Police: Seven shot on Detroit's west side

[MichaelHarris]

Just before 3 p.m., two men were seen in ski masks approaching the teens -- including three boys and two girls, ages 14-16 -- at the bus stop at the Southfield Freeway service drive and West Warren Avenue, Detroit police said. http://www.detnews.com/article/20090630/METRO/906300413/Police--Seven-shot-on-Detroit-s-west-side

[derby378]

1. Why is this posted in the Guns forum?

Detroit is self-destructing as a result of the Bush administration and the bankruptcy of GM, ushered on by Republican unionbusters in the Senate. The city's infrastructure has been disintegrating for years because of the economic climate and the lack of collective will to save the city. It's New Orleans in slow motion.

[MichaelHarris]

2. Well I woud I say genius,

it's because the NRA wants to make sure Detroit has all the guns it needs while it destructs?

[virginia mountainman]

3. No, the NRA does NOT say that..

You sound like Caroline "things that go up" McCarthy, when you spread shit like that....

EDITED to add snark...

[MichaelHarris]

6. Name two

cities the NRA is fighting or has fought handgun bans? I can, can you?

[derby378]

7. Ah, the truth comes out...

You're using this post to push for more gun bans. Sorry, man, but the Democratic Party is slowly starting to realize the folly of it all. There are better solutions out there that only need some collective will in order to implement.

[iverglas]

13. "the truth comes out"

Yes indeed. MichaelHarris has tried very very hard to hide from everyone the fact that he supports handgun bans. All that work for nothing, eh?

Or ... you mean that wasn't what you were saying?

You mean, this was just one more sad, tired attempt to make something look like it isn't?

Here. I don't think you need any lessons, but you never know, you might pick up a few new tricks:

http://www.scooterbbs.com/archive/anything/5004/0.html

[MichaelHarris]

16. Never once here

or anywhere else have I called for handgun bans, I simply asked if the NRA gets involved in state and local politics when they try and lower their crime rates. The previous poster insinuated the NRA hasn't done that. Now, since you tried unsuccessfully to change the discussion I'll ask you this. Most NRA, guns-rights advocates, and many gun owners here in the Gun Forum also support a strong 10th Amendment. You know where the states have some sovereignty and try and control their destination though various avenues. One such could be banning guns in high crime areas.

So now, when it has to do with guns you want a strong central government with it's court stomping states and cities who try and lower crime. Anything other than that you want state sovereignty right?

[virginia mountainman]

8. You mean, cities that COMPLETELY restrict a constitutional right??

No one at the NRA is advocating arming everyone... YOUR LYING OUT YOUR GOOFY KEYBOARD when you type that crap..

And you know it. We don't need to obfuscate the truth to win, this is why your side looses.

Get with the mainstream, gun control is soooooo 1990.

[MichaelHarris]

17. No

you're wrong, I'm showing the hypocrisy between those who support a strong 10th amendment unless it interferes with the second. Chicago for example. They try and lower violence with handgun bans and the NRA goes ape shit. Where is the 10th amendment here, where is Illinois's sovereignty here? I know it says powers not enumerated in the 10th but Heller also says weapons not normally used by armies or militias. Now, name one army whose primary weapon is a handgun? Heller does says handguns are used for self defense but the second doesn't address self defense.

Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm? The Court finally noted that its ruling affected only the District of Columbia, as a federal enclave.

Now, if you have the brain capacity, think about this: First DC was a federal concern, the Court may or may not stomp on the 10th amendment when ruling on the second when it comes to state and local government. Second, Heller left the court open to the definition of weapons citizens can consider as "militia", the second amendment DOES NOT address personal protection, it ONLY addresses militia and a free state.

Now, in the Supreme Court will the Court push away the 10th to defend the second? Will they allow the above mentioned free state exercise it's right to the 10th when addressing high crime?

Before you attack and get all pissy you should look at ALL the possibilities.

[Deadric Damodred]

21. The anti-gun side has hypocrisy as well.

What was it that Obama said? "What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne". That suggests that the gun laws that some areas have may not be good for other areas. That statement is the complete opposite of his support for another "assault weapon" ban, which would affect the entire nation. So which is the true want and which is the lie? Is he for different areas of the country deciding for themselves what guns their residents can own, or is he for forcing all areas in the country to abide by which gun laws he personally likes?

[gorfle]

40. Well...

You will note that the assault weapon ban is no longer a part of his published urban policy agenda on www.whitehouse.gov.

[X_Digger]

27. Go kick your government teacher, s/he failed

10th:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

14th:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If the second amendment is incorporated against the states, that means it's not up to the states to interpret their own spin.

Iowa can't determine which religious freedoms are protected and which aren't, Georgia can't determine what qualifies as illegal search and seizure, but Illinois _can_ interpret indictment by a grand jury because that portion of the fifth has _not_ been incorporated.

[MichaelHarris]

35. I probably know them

much better than you ever will.

[X_Digger]

38. Obviously not..

"but the second doesn't address self defense."

The bill of rights does not _grant_ rights, nor are rights limited by those the bill of rights protects. It's not a "people can" document, it's a "the government can't" document. That's fundamental, and you seem to have it ass backwards.

Heller found that self-defense is a pre-existing right of the people, not dependent on the constitution. (A right can be protected by the constitution, making it an 'enumerated' right, but there are 'unenumerated rights' as well.)

[spin]

32. Chicago HAS a handgun ban...

Handguns are illegal in Chicago unless they were grandfathered in by being registered before April 16, 1982.

So Chicago's handgun ban has had 27 years to work.

[gorfle]

39. No right of personal protection.

Second, Heller left the court open to the definition of weapons citizens can consider as "militia", the second amendment DOES NOT address personal protection, it ONLY addresses militia and a free state.

I believe you are wrong on the Heller decision, but in any case, if I am not free to protect myself with arms commonly relegated to that purpose I am not in a free state.

[pipoman]

45. Actually Heller held

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

So again, you are quite wrong. One would think, sooner or later, you would actually begin doing research before spouting falsehoods and ultimately looking goofy.

[DonP]

10. That's easy Chicago and DC ...

... two cities that typically have the highest murder rates in the country thanks to being gun free zones.

But Detroit was located in Michigan last time I checked and they have a "shall issue" concealed carry law.

Do you have any information that the people involved were CCW holders? Or were they just another group of lawless thugs breaking another law they don't give a shit about?

I'm assuming your point is "bad people do bad things with guns sometimes" - to complete the thought "until good people with guns show up and make them stop".

[derby378]

4. In other words, you just want to poke a hornet's nest?

These crazy notions people get in their heads sometimes...

[MichaelHarris]

5. sure

I'm not afraid of hornets.

[virginia mountainman]

9. Yep Derby..

One day, these people, will realize that it is not wise, to come up with new ways to restrict a civil right...

Especially when someone uses their same reasoning to restrict a civil right they care about....

[MichaelHarris]

26. not

wise? Threat?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

15. any chance you noticed ...

"Troll Alert! Do not feed the troll."

... that your previous effort along this line no longer exists?

Any reason you don't feel bound by the civility rules of this website, SteveM?

Makes one very confident about the law-abiding-ness of the self-proclaimed law-abiding, don't it?

[Tejas]

23. evidently your ankle-biter disagrees with

the "civility rules of this website", the mods apparently don't care either, so quit whining and get back to demeaning the Civil Rights of your neighboring country.

:)

[iverglas]

25. evidently you're blind

The previous identical effort no longer exists, and the one in question here will enjoy the same fate.

Now you go back to being a bitter gun-hugger now.

[MichaelHarris]

18. Troll?

seriously? That's all you got? Calling a person a troll when they post about school children being shot at? You really love your guns.

[Tejas]

12. Maybe the DU needs a CRIME forum where

those that hunger for gore could get their fill. Town criers that live every breathing moment to google murders and rapes would have a venue to show their expertise, and weirdos with a bloodlust could have their daily fix.

[iverglas]

14. excellent; now all you have to do is get Dave and his fans onside

[iverglas]

20. blast; that was supposed to say

"weirdos with a bloodlust" indeed.

[MichaelHarris]

19. Is that

because you want to shut your eyes to what guns are really being used for on city streets all across America? Truthfully, you only want the hard-on you get when you read Dave's "good shoot" postings. Are you rubbing the barrel right now?

[Tejas]

22. No, because

MichaelHarris (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-30-09 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. Is that
because you want to shut your eyes to what guns are really being used for on city streets all across America? Truthfully, you only want the hard-on you get when you read Dave's "good shoot" postings. Are you rubbing the barrel right now?

-----------------------------------------------------



because gore and blood-in-the-streets is old hat in the Gungeon, but dfon't let that stop you.


Oh, and the penis stuff..........

[MichaelHarris]

24. Is that

a no to the barrel rubbing?

[burrfoot]

28. MH,

you've got a legitimate point here. Seven teenagers were killed and it is f#@&ing horrific. Use that point.

It isn't necessary for you to bring in the sex stuff. It detracts from any validity that may be in your post, as it is not in any way possible for you "truly" know what you allege.

(that's in reference to the last two sentences of your post)

[iverglas]

29. okay, give me a fucking break (edited)

You go to the trouble of handing out this sage advice, and you have NOTHING to say to the author of the moronically vicious tripe the post in question was in response to?

Good faith?


(Okay, benefit of doubt. Being new, you might not have immediately located that moronically vicious tripe at quite the right spot on the spectrum. Trust me, it was not addressed to posts of the kind that Dave treats us to.)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. At least get it right they are "righteous" shooting post.

Righteous was found to piss gun grabbers off far more than good shoot. With good the connotation could be it was a good shot or lucky shot. RIghteous removes all doubt.

David

[burrfoot]

30. I think

that the reason Dave posts what he does is in response to the fairly frequent claim made by some on this forum that goes along the lines of "guns rarely/never/cannot make people safer", or "you're more likely to shoot yourself/injure an innocent bystander than to stop a crime/save a life/protect yourself or someone else".

I also think it's pretty clear that this is why he posts the stories.

It's certainly possible that gathering them on one large thread might help, but I think it's pretty clear how and why they are relevant to the gun forum and the issues discussed here.

[iverglas]

31. see the edit to my previous post

You have indeed got it backwards. The crap you were addressing just didn't have to do with Dave's litany of dead bad guys. It was addressed to MichaelHarris.

Leaving us with the question of why MichaelHarris's posts were singled out of the much larger "blood and gore" class hereabouts.

The answer will become clearer to you over time.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. All this attention to lowly little me, I'm embarrassed.

As if that was possible.

David

[burrfoot]

36. Hold on,

first of all, my "sage advice" is nothing more than my own opinion. I don't suffer from the belief that I'm always right or that anyone should give more of a shit about what I have to say than about what anyone else here has to say.

Second: What am I missing here? I'm obviously not catching onto something. It appears to me as though MH's post regarding the sexual pleasure supposedly derived from the variety of "good/bad/whatever" shoot stories that are posted on this website (19)- which is the post in question- was in response to Tejas' comment about DU needing a crime forum (12), which was in response to "Why is this posted in the GUNS forum?" (1).

The reason I addressed MH's post was because I think it's unnecessary and counterproductive to bring in the sex thing in regard to "shoot" posts. Or did you mean why did Tejas choose to address MH's post rather than any others?

Now... wasn't MH indicating that Tejas was the one that had the fantasies, based on the fact that he thought they should be in a separate forum? Implication (as I read it) being that Tejas is not interested in these events in their larger context and therefore could only have a sexual reason for wanting to read them?

I am completely unaware of what moronically viscous tripe is at issue. All I can find on this thread is the story about the kids being shot. Is this history from other threads/times/incidents?

It seems that I should, perhaps, lurk more before posting around here. I'm really not very good at that though.

Not for nothing, is it possible that along with one side holding off on calling the other side pansy communists (or words to that effect), the other side could hold off on calling the first gore-porn sexual deviants (or words to that effect)? Because, at least in my view, neither comes off as anything but foolish when they do so.

Foolish at best, that is; giant-mega-super-league-assholes at worst.

MH, my apologies if I got all this backward. Here on the gun forum, things couldn't be clearer! :shrug:

[Tejas]

37. No, due to my curiosity if a "CRIME" forum would be useful for

"police blotter" posts here at the DU, for some mystical reason it triggered a weird sexual response from MH. I have no earthly clue why MH does that crap, maybe a psychiatrist would.

Anyway, welcome to the Gungeon burrfoot.

[burrfoot]

41. thanks, tejas

for the welcome. I'll continue to muddle my way through all this. It's good fun reading, though, no matter what :)

[iverglas]

42. "I'm obviously not catching onto something."

Yeah.

Or did you mean why did Tejas choose to address MH's post rather than any others?

And yeah, except that if I framed it as a question, it was rhetorical.

It seems that I should, perhaps, lurk more before posting around here.

And yeah.

Tejas's original post, the one that elicited the reply from MH that you objected to, was in reply to MH's opening post, and was:

Maybe the DU needs a CRIME forum where
those that hunger for gore could get their fill. Town criers that live every breathing moment to google murders and rapes would have a venue to show their expertise, and weirdos with a bloodlust could have their daily fix.

So then, speaking in all sincerity, about whom do you think he was talking? Recalling that the post was written in reply to MH's opening post?

And so what do you suppose the "moronically viscous tripe" to which I referred was?

[burrfoot]

43. Hmm.

By the structure of the thread, T's original post was not, in fact, in reply to MH's opening post. It was in response to reply #1.

That's why I was confused about the intensity of MH's response. It makes more sense now; and although I still think we'd all get further if none of us provoked the others, I'm beginning to think that I'm at the wrong website for that :)

Thanks, iverglas, for the direction, the whole thread has a different feel now.

[Tejas]

44. correct.

By the structure of the thread, T's original post was not, in fact, in reply to MH's opening post. It was in response to reply #1.


As you have now witnessed, even when faced with the cold hard truth of a straight dotted line on their computer monitor some will still spin it into whatever suits them.


:rofl:

[iverglas]

46. yeah, it was in response to #1

#1, which expressed the author's opinion that the post did not belong in this forum.

So how Tejas's reply was not ABOUT the opening post/poster, I'm afraid I just don't see. Or believe.

[Tejas]

47. "So how.........?" - because I say so.

:rofl: