Last Vegas strip shooting: More than 20 dead, 100 injured after gunman opens fire near Mandalay Bay

[SMOGZINN]

Yup, there have been steps taken. I can post the many firearms acts that have added restriction over the years too. And yet, when looking at the restrictions, tobacco kills 4x more innocents and well over a magnitude more in absolute numbers. And we accept that. Given how many tobacco kills and no one here is arguing for more restriction, to save lives, it is hard to argue even more restriction on guns. And wow, 14 threads in all of P&N on the much bigger killer than guns? I search the word "gun" only in titles in P&N and the list is six pages long... yea, you guys are all about saving lives, not just on some kind of anti-2A quest.

*Edit - "NRA" is another three pages. But hey, 14 posts on tobacco... because AT P&N just wants to save lives! So noble!

Maybe there is not a lot of discussion on Tobacco regulations because we all agree. Tobacco is bad, regulate it until it is hard to get, Tax it until it is too expensive, educate people about how bad it is, fund propaganda campaigns to turn the culture against it, allow people to sue the companies that produce it. All of which we are doing already. What is there to discuss?

Now, let's do the same thing with guns. Agreed?

 

[mdram]

Maybe there is not a lot of discussion on Tobacco regulations because we all agree. Tobacco is bad, regulate it until it is hard to get, Tax it until it is too expensive, educate people about how bad it is, fund propaganda campaigns to turn the culture against it, allow people to sue the companies that produce it. All of which we are doing already. What is there to discuss?

Now, let's do the same thing with guns. Agreed?

nothing in the constitution about tobacco

 

[SMOGZINN]

nothing in the constitution about tobacco

The Constitution specifically gives us the right to regulate arms. Individuals are not a 'well regulated Militia'.

 

[pmv]

Not counting justifiable or defensive use homicides. Quite frankly when a good guy shoots and kills a bad guy i consider it a win.

Very questionable. How do you define 'bad guy'? I'm not sure that a society that produces, and kills, a steady stream of 'bad guys', is something to be aspired to.

 

[pmv]

leading cause of death in us 2016

Heart disease: 633,842
• Cancer: 595,930
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 155,041
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 146,571
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 140,323
• Alzheimer’s disease: 110,561
• Diabetes: 79,535
• Influenza and pneumonia: 57,062
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 49,959
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 44,193

I don't see 'terrorism' in that list. So why does your President make so much fuss about it?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Very questionable. How do you define 'bad guy'? I'm not sure that a society that produces, and kills, a steady stream of 'bad guys', is something to be aspired to.

Not questionable to me. Do you oppose the death penalty ?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The Constitution specifically gives us the right to regulate arms. Individuals are not a 'well regulated Militia'.

"...,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms ,shall not be infringed."
Let me finish that for you.

 

[Bird222]

The Constitution specifically gives us the right to regulate arms. Individuals are not a 'well regulated Militia'.

Really? That's news to me. Can you cite the relevant section?

 

[SMOGZINN]

"...,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms ,shall not be infringed."
Let me finish that for you.

And, by the rules of the English language, which Thomas Jefferson was very familiar with, that entire clause is subordinate to 'A well regulated Militia'.

Really? That's news to me. Can you cite the relevant section?

I just did. Well regulated. That specifically states that it should be regulated.

 

[Commodus]

I will not stop, haven't you figured that out? I'm not trying to distract, despite what you think. I am trying to draw comparisons and add perspective.

Gun crime, homicides, and violent crime in general are dropping quite a bit too. So, by your logic, why is there thread after thread about guns when the trend is the same as tobacco?

You aren't about saving lives, at least not ones that don't help you achieve your political goals. If you did care about that, I'd expect to see more threads about bigger killers, but guns take the spotlight by far here.

But you're not really adding perspective. For one, while overall violent crime is going down, mass shootings are a mounting problem -- and the Vegas shooting in particular was so severe because Paddock had access to a veritable arsenal that was clearly unnecessary for self-defense. If we're going to keep up the tobacco analogies, it's as if overall smoking was down, but companies were allowed to sell you extra-strong cigarettes that had a high likelihood of spreading lung cancer to everyone around you.

And that's the thing. Smoking is terrible, but in practice it's tightly controlled, largely self-inflicted, and there isn't much more to do short of banning it outright. The broad consensus is that guns are bad. Guns sometimes face less regulation (don't smoke in this restaurant, but feel free to carry a gun), they're explicitly designed to kill, and it's clear that there's room for better regulation like banning certain modifications, tightening background checks and putting limits on things like the quantity of guns or magazine capacity. But not only are none of those on the table, the NRA bribes Republicans to make sure those issues can't be on the table; it even made sure the CDC couldn't conduct research into gun violence so there wouldn't be empirical proof that tighter regulation is necessary.

You see the problem there? It's not just that gun violence is particularly vicious and arbitrary, it's that some attempts at reducing it are kept at bay by the NRA's insistence on corruption and willful ignorance. Imagine if the tobacco lobbies had enough sway to block research into tobacco-related cancer and still

All our calls for better gun legislation revolve around saving lives. What other reason would we have, exactly? None of us is doing it because we have some kind of totalitarian regime fetish (some Trump supporters, on the other hand...). We aren't calling for dissolving the 2nd Amendment, either. It's because we see mass shootings like the one in Vegas and know that more people could escape alive if we didn't effectively give carte blanche to these shooters by making automated death so accessible.

 

[Younigue]

Not counting justifiable or defensive use homicides. Quite frankly when a good guy shoots and kills a bad guy i consider it a win.

So, just remove law and everything will work out just fine? Tajjy why must you punctuate your every [posted] thought with profound idiocy?

 

[Jhhnn]

Really? That's news to me. Can you cite the relevant section?

Reference reality. Relevant restrictions on types & styles of firearms have been upheld by the SCOTUS ever since 1934.

 

[mdram]

So, just remove law and everything will work out just fine?

stand your ground laws, castle doctrine, ect.
all allow the use of deadly force in some situations.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So, just remove law and everything will work out just fine? Tajjy why must you punctuate your every [posted] thought with profound idiocy?

Why do you punctuate your every post with your profound ignorance?

 

[SlowSpyder]

But you're not really adding perspective. For one, while overall violent crime is going down, mass shootings are a mounting problem -- and the Vegas shooting in particular was so severe because Paddock had access to a veritable arsenal that was clearly unnecessary for self-defense. If we're going to keep up the tobacco analogies, it's as if overall smoking was down, but companies were allowed to sell you extra-strong cigarettes that had a high likelihood of spreading lung cancer to everyone around you.

And that's the thing. Smoking is terrible, but in practice it's tightly controlled, largely self-inflicted, and there isn't much more to do short of banning it outright. The broad consensus is that guns are bad. Guns sometimes face less regulation (don't smoke in this restaurant, but feel free to carry a gun), they're explicitly designed to kill, and it's clear that there's room for better regulation like banning certain modifications, tightening background checks and putting limits on things like the quantity of guns or magazine capacity. But not only are none of those on the table, the NRA bribes Republicans to make sure those issues can't be on the table; it even made sure the CDC couldn't conduct research into gun violence so there wouldn't be empirical proof that tighter regulation is necessary.

You see the problem there? It's not just that gun violence is particularly vicious and arbitrary, it's that some attempts at reducing it are kept at bay by the NRA's insistence on corruption and willful ignorance. Imagine if the tobacco lobbies had enough sway to block research into tobacco-related cancer and still

All our calls for better gun legislation revolve around saving lives. What other reason would we have, exactly? None of us is doing it because we have some kind of totalitarian regime fetish (some Trump supporters, on the other hand...). We aren't calling for dissolving the 2nd Amendment, either. It's because we see mass shootings like the one in Vegas and know that more people could escape alive if we didn't effectively give carte blanche to these shooters by making automated death so accessible.

Nothing you wrote changes anything in regards to what reality is. And reality is that there have been regulations and restrictions on both guns and tobacco, and I would argue MORE limitations put on guns. If you think an 18 year age limit, having commercials that help educate, and not being able to advertise on TV / radio, and sin tax are all that can be done and you're willing to accept almost a half a million deaths a year (41k of those INNOCENT victims) then it is hard to argue for more regulations on the already regulated guns that do FAR less harm to society.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUM1r_444CY

You guys talk about how powerful guns are, but what you miss is that dead is dead. Whether it is a .22 or .50BMG, get hit with one in a vital area it likely won't matter which one it is. Maybe an open vs. closed casket, but likely dead either way.

Overall gun crime is dropping and has significantly since the 90's. That trend is continuing, and I'd like to see it continue. Things like this grab headlines, but statistically are a drop in the bucket (I know it sounds cold to put it like that, but just speaking in statistics there).

 

[momeNt]

And, by the rules of the English language, which Thomas Jefferson was very familiar with, that entire clause is subordinate to 'A well regulated Militia'.



I just did. Well regulated. That specifically states that it should be regulated.

Correct. Well or (proper) Regulating of a militia means not infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Regulating the right to keep and bear arms is then implied to mean that that would be improper regulation of a militia.

Well-Regulating may mean, if you create a militia you need to be on a registry, have a post manned so that if riders come to your post saying that the redcoats are coming you can muster your men in X amount of time frame.

No militia also does not mean no right to keep and bear arms - see 9th amendment.

This is all pretty clear if you possess even a tiny amount of critical thinking. An individual right has already been affirmed, just drop it already.

Overall I think this problem isn't necessarily about guns, but about the overall health and welfare of the nation. Sick people are becoming more and more likely to become fixated on killing a lot of people on their way out. Likely because of an over-exposure to negative media.

 

[Puffnstuff]

The Constitution specifically gives us the right to regulate arms. Individuals are not a 'well regulated Militia'.

It clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. While it starts out over the fact that a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state it ends with the express language of the people. If it had expressed that only militia members should keep arms then the language would clearly express this intent.

Instead it clearly expresses that we the people and our right to have weapons will not be touched or otherwise interfered with. I don't care if my neighbors want to park a surplus tank on their lawn and if they did I would probably go over to get them to walk me through it.

 

[disappoint]

Legally selling cancer causing products that people willfully use on themselves doesn't meet that rubric?

The only time recipients of hot lead are willing is if they have to read some of the posts on these forums.

I'm kidding!

 

[brycejones]

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.

Stop cutting out the snippets you like. Post the whole thing you dishonest fucks.

 

[Puffnstuff]

The only time recipients of hot lead are willing is if they have to read some of the posts on these forums.

I'm kidding!

Yes sir there are lots of posts resembling razor sharp broad-heads flying around in here.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It's vague & worded poorly, like most of the Constitution.
That is why there is always disagreements about it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Militia back then effectively meant EVERY able bodied man.

That is why the founders saw fit to interchange the two words, "militia" and "people", in the 2A. There was no distinction back then. Civilians were militia.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If you need to form a militia in minutes to fight a threat, it is probably a lot easier and quicker if the members of the militia all come with arms in hand. The 2A is implying a personal right to own and keep firearms. Looking at it in any other way is trying to revise the intent of the 2A.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. While it starts out over the fact that a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state it ends with the express language of the people. If it had expressed that only militia members should keep arms then the language would clearly express this intent.

Instead it clearly expresses that we the people and our right to have weapons will not be touched or otherwise interfered with. I don't care if my neighbors want to park a surplus tank on their lawn and if they did I would probably go over to get them to walk me through it.

Nope, 'being necessary to the security of a free State' and 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' are inferior clauses. The sentence should be able to be read without it. In that case the sentence reads: A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed. Everything else is additional information not critical to the understanding of the main point of the sentence.

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.

Can, and probably should, be read: Being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms as a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.

Then I can argue, rightfully, that the first part of that sentence is no longer true. The security of a free State is no longer dependent on the right of the people to form a militia, making the entire amendment false.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

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.

Stop cutting out the snippets you like. Post the whole thing you dishonest fucks.

it was in answer to a dishonest fuck anti-gun guy that snipped it.