Las Vegas shooting

[lickitandstickit]

Nice try, but a quick check shows that the ten US states with the highest levels of violent crime have completely variable rates of gun ownership - there's no apparent correlation. So let's assume those national variations are explained by some other factor.

I'll tell you how it is, having grown up in one of top 10 worst cities in the US, everybody has guns. Its basically a warzone in some places.. SO much so police dont go there unless they come in force, they move like the military simply because they have too to survive.. They are gun trigger because its fucking nuts...

MERICA

 

[Aglaopheme]

A local sports chiropractor (who happened to live next door at my last house) and his GF were at the concert. They hit the deck and crawled to safety.

In less than two hours, the fee for bringing Adrian's body home was crowd funded past the required amount needed.

I haven't heard much about the victims, yet. But, I have heard a lot about the heroics of the first responders and others.

https://typeset-beta.imgix.net/uploads/getty/2017/10/2/93045f2a-5438-4bd0-87da-483ae46feb30-getty-856520446.jpg?w=748&h=448&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format&fm=jpg&q=70

"The residents of Las Vegas have banded together to help the victims of Sunday’s mass shooting, lining up for hours to donate blood, as people around the world collectively donated over $2 million to help with relief efforts."

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2017/...or-blood-donors-to-help-hundreds-wounded.html

Lines formed at daybreak outside of blood banks operated by United Blood Services. Bottled beverages, food and other supplies were stacked up on the floor and tables at the Thomas & Mack Center, an arena on the University of Nevada campus.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2017/...or-blood-donors-to-help-hundreds-wounded.html

 

[thør]

"The residents of Las Vegas have banded together to help the victims of Sunday’s mass shooting, lining up for hours to donate blood, as people around the world collectively donated over $2 million to help with relief efforts."

There are a lot of good people.

 

[Ishmael]

There are a lot of good people.

Trying to make sense out of nonsense drives folks to all sorts of notions and death without reason or cause is...............well...............senseless.

Ishmael

 

[Aglaopheme]

There are a lot of good people.

'Tis true. Unfortunately, the good often get drowned out, and, most certainly, are underreported on in the news.

 

[irksomesauce]

And I have spent an entire career 'standing up for my fellow Americans', took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution...

You've been sworn-in as President of the United States of America, wannabe?

 

[thør]

Trying to make sense out of nonsense drives folks to all sorts of notions and death without reason or cause is...............well...............senseless.

Ishmael

Like in a lot of situations, good news isn't news. A shame.

 

[DMBFFF]

You've been sworn-in as President of the United States of America, wannabe?

I don't think just US presidents take such oaths.

 

[KimGordon67]

It makes sense now.

I don't agree with eeyore or anyone calling you names, just so you know. They don't represent my viewpoint in any way, shape, or form.

That said, the 2nd amendment is the ultimate check on government intrusion and violation of civil liberties, and ideally it means we SHOULD be able to reduce the defense budget considerably (in a perfect world). The problem is that the government defense budget is bloated, and we don't stand up to those that benefit from that bloated budget.

If you live in a country with no terrorist attacks, and no violent extremists, you should feel lucky. If you trust your government, you should feel lucky. If you don't feel that you need to defend yourself against crime and criminals, you should feel lucky.

OK, so in response ... I'm not sure how personal gun ownership protects the US from terrorist attacks?
I'm not sure how personal gun ownership protects you from an untrustworthy government?
The defending against crime and criminals thing ... it's not so much of a problem if they don't have guns either. Which they pretty much don't. (Obviously there are exceptions, but they're really unusual.) I have had my house broken into. When I've been in it. I was extremely glad that the thought 'does he have a gun' didn't even need to cross my mind.

The gun thing is sort of fascinating from the outside. It's like it's so entrenched in American culture it's difficult for some people to see an alternative, and instead of saying 'hey, what about NO guns', you just end up trying to work out how to make guns OK. But my way of thinking is definitely not limited to those outside the US - clearly a lot of Americans would prefer something else.

I'm thinking through the Constitution thing ... my concern is that it becomes a bit like the Bible, and people just say 'it's right, because it's in the constitution'.
And I honestly think human rights do trump constitutional rights. Human rights are the rights that accrue to us by virtue of being human. They might have been codified by the UN, but that doesn't meant they're a UN invention ... people have been trying to come up with something along those lines for centuries. Constitutions are ... well, important, but they're a different beast. We don't have one, so I guess they're a bit of an alien concept to me.

 

[KimGordon67]

You're personalizing.

It was a simple yes or no question not an offering for you to go on a qualifier-filled rant.

Yes. Every human has a right to self-defense. The method is debatable, but settled law here. It's in our Constitution. I've been in the situation where I had to defend others sans guns against a perp with a gun, but I've been trained extensively to do that without a gun. I still rather would have been armed. I might have gotten him to back down and surrender instead of chucking him over a balcony and seriously fucking up his life. In hindsight, considering his injuries, he might have been better off dead. So, really, I don;t give a shit about how your "experience" affects the debate.

You've sort of proved my point ... no guns = no need to defend people against people with guns.
(Also - 'perp'? Really? Are we in an episode of Miami Vice?)

 

[about_average]

You'll no doubt be attending each one of them to actually show how much MORE you care rather than just pimp yourself as doing so on an Internet forum, right wannabe?

Funny, coming from an Internet forum whiner who uses every opportunity to sniffle about all the dead "babies".

 

[KimGordon67]

So, I'm genuinely interested in this, and actually read the Second Amendment. It seems to say:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."​

Doesn't that sort of imply that gun ownership is conditional on the need for a well regulated militia?

 

[mark_j]

So, I'm genuinely interested in this, and actually read the Second Amendment. It seems to say:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."​

Doesn't that sort of imply that gun ownership is conditional on the need for a well regulated militia?

Best bet is to read DC v. Heller.

While this is a wiki entry it will at least give you the basic interpretation of 2nd A. as the court saw it in this case.. what is most interesting is the history of the 2nd as interpreted by Scalia. Whether you agree with it or not it does give a decent background.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Debating tit for tat with internet trolls on a porn site is also not a solution.

Typical Leftist/Progressive-style response.

Make an outrageous, untrue claim and then defend it by declaring that anyone who disagrees with you lacks the standing to even have a discussion with, in short, just a different way of calling me a denier because everyone you know, like and admire knows that it is a priori knowledge that white conservative America is the real danger and they all own automatic weapons.

A lot of you don't even have any real sympathy for the victims because you see country music fans as exactly the kind of trolls that you hate; those not even worthy of free speech.

 

[about_average]

So, I'm genuinely interested in this, and actually read the Second Amendment. It seems to say:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."​

Doesn't that sort of imply that gun ownership is conditional on the need for a well regulated militia?

Women weren't allowed to join the militia. Do you think the signers of the constitution would have prohibited a woman from owning a firearm?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So, I'm genuinely interested in this, and actually read the Second Amendment. It seems to say:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."​

Doesn't that sort of imply that gun ownership is conditional on the need for a well regulated militia?

Study the American Revolution.

A militia is not a collection of men in uniform gathering on a regular basis to line up and drill as an army operating upon the lines of the European armies of the day, brightly colored, arranged in lockstep for volume of firepower and marched, with discipline into the the enemies firepower...

The militiaman was an army of one who honed his skills on the emerging frontiers of America where he had to face innumerable challenges to his life, liberty and property. He could be counted upon to come to the defense of his neighbors, community and country. He was well-regulated in that sense and not in the sense of the army he eventually took on fighting in groups that did not line up to be shot but instead fought from behind fence lines and trees. one famous British assault was ended by an American sniper with a new kind of German musket.

Do not define the Second Amendment in the way you think about things, but the way those of the new American frontier thought of it, a militia was law-abiding gun owners coming together for the defense of the common weal.

We didn't even have a standing army until hostilities broke out.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Women weren't allowed to join the militia. Do you think the signers of the constitution would have prohibited a woman from owning a firearm?

Were black men allowed to join the militia?

 

[KimGordon67]

Study the American Revolution.

A militia is not a collection of men in uniform gathering on a regular basis to line up and drill as an army operating upon the lines of the European armies of the day, brightly colored, arranged in lockstep for volume of firepower and marched, with discipline into the the enemies firepower...

The militiaman was an army of one who honed his skills on the emerging frontiers of America where he had to face innumerable challenges to his life, liberty and property. He could be counted upon to come to the defense of his neighbors, community and country. He was well-regulated in that sense and not in the sense of the army he eventually took on fighting in groups that did not line up to be shot but instead fought from behind fence lines and trees. one famous British assault was ended by an American sniper with a new kind of German musket.

Do not define the Second Amendment in the way you think about things, but the way those of the new American frontier thought of it, a militia was law-abiding gun owners coming together for the defense of the common weal.

We didn't even have a standing army until hostilities broke out.

So hasn't that context altered somewhat? My point wasn't really about the definition of militia, but more that that need seemed to be the criteria for the right to near arms.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

We have a system of background checking.



This guy passed with flying colors.



Something suddenly happened to "trigger" him. It could have been gambling and the losses associated with it. Who knows?

Will we see an examination of the Constitution, our laws and the prohibition of gambling if that proves to be the root cause or will the focus still remain firmly on guns?

I live with bears, wolves and coyotes. Are you, to revisit an earlier conversation, comfortable with the idea of disarming me because in your experience bears, wolves and coyotes have never been a huge problem for you?

 

[Que]

So hasn't that context altered somewhat? My point wasn't really about the definition of militia, but more that that need seemed to be the criteria for the right to near arms.

You have it backwards.

There could be no militia if the citizenry were not already armed. The point of regulated means to make equipped in a consistant fashion. In other words do they have equipment they need (their own equipment) so that as needed militiss could be formed on an ad-hoc basis. The idea was to have an armed citizenry.

The choices as they saw it was to have a standing army (which we are technically forbidden from having) or have an armed citizenry so that armed citizens could be called upon when and if needed.

They were well aware of the concept you are proposing which is that with the imprimatur of government certain people could be armed. They rejected that notion in favor of a armed populace.

 

[EternalFantasies]

I think Jimmy Kimmel erred.

 

[toeskr]

I haven't heard much about the victims, yet. But, I have heard a lot about the heroics of the first responders and others.

https://typeset-beta.imgix.net/uploads/getty/2017/10/2/93045f2a-5438-4bd0-87da-483ae46feb30-getty-856520446.jpg?w=748&h=448&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format&fm=jpg&q=70

"The residents of Las Vegas have banded together to help the victims of Sunday’s mass shooting, lining up for hours to donate blood, as people around the world collectively donated over $2 million to help with relief efforts."

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2017/...or-blood-donors-to-help-hundreds-wounded.html



http://www.foxnews.com/health/2017/...or-blood-donors-to-help-hundreds-wounded.html

So you are there or traveling there?

 

[Hypoxia]

Let's be clear. If you belong to NRA, if you support public use of personal firearms, you own this crime. You are an un-indicted co-conspirator in all mass shootings.

"Oh no," you say, "it's not me, I didn't pull the trigger." No, but you enabled it. You were not born a weapons addict -- you converted. Just as a religious converso buys-into the crimes of their faith, so gun-worshipers bear onus to mass shootings. You make the slaughter possible. Smell the powder.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Let's be clear. If you belong to NRA, if you support public use of personal firearms, you own this crime. You are an un-indicted co-conspirator in all mass shootings.

"Oh no," you say, "it's not me, I didn't pull the trigger." No, but you enabled it. You were not born a weapons addict -- you converted. Just as a religious converso buys-into the crimes of their faith, so gun-worshipers bear onus to mass shootings. You make the slaughter possible. Smell the powder.

Where's Angel?


I want her to see how prescient I was about the Left and their thoughts...


Hypo(crite): Almost everyone in the crowd was a red-blooded American supporter or member of the NRA. Are you saying that they got what they deserved because they "owned" it???

 

[EternalFantasies]

Let's be clear. If you belong to NRA, if you support public use of personal firearms, you own this crime. You are an un-indicted co-conspirator in all mass shootings.

"Oh no," you say, "it's not me, I didn't pull the trigger." No, but you enabled it. You were not born a weapons addict -- you converted. Just as a religious converso buys-into the crimes of their faith, so gun-worshipers bear onus to mass shootings. You make the slaughter possible. Smell the powder.

And that's one indicator why you're a moron.