General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)

[Springfield]

1 minute ago, visionary said:

 

 

I wonder who, in this thread, have watched the videos.  Particularly the ones who are resistant to change.

 

There’s the kids in the class with gunshots going off near by.

There’s the kids huddled together in a classroom as the swat team walks in.

There’s the kids watching over their dead teacher in a pool of blood and medics carrying out a wounded or dead student.

 

You guys even bother watching this stuff?

[Dan T.]

Today Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley was asked to comment on the Florida shooting.  His syntax-challenged response:

 

We have not done a very good job of making sure the people that have mental reasons for not being able to handle a gun getting their name into the FBI file and we need to concentrate on that. 

 

Almost exactly one year ago today, Donald Trump signed a stand-alone bill passed by the Republican led House and Senate that made it easier for the mentally ill to get a gun.  The chief Senate sponsor of that Bill? Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley.

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

I wonder who, in this thread, have watched the videos.  Particularly the ones who are resistant to change.

 

There’s the kids in the class with gunshots going off near by.

There’s the kids huddled together in a classroom as the swat team walks in.

There’s the kids watching over their dead teacher in a pool of blood and medics carrying out a wounded or dead student.

 

You guys even bother watching this stuff?

“The price we pay for freedom.”

[Popeman38]

20 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Love how the constitution is open to your (stupid) interpretation but changing it...oh no **** no. 

 

There is a process in place to change it. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

There is a process in place to change it. 

Two actually, and the NRA employed one of them when they changed the interpretation to ignore half of the Amendment.

[twa]

Just now, Springfield said:

 

I wonder who, in this thread, have watched the videos.  Particularly the ones who are resistant to change.

 

There’s the kids in the class with gunshots going off near by.

There’s the kids huddled together in a classroom as the swat team walks in.

There’s the kids watching over their dead teacher in a pool of blood and medics carrying out a wounded or dead student.

 

You guys even bother watching this stuff?

 

I did, and proposed changes.

Which includes the option of having something other than your body to shield the children from a known threat.

[MartinC]

16 minutes ago, tshile said:

most of what I see is "no one wants to ban guns" 

 

It's a minor point. I get it.

 

No. I for one would very much like to ban (or at least severely restrict) private ownership of guns. 

 

However I accept that is an extreme view point (at least in this Country) and has no prospect of being passed into law or even getting enough popular support to be seriously considered. So I am not advocating that approach and nor is almost anyone else.

[Mr. Sinister]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

 

I wonder who, in this thread, have watched the videos.  Particularly the ones who are resistant to change.

 

There’s the kids in the class with gunshots going off near by.

There’s the kids huddled together in a classroom as the swat team walks in.

There’s the kids watching over their dead teacher in a pool of blood and medics carrying out a wounded or dead student.

 

You guys even bother watching this stuff?

 

It's going to happen (change). It's only a matter of how many more shot up people it's going to take for others to come to the sanity table 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Mr. Sinister

[MartinC]

1 minute ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

It's going to happen (change). It's only a matter of his many more shot up people it's going to take for others to come to the sanity table 

 

I truly hope you are right - but I’m not optimistic.

[Commander PK]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I think it's very clear that the purpose of protecting the right to own and bear arms in the second amendment was to maintain militias.  If owning arms is still such a vital, relevant right, then what happened to compulsory militia service?

 

If that is true why did they distinguish between the words militia and people in the same amendment. (Well regulated militia...right of the people... to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) If the 2nd was only intended for use in the context of a militia, why didn’t they say on the back half the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

 

It’s clear to me, “the people” were who they were referring to who’s rights to arms shall not be infringed.  Me, you, and every other American citizen posting here are “the people”  

 

You only believe the 2nd amendment was for a different time and place if you believe that human nature has fundamentally changed.

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

No. I for one would very much like to ban (or at least severely restrict) private ownership of guns. 

 

However I accept that is an extreme view point (at least in this Country) and has no prospect of being passed into law or even getting enough popular support to be seriously considered. So I am not advocating that approach and nor is almost anyone else.

Right but the problem is (the belief that) you'd always vote for more control. 

 

I just think it's counter productive. You're the slippery slope. I 

[Going Commando]

2 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

If that is true why did they distinguish between the words militia and people in the same amendment. (Well regulated militia...right of the people... to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) If the 2nd was only intended for use in the context of a militia, why didn’t they say on the back half the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

 

Participation in the militia was near-universal for free males.  It was compulsory in Colonial Virginia.  The people and the militia were one and the same to the founders.  It was a core social institution.

[Commander PK]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

So get the **** out of here with that bull****.

 

Well if we are going to talk facts we should have actual facts right?  Is that too much to ask?  Or is it irrelevant because you decided it was...just now.

[twa]

Just now, Mr. Sinister said:

 

It's going to happen (change). It's only a matter of his many more shot up people it's going to take for others to come to the sanity table 

 

Change is already happening, many states are arming schools

 

not the change ya wanted?

[Mr. Sinister]

2 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

I truly hope you are right - but I’m not optimistic.

 

By "Happen" I mean certainly at some point, if we are to progress as a human race and not collapse. Basically, we don't have a choice, is what I mean. We cant progress as a society with monumentally retarded stuff like this going on. This is not going anywhere. People will keep dying, we will keep arguing, thoughts and prayers will keep "sending," and we will keep heading down our own destructive path we seem hell bent on fulfilling.

 

Until that point (either people coming to their senses, or every American getting shot up until it's down to 1,000 hardcore John Matrix badasses armed to the teeth), I'm not really interested in saying a whole lot. 

 

I'll just reset my timer until the next shooting. ✌

[AsburySkinsFan]

 

[Mr. Sinister]

5 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Change is already happening, many states are arming schools

 

not the change ya wanted?

 

Not unless by "Arm", you mean nuclear warheads. You're not really safe u til you have nukes

[Commander PK]

5 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

The people and the militia were one and the same to the founders.  It was a core social institution.

 

With that said, is it logical to assume their intent was that Joe/Jane Citizen should NOT be allowed to keep and bear arms except in the context of the militia? 

 

No militia...no arms?

 

I don’t think so

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I think it's very clear that the purpose of protecting the right to own and bear arms in the second amendment was to maintain militias.  If owning arms is still such a vital, relevant right, then what happened to compulsory militia service?

We formed a more traditional military because we were getting our *** kicked in War of 1812 and the militia idea evolved into the national guard (organized militia) and pool the government has to pick from via the draft (unorganized militia).  

 

We're better off with an armed civilian population to act as a deterrent from invasion; like the two oceans, Russia's winters, and China's ridiculous population total.  I don't think allowing people to have weapons like AR-15s is necessary for that, though, I don't believe that's what second amendment was meant for.

[Llevron]

9 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

With that said, is it logical to assume their intent was that Joe/Jane Citizen should NOT be allowed to keep and bear arms except in the context of the militia? 

 

No militia...no arms?

 

I don’t think so

 

Logic tells you that but doesn't quite grasp that an AR-15 Is a little more advanced than they were talking about?

 

Odd

[Berggy9598]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

Not unless by "Arm", you mean nuclear warheads. You're not really safe u til you have nukes

That's just absurd. Let them play Call of Duty instead of math or English so they know what to do in a real life situation. Maybe put teachers through SWAT training as part of gaining a teacher's license. 

[twa]

Just now, Mr. Sinister said:

 

Not unless by "Arm", you mean nuclear warheads. You're not really safe u til you have nukes

 

Glad you agree the threat of destruction of your attacker makes you(and those around you) safer

 

A extinction event for the attacker does slow their roll, unless they are truly nuts.

[Renegade7]

27 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

It’s clear to me, “the people” were who they were referring to who’s rights to arms shall not be infringed.  Me, you, and every other American citizen posting here are “the people”  

But even if that's your interpretation we are already "infringing" on people's right to bear arms by banning sales of automatic weapons, and we do that to protect "the people".  

[twa]

Just now, Llevron said:

 

Logic tells you that but doesn't quite grasp that an AR-15 Is a little more advanced than they were talking about?

 

Odd

 

Actually it is a bit behind modern militia level. quite a bit

[Going Commando]

2 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

With that said, is it logical to assume their intent was that Joe/Jane Citizen should NOT be allowed to keep and bear arms except in the context of the militia? 

 

No militia...no arms?

 

I don’t think so

 

For them, militia service was the single biggest reason they needed to protect their right to keep and bear arms.  Other than for hunting, they wouldn't have seen any other necessary function for owning guns.

 

The founders would not have anticipated a society with fully professionalized peacetime militaries and law enforcement.  These things would be incredible to them.  And in fact, a peace time standing military like we have today was anathema because they saw it as an existential threat to Democracy.  They couldn't conceive of a standing professional military and government with the institutional strength and discipline to NOT be used as a weapon of tyranny, doing the bidding of whichever lord and master it had at the time because such a thing had never existed before, so far as they knew.  And certainly no parochial nation with massive frontier settlement like the United States would have had the resources to field a highly professional and effective full time law enforcement agency in every town and county of the country, such that there are virtually no holes in jurisdiction/areas of enforcement any more.

 

For them, maintaining a permanently organized militia was absolutely necessary to maintain society as a whole.  They took it's necessity/existence for granted in the same way we take our army and police forces for granted.  They saw service in the militia as a fundamental duty of citizenship.

 

The Second Amendment was modeled on a part of the Virginia Constitution and the language of the Second Amendment was lifted and abridged from a similar clause in the Virginia Bill of Rights.  Here is how the right to keep and bear arms is explained and codified in that document:

 

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

 

That clause makes the connection between the purpose of protecting the right to keep and bear arms for maintenance of the militia much more clear.