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.