Las Vegas shooting, automatic weapon used at outdoor concert

You're advocating a very risky situation for anyone acting in self defense using a firearm--regardless of the law.

 

[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

Given the fact that it took between 10 and 16 minutes to find and eliminate the Las Vegas killer, if he'd been limited to owning and using a bolt action rifle or even a semi-automatic one, the number of victims hit in those critical moments of random shooting would have been much smaller. I know we can't eliminate this kind of problem altogether. But we CAN make a difference, and since our reality reflects what we put into it, we are obligated to act accordingly.

 

Thank you for clarifying that. The 2nd Amendment was written in 1789, when the largest city in the U.S. had a population of 10,000 people, and 98%+ of all Americans were farmers, and the frontier lay in the Ohio River Valley and between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River. In 1789 few Americans had ever heard of California or Texas, or Arizona or any other future state carved from territories west of the great river. Americans needed a gun to survive. Settlers were constantly moving west and occupying new lands and faced many dangers in that process, both from nature and other humans. Today, everything I just mentioned is no longer true, and the original intent of the 2nd amendment no longer fits the reality of 21st Century life. To continue with an antiquated interpretation of individual gun rights based on a literal interpretation of an amendment written in and for 1789 circumstances is folly. If the 2nd Amendment is really about giving Americans the right to kill others then my support for it has just been diminished by a large degree. Thank you for the clarification.

 

I have repeatedly asserted I have no desire to "remove" the 2nd amendment. My arguments are rational and based on compassion for life more than some selfish, self-serving fanatical interpretation of a law written in and for 1789 reality--which is quite different from the reality of American life today. Your attitude accurately reflects the attitude I see constantly from the ultra-right or Alt-Right conservatives, who are incapable of relating to any opinion other than their own, and are convinced that compromise is synonymous with surrender. If our forefathers had lived that illusion, neither you nor I would have a 2nd Amendmenut or a U.S. Constitution, or a country to debate about. Words are inadequate to describe how strongly I disagree with your post and its whole approach. It says far more about you as a person than it says about the topic of discussion.

 

If it can be concluded that the second amendment is antiquated in the modern world, and no longer applies, it sets the precedent for the same being done with each and every amendment in the bill of rights. Is it honestly believed by yourself that government would not take such an approach with regard to a right to privacy, or a right to trial by jury, or even the right to due process?

 

That slippery slope cry might have legs if the Supremes hadn't already updated the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to fit modern misconceptions.

 

So what?

Highly unlikely.

 

There are three good reasons for the 2nd Amendment, hunting and self-defence are two of them, the most important reason is to protect the citizenry from tyranny. Environmentalists have curbed hunting and law enforcement greatly reduces the need for firearms to protect oneself from criminals, but the risk of tyranny remains. Do note the Founding Fathers drew from the British experience where the monarch outlawed possession of weapons and repressed the population, this is what the 2nd Amendment was designed for.

Another issue that disturbs me is how the perpetrator in Las Vegas is here said to have used an "automatic weapon", it was an automatic weapon, apparently with a "bump stock" which enables what they call "full auto", what is commonly called "machine gun" fire. However, "automatic" weapons are also ordinary repeating rifles or guns, if they don't have that "bump stock" they don't fire like machine guns. When the argument is made "automatic weapons" should be banned, what is being sought is to forbid repeating rifles too. This is a dishonest argument, the honest argument would seek to ban machine guns, outlaw "bump stocks", forbid the modification of an automatic weapon that enables it to operate as a machine gun. It is easy to see how a machine gun is not appropriate for hunting or self-defence, though it could be essential to combat tyranny

 

you have no desire to remove it, just chip away at it. Same thing, its why we will never cede anything to freedom takers. People like you are the reason the second exists in the first place. There are people like you in every generation which attempt to try and control others freedoms. Our forefathers have given us this guaranteed right and were arent going anywhere. You cant ever confiscate our weapons that ship sailed, so all you can do is chip away at it. Its not happening.

 

Not one leftist can give a cogent answer as to how more restrictions on law abiding citizens will stop a criminal who doesnt follow gun laws from mass murder.
Please read the statement more than once to make sure you didnt miss the part you just did. You should now be able to see why the left is politicing the deaths of the victims. Its shameful.

 

The harm done to honest gun owners far outweighs the benefit of the gun control laws being proposed by liberals

I concede that with only a single bott-action rifle the death toll could have been lower

But in his case I think he would have merely chosen some other weapon such as a small airplane loaded with explosives

Or a car or large truck to run over people with

Or plant bombs

Taking my guns away will not stop the next mass killer

 

Except for the fact that it cannot be explained just how this was done. There are no historical texts to support the "militia only" argument that has been presented time and time again, nor is there any explanation for how it could be made to work.

So under such a precedent, your ability to criticize any government official without fear of legal repercussion for such can easily be terminated.

And yet it has already been observed regarding law enforcement officers and the fourth amendment.

 

Except the link I provided explains all that extremely well. And that's just to start your deprogramming. The truth is plain if you actually look at the source material.

 

Asinine strawman!

 

No, they are not!

 

So now you are advocating that cops must have the right to kill innocent bystanders!

The NRA Gun Culture of Death is really sickening!

 

The "my cold dead hands" crowd has become the "professional strawman" crowd.

 

How so?

 

Your entire statement is warmed-over kneejerk copypasta that is utterly laughable.

Defending the Vegas shooter (by wrapping yourself around a FLAWED 2nd Amendment) just doesn't cut it.

But, feel free to exercise your right to post things that are utterly unworthy of being taken seriously.

Carry on and happy trolling.

 

The article was read in full, however it explains absolutely nothing. The member Bryanva, a seasoned and experienced prosecuting attorney for the state of Virginia, had address this matter far more eloquently than is possible by myself, in explaining exactly why this "militia only" interpretation is so deeply flawed. Even those who support such an interpretation cannot explain precisely how it works. Observe.

Is it possible for yourself to explain, in a coherent manner, just what the second amendment is supposed to do with regard to state militias?

 

Interesting. How is it possible the BBC concluded it took 30 suitcases to transport 23 weapons? Hahahaha

 

And why do we do that? Why do we say that certain behaviors are forbidden and endeavor to punish people for doing them? Is it not because we wish to DETER said behaviors, and isn't said deterrence the only real reason for any law to exist at all?

 

How is Stephen Paddock being defended? Where are his actions being justified?

 

They most certainly are and you know they are you just willfully ignore them