Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

The issue is marketing *and* the ability of the weapon to kill people. There no justification in a civil society to market a military grade semi-automatic rifle for sale to civilians.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

All weapons have the ability to kill people . . . hell, many household items can do it too.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

Be fairly impressive to see someone kill 61 people and wound over 400 others with a rolling pin in 10 minutes…

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

You're not going to bludgeon 60 people to death with a George Foreman grill in full view of the public, you wouldn't stab 60 either before you were stopped.

I don't know why we are even discussing this or why it's even news, they're happy with the situation and feel burying those children at Sandy Hook iand else where is a price worth paying, well let them get on with it then.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

grow up both of you, no need for petty crap like that :rolleyes:

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

It would be "impressive" to manage it with a single gun as well.

The guy had a total of 14 x .223 [AR15] rifles, 9 x .308 rifles, and a handgun.
He used bump stocks to allow quick repeat firing, similar to fully automatic rifles (AR15's are semi-auto).

[ The US has since banned them ].

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

Surely a person owning that many guns* would/should be flagged up on a database somewhere . . . unless he acquired them by other means?

* gun collectors probably wouldn't have 14 of the same rifle.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

No.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0074.htm

Also, in some States, guns bought/sold privately at gun shows (by individuals, not registered Fireams dealers) are exempt from registration requirements.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

I have some extended family in California (through Great Great Great parents).

The mother unfriended me when I posted about gun control she said "You take my 9mm out of my dead hands", I replied, "And thats exactly the problem".

I don't know why we cannot ban any NRA members from entering the UK, and treat the NRA as a banned group. (I wouldn't go as far as calling it a terrorist group).

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

What about this one https://nra.org.uk/

https://nra.org.uk/home-page/

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

I didn't know that.


But I'm talking about gun crazy USA, who misread the 2nd amendment to carry guns.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

With regulations like that there's no chance of controlling any type of firearm sales/ownership at all . . . has anything improved since around 1860? :D

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

not so much buffalo shit as there was back then;)

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

There was never any Buffalo shit, as they were actually Bison.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

You're nit-picking, Hom3r.;)

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

Well there is a big difference, have you tried washing your hands in a Buffalo :D

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

Tell us how the 2nd amendment was misread and the supreme court ruling on it.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

Well its worded "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."


Has no relevance in todays world and 200 years out of date.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

It seems pretty clear, and has stood at least three court challanges in the last 20 years.

I suspect those decisions have more weight than your opinion. ;)

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

The very problem is that the clause is routinely misquoted as you have done.

The original meaning in its 18th century context is pretty clear. Local militia regiments which augmented the regular army were common in Great Britain at the time. They were raised at county level and relied on local landowners for their officer class and other county men for the rank and file.

The security of the new Republic, and more pertinently its continued independence from the British Crown, relied on precisely the same military structure as was employed in the old country. A regular army acting as an expeditionary force in foreign wars, and an extensive local militia for territorial defence. This was established in the constitution of the federal republic and therefore stood as an obligation upon all States.

Individuals keeping and bearing arms in the context of a well-regulated local militia dedicated to the defence of the territory from insurrection or foreign invasion, is quite a different prospect than what the US now has, which is people armed to the teeth as an expression of their national identity and with little in the way of effective regulation in many places.

This however is a key weakness of the US system. The constitutional clause stands supposedly unamended, but because there is a Supreme Court charged with interpreting it, that interpretation has changed through time, according to the arguments of lawyers and the political views of the judges that at sit there for life once appointed. It’s not especially democratic.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

Its not mis-quoted at all, those are the exact words that form part of it.
https://constitution.congress.gov/co...n/amendment-2/

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

To quote only part of the sentence is to mis-quote it, if the missing part changes the sense of the part quoted - as is the case here.

The right to bear arms follows the assertion that a well-regulated militia is key to the security of the state and should be understood in that context. However, gradually, successive Supreme Court judgments have tended to view it in isolation and in line with their perception of their contemporary context. This approach is defended by criticising the alternative as “originalism”.

There are sound arguments for reinterpretation of a constitution for each new age but personally I’m sceptical whether it’s legitimate to do that via a panel of judges who are appointed for life and free to make rulings on the original text based on their political leanings. If a constitution is to be reinterpreted I think that should be done by direct political process over which the electorate has direct control. If the original meaning and intent of the right to bear arms no longer holds relevance in the 21st century then it should be debated and re-written, rather than leaving the 18th century text open to whatever meaning the current Supreme Court wishes to give it.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

No it isnt.

misquote
* a passage or remark quoted inaccurately.
* quote (a person or a piece of written or spoken text) inaccurately.

The bit I quoted was accurate.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

Yes it is.

If you quote part of a sentence so as to change the overall sense of the sentence, you have quoted inaccurately, as per that definition. The part of the sentence that you didn’t quote - the part that connects gun ownership to regulated militia and territorial defence - is important.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

No, it isnt. You can say it as many times as you want, and still be wrong.
It not a misquote as its not inaccurate, so unless you can point out which of the word or words I quoted are inaccurate, I suggest you move on.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

I’ve pointed it out a number of times, but seeing as you asked, here it is again.

The full clause is “ 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”.

You quoted “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The second half of the sentence is conditional on the first half. In quoting only half the sentence you changed its meaning. You misquoted it.

You’re welcome. ;)

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

Apparently it's still relevant to some even today.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

Yes, but let’s play Devils Advocate here and definitely say millions of Americans interpret the 2nd Amendment as just saying, the same, that it means, the right to bear arms.

That said, there have been 2 recent Supreme Court cases involving the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, while the court overturned blanket bans on handgun ownership in homes, in Chicago and Washington DC, the highest court of the land did prescribe limitations…

” the right to keep and bear arms is not ‘a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.’”

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

I expect Piers Morgan will be rattling a few people in the States with his views on firearms on his forthcoming Fox TV weeknight show and in his New York Times column.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

Indeed … and this is where it gets really tricky, because the precise regulation of handguns is carried out at state level, with the Supreme Court stepping in only when asked to. That recent judgment does in some way at least acknowledge that the right is conditional. Given that the condition, as stated in the constitution, is the need for a well regulated militia, the court must presumably have had that in mind. The question is, exactly how does the modern Supreme Court construe the need for a well regulated militia? Clearly the keeping of a gun at home is not directly connected to organised territorial defence because the States now all have their own uniformed National Guard. I can only imagine that they see the possession of guns in the hands of citizens as some sort of theoretical last line of defence. That still makes a lot of American gun culture perplexing to say the least.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

A lot of this must surely be driven by the long-term lobbying in the US by the gun industry making US gun culture the accepted norm and any reforms being portrayed as being anti-American.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

He has done.


Many NRA nutters wanted him deported, but it was pointed out that A) he is married to an American, B) He has dual citizenship, C) he's exercising his 1st amendment rights.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

Yup.
His new talkTV and Fox show starts in the Summer I believe so doubtless he'll be stirring up a bit of controversy then. His geographical location won't matter.

Re: Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
 

And as I have pointed out, what I quoted is not incorrect.
I have just quoted part of your post, that does not make it a misquote.
A partial quote is not a misquote, to be a misquote it would have to be inaccurate
[ any further argument about this will be removed, its going nowhere, and way off topic ].


As far as the "meaning" of the whole 2nd amendment goes, thats been debated for years (even centuries) and will no doubt continue to be.
The only people who know for sure died a very long time ago. However, the views of the US supreme court have been made clear more recently.