|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 03 2017 02:07 Velr wrote: @Nyxisto No, i said it isn't impossible for a democraticly elected goverment to harm/shoot people. You seemed to disregard that possibility a bit non chalantly..
Not nonchalantly, just that this is not how modern governments, even autocratic ones exercise power. Guns are actually harmful in this regard, because they act like a totem pole and people think that they have democratic power and control as long as they are armed.
|
On October 03 2017 02:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 01:58 Plansix wrote: Calling the NRA a civil rights group is beyond a stretch. Civil rights groups generally stand up for all civil rights, not just the one that makes gun manufactures the most money. Similarly, the Innocence Project and National Center for Lesbian Rights don't count as civil rights groups because they don't cover everything on God's green earth, just issues that don't affect me personally. Neither of those groups is beyond reproach in any way; the Innocence Project is doing some terrible shit with sudden infant death and they deserve a ton of criticism.
Like I already said on a prior page, there are numerous alternatives to the NRA that aren't literally funded by gun companies and the policies they support magically look a lot more moderate than those pushed by the former. Imagine that.
|
On October 03 2017 02:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 02:05 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2017 02:04 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 02:02 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2017 01:58 Plansix wrote: Calling the NRA a civil rights group is beyond a stretch. Civil rights groups generally stand up for all civil rights, not just the one that makes gun manufactures the most money. It can be for both. NRA is a group that protect people's right to bear arms but simultaneously helps to employs our resident gun makers. If only those actions lined up with what the NRA does or who funds the NRA. The reality is that the NRA is just shill for the gun industry that pretends to be about second amendment rights. Its really a chicken and egg type of thing. Its not a black and white type of thing. Life have nuances. Nope. They are just a shitty advocacy group. There are better out there, doing better work. Okay list them
|
On October 03 2017 02:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 01:58 Plansix wrote: Calling the NRA a civil rights group is beyond a stretch. Civil rights groups generally stand up for all civil rights, not just the one that makes gun manufactures the most money. Similarly, the Innocence Project and National Center for Lesbian Rights don't count as civil rights groups because they don't cover everything on God's green earth, just issues that don't affect me personally. You are free to set your own standard for civil rights group and believe what you want. Anyone can claim to be anything. It is through a review of their actions that we decide if they were lying or not.
And it’s not like they are the only advocates for the second amendment. They just happen to be the most well known due to the amount of money they receive from gun manufactures.
|
On October 03 2017 01:12 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 00:46 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2017 20:45 Broetchenholer wrote: Yeah yeah, fully automatic weapons are regulated, you have to hit the trigger for those guns, which makes them completely worthless. Those semi automatic assault type weapons can basically not be used for anything....
At this point, arguing about automatic or not automatic is missing the point. There is virtually no reason to sell AR15s to your citizens. What are you afraid about? a Zombie apocalypse? Alien invasion? Or are those for deerhunting? As a strong moral check check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, of course. Are you supposed to shake off the yokes of a future tyrannical government with just pistols? Allright, so all western countries are just morons for trusting the democratic process then? I remember the reunification of Germany, when all those guys with AKMs murdered the tyrannical government, mowed down the NVA. And when those tanks roled out afterwards, thank god my father had an antitank missile he bought before or i would not be here today. How exactly are AR-15s in the hands of your population a moral check? Either your government is willing to use force against you, then AR-15s won't solve the problem, because you are going to get airstriked. Or they are not, in which case your AR-15 is either useless or you are a murderer for killing your government with it. I cannot see a single scenario in which the population being armed to the teath with handguns and semi-automatic rifles will prevent or stop an illegal activity by the state. Please tell me how you think such a scenario would look like. Other western nations are forgetting the lessons of history. You should remember you own history, where gun registries were used by the National Socialists to disarm the population. The Weimar republic had strict gun control laws even before that. My great country was aided in its rebellion by an armed populace against the dictatorial English regime. Despite your trollish hystericals, it's sound doctrine.
Tyranny creeps. It won't start with tanks on your boulevard, it's the policeman enforcing an unjust law. They know giving actions the appearance of routine police work/enforcement is key to their success. Airstriking will prompt more armed rebellions, because the population is already armed. Frankly, if you want to defend your home against armed robbers or robbers with a badge, I don't care if you think your AR-15 is your weapon of choice rather than a glock. I'll draw the line at fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers, but pick your semi-auto handgun or rifle at your leisure. I've seen enough threats of state violence against current weapon holders to make the threat legitimate.
|
To be fair, many of the "moderate" gun rights advocates get bullied and/or destroyed outright by the NRA, further suggesting that the organization has relatively little interest in viewpoints that impact their sponsors bottom line.
Gun owners and dealers who publicly break with the NRA and other powerful gun rights groups sometimes find themselves being labeled as anti-gunners, traitors or worse.
The online vitriol can be intense, particularly after high-profile shootings such as the Oregon community college this month that left 10 dead including the gunman, or on Friday at Northern Arizona University, where four people were shot, one fatally.
A.J. Somerset, a gun owner who criticized the country’s don’t-take-my-guns culture in a new book, has been accused by the NRA of hating the Second Amendment.
And last year, when a Maryland gun dealer announced plans to sell the nation’s first smart gun — it connects wirelessly to a watch that must be worn to fire it — protesters threatened to burn the store down, forcing him to back down. A caller told the owner, “You’re going to get what’s coming to you, [expletive].”
“We’re considered weirdos,” said George Legeros, a longtime Virginia gun owner who also supports universal background checks and limits on how many guns people may buy. “Anybody who tries to take guns away is a bad man. That’s why the NRA doesn’t represent me. For lack of a better word, they are too whacked-out. It’s one thing to be pro-gun. It’s another thing to have no common sense.”
Nearly 1 in 3 Americans own a gun. But only 5 million belong to the NRA, which is often portrayed as the voice of hunters, skeet shooters and other gun owners. The squelched majority could emerge as a powerful force in the gun control debate, gun control advocates say, if they ever gain traction — emphasis on if.
Daniel Webster, a firearms expert at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (it receives funding from Michael R. Bloomberg, a gun control advocate), said the country isn’t destined to always have the world’s highest gun violence rates “because many of the measures we need are supported by very large majorities of gun owners.”
Although public opinion polls show that gun owners strongly favor protecting gun rights over curtailing them, when they are asked about specific ideas for restrictions, most are in favor.
Surveys by Johns Hopkins and the Pew Research Center show that about 85 percent of gun owners favor universal background checks, an idea fiercely opposed by the gun lobby. Gun owners also strongly support a federal database of gun sales, prohibiting ownership for those convicted of domestic violence and barring people with mental illness from buying guns.
Though there is less support for banning high-powered assault rifles — about 49 percent of gun owners would, vs. 64 percent of non-gun owners, according to Pew — gun control advocates are emboldened that a near majority is out of lockstep with the gun lobby.
“I can’t think of a single issue that has generated more noise and more hype in the gun community than the issue of assault rifles over the last several years,” Michael Weisser, a Vermont gun dealer and NRA opponent, wrote on his blog in June. “That nearly 50% of gun owners don’t buy this nonsense should give pause to those who still regard the NRA as a behemoth when it comes to influencing public opinion about guns. To me, it’s more like a case of the emperor without clothes.”
The NRA did not return a request for comment, but its officials regularly argue that many gun control proposals would not stop mass shootings.
After a man killed two broadcast journalists in Virginia in August, Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, wrote in a Washington Times opinion piece that “no piece of legislation pushed by gun control advocates would have stopped him from committing this brutal crime.”
Public health officials and gun owners who want more restrictions acknowledge that in many cases, that’s true. But they argue that tighter control could still save a significant number of lives. The problem, they argue, is that the NRA won’t give an inch, turning up the fear dial, which almost always increases gun sales.
“The NRA believes that every attempt to regulate is one step toward the promised land of prohibition,” said Michael Chandler, a 60-year-old New York physician and gun owner. “But it’s not. We can do sensible things.”
Though he’s an NRA life member because he supports their safety training courses, he knows the organization won’t listen to his views on gun control. And he’s stopped listening to their views.
“I hang up when they call me,” he said.
If gun owners such as Chandler want their voices heard, they need to organize themselves. There have been several efforts in the past decade to launch organizations of moderate gun owners, but with little success. New efforts are underway.
Rebecca Bond, a former marketing executive, co-founded a nonprofit group called Evolve, which bills itself as “the third voice in the gun debate.” The idea is to bring together moderate gun owners and entrenched gun voices — pro and con — to promote a cultural shift in the gun debate, favoring conversation about safety over political acrimony.
Most gun owners support restrictions. Why aren’t their voices heard?
|
Apparently the shooter is the son of a famous FBI Most Wanted bank robber and a high stakes poker player himself, but otherwise lived an innocuous life.
Before he opened fire late Sunday, killing at least 58 people at a country music festival on the Las Vegas Strip, the gunman Stephen Paddock was living out his retirement as a high-stakes professional gambler in a quiet town outside Las Vegas.
Paddock, 64, would disappear for days at a time, frequenting casinos with his longtime girlfriend, neighbors said. Relatives also said Paddock had been living out his retirement years, visiting Las Vegas to gamble and take in concerts.
Eric Paddock said his brother often gambled in tens of thousands of dollars. "My brother is not like you and me. He plays high stakes video poker," he said. "He sends me a text that says he won $250,000 at the casino."
Eric Paddock said he showed the FBI three years of text messages from his brother and said he had no information whether Stephen Paddock had gambling debts or was financially troubled. "I have absolutely no information he lost a bunch of money. The casino would know that," he said.
Eric Paddock said his brother previously worked as an accountant but also had real estate investments, including houses and apartments around Orlando. He said Stephen Paddock had no kids and plenty of money to play with.
Eric Paddock said he did not know of any mental illness, alcohol or drug problems in his brother's life.
Their father was once on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list. He was a fugitive bank robber and rarely around for either son. "I was born on the run," said Eric Paddock.
He knew his brother owned a couple of handguns but was shocked at the rapid-fire weapon apparently used by Stephen Paddock in Las Vegas. He said his brother didn't hunt, barely shot his guns, and once took Eric Paddock's children on a skeet shooting trip paid for by the casinos.
Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock enjoyed gambling, country music, lived quiet life before massacre
|
On October 03 2017 02:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 01:58 Plansix wrote: Calling the NRA a civil rights group is beyond a stretch. Civil rights groups generally stand up for all civil rights, not just the one that makes gun manufactures the most money. Similarly, the Innocence Project and National Center for Lesbian Rights don't count as civil rights groups because they don't cover everything on God's green earth, just issues that don't affect me personally. Civil rights for me, but not for thee. Also under cover of "I declare what counts and doesn't count as a civil right."
They wouldn't have a Constitution and the nation that it founded without that guarantee. Not enough states would have signed onto it.
|
If your civil rights regularly make people able to mow down people your civil rights probably suck.
|
When faced with senseless, horrific shootings, people in Washington and on cable news often end up politicizing them in order to argue over gun laws, especially if the location where the incident took place has relatively relaxed regulations. With this morning’s awful mass shooting in Las Vegas, we may not hear such talk, since the suspect, Stephen Paddock, allegedly used a fully automatic weapon, which is illegal no matter what, unless legally purchased and registered prior to May 19, 1986, when they were basically banned under federal law. Of course, it’s possible that he reconfigured a legal semi-automatic weapon to make it fire automatically but that would then make it an illegal weapon.
While it’s true that Nevada does allow people to legally carry firearms in public, only legal weapons are covered by this. Paddock would have broken the law before even pulling the trigger, since—assuming he hadn’t been holding onto this weapon for more than 30 years—the law forbids having the gun in the first place. Not only that, but the shooting took place at the Mandalay Bay, which has a strict no-weapons policy. Such policies technically don’t have the weight of law, meaning they can’t remove your weapon, but they can tell you to leave and have you arrested for trespass if you don’t.
As far as legal firearms in Nevada go, it is legal to carry them openly in public, with exceptions for places like government buildings, airports, schools, and child care facilities. Permits are required to carry a concealed firearm, and they can be denied for a number of reasons, including if the applicant has an open warrant for their arrest, or if they have a criminal history including violence or stalking. In Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, all handguns must be registered. Convicted felons in the state are banned from possessing firearms altogether, as are people who are found to have unlawfully used controlled substances, and people who have been committed to mental health facilities or have been adjudicated mentally ill.
Other horrible attacks sparked debates over what types of guns should or should not be legal, or under what circumstances, but this situation is different. It does not appear that this terrible assault would have been prevented by stronger gun control regulations. Law Newz
|
On October 03 2017 02:31 farvacola wrote:Apparently the shooter is the son of a famous FBI Most Wanted bank robber and a high stakes poker player himself, but otherwise lived an innocuous life. Show nested quote +Before he opened fire late Sunday, killing at least 58 people at a country music festival on the Las Vegas Strip, the gunman Stephen Paddock was living out his retirement as a high-stakes professional gambler in a quiet town outside Las Vegas.
Paddock, 64, would disappear for days at a time, frequenting casinos with his longtime girlfriend, neighbors said. Relatives also said Paddock had been living out his retirement years, visiting Las Vegas to gamble and take in concerts.
Eric Paddock said his brother often gambled in tens of thousands of dollars. "My brother is not like you and me. He plays high stakes video poker," he said. "He sends me a text that says he won $250,000 at the casino."
Eric Paddock said he showed the FBI three years of text messages from his brother and said he had no information whether Stephen Paddock had gambling debts or was financially troubled. "I have absolutely no information he lost a bunch of money. The casino would know that," he said.
Eric Paddock said his brother previously worked as an accountant but also had real estate investments, including houses and apartments around Orlando. He said Stephen Paddock had no kids and plenty of money to play with.
Eric Paddock said he did not know of any mental illness, alcohol or drug problems in his brother's life.
Their father was once on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list. He was a fugitive bank robber and rarely around for either son. "I was born on the run," said Eric Paddock.
He knew his brother owned a couple of handguns but was shocked at the rapid-fire weapon apparently used by Stephen Paddock in Las Vegas. He said his brother didn't hunt, barely shot his guns, and once took Eric Paddock's children on a skeet shooting trip paid for by the casinos. Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock enjoyed gambling, country music, lived quiet life before massacre https://lawnewz.com/high-profile/las-vegas-shooter-sued-another-casino-in-2012/
He sued a casino for tripping once. I bet there's some liquid poker people who have played with this guy.
Bumper fire should definitely be banned, even if it wasn't how he made them automatics. Seems a lot of potential for abuse.
|
Wait, Danglars just posted an article that suggests that prior attacks implicated gun control as a potential hurdle in the way of mass murderers in a way that yesterday's does not.
Progress!
|
|
On October 03 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +When faced with senseless, horrific shootings, people in Washington and on cable news often end up politicizing them in order to argue over gun laws, especially if the location where the incident took place has relatively relaxed regulations. With this morning’s awful mass shooting in Las Vegas, we may not hear such talk, since the suspect, Stephen Paddock, allegedly used a fully automatic weapon, which is illegal no matter what, unless legally purchased and registered prior to May 19, 1986, when they were basically banned under federal law. Of course, it’s possible that he reconfigured a legal semi-automatic weapon to make it fire automatically but that would then make it an illegal weapon.
While it’s true that Nevada does allow people to legally carry firearms in public, only legal weapons are covered by this. Paddock would have broken the law before even pulling the trigger, since—assuming he hadn’t been holding onto this weapon for more than 30 years—the law forbids having the gun in the first place. Not only that, but the shooting took place at the Mandalay Bay, which has a strict no-weapons policy. Such policies technically don’t have the weight of law, meaning they can’t remove your weapon, but they can tell you to leave and have you arrested for trespass if you don’t.
As far as legal firearms in Nevada go, it is legal to carry them openly in public, with exceptions for places like government buildings, airports, schools, and child care facilities. Permits are required to carry a concealed firearm, and they can be denied for a number of reasons, including if the applicant has an open warrant for their arrest, or if they have a criminal history including violence or stalking. In Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, all handguns must be registered. Convicted felons in the state are banned from possessing firearms altogether, as are people who are found to have unlawfully used controlled substances, and people who have been committed to mental health facilities or have been adjudicated mentally ill.
Other horrible attacks sparked debates over what types of guns should or should not be legal, or under what circumstances, but this situation is different. It does not appear that this terrible assault would have been prevented by stronger gun control regulations. Law Newz
This is illogical, and not backed up by evidence. You just need to compare the rate of this happening in the USA to countries where guns are banned to see the effect of stricter gun control. Fewer guns = smaller chance of a modded gun showing up.
|
Given that Congress very recently bent all the way over for Trump when it came to repealing SSA incompetency gun control rules, my bet is that this letter will be ignored.
|
On October 03 2017 02:42 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:When faced with senseless, horrific shootings, people in Washington and on cable news often end up politicizing them in order to argue over gun laws, especially if the location where the incident took place has relatively relaxed regulations. With this morning’s awful mass shooting in Las Vegas, we may not hear such talk, since the suspect, Stephen Paddock, allegedly used a fully automatic weapon, which is illegal no matter what, unless legally purchased and registered prior to May 19, 1986, when they were basically banned under federal law. Of course, it’s possible that he reconfigured a legal semi-automatic weapon to make it fire automatically but that would then make it an illegal weapon.
While it’s true that Nevada does allow people to legally carry firearms in public, only legal weapons are covered by this. Paddock would have broken the law before even pulling the trigger, since—assuming he hadn’t been holding onto this weapon for more than 30 years—the law forbids having the gun in the first place. Not only that, but the shooting took place at the Mandalay Bay, which has a strict no-weapons policy. Such policies technically don’t have the weight of law, meaning they can’t remove your weapon, but they can tell you to leave and have you arrested for trespass if you don’t.
As far as legal firearms in Nevada go, it is legal to carry them openly in public, with exceptions for places like government buildings, airports, schools, and child care facilities. Permits are required to carry a concealed firearm, and they can be denied for a number of reasons, including if the applicant has an open warrant for their arrest, or if they have a criminal history including violence or stalking. In Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, all handguns must be registered. Convicted felons in the state are banned from possessing firearms altogether, as are people who are found to have unlawfully used controlled substances, and people who have been committed to mental health facilities or have been adjudicated mentally ill.
Other horrible attacks sparked debates over what types of guns should or should not be legal, or under what circumstances, but this situation is different. It does not appear that this terrible assault would have been prevented by stronger gun control regulations. Law Newz This is illogical, and not backed up by evidence. You just need to compare the rate of this happening in the USA to countries where guns are banned to see the effect of stricter gun control. Fewer guns = smaller chance of a modded gun showing up. Exactly. If someone manages to mod their gun and shows up, and shoots a few hundred people, you aren't going to stop it by pointing at them and shouting "that's illegal!". What the person is doing with the gun is illegal to begin with, the status of the weapon itself as illegal is rather moot at that point. The people whose families were just destroyed aren't gonna give a shit that the weapon was legal or illegal. The fact that one is so easily able to obtain and modify an instrument for killing is the cause for concern here.
|
On October 03 2017 02:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 01:12 Broetchenholer wrote:On October 03 2017 00:46 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2017 20:45 Broetchenholer wrote: Yeah yeah, fully automatic weapons are regulated, you have to hit the trigger for those guns, which makes them completely worthless. Those semi automatic assault type weapons can basically not be used for anything....
At this point, arguing about automatic or not automatic is missing the point. There is virtually no reason to sell AR15s to your citizens. What are you afraid about? a Zombie apocalypse? Alien invasion? Or are those for deerhunting? As a strong moral check check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, of course. Are you supposed to shake off the yokes of a future tyrannical government with just pistols? Allright, so all western countries are just morons for trusting the democratic process then? I remember the reunification of Germany, when all those guys with AKMs murdered the tyrannical government, mowed down the NVA. And when those tanks roled out afterwards, thank god my father had an antitank missile he bought before or i would not be here today. How exactly are AR-15s in the hands of your population a moral check? Either your government is willing to use force against you, then AR-15s won't solve the problem, because you are going to get airstriked. Or they are not, in which case your AR-15 is either useless or you are a murderer for killing your government with it. I cannot see a single scenario in which the population being armed to the teath with handguns and semi-automatic rifles will prevent or stop an illegal activity by the state. Please tell me how you think such a scenario would look like. Other western nations are forgetting the lessons of history. You should remember you own history, where gun registries were used by the National Socialists to disarm the population. The Weimar republic had strict gun control laws even before that. My great country was aided in its rebellion by an armed populace against the dictatorial English regime. Despite your trollish hystericals, it's sound doctrine. Tyranny creeps. It won't start with tanks on your boulevard, it's the policeman enforcing an unjust law. They know giving actions the appearance of routine police work/enforcement is key to their success. Airstriking will prompt more armed rebellions, because the population is already armed. Frankly, if you want to defend your home against armed robbers or robbers with a badge, I don't care if you think your AR-15 is your weapon of choice rather than a glock. I'll draw the line at fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers, but pick your semi-auto handgun or rifle at your leisure. I've seen enough threats of state violence against current weapon holders to make the threat legitimate.
As far as I know most governments fall because their military stops supporting them or another government forces them out. Tsar Russia fell due to the military refusing to kill protestors and losing in WW1, leading to the Soviets forming and finally the one with the biggest stick (due to good PR and policies for the time and place) taking over.
The biggest check on any government is a military that values its people more than the government itself. If the military is willing to air strike you, then no weapon you have is useful. If they instead say it is an unlawful order and bring down the government you have the final leg in checks and balances working. The hard part is not giving them too much power so they remove anything that doesn't please them.
|
On October 03 2017 02:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 01:12 Broetchenholer wrote:On October 03 2017 00:46 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2017 20:45 Broetchenholer wrote: Yeah yeah, fully automatic weapons are regulated, you have to hit the trigger for those guns, which makes them completely worthless. Those semi automatic assault type weapons can basically not be used for anything....
At this point, arguing about automatic or not automatic is missing the point. There is virtually no reason to sell AR15s to your citizens. What are you afraid about? a Zombie apocalypse? Alien invasion? Or are those for deerhunting? As a strong moral check check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, of course. Are you supposed to shake off the yokes of a future tyrannical government with just pistols? Allright, so all western countries are just morons for trusting the democratic process then? I remember the reunification of Germany, when all those guys with AKMs murdered the tyrannical government, mowed down the NVA. And when those tanks roled out afterwards, thank god my father had an antitank missile he bought before or i would not be here today. How exactly are AR-15s in the hands of your population a moral check? Either your government is willing to use force against you, then AR-15s won't solve the problem, because you are going to get airstriked. Or they are not, in which case your AR-15 is either useless or you are a murderer for killing your government with it. I cannot see a single scenario in which the population being armed to the teath with handguns and semi-automatic rifles will prevent or stop an illegal activity by the state. Please tell me how you think such a scenario would look like. Other western nations are forgetting the lessons of history. You should remember you own history, where gun registries were used by the National Socialists to disarm the population. The Weimar republic had strict gun control laws even before that. My great country was aided in its rebellion by an armed populace against the dictatorial English regime. Despite your trollish hystericals, it's sound doctrine. Tyranny creeps. It won't start with tanks on your boulevard, it's the policeman enforcing an unjust law. They know giving actions the appearance of routine police work/enforcement is key to their success. Airstriking will prompt more armed rebellions, because the population is already armed. Frankly, if you want to defend your home against armed robbers or robbers with a badge, I don't care if you think your AR-15 is your weapon of choice rather than a glock. I'll draw the line at fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers, but pick your semi-auto handgun or rifle at your leisure. I've seen enough threats of state violence against current weapon holders to make the threat legitimate. You appear to draw a false conclusion from whatever you pick from German history. Even an armed poulace would not have resisted the NSDAP's lead in any way. While it is not undisputed by scholars, it's rather safe to assume that most everyone not affected by their early actions had their favourite topic that the Nazis catered. Be it eradicating unemployment, empowerment against the winners of WW1, finding a common scapegoat, ceating a German Superstate. Just look at Göbbels... + Show Spoiler + And think again, whether the supposed disarmament of civilians, which, if you had read the wikipedia article carefully you might have known, or you willingly left it out, targeted Jews as well as Sinti an Roma and not the broad populace, actually happened. Or reconsider your assumption that an armed populace would actually have resisted Hitler and not waved their arms in approval.
What I also find incredibly funny is the following sentence:
Yes, this is actually Danglars posting! Tyranny creeps. It won't start with tanks on your boulevard, it's the policeman enforcing an unjust law. Lmfao that's exactly what GreenHorizon is complaing about - among other things. Finally we know you agree on a theoretical level, just not when it comes to PoCs.
|
On October 03 2017 02:42 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:When faced with senseless, horrific shootings, people in Washington and on cable news often end up politicizing them in order to argue over gun laws, especially if the location where the incident took place has relatively relaxed regulations. With this morning’s awful mass shooting in Las Vegas, we may not hear such talk, since the suspect, Stephen Paddock, allegedly used a fully automatic weapon, which is illegal no matter what, unless legally purchased and registered prior to May 19, 1986, when they were basically banned under federal law. Of course, it’s possible that he reconfigured a legal semi-automatic weapon to make it fire automatically but that would then make it an illegal weapon.
While it’s true that Nevada does allow people to legally carry firearms in public, only legal weapons are covered by this. Paddock would have broken the law before even pulling the trigger, since—assuming he hadn’t been holding onto this weapon for more than 30 years—the law forbids having the gun in the first place. Not only that, but the shooting took place at the Mandalay Bay, which has a strict no-weapons policy. Such policies technically don’t have the weight of law, meaning they can’t remove your weapon, but they can tell you to leave and have you arrested for trespass if you don’t.
As far as legal firearms in Nevada go, it is legal to carry them openly in public, with exceptions for places like government buildings, airports, schools, and child care facilities. Permits are required to carry a concealed firearm, and they can be denied for a number of reasons, including if the applicant has an open warrant for their arrest, or if they have a criminal history including violence or stalking. In Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, all handguns must be registered. Convicted felons in the state are banned from possessing firearms altogether, as are people who are found to have unlawfully used controlled substances, and people who have been committed to mental health facilities or have been adjudicated mentally ill.
Other horrible attacks sparked debates over what types of guns should or should not be legal, or under what circumstances, but this situation is different. It does not appear that this terrible assault would have been prevented by stronger gun control regulations. Law Newz This is illogical, and not backed up by evidence. You just need to compare the rate of this happening in the USA to countries where guns are banned to see the effect of stricter gun control. Fewer guns = smaller chance of a modded gun showing up.
I don't even have concrete thoughts about gun control and I agree this is really illogical.
It's my understanding that the US it's legal to sell weapons that are fully capable of sustained automatic fire except for the trigger mechanism (which is probably not *too* big of a bar but still...). So from there it's just a matter of a single component or a workaround (bump firing or other such thing) to achieve automatic fire. It's not like he took a revolver or single shot rifle and made it an automatic. These weapons seem often downscaled slightly from the military automatic versions to the legal semi-automatic configurations. So idk why the debate over what should be allowed isn't relevant.
|
I can't help but think if this dude at least had annual mental health check ups, this probably wouldn't have happened.
|
|
|
|