Las Vegas shooting, automatic weapon used at outdoor concert

I didn't avoid anything. People die. You aren't born with any guarantee of a long life. If you're murdered, and they catch the culprit, good. If they don't, thems the brakes. No different than what happens now.

 

I say you want to remove all the guns in society and just don't know it.

Your goal is to stop mass shootings and new gun laws such as prohibiting the "bump stock" will fail to do that

So you will be back next year and all the uears fater that demanding more new laws because the old ones have disappointed you

 

What was being explained, was that the Heller ruling has almost no chance whatsoever, of actually being overturned. Certainly not within the next forty years, based on the facts that are in evidence. The facts are that Donald Trump will hold office for a bare minimum of three years, and possibly seven years. Two united state supreme court justices on the liberal side are older than all the others, and will either have to retire, or die sooner than those on the conservative side. What is the statistical probability of them managing to hold out another three to seven years, just to try and reserve their seats for a future president of the united states who is aligned with the liberal left wing ideology?

 

Don't care that the highest court has been stacked with wackos. Same as the exec branch. Big whoop. No news there. However, this matter of the 2nd not being militia based remains unaddressed other than through "history" fabricated by paid "think tanks" in the 80's. It clearly says "militia" in the text. That is therefore the default position, making it your burden to prove otherwise. Go on, dig deep. Go all the way back to the 1680's, 1780's, 1880's, or simply before the 1980's. Boy, would that be refreshing. Not holding my breath.

 

No. I feel I'm being redundant here, but certain well thought out gun control laws CAN be effective in reducing the number of innocent American victims, and that's a worthy goal to strive for, and would say a lot more toward the positive aspects of being an American than what these obsessive gun advocates are supporting.

 

I'm not seeing any practical ideas to help the existing situation coming from you or other gun addicts. Can you offer any or are you all too caught up in simply being obstructionists to actually care about all those Americans being slaughtered?

 

it is you making up fiction and calling it reality.

It is therefore you in denial

 

The united state supreme court has indeed addressed this matter on two separate occasions; US v Cruikshank, and US v Miller.

In Cruikshank the court stated that the right to bear arms did not come from thee second amendment, not was it dependent on it to exist. They stated explicitly and simply, the right to bear arms. They did not say the right to take part in a state militia, nor did they state the right to bear arms in connection with militia duties. Rather they stated the right to bear arms, with no modifying principal to suggest that the right was contingent upon meeting some duty to the state.

In Miller the court actually heard the case, rather than holding that the defendant, Miller, did not have standing to challenge the national firearms act, because he was not a member of any militia. Instead of asserting that Miller had no standing, and simply leave it at that, they went out of their way to establish that the second amendment had no connection with militia duties or service. Rather they focused exclusively on the matter of a sawed-off shotgun not being explicitly listed as acceptable militia equipment, and left it at that.

 

Great example. How low will you go?

No mention of the 2nd Amendment, yet you apparently somehow conclude this erases the word "militia" from it. Sorry, no bearing, not to mention being utterly despicable.

Baloney. I'd say you can't make this stuff up, but obviously you or someone you copied from did.

Thanks for providing this clear example of courts maintaining that the 2nd amendment pertains exclusively to militia members. What are you doing?

 

The local rag editorial suggested the same old gun control they usually push for, yet in the very next sentence they said these would not have prevented Vegas from happening! That seems to be SOP, most every gun control demanded after mass shootings would not have prevented that shooting. As such, these are just a start for more gun control.

 

Ironic!

 

exactly which just proves beyond any doubt the left is politicising the deaths of these people to further their gun grab.

 

Whine, bark, bark, the left, howl, bark, gun grab, woof, howl, bark, bark...

 

This is the best argument Ive seen a leftist give about their reasoning for gun control in quite a while. Its was almost a sentence!

 

Not bad for a shameless troll. "Ive"? "Its was"? Almost legible!

 

mods locked thread before I could edit, plus weve already discussed grammar nazis. Please stop grammar nazi'ing. It immediately drops your forum cred.
So if you have a gun control law please post it otherwise, have a nice sanka and a gameshow. Try to telax.

 

Anybody who believes that there's no gun ban agenda behind this shooting is a true artard...

 

From the Cruikshank ruling:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html

6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

...

The second avers an intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by the same persons of the "right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose."

...

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.

Demonstrating the apparent ignorance present on the part of yourself pertaining to the law of the united states.

The entire statement made by yourself demonstrates a lack of understanding as to how cases in the united states are managed. One cannot bring suit against the federal government unless they actually possess standing to sue in the first place, meaning it can be demonstrated by them that they have been harmed in some fashion by the enactment of a certain law, or some other policy. Since the united state supreme court heard the case of Miller it meant that Miller, not being affiliated with a state militia at the time of his arrest, possessed sufficient standing to bring suit against the federal government in response.

Furthermore, you own citation of Miller states explicitly the right of the citizen to bear such a weapon, with regard to a sawed-off shotgun. This does not, in any way, speak of a right to serve in a militia, or the right being contingent upon performing militia duties.

Then there is this citation from the Miller ruling.

Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seems to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.

There is not a single keep and bear arms provision in any state constitution, which speaks of anything relating to a right of the people to take part in a state militia, or otherwise suggesting that the right to keep and bear arms is contingent upon fulfilling some duty to the state.

 

The perpetrator in Las Vegas apparently had purchased his weapons lawfully, this can happen, people "snap", maybe it was PTSD. Are there statistics on the percentage of crimes with firearms where the perpetrator used a lawfully purchased weapon? I get the impression a lot more drug-dealing gang members are killing rivals (and innocent bystanders) with unlawfully obtained weapons, than there are victims killed by disgruntled employees, jilted spouses and others with properly verified background checks, no criminal records and legally registered weapons.

 

Could you elaborate on that?

 

You think the shooting in Las Vegas was intended to advance the gun-control agenda? Undeniably the shooting is being used to advance such an agenda, but you appear to be saying that this was the shooter's motive, that to promote the gun control agenda this shooter perpetrated that massacre. The shooter's motive has not been reported, daesh says he's one of theirs, I've read he supported and reviled Trump.

 

Irony challenged ("Its was almost a sentence!"), paranoia about moderators, delusions of grandeur. Yeah, I'm gonna take anything you say seriously... when blue monkeys begin flying from my butt.

 

Las Vegas shooting: police change account of how massacre occurred
http://www.smh.com.au/world/las-veg...of-how-massacre-occurred-20171010-gyxp2z.html

Las Vegas: Police have Dramatically changed their account of how the Las Vegas massacre began on October 1, revealing on Monday that the gunman shot a hotel security guard 6 minutes Before opening fire on a country music concert.
The change raises new questions about why police weren't able to pinpoint the gunman's location sooner.

Officials had previously said that gunman Stephen Paddock, 64, of Mesquite, Nevada, shot Mandalay Bay security guard Jesus Campos after Paddock had unleashed his deadly volley at the Route 91 Harvest country music festival, an assault that began at 10.05 pm.

Officials had previously credited Campos, who was shot in the leg, with stopping the 10-minute assault on the concert crowd by turning the gunman's attention to the hotel hallway, where Campos was checking an alert for an open door in another guest's room.

But Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo said on Monday that Paddock shot Campos before his mass shooting - at 9:59pm - and they now don't know why Paddock stopped his attack on the crowd...
.....
Police were not in a hurry to enter Paddock's suite because the security guard's arrival had halted the shooting, police implied in previously describing the timeline.
...​

The Vegas Police not ready for prime time.
+

 

You just repeat NRA talking points. Admit it. Read and weep:

I'll leave C through Y for you to find and READ!

 

Your opinions are not my words. Sorry not being able to help you with the motivation stuff...
Btw...
Were you standing next to the guy to be able to conclude that he was the sole shooter acting his own?