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

[ivwshane]

Clarify plz. Should be easy.

It should be but considering you didn't understand his point the first time I'm not sure I'll have any better luck but I'll try.

For starters, the 2nd amendment in its current interpretation is relatively new. We have over 150 years of precedent were the 2nd amendment was viewed as a states right issue regarding their right to arm their militias. Only recently was the 2nd interpreted as an individual right.

Second, by being rigid in this new interpretation and not allowing law makers to make sensible restrictions/precautions with regards to this new right, law makers, and private citizens/businesses will have to take actions into their own hands and that will inevitably end up in other rights being restricted. And because law makers can't touch gun control they will create other legislation that will infringe on our rights in order to deal with this uniquely American issue.

Do you get it now? You are willing to trade multiple rights to defend a right you were never originally given. That's pretty fucking stupid.

 

[ivwshane]

ABC News Nightline did a whole show about this story tonight. I think (speculating) the shooter had either a Bum Stock or Slide Fire or similar device on his gun(s) in order to shoot so fast.

Why does this matter?

 

[lopri]

Clarify plz. Should be easy.

ivwshane already covered what I wanted to say. I will add a bit more at a high level of generality.

Our constitution is written by human beings, with all their aspirations of good governance toward more perfect union. But the founders were humans after all, meaning that they wanted to have cake and eat it, too, just like we do. The Bill of Rights is not an internally coherent theory of rights, and the rights that we wish to have inevitably conflict with one another.

Take the recent controversy surrounding White Supremacists and their gun-brandishing rally. Does it have a negative implication on the 1st amendment right of counter protesters, bystanders, as well as the citizenry at large?

How about the ever-expanding reach of government surveillance. Would "exercise of the 2nd amendment," admittedly by some bad apples, have a negative implication on the 4th amendment's guarantee of privacy?

If private businesses and public institutions, understandably concerned about their bottom line in the face of murderous exercises of "the 2nd Amendment right," impose draconian security measures on patrons and citizens, how would they affect law-abiding citizens' sense of community as well as their own dignity?

Rights secured by the Bill of Rights are not absolute, not only because human reality sometimes demands their acquiescence, but because they often are not internally reconcilable. This is the context in which I stated the 2nd Amendment right at some point must give ways to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

 

[senseamp]

Republicans are running the government and writing laws, so let them deal with this. If they say there is nothing they can do to stop a random guy from buying up a small armory and shooting up hundreds of people, then they are useless on the subject. But the ball is in their court for now.

 

[skyking]

Sometimes the "small world" effect can be terrifying.

We have good friends, former next door neighbors who would be likely to go to that concert. We watched Facebook and wondered and worried. Turns out they stayed home to watch the Seahawks game. His sister did go to the concert but was not injured.

Then another friend sent my wife a message. A lady she had worked with for several years was shot, and died in her husband's arms that night.

 

[HomerJS]

Republicans are running the government and writing laws, so let them deal with this. If they say there is nothing they can do to stop a random guy from buying up a small armory and shooting up hundreds of people, then they are useless on the subject. But the ball is in their court for now.

That's right. The NRA has the GOP and the country by the nuts so why should anyone care?

Time to move on and wait for the next record to be broken.

 

[Puffnstuff]

The guy only had 42 guns which the media are calling an arsenal. Geez how many stamps do you have in your collection? Some people collect power tools, art, movies or music and I'll bet that some of you might even have a collection of nonoperational vehicles up on blocks in your yard too but that's your right. The truth is that owning guns or any other inanimate object for that matter is not evil in and of itself.

This guy didn't have a criminal past, lived in a quiet middle class neighborhood and even his brother was stunned by what happened. Nobody will really find out what happened in his head to initiate this unfortunate tragedy. In all of this one of the most important elements of this will go overlooked and when the dust settles on this incident the same causation will go find another opportunity for them to work their hideous magic yet again. The Apostle Paul stated that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood but against powers and principalities, dark and wicked rulers in high places and when they gain influence over a person the unexpected happens. You can claim to be an atheist but I suspect that everyone in hell believes in God right now.

 

[sdifox]

Any government that does not allow you to be secure in yourself is WRONG AND EVIL. It is so obvious that our great founding fathers decided that it is literally an inherent right. You can go ahead and argue that government should be allowed to deny you this; everyone else will laugh at you. What is your point?

So, every country on the planet that restricts weapon possession is wrong and evil?

 

[mikeymikec]

The guy only had 42 guns which the media are calling an arsenal. Geez how many stamps do you have in your collection? Some people collect power tools, art, movies or music and I'll bet that some of you might even have a collection of nonoperational vehicles up on blocks in your yard too but that's your right. The truth is that owning guns or any other inanimate object for that matter is not evil in and of itself.

A large collection of guns is pretty much a good definition of the word 'arsenal', what's your problem?

I bet everyone in the post office runs for cover when they hear, "he's got a stamp!".

I like how you compare a gun to a non-operational vehicle though. I wonder if that should be the new interpretation of the second amendment, "the right to bear non-operational arms", because they're similar enough, right?

 

[bshole]

Exactly. The founding fathers were beyond clear that the Constitution was not a GRANT of rights, but a list of rights that exist ON THEIR OWN regardless of government and laws. These rights should trump government, and any government that attempts to deny these rights is by definition evil and wrong and should be opposed.

And in Japan a liberal democracy where gun rights are denied to the public at large, the murder rate it 1/15 of the United States, That is right, you are 15 times more likely to murdered in America than Japan but Japan has the EVIL and WRONG government. There is a bridge somewhere that needs buying....

 

[Sunburn74]

And this is what I think the far left is missing (note, I find myself to be heavily left-leaning). We may very well be *at* the middle ground. The fact that gun-related deaths make up 1.3% of preventable deaths in the US, despite there being what, 1.3 guns per person in the US? Might actually be a staggeringly good number all things considered. Every time an event like this happens, horrible though it may be, there's a subsect of people jumping at the chance to erode our liberties just a little bit more in return for some perceived safety.

Hmm... I doubt we are at the middle ground. You can point to societal costs of gun ownership which include not just deaths and lost income and taxes, but also hospitalizations, arrests, policing and security costs. In fact, I would put hospitalizations as a far greater societal cost than deaths given the american healthcare system.

People keep quoting erosion of liberties. That is not anything particularly tangible "the non-specific erosion of liberties". Its a purely theoretical idea that the erosion of gun rights somehow harms society. Purely theoretical. Its like arguing lowering the speed limit erodes the freedom to pursue happiness by speeding. Or having any sort of voter registration at all erodes the freedom to vote. I just totally disagree. And again I'm not against gun ownership. I'm just of the position that like many things we have to weigh the costs and benefits to society and the benefits column is mostly driven by pleasure (people like guns. guns are fun) and to a much much smaller degree rare instances of justified self-protection.

The US without guns will still have murders; it will still have mass murders and lone wolf terrorists. But likely the severity of these issues will be less. Its not an all or nothing argument but an argument of degrees of change.

 

[SlowSpyder]

He had a small typo, but it's obvious what he meant. You're against a "sin tax" because it restricts rights (because as an extension it would make guns less affordable and more difficult to access). He then asks, well, if guns are already too expensive for some people, aren't they already having their natural rights violated? Who's responsibility should it be to fulfill them?

Wasn't obvious to me or I would have answered.

A handgun can be had for under $100. One someone would actually want to carry you can find for a few hundred dollars. The right to defend ourselves, the right to free speech, the right to not have the government confiscate our property without due process, etc. shouldn't cost anything. A gun is a material thing, effort and parts go into manufacturing it. I don't know why this has to be explained, honestly.

As someone else said, though, over taxation would not be constitutional as it becomes the government infringing on our rights, just stealing a protected right using a different angle. It is sad that any American would even think of trying to find loophole ways for the government to be able to take away our rights.

 

[TheVrolok]

Wasn't obvious to me or I would have answered.

A handgun can be had for under $100. One someone would actually want to carry you can find for a few hundred dollars. The right to defend ourselves, the right to free speech, the right to not have the government confiscate our property without due process, etc. shouldn't cost anything. A gun is a material thing, effort and parts go into manufacturing it. I don't know why this has to be explained, honestly.

As someone else said, though, over taxation would not be constitutional as it becomes the government infringing on our rights, just stealing a protected right using a different angle. It is sad that any American would even think of trying to find loophole ways for the government to be able to take away our rights.

Thoughts on poll taxes?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Ideas are not "Inherent". All Rights exist because People want them to, not because they exist in some objective state. People want them because they weigh the Pros/Cons of having/not having them. That is why the Constitution can be and has been changed. That is also why what may be a Right today may not be a Right in the future or what isn't a Right today may become a Right in the future.

And this notion is exactly why the Constitution was developed. Basically, for as long as people have existed, some SOB has insisted on dictating what the others can do, you're doing the same right in this statement, you're dictating what a person is permitted to do, by stating that those rights are granted to them by others. That means, inherently, people have no rights to themselves, they are not free, they are chattel to be guided, probably for their betterment. Throughout history, millions of died fighting this concept, and the US was founded on the idea that one is inherently free, that one is not subject to rule by others, and that some things ARE inherent to life. And if anyone tells you otherwise, you are free to fight until your last breath to prove to them otherwise.

That seems like some nice circular logic. These are natural rights because we have a document that says they are natural rights and if they are natural rights we better have a document saying that they are.

And you're still trying to state that something isn't a natural right unless it's granted to you. Again, the document simply states that they are, they'd be natural rights whether the document existed or not. Per those that wrote the document, they knew that these rights were natural BEFORE writing the document, that's why they were included.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

ivwshane already covered what I wanted to say. I will add a bit more at a high level of generality.

Our constitution is written by human beings, with all their aspirations of good governance toward more perfect union. But the founders were humans after all, meaning that they wanted to have cake and eat it, too, just like we do. The Bill of Rights is not an internally coherent theory of rights, and the rights that we wish to have inevitably conflict with one another.

Take the recent controversy surrounding White Supremacists and their gun-brandishing rally. Does it have a negative implication on the 1st amendment right of counter protesters, bystanders, as well as the citizenry at large?

How about the ever-expanding reach of government surveillance. Would "exercise of the 2nd amendment," admittedly by some bad apples, have a negative implication on the 4th amendment's guarantee of privacy?

If private businesses and public institutions, understandably concerned about their bottom line in the face of murderous exercises of "the 2nd Amendment right," impose draconian security measures on patrons and citizens, how would they affect law-abiding citizens' sense of community as well as their own dignity?

Rights secured by the Bill of Rights are not absolute, not only because human reality sometimes demands their acquiescence, but because they often are not internally reconcilable. This is the context in which I stated the 2nd Amendment right at some point must give ways to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

I do grok what you're saying, and there are some inconsistencies that the SC has had to clarify/define as time has progressed. I personally think there's some holes in some of your specific circumstances though.

Gun brandishing rallies: Freedom of expression and right to be arms are fine here. It doesn't have a negative implication on anyone else to include counter protesters, bystanders, or citizenry, unless one of the nutjobs opens fire, at which point he's committing a crime (as any other). You might say that the threat of violence tempers the counter protesters/dissenting voices, but only if fear is guiding them. Futhermore, this is a private organization (white supremacists) not the US govt, which the rights are codified to protect against. There may be some gray area in there somewhere but I personally feel that an individual with a gun isn't a threat unless they're planning on using it, and if we're assuming that these particular individuals have no intent to use them, then there's nothing impinged on by them. If they use them, they're committing a crime anyhow, so the 'they're suppressing our 1A rights' kinda goes out the window.

Govt Surveillance: It only has a negative implication if the govt does something about it. Exercising 2A rights themselves doesn't require the government to increase surveillance, they're independent events. Devaluing/eroding the right to one's person is protected by the Constitution, and the Govt is *supposed* to not be allowed to do that, regardless of secondary or tertiary events taking place. Having said that, this one's been probably the hardest hit in the last 50 years.

Private/public businesses: It's been shown multiple times that Constitutional rights are defined as what the govt can/cannot do, not private citizens. Now this gets fuzzy in things that are semi-mandatory, such as a local utility refusing to deal with African Americans, for instance. The courts have been known to 'overextend' a bit to ensure the equality and liberty of individuals in the face of other individuals who would impinge on that right, but it's not super common. It's also happened in more pedestrian cases, as we're going to see in this SC cycle, they're addressing that whole 'no cakes for gays' event a few years back.

You may be entirely right that the 2A rights get reigned in, in theory, to protect other rights. I personally feel that would be a mistake, but part of the wonderful thing about the US is, we get to remake our rules as the Union sees fit, rather than have them written in stone by a King, and enforced under pain of death.

 

[K1052]

And this notion is exactly why the Constitution was developed. Basically, for as long as people have existed, some SOB has insisted on dictating what the others can do, you're doing the same right in this statement, you're dictating what a person is permitted to do, by stating that those rights are granted to them by others. That means, inherently, people have no rights to themselves, they are not free, they are chattel to be guided, probably for their betterment. Throughout history, millions of died fighting this concept, and the US was founded on the idea that one is inherently free, that one is not subject to rule by others, and that some things ARE inherent to life. And if anyone tells you otherwise, you are free to fight until your last breath to prove to them otherwise.

I'm not sure I'm totally on board with the constitution being the final (or even best in some cases) expression of natural rights. It's at least equally a document that reflects the conditions and politics of it's time. I mean the three-fifths compromise alone should make people scratch their chins a lot. Overall the principles enumerated are indeed of value but it would be irresponsible not to gauge some of it with a skeptical eye, the founders certainly did and made changes where it was deemed desirable and possible.

 

[kage69]

Because you would have done exactly that if you were in that situation....

My past history of removing people from harm because I had the opportunity suggests otherwise. Pulling someone out of the water or out from the path of a truck requires more time, effort and thought than a passing 'We're being shot at!" as you run for cover.

I can safely say I wouldn't not have waited as long as he did, I have never and will never confuse automatic rifle fire with fireworks. I saw lots of people act cool under pressure in a variety of clips. The performer had an opportunity to use that sound system to help everyone, but panicked and fled. And I understand that, I just think it's a shame.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Hmm... I doubt we are at the middle ground. You can point to societal costs of gun ownership which include not just deaths and lost income and taxes, but also hospitalizations, arrests, policing and security costs. In fact, I would put hospitalizations as a far greater societal cost than deaths given the american healthcare system.

People keep quoting erosion of liberties. That is not anything particularly tangible "the non-specific erosion of liberties". Its a purely theoretical idea that the erosion of gun rights somehow harms society. Purely theoretical. Its like arguing lowering the speed limit erodes the freedom to pursue happiness by speeding. Or having any sort of voter registration at all erodes the freedom to vote. I just totally disagree. And again I'm not against gun ownership. I'm just of the position that like many things we have to weigh the costs and benefits to society and the benefits column is mostly driven by pleasure (people like guns. guns are fun) and to a much much smaller degree rare instances of justified self-protection.

The US without guns will still have murders; it will still have mass murders and lone wolf terrorists. But likely the severity of these issues will be less. Its not an all or nothing argument but an argument of degrees of change.

Well, the big problem with the erosion of one right (any one right) is that it represents how other rights might also be eroded. That's why everyone went batshit insane about the govt mass surveillance of the US population, that was in direct violation of our right to privacy, unfortunately virtually nothing came from it.

I'd also argue that the 2A rights are the most tangible of any of them, as they directly relate to the defense of your person and property. Any situation that would demand the expression of 2A rights is going to be direct, and in your face. We can have our privacy broken without us knowing (in fact, it's likely to happen that way), 2A rights not so much. There's a mis-attributed quote to Isoroku Yamamoto (Fleet Admiral and CIC of the Japanese Navy during WW2) that 'You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass'. He never stated that, but it is a fact that by virtue of an armed citizenry, we have a certain layer of protection provided to all of us, and as you can see in this thread, a great many people are willing to express that right, and die defending it.

It may be that society decides the cost is too high for this freedom/layer of protection, that's for future generations to decide (I seriously doubt it'll change in my lifetime).

 

[Brainonska511]

I'm not sure I'm totally on board with the constitution being the final (or even best in some cases) expression of natural rights. It's at least equally a document that reflects the conditions and politics of it's time. I mean the three-fifths compromise alone should make people scratch their chins a lot. Overall the principles enumerated are indeed of value but it would be irresponsible not to gauge some of it with a skeptical eye, the founders certainly did and made changes where it was deemed desirable and possible.

Yep. The Constitution, at the time of its writing, was as much about political expediency as it was about an expression of the ideals of the Enlightenment. Its certainly an important document for the foundations of the government, but we shouldn't be chained rigidly to the ideas of imperfect men who died over 200 years ago. As much as some would like to think, through their Founding Father's Ouija Board, the writers of the Constitution were not unified in their ideas.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I'm not sure I'm totally on board with the constitution being the final (or even best in some cases) expression of natural rights. It's at least equally a document that reflects the conditions and politics of it's time. I mean the three-fifths compromise alone should make people scratch their chins a lot. Overall the principles enumerated are indeed of value but it would be irresponsible not to gauge some of it with a skeptical eye, the founders certainly did and made changes where it was deemed desirable and possible.

Absolutely true, the 3/5ths rule is a perfect example of something that changed. To be fair, it was probably a compromise at the time and a fairly transcendent notion even then, even if we now find the idea abhorrent. Having said that, the Constitution is still not supposed to be an 'expression' of natural rights (aside from the writing of it I guess). It's just stating what <are> natural rights. If it's decided that it's for the betterment of society for those rights to be removed, they will, the document will be changed, and the US populace will have those rights modified\lose those rights and everything that comes with them.

 

[Thebobo]

Why doesn't Australia have this right then?

I agree why don't they. Why doesn't everyone have this right?

Because natural law is mumbo jumbo, it's used as a religion for the second amendment zealots.

 

[Brainonska511]

I'd also argue that the 2A rights are the most tangible of any of them, as they directly relate to the defense of your person and property. Any situation that would demand the expression of 2A rights is going to be direct, and in your face.

And history has repeatedly shown us that the enforcement of your own rights, in the US, via the 2nd Amendment leads to being utterly crushed by the government.

The 2nd amendment didn't stop the Native Americans from being mercilessly slaughtered in the name of "Manifest Destiny". The 2nd Amendment didn't stop the internment of Japanese-Americans. It didn't stop the whole-sale discrimination of people of the wrong race or nationality. It hasn't stopped civil forfeiture.

It's a nice thought to have, that you could protect your rights and property with arms against the government. But at the end of the day, it remains just a thought.

 

[brandonbull]

GOP PSA:

The right to heavy assault weaponry and unlimited ammunition is an inalienable right bequeathed by God Almighty, enshrined in His Constitution.

The right to medical treatment for bullet and shrapnel wounds from said weapons is solely for access, provided thou hast a good job, credit score and history of good health.

Give it a rest. Stop with the low hanging fruit approach to solving the issues with nutjobs wanting to harm people by claiming all will be right if we take away guns. The real issue is what caused someone living the American dream to decide that shooting at thousands of people was a good idea. Something has caused a radical change in behavior because it wasn't really that long ago that mass shootings and crowds of people getting run over was just science fiction. No body thought about getting shot, bombed, or run over while attending large outdoor events.

I can't wait to see the responses because I dared to suggest we find the source of the problem instead of a political band-aid.

 

[Thebobo]

I can't wait to see the responses because I dared to suggest we find the source of the problem instead of a political band-aid.

This guy is sitting on the problem

Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

 

[K1052]

Absolutely true, the 3/5ths rule is a perfect example of something that changed. To be fair, it was probably a compromise at the time and a fairly transcendent notion even then, even if we now find the idea abhorrent. Having said that, the Constitution is still not supposed to be an 'expression' of natural rights (aside from the writing of it I guess). It's just stating what <are> natural rights. If it's decided that it's for the betterment of society for those rights to be removed, they will, the document will be changed, and the US populace will have those rights modified\lose those rights and everything that comes with them.

I consider the writing to be a form of expression for the purposes of my comment. I'm also not really sure I'd use the word "transcendent" to describe the 3/5ths compromise, it's kind of the opposite of that.