Mass shooting in Orlando - Politics

[3db]

The 2nd amendment is a provision for the populace to stand up to a government gone tyrannical. At the time it was written the standard arms available to the populace was pretty much what standing military around the world had.

It's an internal balance of power when something has gone horribly wrong

Sometimes, you need to step outside a situation to see the truth..

The right to bare arms dates back was in the days of the War of Independance and yet this outdated right to bear arms still clings on. Hell, the British are the American's number one ally. With today's human and civil rights, the original reason to bear arms in the US in today's world no longer holds true and its just a crutch for boys to keep their toys. Nothing more. Spouting protection of civil rights is nothing more than NRA propaganda. Unfortunately, with NRA controlling the interests and pockets of of politicians, the truth will never be seen.

 

[everettT]

So the constitution should be thrown out? It has served this country well and should continue. If there is to be a change it is by the will of the people and an act of Congress.

 

[Steve81]

I'm just saying I am leery of letting some watchlist or no-fly list, created and controlled in secret by a govt institution, revoke a Constitutionally guaranteed right. It is a slippery slope.

It's less slippery if individuals can appeal to a judge if they feel they're wrongly denied. As it is, it's clearly not a great idea to ignore data that indicates certain individuals may be a terrorist threat. Will there be false positives? Of course. There are false positives with the no fly list now. But its easier to deal with them on a case by case basis than explain after the fact why we didn't act on the information we had.

 

[highfigh]

Depends on the layout of the club (and his knowledge of it), any tactical training the guy might have had, etc. If there was a natural choke point he could take advantage of, that would make it rather difficult to tackle the guy.

Someone could have picked up a bar stool and clubbed him with it, or a group could have charged him, like what happened on Flight 93.

 

[Steve81]

Someone could have picked up a bar stool and clubbed him with it, or a group could have charged him, like what happened on Flight 93.

"Could have" and what people actually do when faced with the shock of that sort of situation are two very different things.

 

[highfigh]

The Catholics taught me not to kill at the age of 6. Gotta give 'em that much. It also seems like they provide a world wide retreat for gay men and women. Actions speak louder than words.

And yet, the RC church is responsible for so many other bad things. The Commandments were based on old teachings, they didn't originate in Catholicism.

 

[highfigh]

"Could have" and what people actually do when faced with the shock of that sort of situation are two very different things.

The passengers on Flight 93 realized they weren't going to make it and they acted- out of at least 100 club patrons, it surprises me, especially if drinking has occurred. We all know how alcohol acts as a form of "liquid courage", right?

 

[highfigh]

Compared to muslims preaching hate from mosques, that number is inconsequential. And, just in case you're thinking about it, the Westboro Baptist whackos have no backers aside from themselves.

I was going to wonder how they're doing, now that their Pastor is gone but I did a search for their recent activities and yeah, they're still out there (literally and figuratively).

 

[GO-NAD!]

The passengers on Flight 93 realized they weren't going to make it and they acted- out of at least 100 club patrons, it surprises me, especially if drinking has occurred. We all know how alcohol acts as a form of "liquid courage", right?

And, I would guess that it's easier to screw up the courage to charge someone holding a boxcutter, rather than an AR-15.

 

[Steve81]

With today's human and civil rights

It bears keeping in mind that humans have a fundamental right to self defense as well. Sometimes that right involves the use of deadly force.

 

[everettT]

With the number of times he reloaded, the Facebook posts, and phone calls to 911 and news station, it would seem he could have been rushed. Being that time of morning and with alcohol and probably drugs involved maybe not.

 

[Steve81]

And, I would guess that it's easier to screw up the courage to charge someone holding a boxcutter, rather than an AR-15.

In addition, the people on Flight 93 were cognizant that it wasn't an ordinary hijacking, i.e. it wasn't just their lives at stake.

 

[GO-NAD!]

It bears keeping in mind that humans have a fundamental right to self defense as well. Sometimes that right involves the use of deadly force.

No argument with that statement, at all. I have no qualms about somebody using a firearm to protect themselves and their families from home invaders. I do have a problem with people going around armed in public though. When you are carrying around a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/11/mich-woman-who-shot-at-shoplifters-gets-18-months-probation-vows-to-never-help-anybody-again/

 

[Steve81]

When you are carrying around a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail...

There's some truth to that, particularly when you consider how common issues like road rage are. Conversely, I'm not sure that legal CC permit holders are a significant source of crime either. Personally I don't carry in public, for a few reasons. It's difficult to get a carry permit in my state, I don't really feel much need to since I don't frequent high crime areas, many establishments don't allow firearms regardless of whether you have a permit, etc. That said, I'm always prepared to defend myself and my family with other means when we're out and about.

 

[3db]

So the constitution should be thrown out? It has served this country well and should continue. If there is to be a change it is by the will of the people and an act of Congress.

Yes but the NRA is in the back pocket of many of the congressman so to have a free vote on this is kinda moot at this point.

 

[3db]

It bears keeping in mind that humans have a fundamental right to self defense as well. Sometimes that right involves the use of deadly force.

I agree to self defense but self defense should not allow an individual to carry an assault rifle. That should be prohibited.

 

[3db]

No argument with that statement, at all. I have no qualms about somebody using a firearm to protect themselves and their families from home invaders. I do have a problem with people going around armed in public though. When you are carrying around a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/11/mich-woman-who-shot-at-shoplifters-gets-18-months-probation-vows-to-never-help-anybody-again/

Maybe the first amendment to this gun law should be that carrying firearms in public should be prohibited.

 

[GO-NAD!]

This is ridiculous:
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/06/15/this-reporter-bought-an-ar-15-assault-rifle-in-7-minutes.html

I understand that processes vary state-to-state, but if this is typical, it's wrong. I would guess that the "background check" consisted of a quick search in some database(s). Of course, we all understand the limitations of databases - $hit in, $hit out. Up here, you Possession and Acquisition Licence application will go to the RCMP and there will be a real background check. You have to provide character references and if your spouse nixes the idea, your application goes into the shredder. If you are getting separated, or there's been a recent separation, expect your application to receive added scrutiny. This process will take several weeks. Even if you changed nothing else, but had a mandated waiting period, it might save many lives. Because, the greatest number of gun deaths in the US - by a wide margin - are suicides.

 

[Steve81]

I agree to self defense but self defense should not allow an individual to carry an assault rifle. That should be prohibited.

As noted earlier, my problem is with the definition of an "assault weapon". For semi-auto rifles, thats:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock; Pistol grip; Bayonet mount; Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one; Grenade launcher mount

None of that speaks to the actual performance of the weapon, i.e. caliber, rate of fire, etc. which actually determine how powerful/lethal it is. This is an "assault weapon", but this isn't. For all practical purposes, they're the same gun with different cosmetics. Both are chambered for 22 Long Rifle, which is mostly utilized for target practice and shooting the occasional varmint, and far less useful for even something small like a coyote, let alone a human.

 

[Chu Gai]

Maybe the first amendment to this gun law should be that carrying firearms in public should be prohibited.

This story, among others, illustrates such a proposition isn't necessarily a good idea. Of note, I don't hear much from Congress about the carnage that goes on Chicago. 7 dead last weekend. Many more shot.