long live NRA - next convention in Mandalay Bay !

[Alan Klein]

Why did you leave out the fact that she was fired for saying that?

Well that was in the linked article.   But ok.  She was fired.   My main point is what  many smart,  educated liberals think of "deplorables",  other Americans who they disagree with.  They talk concern but would cut your heart out in a minute.

[MattBurt]

Yup, ain't that the truth. So now the 2nd amendment has been interpreted to mean nothing like what it was originally intended.  You've hit the nail on the head.

THIS! Hey look we can agree on something across the isle.

A well regulated militia

[RSL]

What the second amendment says is clear, and the Supreme Court agrees. The 18th amendment was revoked because people wanted a drink. The second's not going to be revoked because people want their guns. It's as simple as that. To those who are all shook up I say: fuggidaboudit. Yeah, shootings happen -- all over the world, and people smart enough to think about it want to be able to shoot back. In dictatorial regimes they don't get a chance to do that.

[David Eckels]

What the second amendment says is clear, and the Supreme Court agrees. The 18th amendment was revoked because people wanted a drink. The second's not going to be revoked because people want their guns. It's as simple as that. To those who are all shook up I say: fuggidaboudit. Yeah, shootings happen -- all over the world, and people smart enough to think about it want to be able to shoot back. In dictatorial regimes they don't get a chance to do that.

Fuggidaboudit, Russ. You can't argue with the religious zealots of the alt-left. Remember Lenin, Stalin, Sanders, Warren, etc? Obviously, you belong in gulag

[Rob C]

Weapons have evolved, that's true.  But man's base character, his ego, pride and desire to rule others has not.  The 2nd Amendment and the right to be armed is a protection against men who would want to rule over you rather than allow you to have your liberties.  Never forget that.

Seems to me that in both your expressions you are talking about the same Man. But on the one hand you distrust him, where on the the other you desire to arm him. How bleedin' strange. Or were you thinking about arming only your kind of Man?

As for Civil Wars in Spain: been there, did that last century. Now they know how it works: these days, you fib through your teeth; hijack an already organised union-sponsored march for that day and proclaim it your own. The rest might follow naturally.

Police violence? Of course: how else do you control, a crowd of crazed marchers? By sweet songs and kisses and bunches of flowers? The flowers are scripted always to come after the event. Old folks getting pushed aside and falling to the ground doesn't ever look good - and don't those oldies just know that! It's their decision to go to make a crowd, a mob with flags and songs and hotheads and assorted anarchists, communists (many of 'em in this country) and pickpockets too, and be at the interface of the two sides. Age brings a pension, it does not and should not bring absolution and protection from your own stupidity, and certainly not special riot rights.

I have noticed over recent years that whenever there's trouble, there is ever a condemning voice (guess in which direction) from the human rights brigade. Yes, the same crowd that tells the French it's wrong to focus on dark skin and Moslem people in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Jesus C, isn't that the logical place to look? It's not friggin' white Christians that are blowing up aircraft and shooting French people. Should there be a quota system in crime fighting, and for every Moslem you interrogate you must also interrogate a Christian, a Jew and/or some other guy of alternative Pantone characteristics? These bleeding heart people are sometimes more absurd than the "injustices" they presume to fight.

Anyway, back to my liberties: I won't feel my liberties are proteced if the guy beside me is carrying a gun in his pocket as I have a coffee somewhere, or as he sits beside me in traffic. Especially if my car is nicer than his car. Were it the other way around, he might feel sorry for me and just smile or, better yet since it doesn't require what may be a misinterpreted response, ignore me. You know, just as you do every inconvenient post that destroys your arguments.

;-)

Rob

[Chairman Bill]

... shootings happen -- all over the world, and people smart enough to think about it want to be able to shoot back.

Because shooting back at a gunman firing from a hotel window would have made all the difference

In dictatorial regimes they don't get a chance to do that.

That'll be those dictatorships like the UK, France, Germany, Ireland, Belgium, Australia ...

[Alan Goldhammer]

The 3/5 rule and the right for women to vote was not a re-interpretation of the Constitution.  The Constitution was formally and Amended to eliminate those constraints.  Enough people and states felt the law should be changed.  They followed the Amendment process as written in the Constitution.  They didn't declare it meant something different than what it said.

If you re-interpret the Constitution to mean whatever is convenient at the time, then you have no Constitution based on written law but law determined by man.  We dangerously become a government of man rather than a government of law.  The freedoms protected by the Constitution will be washed away over time as has happened to a great extent already. The government becomes more powerful than it ever has been, a great fear of the Founders.   If you don't like gun rights, then Amend the Constitution like we did when we gave women the right to vote.

What a crock of BS.  The Constitution is interpreted and re-interpreted every single year by Federal Courts at various levels and then ultimately the Supreme Court as necessary.  Look at the Miranda Decision about legal rights and Griswold v. Connecticut that established a right to privacy and of course one can go all the way back to Marbury v Madison that established judicial review which was never enumerated in the Constitution (don't even start about various interpretations of the Commerce Clause).  I'm sorry but this post is just wrong.  Things can be done short of amending the Constitution.

[RSL]

That'll be those dictatorships like the UK, France, Germany, Ireland, Belgium, Australia ...

Ah! I see you got the point, Bill. Dictatorial regimes don't actually need to have designated dictators.

[Raul_82]

Can we agree on banning Bump Stocks modifications on rifles? I'm not advocating for gun banning,  just some common sense small-time gun control to prevent your rifle to become a much deadlier machine gun, something that it wasn't intended to be in the first place.   

Can someone meet me half-way on this one, or am I dreaming?

 

[texshooter]

It's become oh so predictable.

Democrats:  "Terrorism is the price for diversity." 

Republicans:  "Terrorism is the price for liberty."

Country:  "Pray for the victims.  What's for lunch?"

[RSL]

Can we agree on banning Bump Stocks modifications on rifles? I'm not advocating for gun banning,  just some common sense small-time gun control to prevent your rifle to become a much deadlier machine gun, something that it wasn't intended to be in the first place.   

Can someone meet me half-way on this one, or am I dreaming?

I'd agree with you Raul. I've spent enough time overseas having to carry around an M16 that I can't see any reason why a civilian would need a machine gun.

[Farmer]

Your post is a non-sequitur.

No, it isn't.  You constantly contradict yourself because it simply suits your reply-de-jour.  You lack any genuine understanding of most of the topics at hand.  Indeed, it was your participation that has largely thrown this thread "down the rabbit hole".

[Farmer]

What the second amendment says is clear, and the Supreme Court agrees. The 18th amendment was revoked because people wanted a drink. The second's not going to be revoked because people want their guns. It's as simple as that. To those who are all shook up I say: fuggidaboudit. Yeah, shootings happen -- all over the world, and people smart enough to think about it want to be able to shoot back. In dictatorial regimes they don't get a chance to do that.

And yet I live in a democracy where, in fact, it's easier to use public opinion and pressure to change the government than it is in the US.  We have guns, but we have far greater controls, and we are more than ten times less likely to be shot but have overall similar crime statistics - we're just far less likely to be killed. 

[RSL]

Phil, As I've said before, figures don't lie, but liars figure. I don't know where you're getting your figures, but I'll tell you that unless you're bent on suicide, belong to a gang, or live in a place like the Chicago ghetto, you're very unlikely to die by gunshot in the U.S. As Casey Stengel said, "You could look it up."

In 1964 I was stationed at Ubon Ratchathani, across the runway from an Australian fighter squadron detachment. The game those guys used to play in their O' club, a game called "carrier landing," was a lot more dangerous to life and limb than living in the U.S.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Can we agree on banning Bump Stocks modifications on rifles? I'm not advocating for gun banning,  just some common sense small-time gun control to prevent your rifle to become a much deadlier machine gun, something that it wasn't intended to be in the first place.   

Can someone meet me half-way on this one, or am I dreaming?

The ATF regulations have to be changed as they currently do not cover gun parts.  Bump stock is not a firearm but a part and hence not regulated.  This was the finding back in 2010.  It highlights the difficulty what limited US regulations exist. 

[Schewe]

Did Gun Control Stop Mass Shootings in Australia? The Latest Research Says Yes—Probably.

After every gun massacre in the United States, gun control advocates hold up Australia as an example of how things could be different. The analogy isn’t perfect, and there is an ongoing debate about how exactly to interpret Australia’s experience. Still, a close look at the evidence supports the view that the country’s gun control policies have been successful—especially when compared to ours.

As I recounted in a Slate story that went viral after the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, Australia’s government responded to 1996’s Port Arthur massacre—in which 35 people were killed—by enacting sweeping measures aimed at preventing a repeat of that national nightmare. The most dramatic of these was a buyback program in which the government purchased and destroyed more than 600,000 long guns, nearly halving the number of gun-owning households in the country.

The precise effects of those measures can never be fully understood because we can’t study the counterfactual scenario in which no such laws were passed.

Still, the past five years have brought some additional clarity. And one core fact has remained strikingly unchanged: In the 18 years before Port Arthur, Australia witnessed 13 mass shootings, defined as shootings in which five or more people were killed. In the 21 years since, there have been none.

[Schewe]

Guess where this "article" is from...

This Shooting Isn’t About Gun Control We Refuse To Pass, It’s About Access To Mental Health Care We’re Continuing To Gut

Paul Ryan

As our nation struggles to come to grips with the horrible tragedy in Las Vegas, it’s only natural for people to search for an explanation of how an atrocity like this could have happened and to call on their elected officials to take measures to prevent such terrible bloodshed from occurring again in the future. Unfortunately, however, we’ve seen enough of these incidents to know that some people will rush to blame firearms for this carnage and will demand that Congress enact sweeping gun restrictions, engaging in misguided efforts that completely miss the underlying reasons behind the violence we’re seeing.

The simple truth is, mass shootings like this aren’t about gun control we refuse to pass. They’re about access to mental health care that we will continue to gut.

You can already hear the calls from the left. In the aftermath of this mass murder, millions of people are once again pushing for an assault weapons ban that I won’t allow lawmakers to give even a moment of consideration, let alone bring to a vote. If these folks actually examined the realities of the issue, they would see that the real culprit in these incidents is, and always has been, our country’s inadequate mental healthcare system that leaves troubled, potentially violent individuals without the support they need, and which my colleagues and I have spent most of our careers seeking, often successfully, to defund.

The reason we have tragedies like this is because of how our healthcare system that I am dead set on undermining fails to serve Americans in desperate need of psychological treatment. Not because of a lack of gun ownership regulations, the slightest toughening of which will never even receive a single second of debate on the floor of the House on my watch.

In humor is often found uncomfortable truth...

[pegelli]

Phil, As I've said before, figures don't lie, but liars figure. I don't know where you're getting your figures, but I'll tell you that unless you're bent on suicide, belong to a gang, or live in a place like the Chicago ghetto, you're very unlikely to die by gunshot in the U.S. As Casey Stengel said, "You could look it up."

Russ, why do you keep spreading debunked arguments, see the link I posted in reply #124, most US cities have a murder rate significantly higher then any European country. Those numbers exclude suicide so that's a non-issue. And if you don't belong to a gang or live in a criminal hot-spot your chances are also much better then average in European countries. So in like-for-like comparison you don't even come close. Wake up and see that the homicides in the US are much higher then in Europe, no matter how much you figure by excluding data that are unfavouvorable to what you are trying to prove. If you (and the US) accepts that these numbers are fine that's OK, but don't pretend you're as safe as or safer then where I live, because that's crap.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Russ, why do you keep spreading debunked arguments, see the link I posted in reply #124, most US cities have a murder rate significantly higher then any European country. Those numbers exclude suicide so that's a non-issue. And if you don't belong to a gang or live in a criminal hot-spot your chances are also much better then average in European countries. So in like-for-like comparison you don't even come close. Wake up and see that the homicides in the US are much higher then in Europe, no matter how much you figure by excluding data that are unfavouvorable to what you are trying to prove. If you (and the US) accepts that these numbers are fine that's OK, but don't pretend you're as safe as or safer then where I live, because that's crap.

Let's not forget a couple of things.  Our Republican Congress has refused to allow our Centers for Disease control to collect and/or analyze data related to firearms injuries and fatalities.  Secondly, there are children injured or killed from playing with firearms that they should not have access to or are "collateral damage" in shootings that would otherwise be preventable with reasonable regulations.

[JoeKitchen]

Guess where this "article" is from...

This Shooting Isn’t About Gun Control We Refuse To Pass, It’s About Access To Mental Health Care We’re Continuing To Gut

In humor is often found uncomfortable truth...

Interesting article and I was surprised to see where it was published.  I kept on reading it looking for the punch line; just the results of what that publication has conditioned me to expect. 

However, I don't how access to the mental health has anything to do with this situation.  By all accounts, this individual had no prior issues with mental health or violence, he was unknown to the police, and his family are completely mystified by his actions here. 

If I missed the news article that explained the giant flashing red sign that screamed he needed help, please post it.