Las Vegas shooting: More than 20 dead, 100 injured

[durangodawood]

No, and arms sales are already regulated. Purchasing a gun even here in scenic, gun-happy Arkansas is an involved process. I've got a CCL and I still have to fill out a fair amount of paperwork and my background is checked through NICS whenever I purchase any kind of firearm. Furthermore, there are some weapons that aren't available to me (a machine gun, for example).

Regardless, the Second Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that individuals can keep and bear arms. There are limits on that right, but it is a right and, as such, is protected.

Seems we agree. Not sure why you referenced Heller. Nothing I said challenged the individual right.

 

[HawgWyld]

Seems we agree. Not sure why you referenced Heller. Nothing I said challenged the individual right.

Because you referenced the "well regulated militia phrase" and suggested an alternate rendering of the Second Amendment. The point is that the Supreme Court has done its job of interpreting that amendment as it is.

If I misinterpreted something, I do apologize. I usually see the "militia" language come into play when people are suggesting that the Second Amendment merely allows citizens to organize into militias and carry firearms in that context.

 

[durangodawood]

Because you referenced the "well regulated militia phrase" and suggested an alternate rendering of the Second Amendment. The point is that the Supreme Court has done its job of interpreting that amendment as it is.

If I misinterpreted something, I do apologize. I usually see the "militia" language come into play when people are suggesting that the Second Amendment merely allows citizens to organize into militias and carry firearms in that context.

Ah, right. I'm just challenging the idea that access to arms must be totally unregulated for the right to be intact.

 

[HawgWyld]

Ah, right. I'm just challenging the idea that access to arms must be totally unregulated for the right to be intact.

Got it. I exercise my Second Amendment rights and would argue that only a maniac would claim they should be unregulated. And that's the thing with gun control discussions -- the right to keep and bear arms isn't absolute, but what regulations are reasonable?

For example, we've all heard by now that the maniac in Las Vegas used a bump stock to shoot as many people as possible in a very short time period. People who know anything about guns will tell you that bump stocks are pretty much useless unless aim isn't a big deal because the shooter simply wants to throw a bunch of bullets rapidly at a large crowd of people. That being the case, is outlawing bump stocks reasonable?

Extended further, take the 9mm I keep in my nightstand. It's got a 17-round magazine, so I've got 17+1 loaded up and ready to go and two additional magazines next to the pistol. That's 52 rounds that can be fired very quickly. Is restricting the magazine size reasonable? If so, what size should citizens be allowed to have? Is the .40 S&W with an 11-round magazine I keep in my desk drawer at work too large?

The point is, you'll not find a whole lot of people saying "ban nothing" or "ban everything." Most of us are simply trying to figure out what restrictions are reasonable and which ones are not.

 

[SummerMadness]

I think it's funny to see that the NRA was for firearm regulation back in the 1930s, my how they have changed over the decades. I think they might actually gain more members if they didn't come off like the PETA of the gun world. You may have rifle in your name, but you're simply a pariah to many.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Good stuff.

I wonder if the powers that were, ever tried to deSword folks back in biblical times or thereabouts?

YEs, very often.
They did not just "try", they simply took, enslaved, etc etc without thought or concern for the populace (many times throughout 'ancient' history).

 

[Kenny'sID]

This thread and the comments on "A well regulated militia" makes me wonder. A well regulated militia would be something like the National Guard but run by the people, not government, right? Is that not what our forefathers had in mind?

Now ask yourselves, what would happen if the people ever tried to pull something like that together?

You know what would happen...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="Kenny'sID, post: 71840309, member: 385191"]This thread and the comments on "A well regulated militia" makes me wonder. A well regulated militia would be something like the National Guard but run by the people, not government, right? Is that not what our forefathers had in mind?

Now ask yourselves, what would happen if the people ever tried to pull something like that together?

You know what would happen...[/QUOTE
Most people not only do not know what would happen,
they have no idea that
"the people tried to pull something like that together" (better government)
well before 1950
and the powers in place
infiltrated all the groups of people that they knew about
and turned them against one another with murders, inuendoes, lies, propaganda,
and so forth
and they (the groups who were trying to pull something together)
did not even know or were not able to let enough others know
what was going on to split them all up.
The democrats, republicans, oil men, pharmakeia, roman catholic authorities and government and military officials subject to them, bankers, corporations
and stock brokerages all
had a great financial and real interest and effort and cooperation
to PREVENT the people, the groups,
from bringing about a better , less oppressive, healthier government and system(s).

 

[durangodawood]

Got it. I exercise my Second Amendment rights and would argue that only a maniac would claim they should be unregulated. And that's the thing with gun control discussions -- the right to keep and bear arms isn't absolute, but what regulations are reasonable?

For example, we've all heard by now that the maniac in Las Vegas used a bump stock to shoot as many people as possible in a very short time period. People who know anything about guns will tell you that bump stocks are pretty much useless unless aim isn't a big deal because the shooter simply wants to throw a bunch of bullets rapidly at a large crowd of people. That being the case, is outlawing bump stocks reasonable?

Extended further, take the 9mm I keep in my nightstand. It's got a 17-round magazine, so I've got 17+1 loaded up and ready to go and two additional magazines next to the pistol. That's 52 rounds that can be fired very quickly. Is restricting the magazine size reasonable? If so, what size should citizens be allowed to have? Is the .40 S&W with an 11-round magazine I keep in my desk drawer at work too large?

The point is, you'll not find a whole lot of people saying "ban nothing" or "ban everything." Most of us are simply trying to figure out what restrictions are reasonable and which ones are not.

I seem to run across people all the time in discussion who view unlimited magazine capacity as basically a sacred right..... and even more who would resist mag limits just on the basis of "slippery slope" thinking.

 

[HawgWyld]

I seem to run across people all the time in discussion who view unlimited magazine capacity as basically a sacred right..... and even more who would resist mag limits just on the basis of "slippery slope" thinking.

Hey, I'm in the "more shots, the better" camp. For example, the Kel-Tec PMR-30 is a .22 magnum pistol that has a 30-round magazine and is sold with one spare mag (i.e., the capacity for 61 rounds out of the box for those keeping score at home). For those concerned about temporary hearing loss if they were in the position of having to defend themselves in an enclosed area with a large caliber handgun, that Kel-Tec could be a great solution.

However, magazine size is certainly a topic open for discussion. Clinton in the 1990s, after all, pushed for a 10-round limit on magazines and that's all we could have for a few years. I've preferred large-capacity magazines since I quit buying revolvers, but what reasonable restrictions can be imposed is up for debate. I'm on the "gimme more" side of the fence on that one, of course, but reasonable people ought to be able to talk about these issues...

 

[Aldebaran]

Thought he had about 43 guns, not a gun. There's millionaires in other countries who can't have such an arsenal, on account of their laws.

Doesn't matter. If this millionaire would have done a mass shooting with just one gun, as most mass shooters do, nobody would say, "Good thing we have laws keeping people like him from owning more than one gun!"

 

[Tanj]

This thread and the comments on "A well regulated militia" makes me wonder. A well regulated militia would be something like the National Guard but run by the people, not government, right? Is that not what our forefathers had in mind?

Nope. The term has a few meanings, but all of those meanings involve government control. Your forefathers didn't want to spend bucks on a huge standing army, so they wanted said army supplemented by civilians in times of need.

Now ask yourselves, what would happen if the people ever tried to pull something like that together?

You know what would happen...

Hmm, a bunch of completely untrained heavily armed people acting under some kind of Marxist group think (I assume that's what you meant, since it's clear there's no leader here)

What could possibly go wrong.

 

[Kenny'sID]

QUOTE="Kenny'sID, post: 71840309, member: 385191"]This thread and the comments on "A well regulated militia" makes me wonder. A well regulated militia would be something like the National Guard but run by the people, not government, right? Is that not what our forefathers had in mind?

Now ask yourselves, what would happen if the people ever tried to pull something like that together?

You know what would happen...[/QUOTE
Most people not only do not know what would happen,
they have no idea that
"the people tried to pull something like that together" (better government)
well before 1950
and the powers in place
infiltrated all the groups of people that they knew about
and turned them against one another with murders, inuendoes, lies, propaganda,
and so forth
and they (the groups who were trying to pull something together)
did not even know or were not able to let enough others know
what was going on to split them all up.
The democrats, republicans, oil men, pharmakeia, roman catholic authorities and government and military officials subject to them, bankers, corporations
and stock brokerages all
had a great financial and real interest and effort and cooperation
to PREVENT the people, the groups,
from bringing about a better , less oppressive, healthier government and system(s).

No surprise there. Seems any type of organized militia end up with either some of them dead or in big trouble with the government.

So, what we end up with is an unorganized few, and fortunately for the most part, responsible people who's guns the government wants to take. Also fortunately, those few will have no part of having their guns taken.

I wonder how many still believe Sandy Hook was just as reported on Wikipedia? I'm assuming that's the official government stance.

The government has agenda that's not to the advantage of it's people, and some of you Christians should be well aware of that here towards the end of this age. They want control, and will say/do just about anything to convince you *they* need full control, not the people they work for.

I also wonder if things in Washington might be a little different and the country run much better if we did have a well organized Militia looming?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Nope. The term has a few meanings, but all of those meanings involve government control. Your forefathers didn't want to spend bucks on a huge standing army, so they wanted said army supplemented by civilians in times of need.

You say "nope" as though what you say is absolute. I somehow doubt it is. Can you please prove that a for and by the people militia is absolutely not a possibility for definition of an well organized militia, or did you just pull that out of your hat as I suspect? It's easy to say "nope" now back it up.

Hmm, a bunch of completely untrained heavily armed people acting under some kind of Marxist group think (I assume that's what you meant, since it's clear there's no leader here)

What's clear is your twisting of what I said. How in the world do you "assume" the following when we are talking about a "well organized" Militia? Why would that indicate "no leader" to you?

Hmm, a bunch of completely untrained heavily armed people acting under some kind of Marxist group think

I believe you really have nothing to add to the conversation at all, as everything you have stated thus far is either way out there or simply made up.

Wow.

 

[Tanj]

You say "nope" as though what you say is absolute.

No, I say nope as in there is no dictionary definition of militia that involves the marxist group think you favour, and I also say nope based on what uses your forefathers put the milita to.

Can you please prove that a for and by the people militia is absolutely not a possibility for definition of an well organized militia

Whose organizing it?

What's clear is your twisting of what I said. How in the world do you "assume" the following when we are talking about a "well organized" Militia? Why would that indicate "no leader" to you?

Well, go on then, who is leading it?

I believe you really have nothing to add to the conversation at all, as everything you have stated thus far is either way out there or simply made up.

This from the guy that invented marxist group think militia without a shred of evidence to support the concept. Do love me some irony.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, I say nope as in there is no dictionary definition of militia that involves the marxist group think you favour, and I also say nope based on what uses your forefathers put the milita to.

What is this Marxist stuff you are baselessly interjecting into this, lol?

Well, go on then, who is leading it?

What??? who is leading something that does not exist? A leader, as in whomever they choose. Why is that so hard to fathom?

Bizarre comment.

This from the guy that invented marxist group think militia without a shred of evidence to support the concept. Do love me some irony.

Marxist? Again with something completely made up and thrown in here with no grounds for it whatsoever. Still nothing to add I see.

I think we're done here.

 

[Tanj]

What is this Marxist stuff you are baselessly interjecting into this, lol?

Marx manifesto, his ideal version of communism and not the totalitarian rubbish that places like the USSR and China came up with, but actual Marxism, involves the elimination of any kind of federal government and the devolution of control down to the community level, where, apparently, people would just coalesce harmoniously.

What??? who is leading something that does not exist? A leader, as in whomever they choose. Why is that so hard to fathom?

Because it's a militia. In your model, there's another milita forming in the next town. In the absence of an overarching authority, how do you expect these two groups to work together? Chances are they'd just fight each other. What you'd end up with is a feudal/warlord type situation which is what you get in places like Somalia.

I think we're done here.

You sure are.

 

[SolomonVII]

Every future Marxist considers that every Marxist of the past has been an evil idiot, who just did not know Marx and therefore got it so horribly wrong that the death toll due to incompetence and brutality makes Hitler look like a puddy cat.
But this time, the Marxists will get it right, because the Marxists of today are of the finest of character, right?, and educated in the finest of schools that their parents money can buy.
Why not give them a try? What have we got to lose after all?
Life is cheap in a world without God after all is said and done anyway.
What is another hundred million of so. Mother Earth will thank us for even Marxists next bloody failures.

 

[Tanj]

Every future Marxist considers that every Marxist of the past has been an evil idiot, who just did not know Marx and therefore got it so horribly wrong that the death toll due to incompetence and brutality makes Hitler look like a puddy cat.
But this time, the Marxists will get it right, because the Marxists of today are of the finest of character, right?, and educated in the finest of schools that their parents money can buy.
Why not give them a try? What have we got to lose after all?
Life is cheap in a world without God after all is said and done anyway.
What is another hundred million of so. Mother Earth will thank us for even Marxists next bloody failures.

I think you are being a bit harsh on Kenny here. It's more likely he just didn't fully think through his idea.

 

[Faithful Scuff]

Everything Stephen Paddock owns should be liquidated and used to pay for what happen in Las Vegas. It should be used to pay for the medical bills, lost time from work. The relatives, parents, husbands, wives, children and the like should also be given restitution until the entire estate is gone.