For those that still read ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...3edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html
Chief
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...3edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html
Chief
General / Off-Topic More than 50 killed in Las Vegas terror attack
- Thread starter AluminumAlloy
- Start date
- Status
There is no "common sense" solutions, if you don't have supporting data for working policies (remember this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ey_Amendment_(1996) ? Seriously, they smuggled ignorance policy into a bill to defund research on gun anything because of reasons? ):
Last edited:
Let's look at the whole of that text, shall we:
"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."
At the time of the writing, what was "A well regulated Militia"? It was not a standing Army of professional soldiers. It was an organization of ordinary citizens, who would train and learn some basic discipline, especially in the use of firearms. It is vital to stress that these Militias were not professional soldiers, they were not enlisted personnel. They were every-day citizens, who would return to their shops, fields and cattle at the end of the day. They used personal, privately owned firearms/ Aside from providing additional support to the young nation's standing Army, they also severed as a watchdog against that same Army, lest a new America become an old England again. That is the meaning of "being necessary to the security of a free State". Not just freedom from foreign powers, but freedom from the abuse of power internally.
"tthe right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is pretty clear as it stands. The People, everyday ordinary citizens have the right to keep firearms, to carry and use firearms, and this right is not to be limited or restricted. It was so written to prevent its circumvention by those in power, to prevent the disarming of private citizens to pave the way for a transition back the kind of tyranny we had just fought a war to escape.
In this modern day and age, we have less of a need for private militias to support our standing armed forces than we did 200+ years ago, HOWEVER we all still have the right and the responsibility to each other to remain vigilant against tyranny from within, and the right to rely upon ourselves to provide for our own protection against those who would do us harm.
A common phrase is "When seconds count, the police are minutes away."
From my own experience, I can recount this tale: I had gone into a pharmacy one evening, not long before they closed, to pick up a prescription. While I was waiting another person entered the pharmacy. He paced around, seemed particularly anxious, almost irritable because the pharmacy counter was empty. When the woman behind the counter returned with my prescription, the other person pulled a large hunting knife and threatened her - he demanded money and large quantities of medications kept behind the counter, commonly used in the production of crystal meth. I have been a concealed carry permit holder for years, and had never had cause to so much as draw my weapon outside of a firing range, until this night. I drew my firearm, trained it on the man with the knife and gave him an option - drop the knife and lay face down on the floor, or die.
He chose the former, and I kept my firearm trained on him until the police arrived, and took the man into custody. How long did we wait? Eleven minutes.
How long did it feel like? It felt like hours.
Minonian
Banned
Nah! I don't think so. You know why? because you are siding with the mentality what allowed and made this possible to happen. You don't care about them It's just a posture, it's hypocritical, to side with the weapon lobby and then when something like this happen? Feel sorry.
I feel sorry for the losses, i do! But i'm not going to act like i stunned. The loss of my acquaintances on the other hand? That troubles me.
Deeply!
Deleted member 115407
D
You obviously don't, seeing as how I had to explain the Third Amendment to you.
Anyways, they did allow for inflation - it's called the Amendment process.
Deleted member 115407
D
Deleted member 115407
D
That's an admirable and appropriate use of restraint - in keeping the man at gunpoint without firing on him, I mean.
Cheers.
None of these are self defense.
And you know this too!
You're being intellectually dishonest in order to to win the argument.
Minonian
Banned
What they feel is called guilt.
Deleted member 115407
D
None of these are self defense.
And you know this too!
Yes. The answers you're looking for are right there in the article you referenced, Minonian. I'm not going to continue this conversation.
Difficult to get opposing stories as the people are generally dead.
I don't see why they need to change the constitution to outlaw certain weapons.
It is the right be bear arms correct (I am not from the USA so not 100% sure on the issue, so correct me if I am wrong).
Surely you could ban a whole heap of extremely dangerous weaponry, but still keep the law. You can only bear the arms that are legal for you to do.
I am not sure about that washington post article. There are very few gun crimes in the UK. Most of the police don't have guns either. I don't have a need for a gun or feel afraid because I don't have a gun, because the likelyhood of someone having a gun is extremely low.
Australia after baning guns, has very little gun crime too.
Obviously it still happens, but it is very rare.
It is the right be bear arms correct (I am not from the USA so not 100% sure on the issue, so correct me if I am wrong).
Surely you could ban a whole heap of extremely dangerous weaponry, but still keep the law. You can only bear the arms that are legal for you to do.
I am not sure about that washington post article. There are very few gun crimes in the UK. Most of the police don't have guns either. I don't have a need for a gun or feel afraid because I don't have a gun, because the likelyhood of someone having a gun is extremely low.
Australia after baning guns, has very little gun crime too.
Obviously it still happens, but it is very rare.
Wow did they really post that in WAPO! I'm stunned, well repped for the link thanks Chief.
Minonian
Banned
Show me, tell me, how it's works!
Edit; Also? take a note! Self defense only works in personal level, refers to that, and not to the matters of an entire nation. The argument what you trying in there is the same what Convits trying out when caught by police. If i'm wrong? Let's see your reasoning!
Also, Allow me to highlight the core of the matter, self defense's real terminology, without the explanatory part.
-"The protection of one's person or property against some injury attempted by another."
The most important 2 words? One's person! And Self defense situation only lasts as long than the immediate threat is over. If you act after that? That's not self defense. If you go against the state, Yet again? That's can't be self defense. If you defending again an invading force? Yet again, that's not self defense but a defensive war.
Last edited:
How do you know he didn't have mates outside? How did you know he was working alone? How did you know he wouldn't do something desperate and try to take you on?
The correct course of action would be to allow the guy to get what he wants and let professional law enforces deal with such dangerous individuals. What you did was endanger yourself, the man in question, and any other bystanders. There is a reason police are trained to deal with these sorts of situations and a reason they are drilled in it again and again.
Same goes with suppressors, however that would be a rubber law, if some disturbed person got the intention, they could use an oil filter from a car, same effect and you would have accomplished nothing, but adding more hearing issues to the people who are hunting or shooting as recreation.
(he conveniently forgets to mention that those dictatorships started as an "armed revolution of the people" against some opressor that replaced one opressor with another, much worse opressor .. but Hitler was - Ludendorff Putsch .... failed due to gun laws)
Last edited:
Deleted member 115407
D
It was discussed in the DC v Heller decision, though I think (because I haven't read the sections in a while) that it was left pretty open-ended. The general idea being that weapons commonly related to militia service, i.e. small arms that can be carried by the common soldier. But I could be wrong and have a fuzzy memory about that, and encourage you to read the text for yourself (see pages 47-56). (I included a reference to US v Miller, as well)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174
Indeed, we have Federal and State legislation that limits the general consumption of many weapons, i.e. automatic weapons, explosive weapons, etc. Some State legislation is very strict (See California and New York), while some are not. Texas is an example of the latter (still automatic and explosive weapons are banned, along with other commonly banned weapon types).
To answer your questions about amendments, we don't need to change the Constitution, technically. Congress can go pass a bill right now that outlaws semi-automatic weapons across the land. And that law will be in place and valid, as long as no one challenges it. It only takes one person to challenge the constitutionality of a law, though. But regardless, there are possibly a hundred-million-plus people in this country who would disapprove of such a law being passed, so much so that the politicians considering such a bill would be wary themselves of losing their seats.
P.S. I appreciate you asking, rather than telling
Last edited by a moderator:
What might it mean though? Can you imagine what might happen now? Registering trucks? Requiring insurance for injury they caused? Licensing and testing drivers?
A police lieutenant said pretty much the same thing. And my CCW Instructor said many times "A license to carry is not a license to kill."
No mentally stable person actually wants to be shot, and only the smallest percentage of the mentally ill do either, nor do most junkies, no matter how desperate for a fix they might be.
I value life, even the lives of those who do not value their own, so I hope every single day to never have to actually squeeze the trigger. It's an absolute last resort that means every other option has failed.
Equally worth noting - this incident barely received any news coverage - a tiny article in a small local freely-distributed newspaper ran a little blurb mentioning an attempted robbery at the pharmacy and the arrest of the robber, and a single line statement from the local police department that this attempted robbery was stopped by the intervention of another patron. That was it. And that's more than fine by me - I certainly wouldn't want to be headline news, but it does show there is a certain bias in reporting. Had this very unfortunate situation gone badly I'm sure the TV news crews would have been all over it for days. It didn't, it wasn't sensational, so it wasn't much worth mentioning. Tell the bad, gloss over the good, and push the agenda.
At the end of the day though, no one on either side of this issue is going to convince anyone on the other side that they're wrong, no matter how logical or impassioned their plea might be.
It's the marmite/vegemite situation - you either love it or you hate it, and no one is going to change your mind about it. And - this is the big one - it's OK. It's OK to disagree.
- Status