Crime Las Vegas Mass Shooting

[faustian]

The state laws that exist, which ban the formation of private militias prove that you are wrong regarding the 2nd.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Private+Militias

Supremacy Clause means that the US Constitution supersedes any state law in US Constitutional matters which means that the 2nd Amendment supersedes any state constitution or state statute or state caselaw precedent or state regulation. The question of what qualifies as a militia under the 2nd would be answered by regional US federal district and circuit courts which are all bound by the SCOTUS which is tasked with devotion to the US Constitution.

States' rights exist, and the hierarchy method of binding legal authority supports this, but when the issue involves a Constitutionally protected right then the State is put in its place as the beta to the Fed's alpha. Lest we forget the US Civil War which actually tested this

You are misunderstanding Miller. Miller tied the idea of gun ownership to militias, specified as the current military. That means it was for protection of the country, not protection from the government. Furthermore, in Dennis vs. the United States the Court made it clear that people do not have the right to take up arms against the government.

In Miller the court held that (a) states' rights aren't violated by US Constitutional law in issues of US Constitutional law, and (b) the 2nd Amendment's operative clause is conditional on its justification clause when it comes to military weaponry

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
​

So no 2nd Amendment violation in this case because the prohibited weapon is not one which would normally be used in military defense.

That means it was for protection of the country, not protection from the government.

"A government of the people, by the people, for the people" and so ipso facto, protection of the government is protection of citizens first and foremost and this includes protection of citizens from government. Protection of citizens from government is why the Revolutionary War occurred and the DOI and US Constitution now exist in the first place

Nothing in the opinion implies that the 2nd Amendment defines the country as anything other than its citizenry nor is there any argument made that the 2nd applies to government rather than citizens.

"Miller tied the idea of gun ownership to militias, specified as the current military. That means it was for protection of the country, not protection from the government."

I'll ask you, what do you think "the country" consists of?

Unconditional faith in government by some is why constitutional protections are required for all

 

[rokzilla]

Me too. Just no weapons designed to kill and nothing else. Im not telling you how to live your life or what you should think on this opinion. I just like having this discussion. As i have said before, some citizens of USA, as they should, are in fear.

And some countries are afforded their "peace of mind" because the United States has the biggest weapon arsenal in the world.

 

[The Witcher]

And some countries are afforded their "peace of mind" because the United States has the biggest weapon arsenal in the world.

The military has nothing to do with armed citizens, do they? Also helps we have a wall of water with minimal illegal immigrants and firearms.

 

[Zankou]

El anciano is a troll account, pay no mind.

 

[EL GOAT]

where can I find those charts at the bottom?

IDK, they were put on a powerpoint slide....I have no idea.

 

[EL GOAT]

where can I find those charts at the bottom?

Actually nevermind, he did provide the source.

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

 

[icecoldvovchanchyn]

Knuckledusters?
Baton?
Taser?
Mace?

DIPSHIT

those aren't firearms which is what we are discussing. btw I could easily kill you with a baton or brass knuckles

 

[icecoldvovchanchyn]

Australia, lol

nothing but cucks

 

[Limbo Pete]

Founding fathers really didn't trust the common man. Mostly just huge elitists. Constitution was heavily influenced by the need for a centralized system for raising troops in defense of wealthy property owners.
"Well regulated militia? Sure. We gotta have something for when the debt ridden vets start raising mobs because their lives havent improved since the war, or when/if the slaves get fiesty."

 

[Armbars]

It makes me sick that this happened. And no matter what their likely political affiliations were, they certainly did not deserve this. Because of the hostile climate Trump has created, I fear we will see more of this. It is highly unlikely this would happen under an Obama or Hillary administration. However we must play with the hand we are dealt and aid the victims in any way we can

Ohh great, look here. Don't ever mention the Muslim religion when ISIS kill people. But we'll blame Trump for maniacs.

You fucking liberals are vile at times.

 

[The Witcher]

those aren't firearms which is what we are discussing. btw I could easily kill you with a baton or brass knuckles

i wouldnt have been so rude if you didnt call me a dipshit. you said all weapons are designed to kill, which they are not

 

[The Witcher]

Australia, lol

nothing but cucks

people who call people cucks normally indicates one thing mate. and its always ironic.

 

[icecoldvovchanchyn]

people who call people cucks normally indicates one thing mate. and its always ironic.

never once been cucked in all my days

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Maybe we trust our government more I guess? Aussies are pretty laid back (New Zealanders even more so). Being where we are I guess it's easier to be chill. Not that we can avoid world politics, we always back the US but we are strong trading partners with China so that may cause issues down the line, but I digress.

I get the sporting part of shooting I think, I just don't get the requirement for the really big weaponry, I've already said that though. Hawaii does sound like fun though! I was actually meant to go there for a work conference this Jan but it got switched to Japan.

I work for a US firm, and I'll tell you right now the one thing I wasn't bringing up at our regional conference was Donald Trump. One guy did when we were having a few drinks after work and yeah, the US guy got a bit offended and fair enough, i stayed right out of it. I understand when foreigners talking about your domestic politics would piss you off, it did when Zack De La Rocha did that when I saw RATM but eh. The thing is US domestic politics often affect us Aussies as we are allies so we definitely need to take notice I think.

I've done the NY, Vegas and LA stints, went to Miami, Boston, Washington DC, San diego.. My favourite was Texas though, did San Antonio, Houston, Dallas and Austin, Austin is a great city, shitloads of fun. Work that out, I love Texas and I hate guns ha ha. The Texans are a lot like country Aussies I reckon, i could relate.

You've seen quite a bit of the US. Nice! Sorry you got fucked out of Hawaii. Enjoy Japan.

As for "really big weaponry", not sure what that means. Neither the AR15 nor the bullet fired would be considered big. Now .50BMG, that's big! Not sure I've heard of one being used in a crime though.

Bannon warns: “end of everything” if Trump supports gun controls — President Trump may say he's a defender of gun ownership rights, but with all the gun control pressure he'll be under after Las Vegas, how do we know he'll resist it — especially after the debt limit deal with Chuck Schumer

What's trump gonna do? Is Bannon worried that Congress will produce anti-gun legislation for him to pass? How much damage is he going to do with executive orders?

Machine guns have been banned since the 30s. Semi auto rifles were banned from 94 to 04 without the courts overturning.

It's time to get the lawyers involved to see what can be banned in regards to Semi auto rifles imo.

Not true. Not true.

The lawyers got involved. There were a couple important SCOTUS decisions that came about since the sunsetting of the AWB. They ruled that individuals had a Constututional right to keep and bear arms, that states had to observe that right, and that banning a class of arms commonly held (such as semi-auto pistols) is against the law. If you can't ban semi-auto pistols you sure as fucking shit can't ban semi-auto rifles. One would have to be borderline retarded to think pistols were more protected than rifles. Any person who isn't a moron would have to agree that rifles are the most commonly appropriate tools for military/militia work. In Miller SCOTUS used as criteria whether or not the weapon was useful for a militia. They said it's protected if it is. So you do the math.

The state laws that exist, which ban the formation of private militias prove that you are wrong regarding the 2nd.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Private+Militias

You are misunderstanding Miller. Miller tied the idea of gun ownership to militias, specified as the current military. That means it was for protection of the country, not protection from the government. Furthermore, in Dennis vs. the United States the Court made it clear that people do not have the right to take up arms against the government.

Can you please quote exactly what I said that you think is wrong and then quote from your article whatever contradicts me?

Miller tied the protection of specific weaponry to militia use. Nowhere was it challenged that Miller had no personal right to own a gun or that he himself had to be part of a militia. Where are you getting that Miller ruled militias to be the same as a current army? Your link talks about private militias. They are certainly not the military.

As for this rebellion thing, which I'm not sure of its relevancy to the discussion, your link says that idea lacks merit when there's opportunity for peaceful and orderly change. That seems to mean that if there isn't then taking up arms would be the last resort to fix the issue.

I can't find a single law that lets someone perch in a room, and rain down gunfire on a crowd of innocents... this guys 'arsenal' would run him about 100k in just what is in the room. I doubt giving him an extra hurdle would've done mich more than slow him down a little in finding what he wanted.

100k? I'd love to see your math. I'd be surprised if it's half that.

 

[rokzilla]

The military has nothing to do with armed citizens, do they? Also helps we have a wall of water with minimal illegal immigrants and firearms.

It does in a sense. Other countries have this uber sense of safety because America's the world police. Part of the reason the American government, despite what some people will have you believe, can't do whatever it wants is because there is a giant armed civilian population. That armed population keeps the government relatively in check as far as complete overreach and as long as we have guns the United States will never fall into a facist dictator state. So in essence people complaining that we don't need them now, are completely focused in the moment and not for the future. If the government takes guns, starts overreaching and becomes out of control, who will be there to stop it? Right now America meddles in everything, which is all fine and well but what happens when America needs saving?

Let me put it to you like this. Would you feel safe if America pulled all of its troops from around the world and just left the world to do its own thing?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

None of this conflicts with the general principle I posted. If the purpose of bearing the military weapon is for militia related activity then it would be contradictory to prohibit said possession. "Militia duty" can be interpreted somewhat broadly here.



I agree with the sentiment, but it is an interpretation. It's not explicitly stated in the language of the 2nd A. It almost seems like the drafters of the 2nd A were being deliberately ambiguous.

"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."

The language is weird because there's an operative clause stating the right (right of citizens to keep and bear Arms) but before that there's a clause justifying the purpose of the right (a regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state)

So there's disagreement over whether the operative clause is conditional on the justification clause, i.e. are you only allowed to have guns for militias

Again, I agree with you, that guns should be allowed for individual self-defense. Thankfully, we're not the only ones who feel this way as this has become the majority interpretation. But the ambiguity exists because of the language which means there will always be argument over the right to keep and bear arms

EDIT: And to make clear, cause I kinda got off track from the point of my original post, there's a distinction between guns commonly used for self-defense and military weaponry. This is where the keep vs bear question comes into play: when it involves military weaponry.

Thanks. The point I want to touch on is how to read the operative clause. SCOTUS recently ruled on that. They said that while the prefatory clause announces a purpose, it doesn't limit the scope of the operative clause. The individual right to keep and bear has been settled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

 

[floivanus]

You've seen quite a bit of the US. Nice! Sorry you got fucked out of Hawaii. Enjoy Japan.

As for "really big weaponry", not sure what that means. Neither the AR15 nor the bullet fired would be considered big. Now .50BMG, that's big! Not sure I've heard of one being used in a crime though.





What's trump gonna do? Is Bannon worried that Congress will produce anti-gun legislation for him to pass? How much damage is he going to do with executive orders?





Not true. Not true.

The lawyers got involved. There were a couple important SCOTUS decisions that came about since the sunsetting of the AWB. They ruled that individuals had a Constututional right to keep and bear arms, that states had to observe that right, and that banning a class of arms commonly held (such as semi-auto pistols) is against the law. If you can't ban semi-auto pistols you sure as fucking shit can't ban semi-auto rifles. One would have to be borderline retarded to think pistols were more protected than rifles. Any person who isn't a moron would have to agree that rifles are the most commonly appropriate tools for military/militia work. In Miller SCOTUS used as criteria whether or not the weapon was useful for a militia. They said it's protected if it is. So you do the math.





Can you please quote exactly what I said that you think is wrong and then quote from your article whatever contradicts me?

Miller tied the protection of specific weaponry to militia use. Nowhere was it challenged that Miller had no personal right to own a gun or that he himself had to be part of a militia. Where are you getting that Miller ruled militias to be the same as a current army? Your link talks about private militias. They are certainly not the military.

As for this rebellion thing, which I'm not sure of its relevancy to the discussion, your link says that idea lacks merit when there's opportunity for peaceful and orderly change. That seems to mean that if there isn't then taking up arms would be the last resort to fix the issue.




100k? I'd love to see your math. I'd be surprised if it's half that.

Daniel defense ddm4 are 1,800 rifles, 2k after tax, $1,000 red dots on each, $200 bumpstocks, $100 each magazine ($30 extra in ammo each)
$39k for 12
3k for each daniel defense ar10, $100 each bipod, $1000 each red dot.
41k total there

guy was rich

 

[The Witcher]

It does in a sense. Other countries have this uber sense of safety because America's the world police. Part of the reason the American government, despite what some people will have you believe, can't do whatever it wants is because there is a giant armed civilian population. That armed population keeps the government relatively in check as far as complete overreach and as long as we have guns the United States will never fall into a facist dictator state. So in essence people complaining that we don't need them now, are completely focused in the moment and not for the future. If the government takes guns, starts overreaching and becomes out of control, who will be there to stop it? Right now America meddles in everything, which is all fine and well but what happens when America needs saving?

Let me put it to you like this. Would you feel safe if America pulled all of its troops from around the world and just left the world to do its own thing?

The fear of future government overreach and control.

Id feel safer than most countries if america bailed out but im am glad they are a major ally.

 

[Rational Poster]

Founding fathers really didn't trust the common man. Mostly just huge elitists. Constitution was heavily influenced by the need for a centralized system for raising troops in defense of wealthy property owners.
"Well regulated militia? Sure. We gotta have something for when the debt ridden vets start raising mobs because their lives havent improved since the war, or when/if the slaves get fiesty."

The other thing that I think is so cute is how they're so obessed with the idea that the government is out to get them and their guns.. when it's the opposite.

The government knows you're all retarded and can't be trusted not to kill each other with them so they feel bad and want to do something to stop it.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Daniel defense ddm4 are 1,800 rifles, 2k after tax, $1,000 red dots on each, $200 bumpstocks, $100 each magazine ($30 extra in ammo each)
$39k for 12
3k for each daniel defense ar10, $100 each bipod, $1000 each red dot.
41k total there

guy was rich

I saw an eotech that's maybe $500. I think 1k per red dot is a little high. I read he had three FN AR15's. Those are more like 1k rather than 2k. I saw one Surefire mag that would be $100, but the other gun had a $10 Pmag sticking out of it.

This isn't really something to argue about though. Just gear talk.