Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Las Vegas Oct 2017 mass shooting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Then that's it then ?

    What about being able to own the weapon prior to turning 19. he didn't just order this thing from amazon and go on a spree. He wasn't an adult when he got this rifle, think he was 17. Possibly younger.

    only realised now the school shoting got lumped in with this las vegas one. funny, thought i saw a school thread, n/m
    The Right to Bear Arms has been defined all the way up to the Supreme Court of the US. To fundamentally change this Constitutional Right would require enacting Article 5 of the US Constitution, and that is specifically design this way to avoid knee jerk reactions.

    I loathe to suggest to Americans that the solution is reduce their Consitutional Rights. The reason why gun violence can be reduced in Scotland and elsewhere is precisely that gun rights are not Consitutional Rights. That situation does not exist within the United States.
    Chimo

    Comment


    • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
      The Right to Bear Arms has been defined all the way up to the Supreme Court of the US. To fundamentally change this Constitutional Right would require enacting Article 5 of the US Constitution, and that is specifically design this way to avoid knee jerk reactions.

      I loathe to suggest to Americans that the solution is reduce their Consitutional Rights. The reason why gun violence can be reduced in Scotland and elsewhere is precisely that gun rights are not Consitutional Rights. That situation does not exist within the United States.
      Barring access to these weapons for kids is knee jerk ?

      They banned fireworks when i was in NY. one fine day that was it. Gone. Only licensed professionals may operate. Not even sparklers on sale. But you can buy guns. Most ludicrous thing i ever heard.

      Its pretty obvious its the lobbying holding this thing in place. That girl gonzalez in the video nailed it.

      I've been more vocal about not taking the right to vote away from people just because they happen to be cons which nobody seems to have a problem with.

      So you see there are some double standards going on here. Evidently constitutional rights can be reduced on whatever pretext whenever they want.

      look, anytime kids are involved there is going to be a visceral reaction. This thing isn't going to die down. It isn't your avg shooting
      Last edited by Double Edge; 24 Feb 18,, 00:49.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
        Barring access to these weapons for kids is knee jerk ?
        It is when you're talking about reducing Constitutional Rights.

        Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
        They banned fireworks when i was in NY. one fine day that was it. Gone. Only licensed professionals may operate. Not even sparklers on sale. But you can buy guns. Most ludicrous thing i ever heard.
        Fireworks and even driving a car are NOT Constutional Rights. The Right ot Bear Arms Is an American Constutional Right. Even the President, Congress, and Senate combined could not ban the Right to Bear Arms.

        Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
        I've been more vocal about not taking the right to vote away from people just because they happen to be cons which nobody seems to have a problem with.

        So you see there are some double standards going on here.
        In India, voting is a Constitutional Right, firearms ownership is not.
        Chimo

        Comment


        • Non-Americans should understand what the Americans are saying about banning military look-alike firearms. All they are saying is that they will forbid new sales of these arms, not reposcessing them off of private hands. No one is talking about confiscating private property. The one State, Mass, that is trying something similar, banning the pocession of bump stocks and trigger activiators, got a total 2 bump stocks and 1 trigger activator handed in.

          This would also goto show you how many people will hand in their military style firearms.
          Chimo

          Comment


          • There would probably be a million Randy Weavers if confiscation were to begin.

            I have to admit, this is a very difficult issue. The Constitution does guarantee arms ownership, and the reasons for doing so is quite clear.

            That being said, a lone gunman with an AR-15 with a C-mag can realistically empty the magazine in a minute on semi-auto, a rate of fire which to be matched would require ~30 men firing a typical ~3 times per minute with muskets in the 1790s.
            "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
              It is when you're talking about reducing Constitutional Rights.
              i'm talking about raising the minimum age to own firearms not banning.

              Now how is that reducing constitutional rights ? once you cross whatever age stipulated go buy whatever is available.

              Banning isn't possible. But rights imply even a toddler can legally own an assault rifle.

              Fireworks and even driving a car are NOT Constutional Rights. The Right ot Bear Arms Is an American Constutional Right. Even the President, Congress, and Senate combined could not ban the Right to Bear Arms.
              Can get a driving license at 16. Cannot drink until 21. See a connection ?

              Clearly not allowing people of that age to drink and drive is a good idea

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                i'm talking about raising the minimum age to own firearms not banning.
                The minimum age to purchase firearms from a licensed dealer is 18. Private sales are another matter.

                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                Can get a driving license at 16. Cannot drink until 21.
                That is not correct. A licensed establishment is NOT allowed to serve someone under the age of 21. The establishment gets charged, not the underage drinker.
                Chimo

                Comment


                • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                  The Right to Bear Arms has been defined all the way up to the Supreme Court of the US. To fundamentally change this Constitutional Right would require enacting Article 5 of the US Constitution, and that is specifically design this way to avoid knee jerk reactions.

                  I loathe to suggest to Americans that the solution is reduce their Constitutional Rights. The reason why gun violence can be reduced in Scotland and elsewhere is precisely that gun rights are not Consitutional Rights. That situation does not exist within the United States.
                  No need to change anything.

                  A ban on "assault weapons", both federally and state level is valid. The '94 AWB ban did not get challenged in the courts, and the SCOTUS has refused to knock down the Maryland ban :

                  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1DR1SE

                  I am not going to argue with you regarding the practical applications for hunting, but the Legislature does have the power to ban/ restrict certain firearms. Therefore if the political will is present, such laws can go through. You can continue to argue about the benefit of such laws, but their constitutionality, if properly written, is proven.
                  "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by antimony View Post
                    I am not going to argue with you regarding the practical applications for hunting, but the Legislature does have the power to ban/ restrict certain firearms. Therefore if the political will is present, such laws can go through. You can continue to argue about the benefit of such laws, but their constitutionality, if properly written, is proven.
                    Again, all they did is to ban the SALE of these firearms, NOT OWNERSHIP of these firearms.
                    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 24 Feb 18,, 01:49.
                    Chimo

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by antimony View Post
                      I am not going to argue with you regarding the practical applications for hunting, but the Legislature does have the power to ban/ restrict certain firearms. Therefore if the political will is present, such laws can go through. You can continue to argue about the benefit of such laws, but their constitutionality, if properly written, is proven.
                      Actually, you're way off in your assumption. At no time did these bans violated the Right to Bear Arms, what they did do is to restrict the sale of said arms. No one took a single assualt type rifle off the streets with these bans, not even Maryland.
                      Chimo

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by citanon View Post
                        That's why you arm the teachers. Parental instinct. If that coach who shielded his kids had an AR, this would have stopped right there.
                        Not firearms but perhaps, give him a riot ballistic shield.
                        Chimo

                        Comment


                        • This was kind of a WTF moment. Trump's cheat sheet from the meeting with students.

                          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                            This was kind of a WTF moment. Trump's cheat sheet from the meeting with students.

                            For me it was a 'pretty much as expected' moment. Anyone who thinks this guy means a single thing he says that isn't about how wonderful he is has been living in a hole for 30+ years.
                            sigpic

                            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                              Actually, you're way off in your assumption. At no time did these bans violated the Right to Bear Arms, what they did do is to restrict the sale of said arms. No one took a single assualt type rifle off the streets with these bans, not even Maryland.
                              Sure, they banned the sale and not ownership.

                              What happens, theoretically, if Congress passes that federally (I am not proposing that myself, but let's do that thought exercise)? With no more sales (including sales of stripped lowers and "80%" lowers), manufacturers drop their product lines and change their tooling to build other products. Existing "assault rifle" prices skyrocket. After a point, so does ammo. You practical concerns regarding hunting notwithstanding, this can be done and wouod be supported by the courts.

                              As per Scalia in the Heller decision :
                              Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
                              Auto rifles were brought under NFA. How many do you see now in private hands
                              "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                                Not firearms but perhaps, give him a riot ballistic shield.
                                this makes far more sense than harebrained ideas of "give teachers guns"
                                "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X