Las Vegas shooting, automatic weapon used at outdoor concert

Show that maintaining the constitutional protections for the right to keep and bear arms for the law abiding is support for the continuance of the problem.

And so, you DO seek to circumvent the constitution in an effort to limit the rights of the law abiding.
You know, of course, that people like you are exactly why we have the 2nd -- right?

 

This statement is replete with ignorance.

 

None of this is relevant.
People need access to the most effective means of exercising their right to self-defense today every bit as much as in 1789.
Thus, the 2nd is as valid today as then.

 

No.. you want to re-interpret it so the state can constitutionally make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms.
Thus, the 2nd is working as intended.

 

Oooh! Philosophy of punishment!
I'll start: They deserve to be punished.
Your turn!

Out the other side of your mouth, you'll tell us the death penalty does not deter crime. So much for that.

Never mind that deterrence and prevention do not mean the same thing.

 

In the minds of the anti-gun left, who find enjoyment in standing on piles of bodies and preaching from their version of a moral high ground.

 

Psst... No one has made this assertion. You;re beating up on a straw man.

Cite the decision and the text to that effect.
I'm especially interested as to what those "certain types" of firearms are.

 

if i remember correctly, your asserting that a bolt action could have done the same damage as an auto, that is bs. the large crowd and a sweep of rounds is what an auto is built, a bolt action is built for single targets. that is commen knowledge.

now the assertion just under 600 causulaties could have done with a bolt in that amount of time is bs.

 

If true, who do you only seek to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms?

 

you are just flame baiting now, pathetic

 

"The right of the people", says the text.
When did "the people" as the term is used in the constitution, become 'the militia"?
Do you not understand "the militia" is a subset of 'the people", and to secure the militia, the broader right of the people was secured?

 

On the contrary -- what I said is completely true.
When does the left make a big stink about gun control? After a mass shooting.

 

Please describe the mechanism for this.

 

Likely because we do not proceed from the false premise that something can and must be done about our gun laws to prevent things like this.

 

You incorrectly equate rate of fire with the ability to create casualties.
You refuse to consider the scale of the target area, the number of available targets, and the conditions surrounding same.
When did the crowd realize it was under fire? After several string of rapid shots.
How many people could someone hit with slow, aimed fire, before the same realization?

 

says the poster who is digging up graves to make a political statement

 

The only people making a point with dead bodies are those who seek more restrictions on the right to arms for the law abiding.

 

yeah because it would have over 100 to be shot before they would realized what was happening.

 

so says the fearmonger

 

Within a moment of having one person fall down dead with a bullet through his head and pints of blood gushing out the message will soon get out. Panick spreads quickly

 

And yet nothing that has been presented by yourself, absolutely nothing whatsoever, supports your position that Heller was an exercise in judicial activism, or that the ruling is incorrect.

False nonsense by those tasked with revising history can only be read so much before it is concluded that they are devoid of merit, and are cited exclusively by those who are dishonest in their positions.

To actually do such, it is necessary for yourself to first say something of actual relevance, rather than nonsensical rambling about everything except the matter of discussion.

First, constitutional rights are not granted by government. The bill of rights does not grant anything. Rather it recognizes rights, and restricts government from interfering with them.

Second, the second amendment stated "the right of the people" rather than "the right of the militia" and it certain says nothing about state or federal levels. This is the same "the people" that is found in the first amendment, and every other amendment. It is the individual, not the collective.

This nonsense has been presented numerous times, and numerous times before it has been debunked for being devoid of a basis in reality. There are no such thing as collective rights in the bill of rights, only individual rights.

The second amendment specifically states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in its text. To claim that such does not actually mean exactly that, a right to keep and bear arms, is devoid of anything resembling logical thinking.

Which does not change that your constant assertions are factually incorrect.

 

Ever been to a concert with 22000 people on the same floor?
Can you see what happened to someone 20' away?

 

The only fear mongering going on is from the side that wants to further restrict the rights of the law abiding and is happy to stand on the bodies of innocent victims to do it.

 

And yet, it took how many 30-rd magazines emptied into the crowd before that happened?

 

That’s a true statement.
The question for an evil person is how do you use that panic.
I actually came up with a scenario on how that may be possible using even a greatly reduced rate of fire under a situation as this a few days ago.
I’m not going to put it into print though. I don’t think it’s morally correct to be releasing ideas of evil into the general public.
All in all it’s impossible to argue in this rare instance a high rate of inaccurate fire worked way too well.
I hope the fires of hell are well stoked.