292 MASS shootings so far this year in the United States

Actually, there is quite a lot of evidence.
https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/11900/the-effect-of-media-coverage-on-mass-shootings
Since most people won't bother reading, it says, "Still, such a magnitude implies that news coverage can explain 58 percent of all mass shootings."
However, this is a great paper as well: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contagion-effect.pdf
"The most disturbing finding is that for every three incidents, at least one new incident is guaranteed, or copied, within 13 days."

 

Interesting. So is the idea that they shouldn't be covered at all?

 

You make it sound as if it's hard to live with. Is it?

 

An injustice and inaccuracy that affects all that it holds authority over can be a struggle to accept unless, for many, you look at this life as if God is in charge of it. At that point you can accept history and work to better this day.

 

We'll both have to agree to disagree on this I guess. You know your right and I know that I'm right.

 

No. The FBI has already issues a proposal for the media to follow. Basically, report the event without the perps name. Once and done. There is no need to report anything else as any more information is not needed by the public. For example, ARs were not a popular weapon until the media made it popular. Congratulations to them I guess. As Paul Harvey used to say, "...and I'm sure that he would like for me to say his name"

 

Do you have a link to that?

 

I've seen several references to it such as this...
https://www.dontnamethem.org/ along with the links I've already posted. Can't seem to find the actual plan from an FBI resource but I'm sure that you could call them or do your own research.

 

https://www.wnyc.org/story/dont-say-name/

Interesting to listen to from one of the victim's dad. I've called the local radio station a couple of times about this after a couple of the shootings and they basically cut me off and said that it was their job. They got very defensive. The media is just too stuck on themselves for self restraint.

 

But if you glorify the shooters and their exploits, it potentially convinced other crazies to do something equally evil for the same sort of attention. Now if the MSM covered these events honestly and didn’t go and claim Trump made them do it, maybe we’d be stepping in the right direction. But since the MSM and every scummy news organization that puts out hit pieces FOR CLICKS and ad revenue, they’re all morally bankrupt, profiting off the death.

I mean seriously, reporting that Trump caused the shooting even though the guy literally wrote down that Trump didn’t influence him. They’re lying evil SOBs spreading hate. Trump has nothing on these people. He’s never said anything that outrageous. I’ll happily blame Obama for every cop that was shot during his 8yrs because what the hell, since we’re pointing fingers like morons, I’ll follow the lead of clueless liberals.

 

Yeah, I'm sure that there would be a sensible middle ground between not covering it at all, or even only covering it once, and covering it in the disgraceful way that the left wing MSM have covered it.

 

There is certainly a middle ground that doesn’t use people’s deaths for political gain. The left does it EVERY TIME a shooting involves white people. But it’s always about white people. They ignore the far more substantial problems in inner cities and when they do, they AGAIN, shift it to blame it on white people. It helps no one.

Just report the fracking truth. Don’t blame the NRA or Republicans or white people or “corrupt” cops unless it’s actually corrupt cops. Blame the individuals. The damage Obama did to police was devastating, pushing false BS
narratives about all the poor innocent people cops arrest AND “murder”. NO. Stop it. To this day Democrat presidential hopefuls continue to push hands up don’t shoot. GOOD GOD!!! Continue to vilify law enforcement. ICE. To what end? WTF are they trying to accomplish besides total anarchy?

 

Speaking of hands up don't shoot - you have to see this: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ferguson-shooting-sticks-by-his-story.560146/

And now 2020 candidates pushing the conspiracy theory that Brown was "MURDERED!" http://www.politicalforum.com/index...es-promote-ferguson-conspiracy-theory.560147/

 

Can civilians own claymores or not? Soldiers carry them.
You are saying 2A means civilians can carry all things a soldier can carry.

Yet, civilians, AFAIK, can NOT own live claymores.

 

My understanding is, yes. With the right license, you can own a claymore.

 

That is then, a severe limit on 2A. Which would be unconstitutional.
Yes?

 

Apologies. Been away for awhile. I would venture to say that the 2A meant/means/serves the ideal of a personal right to a firearm. Now did Arms (as an individual right) mean explosive devices? Just not certain that explosive devices were originally included in the 2A, though I could be wrong.

 

What it all amounts to, is there are limits on what a civilian/individual can own. Or very severe restrictions.
Society and law, aka society, determines those limits. Always has and always will

If there were no limits, we could all own claymores and even nuclear bombs.

 

Sometimes in my dreams....

 

As stated before, what the common soldier of the day carries.

Rights are limited first by responsibility. I'm not an attorney nor a constitutional scholar, however it has been said that the Founders did write the Federal Constitution in the common language of the day with the designed purpose that the common citizen would understand it. Having said all that;

I take the position that the Constitution is a Limit on government power not on the rights of the citizen. A majority mob/society/congress may determine that slavery or silencing the voices of differing opinions should be directed against those in a particular class or minority, however those notions have already been decided to be unconstitutional. Society may not take away individual rights unless it is a Socialist/Communist society. If you side with the Democrats you know we are already on our way to a socialist/communist country. Franklin was said to comment "A Republic if you can keep it." When asked "What have you wrought?" Looks like the USA is being fundamentally changed into a country unrecognizable to Americans from only a few generations ago.

 

President Obama cannot be held accountable for the murder of police officers however, from his bully pulpit, it does seem he was inspirational in the violence against police officers and now the 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates are still carrying President Obama's anti-law enforcement torch.

 

Claymores are carried by soldiers

 

In the general sense that is true, soldiers placed stationary claymore(s). How many claymores were/are issued to each soldier in the service of our country? I am asking a question I do not know the answer too, however I suspect you do.

During my service time I was issued zero, however I was issued an M-16 along with the rest of the platoon/company.

 

Not sure. But 1 soldier per squad? As they ate mostly used for perimeter security

Bottom line is society has been placing limits on arms almost since the beginning.
There are no limits per 2a.

 

I would suggest that kings and lawmakers have restricted the rights of subjects/citizens almost since the beginning.