50 killed, 200 Injured in Las Vegas Shooting

[Baruch]

what do you have in mind? Trump's screw up in Puerto Rico? something more sinister? You could be right (kinda obvious when you watch the videos that WTC was taken down by a controlled-demolition. I counted 85 explosions that sounded like an automatic rifle on one video). But if they wanna commit such a horrendous act as Las Vegas, I don't want to know what they are covering up

Agenda 21 ... 7 billion dead ... keep just the plutocrats, their sexy maids and sexy butlers.  You can be a pool boy if you like cleaning the pool with your tongue ;-)

[Baruch]

Conspiracy theories of the collapse of the WTC is SO OLD!  It wasn't controlled demolition, planes broke the structure.  Get a GRIP man...

I have read that ... the buildings weren't up to code.  Corruption in the Big Apple.  But building 7 was controlled ... they had to hide the Enron documents.

[Baruch]

Yes, the people that wrote the constitution believed that the militia was essential. They believed that an armed population was essential to enabling a militia. But they also believed the right for citizens to be armed was independent of the militia. They believed an individual right to arms existed before our Constitution or the Bill of Rights were written and ratified by the states. They didn't believe there was anything in the 2nd amendment that eliminated that individual right.

The amicus briefs, oral arguments, majority and dissenting opinions from Heller are a good source for the arguments both for and against an individual right. If you remotely interested in why Heller was decided the way it was you should read the arguments presented in that case from both sides. Be aware though that there were 67 amicus briefs filled in the Heller case. 47 for an individual right, and 20 against.

Not all militias were to be under a state governor ... if hindsight is employed regarding the American Revolution ... otherwise we should have just obeyed our colonial governors.  But the Federalists thought of a stronger central government, and the anti-Federalists were against that.  The Constitution of 1787 was a coup against the Articles of Confederation.  Nothing since 1775 was legally legitimate ... we were and remain rebels against the English monarchy, with no rights (except by the power of organized violence).  Not everyone was happy with the coup of 1787, anymore than they were all for the rebellion of 1775.  This simmered a long time until 1860, with near secession first by New England ... later actual secession by the South.  The British Empire nearly intervened.  Most conflict and tragedy are cause by overly ambitious men, more than actual grievances ... grievances are just causus belli .. like the Declaration itself.  The Declaration isn't US law in any case.  The Constitution's "flaws" were partly corrected during/post Civil War ... from the Federalist perspective.  Even Andrew Jackson, Sam Houston, William Sherman were Federalist.  Of course there were, and remain, people against that result.  History doesn't have convenient bookends.

[baronvonrort]

weapons control:

The weapons of war do not belong on the streets of our country in the hands of civilians. The weapons of war do not belong on the streets of our country in the hands of police.

The Remington 700 is used by your military and police, are you saying bolt action rifles like the Remington 700 shouldn't be owned by civilians?

[PopeyesPappy]

The Remington 700 is used by your military and police, are you saying bolt action rifles like the Remington 700 shouldn't be owned by civilians?

Not if they are black. Too fucking scary looking...

[Cavebear]

2nd amendment:  "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."

"A well regulated militia" refers to the State and National armed forces.  "State" meant "Nation" at the time.  We didn't have a standing army back then; now we do.  Military-style weapons owned by private citizens have no place in a modern democratic society. 

[baronvonrort]

  Military-style weapons owned by private citizens have no place in a modern democratic society. 

The Remington 700 is a military weapon why do you think they have no place in a modern democratic society?

The 1911 is another military weapon why does nobody say they have no place in society?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A more detailed explanation than "the tooth fairy" would be helpful to the discussusion.

You're quite right, it would be.

[Cavebear]

The Remington 700 is a military weapon why do you think they have no place in a modern democratic society?

The 1911 is another military weapon why does nobody say they have no place in society?

I can barely tell the difference between a 1920s Tommy gun and an AK-47.  And don't care.  The only legitimate purpose of a weapon is for hunting (which I support) and if you can't kill the prey with a single shot shotgun or rifle, you have no business trying it.

Every year before deer season, Dad brought us out to some forsaken field with a huge hill of dirt.  If we couldn't hit a paper plate from 50 yards, we couldn't hunt.  And he tested all out shotguns rested on sandbags to make sure they shot accurately before he tested us.

[Baruch]

Seems responsible to me.  Unfortunately, we can't keep guns, or a spork, out of the hands of nut-jobs, because they have ... rights.  But to solve the nut-job problem, we have to go further into totalitarianism ... which gives legitimate fear to legitimate citizens.  I know ... America ... love it or leave it ... here is a spork, go kill yourself?

[Cavebear]

Seems responsible to me.  Unfortunately, we can't keep guns, or a spork, out of the hands of nut-jobs, because they have ... rights.  But to solve the nut-job problem, we have to go further into totalitarianism ... which gives legitimate fear to legitimate citizens.  I know ... America ... love it or leave it ... here is a spork, go kill yourself?

First, I'm not "America Love It or Leave It".  Like Trump, you love to make vague allegations.

Second, there is a difference between an AK -47 and a spork.  I don't recall anyone being killed with a spork lately.  OK, maybe a self-inflicted infected gum wound...

Third, if nuts can't buy military-style weapons, they won't kill 50 people with them will they?  When is the last time someone needed an AK-47 in self defense?

(just my luck there will be an example)

[Baruch]

"OK, maybe a self-inflicted infected gum wound..." .. a like for that, but this way, since you don't like "likes".

Just discussing ... probing, to better understand you.  I am glad you aren't a gun nut, we have too many of those.  If you were a gun nut, and given your age, I could see you attaching rocket launchers to your wheelchair ;-)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Remington 700 is a military weapon why do you think they have no place in a modern democratic society?

The 1911 is another military weapon why does nobody say they have no place in society?

You just don't listen, that's why you ask pointless and absurd questions.

[Baruch]

You just don't listen, that's why you ask pointless and absurd questions.

What is to listen to?  That only anti-Fa D-party paramilitaries should have guns? (not necessarily your personal position).

[Shiranu]

The Remington 700 is a military weapon why do you think they have no place in a modern democratic society?

The 1911 is another military weapon why does nobody say they have no place in society?

Hi, "Anti-Gunner" here, I don't think the 1911 has a place in society.