Crime Las Vegas Mass Shooting

[floivanus]

Just because we don't know how it's going to work or what degree it's going to work doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up and accept the status quo.

Many countries around the world have very different relationships with guns and most are doing much better than we are and we could probably learn a thing or two.

Any other country in the world have at least 200 million guns? With some estimates as high as 400 million? (Keep in mind pre 68 guns didn't need serial numbers)

Nobody needs a bumpfire stock to bumpfire a gun anyway. The argument really boils down to the 'death by 1,000 papercuts' sort of like jailing people in canada for wrong speak. Forget that crap here

 

[Iceberg Slim]

Just because we don't know how it's going to work or what degree it's going to work doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up and accept the status quo.

Many countries around the world have very different relationships with guns and most are doing much better than we are and we could probably learn a thing or two.

Ok, but I am a law abiding citizen. I fought for these freedoms in combat twice. If I'm going to give up my rights and disarm, I need assurance that the criminals have been disarmed as well. If you can't give me 100% certainly, then I prefer to keep my weapons and protect my family myself. Why can't i have guns again? because a mad man I never met did something horrible? What does that have to do with my weapons?

 

[Iceberg Slim]

Son, I'm one of the few willing to have a reasonable discussion here. Don't come at me with insults.
In order to get something like gun control through, you need people like me. Cunts like you will ruin it for people like Rational Poster that know how to have a civil discussion. Go do your fucking homework. Oh, and the dishes for mom too.

 

[Falsedawn]

Yeah nope

Article I, Section 8 (ratified in 1788): Congress has the power to declare war, raise armies, suppress rebellions, organizing militias, etc

The Bill of Rights was later added for the specific purpose of guaranteeing state and individual rights. That's when we got the 2nd Amendment. So your claim here that the 2nd A was originally intended to enumerate a federal power rather than individual right literally makes zero sense.

But let's go ahead and take a trip to bizarro world anyways and change the language:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Country, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Changes absolutely nothing in regards to individual rights. You're inventing a nonexistent state vs fed argument and using it to dismiss individual Constitutional protections. Very strange

"You guys are quoting the amendment without any of the historical context"

This literally made me laugh

"It's been perverted into an individual right as we've disregarded their intention of not having a standing army, but to act as if it was intended to mean an individual right is a retcon born entirely out of Scalia's reasoning in DC vs Heller."

Seriously man what the hell. I legit don't even know where to begin


How about we start with you actually reading the Second Amendment

Then check the date of Heller

Then ask someone how US law is created


Let's start with this. Then we can further explore why your assertions are utter bullshit by getting into the reasoning behind them. Not sure if the full Heller opinion is available to plebs online so PM me if you want a copy of the real deal.

Don't get discouraged, if you have trouble with this first assignment just let me know and I'll do whatever I can to misdirect you. Then I will besmirch you.

I await that besmirching.

The Hidden History of the Second Amendment

However, [George] Mason's main concern was not the creation of a standing army but the preservation of the militia. Mason personally owned three hundred slaves. He understood the critical role of the militia in preserving the slave system. He knew firsthand from service at the Philadelphia Convention that the North was not sanguine about the slavery compromise and he could not help fearing how congress would exercise its authority over the militia. Mason was simply using every device possible to stoke the fires of fear, fear his audience certainly shared.

Patrick Henry was even more direct. He drew the audience’s attention to the section of the Constitution that provides that no state may, without the consent of Congress, “engage in War, unless actually invaded,” and asked: “If you give this clause a fair construction, what is the true meaning of it? What does this relate to?” Henry answered this question as follows:

Not domestic insurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress…Congress, and Congress only, can call forth the militia.

If members of the audience were previously uncertain about the meaning of Mason and Henry’s warning, this had made it plain. Congress might want to leave the South defenseless against its slaves.

In one of his last speeches in the final days of the Convention, Patrick Henry raised the question of slavery in so direct a fashion that he appears to have violated the mores of that time and place. “In this state there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the northern states,” he began. He suggested that under its power to provide for the general defense, Congress might enlist blacks in the army and then emancipate them. “Slavery is detested,” he explained. In a moment he continued:

[T]hey will search that paper, and see if they have the power of manumission. And have they not sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defense and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power? This has no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it.

He sought to drive home the point that Congress would inevitably attempt to abolish slavery. “[A] decided majority of states have not the ties of sympathy and fellow-feeling for those whose interest would be affected by their emancipation. The majority of Congress is to the north, and the slaves are to the south.”

He will just post a pic and tell you to fuck off, like he does every other time he is cornered and degraded on here for his idiotic statements.

Obsession with daddy noted.

Go get your fucking shine box.

 

[My Spot]

That constitutes being a fan?

Fuck outta here trashbag.

"Perfectly fine to me."

 

[Rational Poster]

Ok, but I am a law abiding citizen. I fought for these freedoms in combat twice. If I'm going to give up my rights and disarm, I need assurance that the criminals have been disarmed as well. If you can't give me 100% certainly, then I prefer to keep my weapons and protect my family myself. Why can't i have guns again? because a mad man I never met did something horrible? What does that have to do with my weapons?

No one is calling for disarmament, so I don't know why you have to go to such an extreme to obfuscate this argument.

Do you not think that a 65 year old man buying 33 rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo within 12 months should raise some flags?

 

[makavelihhh]

Did you guys watch the shooter's brother interviews?

You can find them on youtube. I'm honestly shocked. It sounds unreal. I really want to believe that the brother is crazy too. Because the alternative scares me.

 

[TheGreatA]

Did you guys watch the shooter's brother interviews?

You can find them on youtube. I'm honestly shocked. It sounds unreal. I really want to believe that the brother is crazy too. Because the alternative scares me.

How so?

 

[Limbo Pete]

That constitutes being a fan?

Fuck outta here trashbag.

Legit lol at trashbag

 

[cincymma79]

If you don't live in the us we're a different culture
Hard to judge
Who are you to say you're better

 

[faustian]

I await that besmirching.

The Hidden History of the Second Amendment







Obsession with daddy noted.

Go get your fucking shine box.

So you read a secondary source which wouldn't even be cited in an office memo and you believe this holds precedence over literally the highest authorities of law in the United States

- US Constitution
- SCOTUS
- 200+ years of caselaw

I'll actually read this source tho. Might be interesting

 

[M3t4tr0n]

cuntiest of the cunts is schumer bringing up the budget after the attack

Like Trump in PR

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

Las Vegas Strip shooter prescribed anti-anxiety drug in June

Updated October 4, 2017 - 10:00 am
Stephen Paddock, who killed at least 58 people and wounded hundreds more in Las Vegas on Sunday with high-powered rifles, was prescribed an anti-anxiety drug in June that can lead to aggressive behavior, the Las Vegas Review-Journal has learned.

Records from the Nevada Prescription Monitoring Program obtained Tuesday show Paddock was prescribed 50 10-milligram diazepam tablets by Henderson physician Dr. Steven Winkler on June 21.

A woman who answered the phone at Winkler’s office would not make him available to answer questions and would neither confirm nor deny that Paddock was ever a patient.

Paddock purchased the drug — its brand name is Valium — without insurance at a Walgreens store in Reno on the same day it was prescribed. He was supposed to take one pill a day.

Diazepam is a sedative-hypnotic drug in the class of drugs known as benzodiazepines, which studies have shown can trigger aggressive behavior. Chronic use or abuse of sedatives such as diazepam can also trigger psychotic experiences, according to drugabuse.com.

'They can become aggressive’

“If somebody has an underlying aggression problem and you sedate them with that drug, they can become aggressive,” said Dr. Mel Pohl, chief medical officer of the Las Vegas Recovery Center. “It can disinhibit an underlying emotional state. … It is much like what happens when you give alcohol to some people … they become aggressive instead of going to sleep.”

Pohl, who spoke to the Review-Journal from the Netherlands, said the effects of the drug also can be magnified by alcohol.

A 2015 study published in World Psychiatry of 960 Finnish adults and teens convicted of homicide showed that their odds of killing were 45 percent higher during time periods when they were on benzodiazepines.

A year earlier, the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry published a study titled, “Benzodiazepine Use and Aggressive Behavior.” The authors wrote: “It appears that benzodiazepine use is moderately associated with subsequent aggressive behavior.”

Rest at:
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local...shooter-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-in-june/

 

[cincymma79]

No one is calling for disarmament, so I don't know why you have to go to such an extreme to obfuscate this argument.

Do you not think that a 65 year old man buying 33 rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo within 12 months should raise some flags?

Yeah. We have those laws. Not sure what happened

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Did you guys watch the shooter's brother interviews?

You can find them on youtube. I'm honestly shocked. It sounds unreal. I really want to believe that the brother is crazy too. Because the alternative scares me.

What did he say?

 

[LMP]

The left hates cops, but trust cops to protect them once guns are taken away.

The right loves cops. but doesn't trust them to protect them once guns are taken away.


Identity politics are strange.

 

[cincymma79]

Like Trump in PR

When he said he was going to wipe out their debt or when he sent the military in

 

[AlexDB9]

It seems that this man had a hereditary mental illness because his brother comes across as having a mental incapacity and it goes beyond finding out about his brothers acts in my opinion. I hope he is being taken care of and hopefully seeing a counselor

 

[Gutter Chris]

Ok, but I am a law abiding citizen. I fought for these freedoms in combat twice. If I'm going to give up my rights and disarm, I need assurance that the criminals have been disarmed as well. If you can't give me 100% certainly, then I prefer to keep my weapons and protect my family myself. Why can't i have guns again? because a mad man I never met did something horrible? What does that have to do with my weapons?

I agree with you 90 percent but I do sort of think its a bit of a disingenuous argument to act like the prevalence of fire arms has nothing to do with the amount of shooting deaths. Yours and mine might behave but they are extremely readily available to people who dont think like you and I and do infact misuse them

I think what we should really say and focus on is that as horrific as murder is we are willing to tolerate those risks so that law abiding folks may defend themselves. There are legit self defense shootings and cases of attackers fleeing at the sight of a gun (attempted crime isnt really kept track of)every day and I am willing to make the assumption that every year more people protect themselves than murder making it a right worth preserving. Its not a very emotional way of looking at it but thats the cold hard truth as I see it

 

[Rational Poster]

Yeah. We have those laws. Not sure what happened

Reportedly, he raised no flags because the rifles were purchased individually and never more than one.