Walmart shooting - El Paso

[normiss 855]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Perhaps you should read, carefully, the SCOTUS decison (written by Scalia) in the Heller case.

It makes it very clear that prohibitions on certain types of firearms, and on ownership by certain classes of people, and in certain locations, are quite constitutional.

"Well regulated", indeed.

[JoeWeber 2,836]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

Perhaps you should read, carefully, the SCOTUS decison (written by Scalia) in the Heller case.

It makes it very clear that prohibitions on certain types of firearms, and on ownership by certain classes of people, and in certain locations, are quite constitutional.

That's just plain nuts, professor. Why read the damn thing? We're all in the army now, SCOTUS said so.

[yobnoc 142]

15 hours ago, yoink said:

It's a really good question, and why we have a SC. I've long thought that that idea of having what has basically become an immutable document defining the laws of the land is daft. It should be brought up to relevance for the modern era, because with the best will in the world the Founding Fathers weren't clairvoyant. 

 

This thread is about guns though, so I'll use that as the basis for my position.

 

I hope you'd agree that the 2nd doesn't grant you the right to bear nuclear arms at home. It would be ridiculous and dangerous. So that sets a precedent - the 2nd, as written, is not intended to freely cover all possible future technologies. We limit availability to those technologies for the good of society and so there are 'arms' that are outside the scope of the 2nd amendment. 

The bit that frustrates me is that we can't say that the 2nd limits availability to these arms, but not those ones!! You can't have it both ways. It's not written that way. 

It either grants complete freedom or it inherently expects some limitations. As the second position brent's argument of 'you've never heard of the the 2nd' thinking it gives him complete freedom to bear whatever arms he likes becomes thoughtless nonsense.

 

 

Edit: There are two many '2nds' in that last paragraph, but I'm tired. Hopefully it's clear.

 

So...I've found that the "nuclear weapons at home" argument is quite fruitless against 2A fappers.  My parents, for instance, fully believe that they should be able to obtain and wield nuclear weapons.  They also believe that the United States should be a Christian theocracy.  Kinda a scary combination, but those people are indeed out there and a-plenty in numbers. 

[gowlerk 2,251]

12 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

So...I've found that the "nuclear weapons at home" argument is quite fruitless against 2A fappers.  My parents, for instance, fully believe that they should be able to obtain and wield nuclear weapons.  They also believe that the United States should be a Christian theocracy.  Kinda a scary combination, but those people are indeed out there and a-plenty in numbers. 

Perfect. Now if only Hobby Lobby would sell fusion device kits. Or Chik-Fil-A, but only Monday to Saturday.

[lummy 4]

I read an opinion article this morning. The author was suggesting that in order to purchase a gun, one would have to enroll in  a military reservist for as long as they owned the gun.   The arguments for it are that gun owners would have to do basic training  and then serve one weekend a month , would have to pass the standard military background check and mental health evaluations  and would also bolster our military reserves which are declining.
  Again, just an opinion piece but something to ponder

 

[jakee 1,563]

19 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Thank you for your clarification, however it is difficult to interpret “fuck you” as anything other then a personal attack.

Personal attack against who?

[JoeWeber 2,836]

15 minutes ago, jakee said:

Personal attack against who?

There wasn't one. There was a simple misunderstanding over a poorly drawn metaphor.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

3 hours ago, lummy said:

I read an opinion article this morning. The author was suggesting that in order to purchase a gun, one would have to enroll in  a military reservist for as long as they owned the gun.   The arguments for it are that gun owners would have to do basic training  and then serve one weekend a month , would have to pass the standard military background check and mental health evaluations  and would also bolster our military reserves which are declining.
  Again, just an opinion piece but something to ponder

 

Sounds swiss.

[lummy 4]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Sounds swiss.

In some respects, I think you are correct. I thought Swiss service in the military is compulsory, whereas this would be entirely volunteer

[brenthutch 444]

16 hours ago, lummy said:

I read an opinion article this morning. The author was suggesting that in order to purchase a gun, one would have to enroll in  a military reservist for as long as they owned the gun.   The arguments for it are that gun owners would have to do basic training  and then serve one weekend a month , would have to pass the standard military background check and mental health evaluations  and would also bolster our military reserves which are declining.
  Again, just an opinion piece but something to ponder

 

What about disabled citizens?

[kallend 2,106]

We know what our leader thinks of them:

[JoeWeber 2,836]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

What about disabled citizens?

Or MS-13 gangbangers. After all, it doesn't state "shall not be infringed" except for you. That is your position, right?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

12 hours ago, lummy said:

In some respects, I think you are correct. I thought Swiss service in the military is compulsory, whereas this would be entirely volunteer

I think you are absolutely correct.

[Channman 2]

On 8/4/2019 at 11:15 AM, neilmck said:

Small canopies is probably the major cause of death and injury in skydiving today.  Tightly regulating them in France has drastically reduced the death and injury rate here.  Everyone knows gun control will drastically reduce the murder rate in the USA.  Criminals will still have a reduced access to illegal guns but when your average guy flips he will not have the material at hand nor the ability to access it to do a mass killing.

The big problem in the US is even with gun control how do you remove the large number of guns already out there.

 

"average guy flips he will not have the material at hand nor the ability to access it to do a mass killing."

No...they will just use a Vehicle.  Seems that method worked well in France and the US.  Maybe teaching morality and goodness in the class room will be helpful...however in parts of the US, this type of teaching is a trigger issue for some.  I suppose it causes PTSD and/or overloads an individuals senses.  Hell I don't know, in the US you have to use gender neutral words and weird stuff like that so your not expelled or called a Racist.  So I guess we will continue to see more mass shootings in Chicago...oopsey that is a trigger word.

[gowlerk 2,251]

11 minutes ago, Channman said:

No...they will just use a Vehicle.  Seems that method worked well in France and the US. 

What is the maximum killed and injured number for this type of attack?

[kallend 2,106]

13 minutes ago, Channman said:

"average guy flips he will not have the material at hand nor the ability to access it to do a mass killing."

No...they will just use a Vehicle.  Seems that method worked well in France and the US.  Maybe teaching morality and goodness in the class room will be helpful...however in parts of the US, this type of teaching is a trigger issue for some.  I suppose it causes PTSD and/or overloads an individuals senses.  Hell I don't know, in the US you have to use gender neutral words and weird stuff like that so your not expelled or called a Racist.  So I guess we will continue to see more mass shootings in Chicago...oopsey that is a trigger word.

Try picking on Memphis, Kansas City or St. Louis for a change.  They all have higher murder rates than Chicago despite being in gun friendly states.

As for vehicles, our murder rates are far higher than other nations that have vehicles (yes, they even have cars in Australia and Canada too)

Edited August 8, 2019 by kallend

[piisfish 140]

32 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

What is the maximum killed and injured number for this type of attack?

In Nice, 86+1 dead , 458 injured https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentat_du_14_juillet_2016_à_Nice

Edited August 8, 2019 by piisfish

[billvon 3,075]

1 hour ago, Channman said:

No...they will just use a Vehicle.

Some will; most will not.  

Nothing anyone can do will end killings.  We can merely reduce their likelihood, frequency and number of dead.

[pchapman 279]

Guns vs. Vehicles --  "Every time someone shoots a bunch of people in the US, just be thankful we have so many cool guns around that the guy never thought about renting a truck instead!  Although they are harder to get into schools anyway, and aren't as available to the under-25 killer." 

[yoink 321]

9 hours ago, Channman said:

"average guy flips he will not have the material at hand nor the ability to access it to do a mass killing."

No...they will just use a Vehicle.  Seems that method worked well in France and the US.  Maybe teaching morality and goodness in the class room will be helpful...however in parts of the US, this type of teaching is a trigger issue for some.  I suppose it causes PTSD and/or overloads an individuals senses.  Hell I don't know, in the US you have to use gender neutral words and weird stuff like that so your not expelled or called a Racist.  So I guess we will continue to see more mass shootings in Chicago...oopsey that is a trigger word.

Remove everyone’s access to vehicles and society collapses.

Remove everyone’s access to guns and basically nothing happens.

 

See the difference? One is a hobby that gives people a hard-on, the other is a necessary fundamental to our infrastructure and logistics system.

[yoink 321]

There was an event in California today that is one of the ONLY possible argument for public carry guns that I can see. A guy with two machetes ran amok and killed 4 people. 

I’ll concede that in a more gun-toting state he might have been stopped sooner. But then maybe he’d have used a assault rifle instead and killed 30 people instead of 4 because it was easier to get hold of a gun there... we’ll never know. 

Regardless, I’m much more confident in my ability to outrun a guy with a knife than a bullet. Or even fight back unarmed, if it came to that.

 

Edited August 9, 2019 by yoink

[nigel99 569]

10 hours ago, piisfish said:

In Nice, 86+1 dead , 458 injured https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentat_du_14_juillet_2016_à_Nice

Wow. I remember the incident but didn’t realise it was that bad.

[JoeWeber 2,836]

On 8/7/2019 at 8:31 AM, kallend said:

Perhaps you should read, carefully, the SCOTUS decison (written by Scalia) in the Heller case.

It makes it very clear that prohibitions on certain types of firearms, and on ownership by certain classes of people, and in certain locations, are quite constitutional.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 9, 2019 by JoeWeber
I give up

[yoink 321]

On 8/6/2019 at 8:45 PM, yoink said:

I'm not sure what you mean by DuJour. Please provide a link.

The 2nd as written says nothing about overthrowing anything. 

 

And you deliberately ignored my point. Do you think the 2nd grants you the RIGHT to bear nuclear arms?

 

For Brenthutch

It's just occurred to me that rather than DuJour referring to a person or ruling, you meant 'du jour', from the French. Capitalization matters in legal issues.

On that understanding my first point becomes a question - please show me, verbatim where the second amendment EXPLICITLY (your words) states that it's intent is to 'overthrow a tyrannical government by whatever means necessary'. Not your interpretation of what you think it means.

Edited August 9, 2019 by yoink

[mr2mk1g 10]

6 hours ago, yoink said:

For Brenthutch

It's just occurred to me that rather than DuJour referring to a person or ruling, you meant 'du jour', from the French. Capitalization matters in legal issues.

On that understanding my first point becomes a question - please show me, verbatim where the second amendment EXPLICITLY (your words) states that it's intent is to 'overthrow a tyrannical government by whatever means necessary'. Not your interpretation of what you think it means.

The 2nd is blatantly in direct response to a concern that George/the other George/the other-other George or Edward/the other Edward or William or Vic or Liz, or whoever they're called in the future (because it's not likely Charlie-boy will adopt Charles on accession given we made the last one about a foot shorter during his reign) will come over and want their colonies back... which, let's face it, just isn't going to happen!  It's got zero to do with domestic governance and everything to do with a contemporary concern about outside aggression, which in today's world is just stupid.