Las Vegas Mass Casualty Attack
- Thread starter Whiskey_Clear
- Start date
MWBATL
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,530
Perhaps off point (or maybe right on point)....my understanding is that ALL of things currently being discussed would not have stopped OR prevented the vast majority of gun massacres. Not Florida, not Las Vegas, not the Pulse night club (I am going purely off memory here) not Sandy Hook, not Aurora, not Columbine....none.
Is that correct? If I am wrong, please do educate me. The raising of the age to prevent sales of the AR-15 is the only thing that comes to mind, but surely people intent on doing this would simply switch to semi-automatic handguns, yes?
If so, why are the proponents so passionate about it?
Is that correct? If I am wrong, please do educate me. The raising of the age to prevent sales of the AR-15 is the only thing that comes to mind, but surely people intent on doing this would simply switch to semi-automatic handguns, yes?
If so, why are the proponents so passionate about it?
Last edited:
MWBATL
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,530
I also understand (without fact checking) that 26 of the deadliest 27 mass murderers were from fatherless homes.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markmeckler/2018/02/27-deadliest-mass-shooters-26-one-thing-common/
We MIGHT want to think about examining societal policies which encourage homes without fathers. Just sayin'......
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markmeckler/2018/02/27-deadliest-mass-shooters-26-one-thing-common/
We MIGHT want to think about examining societal policies which encourage homes without fathers. Just sayin'......
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
Didn’t mean to insult you. But you were the one that asked why we were arguing about “something this stupid.” That was your characterization not mine. So I then pointed out a couple of points you made that I thought were stupid. Not characterizing you as a stupid person. Just a couple of your points. Fair disclosure I say and do stupid things at times myself. But if you felt insulted because I admittedly got a bit snarky, then I apologize.
You implied the NRA has vastly changed and I asked you for specific examples of such.
The AR question was an attempt to flush out what guns / characteristics of guns you want to ban. Or what features you feel citizens have no need for.
You seem reluctant to engage in that conversation.
I tried yelling at the sky but the clouds also had no reply. Can you give me some pointers there?
Milwaukee
Banned
- Messages
- 7,277
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
My father left us when I was 4 I think. My poor mother lived in a trailer in Alabama and barely got by working 2 jobs. Myself along with my 2 sisters have graduate degrees and contribute to society in a positive way...for the most part. There's a 0% chance any of us are going to fire on a crowd. That's a cop-out. Just sayin.
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
It is a cop out but kids in single parent families do have more hurdles to success I think. Other family support available can also factor greatly.
No doubt in my mind my kids would not have as good an upbringing if either myself or my wife were out of the picture. I’m also aware they’d be better off without me than without my wife. Parenting ain’t always easy and it would be a helluva lot harder to handle solo.
There are plenty of dysfunctional and messed up “traditional” families also. Just terrible parents period.
But single parenting is tougher by far imo. I’d also say the majority of troubled kids I’ve had contact with cane from single guardian homes. Often where grandma was that guardian, but that’s just st my own anecdotal experience.
I’ve also had contact with some absolutely fabulous single moms who did what yours did. Work 2 jobs and still take care of after school stuff and everything else that involves parenting. (Haven’t yet had any interaction or involvement with single fathers raising kids)
Your success and your sisters’ success speaks to yalls hard work, inner character, and what must have been amazing job your mom did raising you all.
We need more parents like that. Too many though, single or not, refuse to instill the necessary discipline and responsibility required to lead kids toward success.
UgaBlows
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,831
No worries, i just don’t want us to all wind up hating each other over political opinions, i respect all of yall and don’t want it to carry over and lose GT fan comraderie on the main board.
As far as banning guns goes, i don’t think it’s very realistic to ban assault rifles because there are so many out there. I tend to agree with you on your point that if bad guys can attack my home with an ar-15 then i want one too. Better and longer background checks, no sales to minors, universal laws and strict enforcement across all states, no sales to mentally ill people or terrorists, close gunshow and private sales loopholes, stuff like that is our best bet imo.
collegeballfan
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,694
Re the Constitution's 2nd Amendment. This is the holding in Justice Scalia's majority opinion in the Heller case.
"Held:
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 within the home."
Read the entire opinion here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
"Held:
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 within the home."
Read the entire opinion here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
Totally agree. I’ve had plenty of debates with @Northeast Stinger regarding AGW. We are at polar (see what I did there) opposites in opinion on that issue. But I’ve always enjoyed our exchanges in disagreement because he argues his side intelligently which makes the back and forth we engage in entertaining. So I respect his opinions even though I vehemently disagree with them on that issue.
As to this debate. We probably have more common ground to compromise on than our leaders in DC do.
Having said that I’m more defensive of my 2a rights than the AGW issue. I see AGW legislation primarily as a waste of government funds (my tax dollars) based on speculative and questionable science. I see the gun debate as a real threat to erode my civil rights.
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
2A and due process. But who cares about the Constitution?
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
- Messages
- 12,104
- Location
- Marietta, GA
Well done to you, your sisters and your mom. I think @MWBATL was alluding to was that the is a correlation. Obviously your mom gave a damn and busted her rear to give ya'll opportunities and that education was important.
Kudos to you and the family.
- Messages
- 12,104
- Location
- Marietta, GA
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
Just to give some clarity on what AUS laws are post 1996.
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
First time I’ve seen this channel but funny.
collegeballfan
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,694
Interesting discussion. My two cents.
Going back to the actual 2nd Amendment as written, "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."
Notice it doesn't say what Arms, just Arms. Notice that there is nothing here that says felons, mentally ill, Radical Islamic Terrorist, and even women!, cannot keep and bear Arms. So when we say that we want to keep those groups from keeping and bearing, we are talking about violating the 2nd Am, as written.
Whether you believe it, don't believe it, like it, or hate it, the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. See Marbury v Madison, 1803. Repeat, the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.
Here is point 1 and 2 in Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller (for those who have not read the opinion).
"Held
1.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 within the home.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. "
Again, like it or not, that is what the Constitution says (until the Court changes its mind). You see where the Court keeps turning down restrictions on Arms passed into law in some states. For example: "Feb 20, 2018 - In an unsigned order, the court let stand a ruling upholding California's law mandating a 10-day waiting period and another imposing fees on firearm transactions to fund background checks."
Per the Court that California law is Constitutional. This Court is still following the Scalia opinion (stare decisis). And will do so pending a radical change in membership.
If we are going to have an HONEST debate on Arms in this country, we have a long way to go. Both sides are to quick to say that some suggestion on Arms is unconstitutional. Per the Supreme Court there is very little that is unconstitutional. If you just read the Amendment Trump's idea of no sales to mentally ill is unconstitutional. Per Justice Scalia's opinion it is constitutional.
Going back to the actual 2nd Amendment as written, "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."
Notice it doesn't say what Arms, just Arms. Notice that there is nothing here that says felons, mentally ill, Radical Islamic Terrorist, and even women!, cannot keep and bear Arms. So when we say that we want to keep those groups from keeping and bearing, we are talking about violating the 2nd Am, as written.
Whether you believe it, don't believe it, like it, or hate it, the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. See Marbury v Madison, 1803. Repeat, the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.
Here is point 1 and 2 in Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller (for those who have not read the opinion).
"Held
1.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 within the home.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. "
Again, like it or not, that is what the Constitution says (until the Court changes its mind). You see where the Court keeps turning down restrictions on Arms passed into law in some states. For example: "Feb 20, 2018 - In an unsigned order, the court let stand a ruling upholding California's law mandating a 10-day waiting period and another imposing fees on firearm transactions to fund background checks."
Per the Court that California law is Constitutional. This Court is still following the Scalia opinion (stare decisis). And will do so pending a radical change in membership.
If we are going to have an HONEST debate on Arms in this country, we have a long way to go. Both sides are to quick to say that some suggestion on Arms is unconstitutional. Per the Supreme Court there is very little that is unconstitutional. If you just read the Amendment Trump's idea of no sales to mentally ill is unconstitutional. Per Justice Scalia's opinion it is constitutional.
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
In the day of our founders private citizens purchased ship cannons to arm privately owned merchant ships. Not a musket or a brace of pistols, but cannons.
SCOTUS rules on Constitutional issues. Their opinions change the execution of laws. Which is why abortion isn’t “settled law.” So in effect they decide “meaning”. But the Constitution says what it says.
If SCOTUS makes rulings the majority disagree with, then the people have the right to dictate further through Constitutional Conventions snd further amendments.
2A is very divisive. Which could make a convention to stipulate it further impossible. Try what Australia did in ‘96 and I fear what will follow. I will not surrender mine.
SCOTUS rules on Constitutional issues. Their opinions change the execution of laws. Which is why abortion isn’t “settled law.” So in effect they decide “meaning”. But the Constitution says what it says.
If SCOTUS makes rulings the majority disagree with, then the people have the right to dictate further through Constitutional Conventions snd further amendments.
2A is very divisive. Which could make a convention to stipulate it further impossible. Try what Australia did in ‘96 and I fear what will follow. I will not surrender mine.
LibertyTurns
Banned
- Messages
- 6,216
The court rightfully upheld the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. You can read the full opinion here where he addresses Breyer’s “interest-balancing” argument. Quite frankly these liberal “this is what I think the Constitution should mean now because this is what I feel” type of judges need to be eliminated off the court as rapidly as possible.
Here’s Scalia’s majority opinion summary:
64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful fire arm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the Dis trict must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
***
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amend ment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Here’s Scalia’s majority opinion summary:
64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful fire arm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the Dis trict must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
***
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amend ment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
Curious argument. Which branch of government is truly most out of control. It’s a pretty tight race imo.