Las Vegas Shooting

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Kittamaru, Oct 2, 2017.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,558
    n the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense ... ."

    self--------------------not common
    From where does one get common defense?

    "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."
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,653
    Among other benefits, listed and unlisted.

    The purpose of the Amendment was to prevent the newly established and dangerous central government from disarming the peasantry, to explicitly forbid it from doing that on any pretext whatsoever and by any bureaucratic tactic of the kinds familiar under monarchies and the like.

    In other words: Not just "possess", in some abstract sense that could be construed as locked up in a government supervised armory, but "keep" and "bear". Not just fowling pieces and ornamental swords, but weapons fit and suitable for bringing as one's gear when gathering as a militia and going into battle.

    This language is not accidental, and it's not vague.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gawdzilla Sama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    954
    Recent reinterpretations of the original intent are mere legalisms. They point out the hypocrisy of claiming the Constitution supports the hard gunners' position.
     
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,847
    Hand-waving idiocy.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,653
    Nobody is "reinterpreting" an "original intent". (Except the illiterates who don't know what "well regulated" or "militia" means - those folks are reading all kinds of odd stuff into the plain text).

    We're just reading the damn thing. It's not that complex.

    And it's not that relevant. Not only is the US forbidden to disarm its peasants in response to threats of mass shootings etc, but that isn't even a good idea or an addressing of the apparent critical issues.

    The only thing it does is undermine legitimate gun control efforts by joining them to illegitimate authoritarian impositions, thereby putting them at odds with Constitutional principles, a large body of otherwise well-disposed and willingly cooperative people, and reason itself.

    Why give up the high ground of reason and evidence?
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,852
    [#godgun]

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Click to bow and pray.

    False dichotomy. Despite being expected, fallacies don't actually help.

    What is the rifle equivalent of a french tickler? Or a variable-speed, remote-control prostate massager? Or ... er ... you know, never mind.

    Because if we constrain ourselves to Las Vegas, more and more the question looks to have something to do with the nature of the weapons themselves. And here is the thing you're overlooking from the comfort of a rifle range: If having to reload, or have his hands in better shape to squeeze the trigger over and over again, makes a difference between whether this or that person lives or dies, well, at least you're comfortable in your rifle range, or out in the canyon plinking with your toys, or what the hell ever.

    And the idea that you don't give a fuck about whether this or that person lives or dies in those moments because thinking about it is somehow inconvenient to your idea of what's fun?

    What?

    I've asked a couple reciting cultists, lately, so let us try again and wonder if we get an answer this time: Just what rights do you fear for?

    Seriously, the crazies are certainly dangerous. But so are the so-called "responsible gun owners". And some of them, it turns out, actually intend to be dangerous.

    • • •​

    Because ignoring a problem—

    (37:34)

    Paul Kennedy: Chris, is there one point, one incident, one event, that has brought it all home to you, that has sort of made it perfectly clear that gun culture is absolutely central to the American ethos?

    Chris Hedges: Well, you know, Andrew [Somerset] writes about the Newtown massacre, I would say that, because, I mean, here you have, what was it, twenty little elementary school children shot down, murdered in a town in Connecticut; and let's be clear, they were white, so, you know, that evoked a kind of, I mean, children are shot, black children are shot in Chicago almost every day and it doesn't evoke the same kinds of responses, which I think—another window into the endemic racism within American culture, buttressed by American media. So we have twenty little white children, all killed, and we can't budge, we can't make any changes ....


    (CBC↱; boldface accent added)

    —makes it go away. Right?

    Or, you know, maybe the little black children shot just aren't a problem? Is that it? Maybe? And that's the thing; generally speaking, no, they're not a problem except for the fact that Americans don't really want to admit that circumstance, that outcome, true.

    But, you know, it's real easy to invent your two-bit conspiracy theories as long as we remain solely focused on the narrow sliver of whatever moment the notion requires us to limit ourselves to.

    There are, of course, reasons why the twenty dead white children are spectacularly and sensationally newsorthy, but that's the thing; there are also reasons why the steady drumbeat of dead dark skin just isn't. So, yeah, if you want to talk about the media, then let us also discuss market perceptions. Because the flip side of the media is its audience. And diversity is as diversity does, but a missing white girl generates more press and market interest than a missing black girl, just like nobody really cared about the largest mass shootings of the year prior to what happened in Las Vegas, because they were deevees, about women, and, you know, it's just women so who the fuck cares. You'd think a majority of the audience, but maybe the traditional prejudices have finally set in, though in such case I would encourage women to campaign loudly and unabashedly about the fact that they no longer trust news media.

    But, yeah. You might want to be careful with your media conspiracy theories. Conservatives, you know, have such a sterling record on that one.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Kennedy, Paul. "Gun Crazy: How fetishizing guns shuts down debate about them". 2016. Ideas. 2 October 2017. CBC.ca. 3 October 2017. http://bit.ly/2hIJUNO
     
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,558
    sculptor said:
    Not ignoring..............defining!
    I do have a degree in psychology----------simple stuff really--------In an effort to turn civilians into killers, the us army devised a way to break down the civilian mind and rebuild it as the mind of a killer of men. ----6 short weeks of "basic training"works for most of the inductees................... now, imagine years of indoctrination....................
     
  11. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,847
    What the serious fuck are you talking about? False dichotomy, indeed.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,653
    And imagine that your reflexive blaming of a presumptively "liberal" media and political elite for whatever evil happens, rather than attend to the causes and agents and factors directly involved, were among the products of this indoctrination.

    It's easy if you try.
     
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,558
    But, then again, In could be wrong.

    Have you ever read about the experiment wherein they got people to torture other people?
     
  14. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,501
    mass shooters are suicidal. they are always ready to end their own lives in the process. this is their revenge on society by taking out others along with them.

    since most people value their lives, mass shootings are rare. it's just a different tangent of various social diseases. What about those who add to social disease of others and therefore society at large? I once took out a knife on my mother because she was harassing me everyday from the moment I walked in from school for things that had nothing to do with me besides dealing with the shit from her husband too. The stress and abuse was too much to bear. It was a serious threat to back off because she would not otherwise. This has to do with a few factors and one being she assumed she was safe from attack or backlash when you push someone too far. People can snap. Philosophically, in most cases, many are guilty, it's just where one fits into the picture on the cause and effect.

    Unfortunately, many assholes in society do things to hurt, injure, poke, humiliate, degrade, harass etc others and feel they are safe because the law lets them be disgusting as humanly possible as long as they don't kill, so they feel free to keep on adding to other's mental/emotional anguish and deterioration.

    Unfortunately, mass shooters will end up disempowering everyone eventually because all hands will be tied. I would like the right to be able to kill someone and pay the price for it if I choose, it's just that a gun is more of a swifter, clean kill. That's everyone's right and that's what the law is there for. Knives are messy and usually prolong suffering.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,852
    Yeah, that's what I thought.
     
  16. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,847
    Yay! A point for Tiassa. You seem to think, but then fall far short of the mark.
     
  17. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,501
    you are all missing the big picture. did prohibition work? what about illegal drugs? how about prosititution?

    this individual obtained weapons legally but even if all semi-automatic weapons or every type of gun was banned, you can still obtain it through the black market and that will always be the case. if someone really wants to obtain a weapon, they can and will. then it's just about money and price.
     
  18. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    52,040
    Good, let's make it harder. Why make it easier?
     
  19. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,501
    fine but it won't make it harder, especially when it comes to mass shootings as it's a one-time and one-off. there are no second chances and the perpetrator knows this.

    society should just comfort itself knowing most people aren't going to those extremes. also, it was the distance, in this case, because if it was closer, the casualty rate would have been flipped to 500 deceased and 58 injured.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
  20. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    52,040
    We already know gun control will help prevent mass shootings. The data is available from Australia.

    "A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on Wednesday not only offers a detailed timeline of Australia's reduction in mass violence, it confirms that the country experienced a rapid decline in firearm homicides and suicides after enacting gun law reforms in 1996.
    "The results are clear," said Simon Chapman, a professor at the University of Sydney's School of Public Health and lead author of the study.
    "Gun deaths are a problem amenable to reduction like any other public health problem," he said. "International differences in rates between countries show this. The United States has the worst record of gun deaths of any [Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development] nation, exceeded only by that in chaotic nations with massive law and order problems."

    Findings In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths accelerated.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/health/australia-gun-law-reform-study/index.html
     
  21. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,134
    Well now, this is a groundhog day thread if I've ever seen one...

    Personally, I'm awaiting a replay of the Las Vegas Mandalay incident with one small but significant change - substitute a minigun for SP's armament. Imagine the headlines - 20,000 attend concert, 10,000 dead. Would THAT be a call to action?

    Probably not. Ownership of miniguns by civilians is prohibited under existing law, after all... Nothing can be done - everyone says so.
     
  22. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,501
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...top_mass_shootings_in_australia_probably.html

    strange but the results look good. now australia has one of the worst drug problems, especially meth, they can't do the same with illegal drugs by buying them up? ridiculous and logistically impossible, right? more demand for drugs than there are mass shooters.
     
  23. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,501
    i could see that happening as death tolls increase.
     

Share This Page