General / Off-Topic More than 50 killed in Las Vegas terror attack

[Deleted member 115407]

I'm a compassionate human being. I have a stake wherever there is suffering. And given that the NRA turned up when there was a mass shooting near where I live more than 20 years ago and called for gun laws not to be tightened, you'll forgive me if I return the favour.

My point is that you don't have to understand the Bill of Rights, because you aren't protected by them.

I am protected by them. Those amendments and their protections are nigh sacrosanct, and I would like to keep them that way.

 

[Minonian]

James Madison said in 1789 that "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

Alexander Hamilton wrote, "if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense," a right which he declared "paramount." (Federalist 28).

But against what? Each others the government, or an invading nation's army? this is the big question right?

Alexander Hamilton wrote, "if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense," a right which he declared "paramount." (Federalist 28).


And then there is clause "... shall not be infringed." There is no exception to this contained anywhere in the amendment.

So basically they got "hacked" the second amendment to add this cause to it?
You can call this supplement either a trojan or a virus, but the main point is? It's changed the meaning of the second amendment, and how it works, added something into it what originally does not meant to deal with.
Yeah... This is in modern computer terminology a troyan.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

But against what? Each others the government, or an invading nation's army? this is the big question right?

It's actually in the same quote you're addressing, but all enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

[Gully Foyle]

Well worth a watch(It's a Paul Watson movie be warned, so if you hate him for some political reason then maybe not for you [big grin] )
https://youtu.be/QuaXRrf8v2A

Great video, but the racist troll comments make me sick and sad.

 

[Boomer Kay]

We're expressly talking of challenges to changing US constitutional law only in this instance, not the NRA opinion of it. Bit of a brief legal history sidebar here...

When the Constitution was signed, federalists claimed the new government would only have limited powers expressly delegated to it. This wasn’t enough for anti-federalists like George Mason, who wanted explicit guarantees to prevent any potential encroachment by federal govt.

Mason wrote:

"A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State"

The Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Britain, urealised with unusual far-sightedness that the federal govt they were ratifying might one day in the future become just as tyrannical. If it had the overweening authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British tried to, and any govt could have a free hand. The 2nd Amendment was specifically included to prevent this.

Over two centuries later, there is an ideological struggle with both gun freedom and gun control advocates. Some ignore or are more likely unaware what the ratifiers had to say, because all germane historical documents contradict them.

James Madison said in 1789 that "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

As to the word "militia", that's some kind of army or law enforcement or something? No, for example it has nothing to do with the National Guard. There is already a legal clause that specifically authorises arming them. Nor is it the US Armed forces, Police forces, FBI, CIA, NSA or any federal agency.

Mason said they were

"... the whole people, except for a few public officials."

Alexander Hamilton wrote,

"if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense," a right which he declared "paramount." (Federalist 28).

And then there is clause "... shall not be infringed." There is no exception to this contained anywhere in the amendment.

That's the usual naive paleoconservatism.
"A well trained horse" has no military value. A musket doesn't. Any artillery they had at that time doesn't. A single 2017 destroyer could sink the world's 17th century navies.
Those amateur schmucks with their Wal-Mart equipment couldn't defeat any serious invading force, let alone the U.S. army (don't point at insurgencies in Iraq... every strategist told them they need 400.000 troops there and they sent half of that and withdrew most).

That entire notion is moot.

 

[Minonian]

It's actually in the same quote you're addressing, but all enemies, foreign and domestic.

But not the government. That's the result of a latest "hack" and the main source of today's problems. Like the continuous tensions between Cops and citizens. Because of it they feel they can oppose lawful police measures and get away with it!

And as the result the shootouts and chases between cops and civilians are also a part of everyday life. let me tell you something to me as an European this is as far from normal it can possibly gets.

 

[Gully Foyle]

Not sure what to say. That was really sad to read. My condolences

Thank you. He was just a kid. He got separated from his girlfriend and the ladysaint answered his phone when she called.

He told me he was going to this show and I teased him about his love of Rubber Boot Music ( old rock with bad accents etc.)
and told him to watch out for the nutcases in Lost Wages.

That was a week ago.

 

[Minonian]

That's the usual naive paleoconservatism.
"A well trained horse" has no military value. A musket doesn't. Any artillery they had at that time doesn't. A single 2017 destroyer could sink the world's 17th century navies.
Those amateur schmucks with their Wal-Mart equipment couldn't defeat any serious invading force, let alone the U.S. army (don't point at insurgencies in Iraq... every strategist told them they need 400.000 troops there and they sent half of that and withdrew most).

That entire notion is moot.

Yep! True enough. this law had some meaning back than but in these days is just a piece of paper.

 

[Gully Foyle]

<snip>

When did we do that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

 

[Gully Foyle]

For the most part, the conversation has been pretty rational and lucid, in my opinion.

I certainly feel deep sorrow for the victims of the Vegas shooting, and I hope we can find ways to prevent such tragedies in the future.



I'm very sorry for your loss, my friend.

Thanks brother!

 

[Minonian]

skip.

In Europe you don"t have the right to oppose lawful government measures, and certainly you can't get away with it or sue because of it, this is an American speciality, and the cause of untold chaos, and suffering, Anyone who think this can be done in europe simply deluded, and don't have the slightest idea about their own laws, and also with a good chance seen too much Hollywood movies.

Actually, You can't do that even in America just some "intelligent" person think they can, because they need a cheap excuse to get away with their shady deeds.

Edit; Because their right to oppose the government and its armed forces. So they doing it whenever they think right, or a cheap excuse is necessary. But not even this are true! They only granted arms in case the government turns into something nasty. But what they forget and mentioned previously by me? Even a Dictator needs support! And who is going to stand to his side first? The gun toting mob!

 

[Boomer Kay]

In Europe you don"t have the right to oppose lawful government measures, and certainly you can't get away with it or sue because of it, this is an American speciality, and the cause of untold chaos, and suffering.

Not with violence.
You can take your government to court all the way up to EU court of human rights.
I mentioned my colleague who's waging legal battle with his government over declaring his family enemy of the state and disowning them during the 1920ies.

 

[Minonian]

Not with violence.
You can take your government to court all the way up to EU court of human rights.
I mentioned my colleague who's waging legal battle with his government over declaring his family enemy of the state and disowning them during the 1920ies.

That's right! And i guess this turned out like this because of the expediences in America. that's good for no one!

America law standards are not good but in many cases the worse what humanly possible! We don't need this and neither interested in.

Why are we comparing the US of 18thC to today? The US army are not an invading force.

To themselves? true. but everyone else? Well? I'm not going to throw accusations around, but i guess we know what a large part of the world think about them.

 

[dannysquid]

Perhaps if the US split into two, with all the guns in one half and everybody unarmed in the other half. Wait a few years, see how many gun massacres happen in each half, and then decide which scenario involves less gun massacres and legislate on that basis.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Indeed, if one can afford the legal fees!

I'm not familiar with the local regulation in the U.K., but the German one is adequate:
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_aid-55-en.do?init=true

 

[Boomer Kay]

US law states citizens can own firearms.

That's the 5th amendment.

(Take it from the experts of ripping you off .. economic liberals: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-34.pdf )

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Indeed, if one can afford the legal fees!

Oh, believe me, the moment that some person or organization feels that they can win that fight, they'll be happy to eat the monetary costs. You don't even need a full repeal. All you need is a majority of activist judges on the court.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Look at the dissenting opinion, written by Stevens, in the Heller decision that I posted earlier. It is a firm position that the second is not an individual right, and applies to the military only. And had things been different a year ago, and Obama been able to appoint an activist left-leaning judge to the court, the matter most certainly would have come up by now, if not within a few years.

But then, of course, you have the States and the People to worry about - the majority of whom would actively oppose the decision. I might even say "vast majority", since the reason you never see effective gun control from the left is because they know that even a hefty portion of their constituents feel so strongly about their right to keep and bear arms. Democrats introduce gun legislation just like the Republicans have handled Obamacare repeals, i.e. when they have no chance of winning, it's bill after bill after bill. But when they firmly have the upper hand.... crickets. There's nothing they can do. Amazing, isn't it? Of course, then you have the States who will start "militia" programs... sign up for the militia, keep your guns!

It also doesn't take into account the immense burden that would follow in the aftermath. Legal fights over privacy and due process when it comes to confiscation, etc. Strained criminal systems from newly criminalized people who were otherwise law abiding citizens, and the number of people who, clean or newly criminalized, would turn to crime to capitalize on the demand for firearms. You thought prohibition was bad...?

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Here's a thought.. How about people offer their condolences to the victims and their families and give best wishes to the survivors and leave it at that?

It's a great idea - to the families of the victims, I offer my deepest sympathies. No words can abate your losses, no gesture can truly comfort you, but may the peace of the Divine find you and hold you close in these dark times.

---

We've vented, we've vitrioled, pointed fingers and told-you-soed all we need, and while it may have helped each of us in our ways, that time has passed. Let us set aside our differences and disagreements and unite for those suffering in ways I can only hope no else ever does.

 

[Minonian]

Perhaps if the US split into two, with all the guns in one half and everybody unarmed in the other half. Wait a few years, see how many gun massacres happen in each half, and then decide which scenario involves less gun massacres and legislate on that basis.

Easy to predict the results. No guns, can't be any massacres.

 

[Minonian]

That's the 5th amendment.

But the problem is with the second, and it's consequences right?