly if we fail to understand what happened to our right to travel.
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
Driving kills NO ONE. Driving incorrectly does. Hmmmm... Cars don't kill people, people kill people?



As a libertarian, you should study a bit more about "liberty". Driving is injurious to no one. It also doesn't matter if the state has a "high interest" in regulating something if it has not been given the constitutional authority to regulate.



Not even close to correct. You probably meant that driving is not an "enumerated" right, but the "right to travel" is protected by the 9th and 10th amendments. It is unjust for a state to require a license where it has no constitutional authority to do so.



You are one of millions that have accepted the loss of our right to travel... you even spew the rhetoric we've been told to make us feel better about it. Please take some time to understand the word "liberty", especially as it pertains to our right to travel.

Our 2A right will evaporate similarly if we fail to understand what happened to our right to travel.

Rubbish. There is a substantial difference between RKBA and driving. Driving is a privilege, not a right. The right to travel is paramount, sure. The right to use a potential deadly weapon traveling at high speeds, and that use of results in many deaths per year is a privilege not a right.

Again, the right to travel is respected. The right to travel VIA an automobile is a privilege and is and should be highly regulated. Travel hurts nobody. Automobile use hurts scores of thousands.

You falsely claim that only improper driving leads to collisions. Utter rubbish. Sometimes, environmental conditions and/or vehicle defects that are unknown and no responsibility of the driver, cause collisions. It is certainly true that MOST collisions are mostly or solely the result of driver error (too fast for conditions, follwoing too closely, etc.)

Study the NHTSA stats, etc. You will see that this is true. However, again, it is true that MOST vehicular carnage involves driver error.

Many collisions are also caused by pedestrian error. Little kids running into the street. That's one of the reason we set speed limits low in residential area. At 25 mph, you have substantially less risk of hitting a kid who engages in such error, and substantially less risk of killing him if you hit them. That's a regulation *I* am willing to live with.

The issue is that we invented a device that is fraught with danger, the automobile, to make travel more efficient. Thousands of people die every year. Imnsho the state has a duty to highly regulate same, and that;s why on every civilized nation on earth, it is thus regulated.

We have managed through improved medicine, improved vehicle design, improved enforcement (specifically dui), airbags, etc. etc. to bring our fatality per mile driven RATE down to 20% of what it was at its peak. That is phenomenal and literally scores of thousands of people who will live, who once would not

We will continue to highyl regulate and enforce driving because it's the right thing to do and because it saves lives, not just lives of those driving badly, but lives of pure innocents who get struck by them.

RKBA to contrast is a right, not a privilege. The state thus has a substantially high burden to regulat same IN ANY WAY, and certainly far less than it does, with licenses and other such rubbish.

A libertarian who doesn't want to strongly regulate driving is an idiot libertarian. A libertarian who wants to strongly regulate RKBA is not a libertarian.

If we are going to LET people (it's a privilege) operate deadly missiles at high speed, we should , must, and do regulate them - requiring licenses, enforcing DUI laws, etc. etc. and thank god we do. We've saved tons of lives by doing so (see above about collision rates).

It's wholly distinguishable from RKBA.

cheers

PS I forgot to mention vehicle collisions caused my medical events. It's hardly the "fault" of a driver, if they have a heart attack while driving, or a seizure (certainly not if it's their first seizure), etc.

I've investigated several collsions caused be medical events e.g. heart attack, diabetic episode, bee sting while driving (anaphylaxis etc.). Those are usually unpredictable events and cause some serious carnage. But by regulating (making cars more crash resistant and protective of occupants) we substantially reduce their risk.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
There's no right to drive in the constituion? There's no right to breath either. :uhoh:
Uh?
.....nor be
deprived​
of life, liberty, or property, without
due process​
of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
We have a right to breath until it is revoked via due process of law. Cops get to do that every now and then, the revoking part that is.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Rubbish. There is a substantial difference between RKBA and driving. Driving is a privilege, not a right. The right to travel is paramount, sure. The right to use a potential deadly weapon traveling at high speeds, and that use of results in many deaths per year is a privilege not a right.

Again, the right to travel is respected. The right to travel VIA an automobile is a privilege and is and should be highly regulated. Travel hurts nobody. Automobile use hurts scores of thousands.

You falsely claim that only improper driving leads to collisions. Utter rubbish. Sometimes, environmental conditions and/or vehicle defects that are unknown and no responsibility of the driver, cause collisions. It is certainly true that MOST collisions are mostly or solely the result of driver error (too fast for conditions, follwoing too closely, etc.)

Study the NHTSA stats, etc. You will see that this is true. However, again, it is true that MOST vehicular carnage involves driver error.

Many collisions are also caused by pedestrian error. Little kids running into the street. That's one of the reason we set speed limits low in residential area. At 25 mph, you have substantially less risk of hitting a kid who engages in such error, and substantially less risk of killing him if you hit them. That's a regulation *I* am willing to live with.

The issue is that we invented a device that is fraught with danger, the automobile, to make travel more efficient. Thousands of people die every year. Imnsho the state has a duty to highly regulate same, and that;s why on every civilized nation on earth, it is thus regulated.

We have managed through improved medicine, improved vehicle design, improved enforcement (specifically dui), airbags, etc. etc. to bring our fatality per mile driven RATE down to 20% of what it was at its peak. That is phenomenal and literally scores of thousands of people who will live, who once would not

We will continue to highyl regulate and enforce driving because it's the right thing to do and because it saves lives, not just lives of those driving badly, but lives of pure innocents who get struck by them.

RKBA to contrast is a right, not a privilege. The state thus has a substantially high burden to regulat same IN ANY WAY, and certainly far less than it does, with licenses and other such rubbish.

A libertarian who doesn't want to strongly regulate driving is an idiot libertarian. A libertarian who wants to strongly regulate RKBA is not a libertarian.

If we are going to LET people (it's a privilege) operate deadly missiles at high speed, we should , must, and do regulate them - requiring licenses, enforcing DUI laws, etc. etc. and thank god we do. We've saved tons of lives by doing so (see above about collision rates).

It's wholly distinguishable from RKBA.

cheers
Citizens used to get trampled by horses and horse drawn vehicles. The mode of transportation is not the issue the operator is the issue. You desire (accept) the limitations placed on the citizenry by liberals, who have voted into existence, laws that have no direct linkage to a constitution. Making the operating of a motor vehicle a licensed activity for the responsible law abiding citizen is analogous to a pistol permit. Now, we can disagree and that is fine, but, liberty demands that irresponsibility, negligent or intentional, be addressed after the event. Liberty does not demand preemptive acts by government, only liberals demand such, and so do liberal-lite folks who agree with just a little bit of government oppression.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Uh?We have a right to breath until it is revoked via due process of law. Cops get to do that every now and then, the revoking part that is.

Thanks for catching this OCforME. I believe Palo missed it...

Breathing is esential for our right to life just as traveling is essential for our right to liberty
 
Last edited:

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Citizens used to get trampled by horses and horse drawn vehicles. The mode of transportation is not the issue the operator is the issue. You desire (accept) the limitations placed on the citizenry by liberals, who have voted into existence, laws that have no direct linkage to a constitution. Making the operating of a motor vehicle a licensed activity for the responsible law abiding citizen is analogous to a pistol permit. Now, we can disagree and that is fine, but, liberty demands that irresponsibility, negligent or intentional, be addressed after the event. Liberty does not demand preemptive acts by government, only liberals demand such, and so do liberal-lite folks who agree with just a little bit of government oppression.

+1

Ill add... The courts defined "driving" as comercial activity and then the legislatures used their authority to regulate it. Next, states slowy brought all activity on the public roads under comercial activity and a huge majority of citizens acquiesced. The right to travel is gone and it appears to have passed with cheers from the people.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
As I've said before, thanks to the Heller decision, which protects (using the "popularity doctrine") semi-automatic handguns as an extension of the second amendment, the right to drive a car must similarly be a protected extension of the first amendment right to travel for assembly. QED.

No, I haven't cut up my DL, but that doesn't mean PALO here isn't 100% full of **** (accepting that he's just parroting statist sophistry from the SCOTUS).

Now, someone ban me for excessive alliteration.
 
Last edited:

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
As I've said before, thanks to the Heller decision, which protects (using the "popularity doctrine") semi-automatic handguns as an extension of the second amendment, the right to drive a car must similarly be a protected extension of the first amendment right to travel for assembly. QED.

No, I haven't cut up my DL, but that doesn't mean PALO here isn't 100% full of **** (accepting that he's just parroting statist sophistry from the SCOTUS).

Now, someone ban me for excessive alliteration.

Geeeeeez! I can't believe I left out the 1A. Thanks
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
I'm open to being convinced either way, but I'm not yet on board with "right to travel" (which we have) being equal to "right to operate a motor vehicle." I agree that the latter is the most common and convenient form, but it is not required for the process.

There are plenty of people who should not be driving a motor vehicle.

IMO, the standards for a driver's license are too low, and fewer people should be able to get one. It should not be treated as a rite-of-passage for teenagers.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
The logic of anti-gunners, for loose definition of "logic" is easily attacked by analogizing to vehicle incidents. There is no right to drive in the constitution (vs RkBA) and the average person sees vastly more risk from vehicle "violence" as compared to firearms violence. We have all kinds of sentence enhancements in various jurisdictions for using a firearm in the commission of various crimes, but Im not aware of any (are there any?) vehicle enhancements for using a vehicle in the commission of a crime.

Certainh vehicle types are substantially more likely to be the means used in "vehicle violence" but libtards don't call for bans, etc. They are primarily concerned with SUVs for gas guzzling, though

Ive heard them whinge about "saturday night specials" which are simply firearms inexpensive enough for more people to be able to afford them (and statistically speaking, lower income demographics are more likely to be the victims of gun violence0, BUT i don't see them whinge about inexpensiev vehicles as "monday afternoon" specials that should be banned

Even in my profession, in most years more of us are killed via vehicles , whether accidental or intentional incidents, than via firearms

Fatality rates increase substantially at higher speeds, so where are the antis calling for limiters to be installed to keep vehicles from going too fast?

and etc.

Many Constitutional scholars would disagree with your statement that "there is no right to drive" in the Constitution. From the time of the Assizes, which our common law is based upon, the right to peaceful passage has always existed. Horses were not regulated in the 17-1800s, and they were the mode of transportation for that passage. The car is the horse a century removed. That government regulates cars has no basis in the Constitution except vaguely in Interstate Commerce. Cars are a way of generating revenue for the states. Preying upon lawful citizens by the police for traffic "violations" the biggest outrage. Traffic cops should wear masks as they are no better than outlaws robbing citizens in the stagecoach era.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
I'm open to being convinced either way, but I'm not yet on board with "right to travel" (which we have) being equal to "right to operate a motor vehicle." I agree that the latter is the most common and convenient form, but it is not required for the process.

There are plenty of people who should not be driving a motor vehicle.

IMO, the standards for a driver's license are too low, and fewer people should be able to get one. It should not be treated as a rite-of-passage for teenagers.

You have to understand that the term "motor vehicle" is a legal term. It does not include my private property which happens to have a motor.

Additionally, all forms of travel are regulated. Bicycles, walking etc...

Just like any right, the right I have to use the roads that I help pay for cannot be licensed in a free republic. Defining what type of property I may travel with results in a regulated right.

Let's remind of ourselves that safety is never a reason to give government authority to regulate a right.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I'm open to being convinced either way, but I'm not yet on board with "right to travel" (which we have) being equal to "right to operate a motor vehicle." I agree that the latter is the most common and convenient form, but it is not required for the process.

I'm open to being convinced either way, but I'm not yet on board with "right to keep and bear arms" (which we have) being equal to "right to operate a semi-automatic handgun." I agree that the latter is the most common and convenient form, but it is not required for the process.

There are plenty of people who should not be driving a motor vehicle.

There are plenty of people who should not be carrying a semi-automatic handgun.

IMO, the standards for a driver's license are too low, and fewer people should be able to get one. It should not be treated as a rite-of-passage for teenagers.

IMO, the standards to carry a semi-automatic handgun are too low, and fewer people should be able to do so. It should not be treated as a rite-of-passage for young adults.




Does that help?
 
Last edited:
Top