Today's Mass Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arcade22 said:
And where's the logic in that? Most people can purchase semi-automatic rifles that are "military grade" yet also excellent to use if you're going on a rampage and want to kill a bunch of random people.
Click to expand...
How do you define military grade? Why should anyone settle for military grade when they can get something better?
 
Puppycow said:
The GOP is coming for your video games!!!

Trump, McCarthy cite video games as a driver behind mass shootings



So, if they really mean it about the video games and aren't just flapping their gums, then what do they plan to do about it? My guess is that this idea will go no farther than lip service. I mean, he literally said that something must be done "immediately." OK, what do you propose to do to stop it?

How would "We're the party who banned first-person shooters" play as a campaign slogan in 2020?

Besides Trump and McCarthy, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick also blamed video games for the shooting.



Yeah, the public schools need to include religious indoctrination too I suppose. That'll fix it.
Click to expand...

The second amendment represents a holy concept that is not even limited by the words that bring it down to written form.

The first amendment, not such a big deal.
 
Dr.Sid said:
2nd amendment must go. No other country has anything like that, and you know what it leads to ? Less dead people.
Click to expand...
It is much easier to impose taxes, fines and prison on contraband gun owners. Simply amending the NFA of 1934 to include any firearm you want restricts firearms to anyone the government wants.

Trump could have his lawyers define all semi-auto firearms as machine guns the same way he did for bump stocks. For all of the semi-autos made prior to May 1986, they could impose the $200 tax and require registration. Congress can also raise the making/transfer tax to any amount they want. $200 in 1934 is equal to about $3500 today. 41P could also be amended to allow the local sheriff to block an NFA firearm sale to anyone based on any criteria that they don't even have to admit to.

The courts would probably not stand in the way of these actions. The 2nd amendment is not very meaningful these days in the eyes of the government.
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
It is much easier to impose taxes, fines and prison on contraband gun owners. Simply amending the NFA of 1934 to include any firearm you want restricts firearms to anyone the government wants.

Trump could have his lawyers define all semi-auto firearms as machine guns the same way he did for bump stocks. For all of the semi-autos made prior to May 1986, they could impose the $200 tax and require registration. 41P could also be amended to allow the local sheriff to block an NFA firearm sale to anyone based on any criteria that they don't even have to admit to.

The courts would probably not stand in the way of these actions. The 2nd amendment is not very meaningful these days in the eyes of the government.
Click to expand...

I know we see this from different sides of the debate, but I think you are largely correct. Heller left a lot of room for legislative approaches to regulate gun ownership.

Our problem is not the 2nd amendment itself so much as the lack of political will to see what is possible within the legal framework laid out by the second amendment and the cases that interpret it.

My recollection of looking into this previously is that there is massive regulatory space to move around in, just no one willing to start working in that space. And those that do, often look like they are writing bills with the intent of being shot down by the courts, rather than tailoring bills to fit within the very clear framework laid out. That's a bit frustrating.
 
plague311 said:
Haha sweet baby J.

That's all mainstream stuff over there as well. These aren't one off shows or anything. (Totally off topic, but watching that stone dude crumble after what he was doing was the best revenge, hands to yourself dickhead.)



I did not know that.
Click to expand...

I believe the genital blurring is an artifact of post WWII rules set down by the US
 
Ranb said:
It is much easier to impose taxes, fines and prison on contraband gun owners. Simply amending the NFA of 1934 to include any firearm you want restricts firearms to anyone the government wants.

Trump could have his lawyers define all semi-auto firearms as machine guns the same way he did for bump stocks. For all of the semi-autos made prior to May 1986, they could impose the $200 tax and require registration. 41P could also be amended to allow the local sheriff to block an NFA firearm sale to anyone based on any criteria that they don't even have to admit to.

The courts would probably not stand in the way of these actions. The 2nd amendment is not very meaningful these days in the eyes of the government.
Click to expand...

Well 2nd amendment is about people having military power. In today terms that means full auto guns, tanks, fighter jets, even nukes. Yet people can't have any of those.
There are some people who actually fight for cancelling of National Firearms Act from 1934. And with 2nd amendment in place, it IMHO makes sense.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And no one seems at all concerned about the third anymore.
Click to expand...

As you probably know, I have thoroughly studied every major Supreme Court decision based primarily on the Third Amendment. I suggest that every American do the same.

[Slight Pause]

OK, that should be ample time.

We are all in this together now!
 
Ranb said:
The courts would probably not stand in the way of these actions. The 2nd amendment is not very meaningful these days in the eyes of the government.
Click to expand...

Exactly as an individual right it was about promoting violent political change, yet now when ever we see people enacting such change we call it terrorism and label it wrong when it was exactly what a individual right to bear arms was always about.

Otherwise it would not be an individual right and be about state militias and that goes straight against Heller. They just refuse to follow the reasoning and new interpretation of the second amendment to its clear conclusion. Even in the Heller rulling they didn't take the right to bear arms as in military arms seriously but rather some BS about firearms and not arms in general.

The whole bill or rights has nothing to do with things like defending youself against criminals it is about political functioning, as such the second amendment is clearly then as an individual right about political violence and it is enshrined in the constitution.

So we should celebrate shootings like the El Paso shooting for taking the constitution seriously and putting it into effect as our founders intended.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So we should celebrate shootings like the El Paso shooting for taking the constitution seriously and putting it into effect as our founders intended.
Click to expand...

Well he didn't shoot the government, did he. But otherwise that's exactly the problem. Gun control might simply be seen as unconstitutional. And armed resistance to it as constitutional right.
 
Elagabalus said:
I'm a little skeptical of that. Every society has their own hang ups. Why should the Japanese be any different?
Click to expand...

Occupiers frequently impose their own cultural baggage on a place, and it remains in place after they leave, even after the former occupiers themselves abandon it. India wasn't homophobic until the British conquered it, yet it retains the adopted homophobia even today when the UK is practically sweating rainbows of gay pride.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Well he didn't shoot the government, did he. But otherwise that's exactly the problem. Gun control might simply be seen as unconstitutional. And armed resistance to it as constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Hence why Tim McVeigh should be a national hero. Someone finally taking the second amendment seriously.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Did he even have a gun? I thought his thing was exploding trucks.
Click to expand...

The second amendment never talks about guns, it talks about arms, bombs are certainly a form of arm and used in armed conflict. But again people don't take a second amendment as an individual right seriously because it really does not fit in the modern world. So they warp it away from state militias and not having a standing army as a collective right to being about some subset of guns but of course not all military arms because that would be crazy.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Did he even have a gun? I thought his thing was exploding trucks.
Click to expand...

McVeigh funded his truck bomb by selling stolen gun parts, t-shirts and copies of The Turner Diaries at gun shows. He spent time with the militia movement. It’s rather clear he considered himself a second amendment activist.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Well 2nd amendment is about people having military power. In today terms that means full auto guns, tanks, fighter jets, even nukes. Yet people can't have any of those.
Click to expand...
ponderingturtle said:
The second amendment never talks about guns, it talks about arms, bombs are certainly a form of arm and used in armed conflict.
Click to expand...


Well, no actually, one can only claim that if one is profoundly ignorant of the times and the English language.

The 2nd Amendment specifically mentions "Arms", which at the time would have meant weapons which would have been carried by the average infantry or cavalry soldier. What today we would call the "Basic Infantry Weapon". At the time, that referred to basic firearms such as muskets, rifles, blunderbusses, and carbines, as well as bladed weapons such as swords and bayonets (and technically also pikes and lances, although their use was already more or less obsolete by that time). In modern parlance, that would be select-fire rifles, carbines, and submachine guns such as the AR-15, AK-47, and FN-P90 platforms (to name the three most popular worldwide).

Explosives, cannon, and other larger weapons would not have been classified as "Arms", they would have been classified as "Ordnance"; and indeed still are today for the most part. Crew-served weapons, artillery, bombs, grenades, and so on are Ordnance, and therefore their ownership is not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
 
Last edited:
luchog said:
Well, no actually, one can only claim that if one is profoundly ignorant of the times and the English language.

The 2nd Amendment specifically mentions "Arms", which at the time would have meant weapons which would have been carried by the average infantry or cavalry soldier. What today we would call the "Basic Infantry Weapon". At the time, that referred to basic firearms such as muskets, rifles, blunderbusses, and carbines, as well as bladed weapons such as swords (and technically also pikes and lances, although their use was already more or less obsolete by that time). In modern parlance, that would be select-fire rifles, carbines, and submachine guns such as the AR-15, AK-47, and FN-P90 platforms (to name the three most popular worldwide).

Explosives, cannon, and other larger weapons would not have been classified as "Arms", they would have been classified as "Ordnance"; and indeed still are today for the most part. Crew-served weapons, artillery, bombs, grenades, and so on are Ordnance, and therefore their ownership is not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Why are grenades carried by common soldiers ordinance and not arms? They are not crew served like artillery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom