Las Vegas Mass Casualty Attack

[collegeballfan]

Per Justice Scalia's majority in Heller, yes.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Obviously driving a car is not listed in the bill of rights because people weren't driving when the bill of rights were written.
My question to you is, Do you think it's possible there can be some form of gun regulations to try to prevent mass shootings from happening without violating the 2nd Amendment?

The short answer is yes. But the challenge is that nobody's been able to figure out how.

 

[A Love Supreme]

The short answer is yes. But the challenge is that nobody's been able to figure out how.

Yep. That's the job of Congress.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Yep. That's the job of Congress.

You’re just chock full of hope!!!! The last time that arm of government did anything worthwhile was over 2 decades ago.

 

[A Love Supreme]

You’re just chock full of hope!!!! The last time that arm of government did anything worthwhile was over 2 decades ago.

Sad but true

 

[Captain killem]

That’s why I don’t want them to regulate anything they couldn’t manage themselves out of a corner.

 

[AE 87]

OK, here's my opinion on not just why there are differences of opinion over gun-control laws but also on why we have trouble discussing it.

Take it for what it's worth (the easily bored can start with bullet 8):

1) The United States was founded on the basis of a fundamental principle of governance.
2) This governing principle was that human beings have natural rights, and it is the government's responsibility to protect those natural rights (see Declaration of Independence).
3) The principle of natural rights was a unifying principle, and a basic assumption of the founders.

a) Theists believed these inalienable rights were endowed by the Creator.
-- This truth united the non-religious theists, the Deists, with the religious theists, primarily the Christians plus eventually Jews, Unitarians, and Muslims.
b) The (at least potential) Non-Theists could still believe that the natural rights were a given (see the Natural Law discussion below and the 20th Century Libertarians following Ayn Rand).​

4) A corollary of this principle of natural rights is the existence of a natural law which protects natural rights, and that positive laws are necessary to reflect the natural laws when enforcement is required.
5) The Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, highlight this fact by articulating as positive law--as should not be necessary but was--those natural rights which their previous experience with government had not protected.

Excursus: Natural Law and Christianity. While there is a strong affinity between Natural Law thinking and Christianity, they are, in fact, independent concepts to the extent that Natural Law philosophy does not require Christianity. It originated in the centuries before Christianity with Plato and later the Stoics.
a) Apparently following the philosophy of his teacher Socrates, Plato articulated the unitary concept of "the Good." He even speculated on an ideal governance in which "the Good" would be served.
b) In the decades and centuries following Plato, first the Greek empire of Alexander and his successors and then the Roman empire of Octavian and his successors ruled over a large spectrum of previous existing city-states and kingdoms. Lawyers and philosophers in the later Roman Republic and early Roman empire observed that some laws were common to almost everybody. They called these laws, the Law of the Nations.
c) Political philosophers, especially the Stoics, combined the Philosophical Theory of Socrates/Plato with the Sociological Observations of this Law of the Nations to conclude that there must exist a Natural Law for and over all humanity, including rulers.
d) So, when Christianity began to expand from its Monotheistic Jewish roots into the Greco-Roman world, the concept of a Natural Law (or God's Law for His Human Creatures) was already present in the non-monotheistic, non-Christian society.

6) The cultural revolution of the 1960's--without making it explicit--challenged the national ethic of Duty based on Natural Law with an ethic of Ends or Consequentialism.

- There are three basic ethical systems, systems for determining right from wrong: Duty, Ends, and Virtue.
- A Duty Ethic says that right and wrong can largely be reduced to a set of rules (like a Natural Law)
- An Ends Ethic says that right and wrong can largely be reduced to desired outcomes, promoting pleasure and diminishing pain
- A Virtue Ethic says that right and wrong can largely be reduced to a set of valued traits or characteristics.
- It should be noted that these three philosophical or perspectival approaches to ethics largely agree on the right and wrong of most actions; however, the differences can be significant.​

7) In it's most crass form, the Ends Ethic is reflected in the Sheryl Crow song, "If it makes you happy, it can't be all wrong." However, the Ends Ethic finds its political application in a kind of social utilitarianism where right and wrong is determined by whether it furthers society toward a Utopian (typically tacitly from a Marxist, humanitarian perspective) ideal state.

8) As a result, the Political Left of today looks at the questions of gun control from the perspective of whether we would need guns in an ideal state. As a result, they view the very possession of guns as a part of the problem of gun violence which needs discussing.
9) The Political Right, on the other hand, still looks at the questions of gun control from the perspective of natural rights within a less than ideal state. As a result, they view the possession of guns as a natural right so that limitation of this right should be considered a last resort when discussing responses to gun violence.

10) Now, I think that the Political Left's commitment to an Ends Ethic, whether they know and admit it or not, is really a commitment to the Might Makes Right political philosophy against which our nation was founded as an alternative.

Excursus: 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech and Religion: We find a corollary of this debate also with the first amendment. In recent years, we've seen a rise in protesters shouting down public speakers to prevent their speech from being heard. We've also seen violence outside of planned speaking events to keep those speeches from even occurring.
We've seen the courts come down on different sides of whether an reference to God (as a divine being, regardless if understood as a Deist, as a Christian, as a Jew, as a Muslim, as a Unitarian, or as a Mormon) is protected speech. Still, there are some who think that any reference to God by civil servants is somehow a violation of the "establishment clause" without acknowledging that a reference to God is not unique to any one religion, let alone that the non-religious can also believe in a God.
-- IN OTHER WORDS, those who pursue freedom FROM religion and freedom FROM certain speech, don't believe in freedom OF speech and OF religion. FWIW, I have had experience even within this forum of people reporting my posts because they wanted freedom FROM my speech.

I would be happy to civilly debate any of the bullets which I raised in this long post. I recognize that some readers may not be able to raise their reaction beyond saying that this post was too YUGE and that I responded too BIGLY for our discussion. Still, as I said from the start, take it for what it's worth.

 

[Wrecking Ball]

As a side note driving a car is not listed in our bill of rights....possessing and carrying weapons is.

We can have a huge discussion on the "need" for semi-auto rifles, commonly referred to incorrectly by liberals as "assault weapons".

If multiple peeps break into my home, semi-autos are the best defense period. Does this happen a lot? Subjective. Does it happen? Absolutely.

Yeah anyone who wants to ban semi autos just doesn't understand guns.

I got no issue with semi autos.

I do have an issue with someone having 45 of them. My biological father dealt cocaine and ran with some bad folks but my grandfather never had to get into an OK Corral standoff or a Rambo standoff to protect the household.

 

[Wrecking Ball]

OK, here's my opinion on not just why there are differences of opinion over gun-control laws but also on why we have trouble discussing it.

Take it for what it's worth (the easily bored can start with bullet 8):

1) The United States was founded on the basis of a fundamental principle of governance.
2) This governing principle was that human beings have natural rights, and it is the government's responsibility to protect those natural rights (see Declaration of Independence).
3) The principle of natural rights was a unifying principle, and a basic assumption of the founders.

a) Theists believed these inalienable rights were endowed by the Creator.
-- This truth united the non-religious theists, the Deists, with the religious theists, primarily the Christians plus eventually Jews, Unitarians, and Muslims.
b) The (at least potential) Non-Theists could still believe that the natural rights were a given (see the Natural Law discussion below and the 20th Century Libertarians following Ayn Rand).​

4) A corollary of this principle of natural rights is the existence of a natural law which protects natural rights, and that positive laws are necessary to reflect the natural laws when enforcement is required.
5) The Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, highlight this fact by articulating as positive law--as should not be necessary but was--those natural rights which their previous experience with government had not protected.

Excursus: Natural Law and Christianity. While there is a strong affinity between Natural Law thinking and Christianity, they are, in fact, independent concepts to the extent that Natural Law philosophy does not require Christianity. It originated in the centuries before Christianity with Plato and later the Stoics.
a) Apparently following the philosophy of his teacher Socrates, Plato articulated the unitary concept of "the Good." He even speculated on an ideal governance in which "the Good" would be served.
b) In the decades and centuries following Plato, first the Greek empire of Alexander and his successors and then the Roman empire of Octavian and his successors ruled over a large spectrum of previous existing city-states and kingdoms. Lawyers and philosophers in the later Roman Republic and early Roman empire observed that some laws were common to almost everybody. They called these laws, the Law of the Nations.
c) Political philosophers, especially the Stoics, combined the Philosophical Theory of Socrates/Plato with the Sociological Observations of this Law of the Nations to conclude that there must exist a Natural Law for and over all humanity, including rulers.
d) So, when Christianity began to expand from its Monotheistic Jewish roots into the Greco-Roman world, the concept of a Natural Law (or God's Law for His Human Creatures) was already present in the non-monotheistic, non-Christian society.

6) The cultural revolution of the 1960's--without making it explicit--challenged the national ethic of Duty based on Natural Law with an ethic of Ends or Consequentialism.

- There are three basic ethical systems, systems for determining right from wrong: Duty, Ends, and Virtue.
- A Duty Ethic says that right and wrong can largely be reduced to a set of rules (like a Natural Law)
- An Ends Ethic says that right and wrong can largely be reduced to desired outcomes, promoting pleasure and diminishing pain
- A Virtue Ethic says that right and wrong can largely be reduced to a set of valued traits or characteristics.
- It should be noted that these three philosophical or perspectival approaches to ethics largely agree on the right and wrong of most actions; however, the differences can be significant.​

7) In it's most crass form, the Ends Ethic is reflected in the Sheryl Crow song, "If it makes you happy, it can't be all wrong." However, the Ends Ethic finds its political application in a kind of social utilitarianism where right and wrong is determined by whether it furthers society toward a Utopian (typically tacitly from a Marxist, humanitarian perspective) ideal state.

8) As a result, the Political Left of today looks at the questions of gun control from the perspective of whether we would need guns in an ideal state. As a result, they view the very possession of guns as a part of the problem of gun violence which needs discussing.
9) The Political Right, on the other hand, still looks at the questions of gun control from the perspective of natural rights within a less than ideal state. As a result, they view the possession of guns as a natural right so that limitation of this right should be considered a last resort when discussing responses to gun violence.

10) Now, I think that the Political Left's commitment to an Ends Ethic, whether they know and admit it or not, is really a commitment to the Might Makes Right political philosophy against which our nation was founded as an alternative.

Excursus: 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech and Religion: We find a corollary of this debate also with the first amendment. In recent years, we've seen a rise in protesters shouting down public speakers to prevent their speech from being heard. We've also seen violence outside of planned speaking events to keep those speeches from even occurring.
We've seen the courts come down on different sides of whether an reference to God (as a divine being, regardless if understood as a Deist, as a Christian, as a Jew, as a Muslim, as a Unitarian, or as a Mormon) is protected speech. Still, there are some who think that any reference to God by civil servants is somehow a violation of the "establishment clause" without acknowledging that a reference to God is not unique to any one religion, let alone that the non-religious can also believe in a God.
-- IN OTHER WORDS, those who pursue freedom FROM religion and freedom FROM certain speech, don't believe in freedom OF speech and OF religion. FWIW, I have had experience even within this forum of people reporting my posts because they wanted freedom FROM my speech.

I would be happy to civilly debate any of the bullets which I raised in this long post. I recognize that some readers may not be able to raise their reaction beyond saying that this post was too YUGE and that I responded too BIGLY for our discussion. Still, as I said from the start, take it for what it's worth.

This is really good stuff!

I don't think natural law and Christianity are incompatible but I think Christianity establishes a higher standard.

So when Jesus says "You have heard it said 'an eye for an eye...' but I say 'turn the other cheek,'" and Paul says in humility consider others better than yourselves, the message is we, like Christ, forego our rights for the sake of Gospel.

I love natural law theories but they have severe limitations as a substitute for the Gospel.


https://www.google.com/amp/www.myaj...ndment-debate/0wMIfG6tqrklvNvKYx8E4L/amp.html

The gun nut here actually says the Second Amendment emanates from the Gospel.

I'm sending him a letter asking him where he gets that when the Gospel is about the reconciliation of sinners and God through the birth, life, and death of Jesus Christ - full stop, end of story.

Fascism begins when we put a Christian T-Shirt on the idol of the state and worship it.

 

[AE 87]

This is really good stuff!

I don't think natural law and Christianity are incompatible but I think Christianity establishes a higher standard.

So when Jesus says "You have heard it said 'an eye for an eye...' but I say 'turn the other cheek,'" and Paul says in humility consider others better than yourselves, the message is we, like Christ, forego our rights for the sake of Gospel.

I love natural law theories but they have severe limitations as a substitute for the Gospel.


https://www.google.com/amp/www.myaj...ndment-debate/0wMIfG6tqrklvNvKYx8E4L/amp.html

The gun nut here actually says the Second Amendment emanates from the Gospel.

I'm sending him a letter asking him where he gets that when the Gospel is about the reconciliation of sinners and God through the birth, life, and death of Jesus Christ - full stop, end of story.

Fascism begins when we put a Christian T-Shirt on the idol of the state and worship it.

OK, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

My post was about American politics ( in which Christians participate) not the Christian religion. I never even mentioned the Gospel.

Jesus also said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and that Pilate had his authority from God (Jesus' Father). Paul and Peter both wrote letters instructing Christians to submit to governing authorities. They were not replacing the Gospel but talking about life in the world.

However, since you pretend to know something about the Christian religion, you should know that Natural Law functions there as well as in political theory. The Gospel of the reconciliation of sinners assumes that people are sinners. The Natural Law is a way Christians can show nonChristians their sin, call them to repentance, and proclaim to them the Gospel.

I didn't look at your link because that person speaks for themselves and not for me, and I won't speak for them.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Obviously driving a car is not listed in the bill of rights because people weren't driving when the bill of rights were written.
My question to you is, Do you think it's possible there can be some form of gun regulations to try to prevent mass shootings from happening without violating the 2nd Amendment?

-Well the use of established highways by horse drawn carriage then.
-There already are. See aggravated assault and homicide code sections in your state's laws. Doesn't prevent either from occurring. When attempted who is charged with the duty of defending innocent victims?
-what restrictions on 2nd amendment rights would you propose that would have prevented Vegas or any other mass shooting?

Yeah anyone who wants to ban semi autos just doesn't understand guns.

I got no issue with semi autos.

I do have an issue with someone having 45 of them. My biological father dealt cocaine and ran with some bad folks but my grandfather never had to get into an OK Corral standoff or a Rambo standoff to protect the household.

-I understand your personal opinion regarding the number of arms possessed by any citizen. Is 45 the number where you draw the line? Is it a smaller number? What law would you propose and what limit would you enforce upon law abiding citizens?

-Your grandfather and family were lucky. These type of incidents do occur. And when felonies are involved, drug trafficking by victims etc, self defense is often not a viable defense in court.

 

[Wrecking Ball]

-Well the use of established highways by horse drawn carriage then.
-There already are. See aggravated assault and homicide code sections in your state's laws. Doesn't prevent either from occurring. When attempted who is charged with the duty of defending innocent victims?
-what restrictions on 2nd amendment rights would you propose that would have prevented Vegas or any other mass shooting?



-I understand your personal opinion regarding the number of arms possessed by any citizen. Is 45 the number where you draw the line? Is it a smaller number? What law would you propose and what limit would you enforce upon law abiding citizens?

-Your grandfather and family were lucky. These type of incidents do occur. And when felonies are involved, drug trafficking by victims etc, self defense is often not a viable defense in court.

There's more to the Constitution than the Bill of Rights. The Privileges and Immunities Clause covers that and it's also covered by the process clauses in the BoR. Your freedom to move is in fact a fundamental right.

As to the number, who knows, but I don't know of a single scenario where one man and dozens of guns made any sense.

Where do these things happen outside of Hollywood where one man with thousands of rounds of ammo and dozens of guns is assaulted by enough people where he is, at the end of it, using the good family china and silver to defend himself and cursing himself for not getting another 2 or 3 machine guns and a few more belts of ammunition?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

There's more to the Constitution than the Bill of Rights. The Privileges and Immunities Clause covers that and it's also covered by the process clauses in the BoR. Your freedom to move is in fact a fundamental right.

As to the number, who knows, but I don't know of a single scenario where one man and dozens of guns made any sense.

Where do these things happen outside of Hollywood where one man with thousands of rounds of ammo and dozens of guns is assaulted by enough people where he is, at the end of it, using the good family china and silver to defend himself and cursing himself for not getting another 2 or 3 machine guns and a few more belts of ammunition?

Well here is the issue with that. One man can't fire dozens of guns at the same time. If a guy walked into a grocery store pulling a cart with dozens and dozens of guns, it literally would do him no good. All he needs is 1 gun and then a cart full of ammunition. Even then, he has to stop and reload, so having dozens and dozens of extra clips will do no good - unless there are no authorities or other citizens around him with guns.

So while the natural inclination is to say owning all these things 'don't make sense', therefore lets outlaw that, it wouldn't do anything to prevent crimes like this. This guy didn't need that many guns. He could have literally had just 1 gun with him up there. If we made a new law that said you can't have mor than 1 gun, it would not prevent any of the mass shootings that we've had. Because (1) it wouldn't prevent someone from still doing great harm if they wanted, and (2) criminals wouldn't follow the law anyway.

The only risk I see of having this many guns is if criminals find out about it, he becomes a robbery target. But you could say the same thing about all kinds of stuff. Hell, politicians even say that people don't need but so much money, so once you get beyond a certain income, the tax rate should be 90%+.

 

[Wrecking Ball]

OK, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

My post was about American politics ( in which Christians participate) not the Christian religion. I never even mentioned the Gospel.

Jesus also said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and that Pilate had his authority from God (Jesus' Father). Paul and Peter both wrote letters instructing Christians to submit to governing authorities. They were not replacing the Gospel but talking about life in the world.

However, since you pretend to know something about the Christian religion, you should know that Natural Law functions there as well as in political theory. The Gospel of the reconciliation of sinners assumes that people are sinners. The Natural Law is a way Christians can show nonChristians their sin, call them to repentance, and proclaim to them the Gospel.

I didn't look at your link because that person speaks for themselves and not for me, and I won't speak for them.

You never even mentioned the Gospel, but what is Christianity without the Gospel? There is a natural law framework there and much of it is useful but the marriage isn't as cute or happy as you concluded.

The Gospel doesn't assume people are sinners, it builds on specific Old Testament prophetic revelation that people are sinful. Straight specific revelation. Romans 1 establishes that yes, there's enough general revelation to arrive at the same conclusion but it's not really the point of the discussion.

I didn't insult you or your faith, but you insulted me. I don't "pretend" to know something about it. Your idea of the faith needs to be rerouted through 1 Corinthians 13.

 

[Wrecking Ball]

Well here is the issue with that. One man can't fire dozens of guns at the same time. If a guy walked into a grocery store pulling a cart with dozens and dozens of guns, it literally would do him no good. All he needs is 1 gun and then a cart full of ammunition. Even then, he has to stop and reload, so having dozens and dozens of extra clips will do no good - unless there are no authorities or other citizens around him with guns.

So while the natural inclination is to say owning all these things 'don't make sense', therefore lets outlaw that, it wouldn't do anything to prevent crimes like this. This guy didn't need that many guns. He could have literally had just 1 gun with him up there. If we made a new law that said you can't have mor than 1 gun, it would not prevent any of the mass shootings that we've had. Because (1) it wouldn't prevent someone from still doing great harm if they wanted, and (2) criminals wouldn't follow the law anyway.

The only risk I see of having this many guns is if criminals find out about it, he becomes a robbery target. But you could say the same thing about all kinds of stuff. Hell, politicians even say that people don't need but so much money, so once you get beyond a certain income the tax rate should be 90%+.

But the fact remains many of these shooters do have dozens even if they don't use them. That indicates mental illness, or at least some sort of unhealthy fixation on the subject.

Having 42 cats is as nuts as having 42 guns even if the cat lady doesn't know enough to present it as being a "collector."

 

[Deleted member 2897]

But the fact remains many of these shooters do have dozens even if they don't use them. That indicates mental illness, or at least some sort of unhealthy fixation on the subject.

Having 42 cats is as nuts as having 42 guns even if the cat lady doesn't know enough to present it as being a "collector."

You should research how many people have multiple guns. It is A LOT. You might be surprised to know that only 3% of Americans (10 million) own 50% of the guns (140 million of the 280 million guns). That means there are 10 million people who own an average of 14 guns each. I would guess that 9.99 million of those people are not nuts. The cats comparison is what is nuts. 42 guns can fit nicely into a dress rack on a wall. And they won't **** all over your house. Many of the shooters didn't have any guns at all. One of the most egregious shooting cases was Sandy Hook, and the shooter there didn't own any guns. He just stole them.

 

[Wrecking Ball]

You should research how many people have multiple guns. It is A LOT. You might be surprised to know that only 3% of Americans (10 million) own 50% of the guns (140 million of the 280 million guns). That means there are 10 million people who own an average of 14 guns each. I would guess that 9.99 million of those people are not nuts. The cats comparison is what is nuts. 42 guns can fit nicely into a dress rack on a wall. And they won't **** all over your house. Many of the shooters didn't have any guns at all. One of the most egregious shooting cases was Sandy Hook, and the shooter there didn't own any guns. He just stole them.

Do me a favor and just look at the image search for "redneck guns kids" and tell me you don't think we have serious issues based on the stats you just gave me. It makes me more, not less, nervous about having meth addled rednecks with high powered arsenals.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Do me a favor and just look at the image search for "redneck guns kids" and tell me you don't think we have serious issues based on the stats you just gave me. It makes me more, not less, nervous about having meth addled rednecks with high powered arsenals.

I see dozens and dozens and dozens of pictures of people. Not one of which I could identify as a murderer.

In fact, it is often these very people whom you insult that are the ones that stop the mass shootings.

 

[AE 87]

You never even mentioned the Gospel, but what is Christianity without the Gospel? There is a natural law framework there and much of it is useful but the marriage isn't as cute or happy as you concluded.

The Gospel doesn't assume people are sinners, it builds on specific Old Testament prophetic revelation that people are sinful. Straight specific revelation. Romans 1 establishes that yes, there's enough general revelation to arrive at the same conclusion but it's not really the point of the discussion.

I didn't insult you or your faith, but you insulted me. I don't "pretend" to know something about it. Your idea of the faith needs to be rerouted through 1 Corinthians 13.

Excuse me, but this thread is about politics. I made a post about politics. My post specifically referred to political agreements between Christians and non Christians in our nation's founding.

You replied as if I was denying that Christians also have revealed knowledge from God, including the Gospel. It is obviously nonsense to conclude that because Christians can agree with nonChristians on some things that there is nothing on which they disagree. So, I assumed you weren't that stupid and concluded you were trolling. I apologize for it seems my assumption was wrong.

 

[RonJohn]

-- IN OTHER WORDS, those who pursue freedom FROM religion and freedom FROM certain speech, don't believe in freedom OF speech and OF religion. FWIW, I have had experience even within this forum of people reporting my posts because they wanted freedom FROM my speech.

I get freedom from speech all of the time because I have about 40 people ignored. It isn't true on an internet forum, but people have a right to say whatever they want. They do not have a right to force me to listen to it.