Shooting at Mandalay Bay Resort (Las Vegas)

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Rammy Blue, 2 Oct 2017.

  1. ChicagoBlue

    ChicagoBlue

    Joined:
    10 Jan 2009
    inchy14 wrote:
    Never. Chicken or egg?

    I don’t live in a gated community, I live on a 24 acre park, with a church mission around the corner. During the day, it is idyllic, but at night we have the occasional person roaming the park (or sleeping rough) waiting for the morning soup kitchen. Often, they are moved on by the Police, but they have to see them from their car, so they get wise to where they can sleep.

    As I mentioned earlier, my next door neighbor has been burgled by a gang of teens. Upon questioning, the target was my house but they couldn’t get in without breaking windows and making noise, so they got in through my next door neighbors garage. I travel for a living, so I have an alarm system to protect my wife and home when I’m not home, and we have a dog. However, as someone trained in the use of handguns, we have an added layer of security. That’s it. I don’t walk around like Wyatt Earp and I don’t feel paranoid or “under siege,” as someone else described it. I am one of the millions of gun owners who have one, maintain a level of competency by regularly going to the range (which is usually full on a Tuesday morning when I go!), and keep it safely locked in a gun safe in my home. I am the poster child of responsible gun owner, and I don’t worry about my safety because I have done everything a responsible adult home owner can do to protect their family.

    Put another way, these guys....

    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...s/violent-burglar-stabbed-two-people-13754370

    ...end up with a death sentence if they try this at my house. I can live with that.
     
  2. ChicagoBlue

    ChicagoBlue

    Joined:
    10 Jan 2009
    Gray,

    I can only say your understanding of this issue is in opposition to the Supreme Court of the United States.

    That notwithstanding, 2A was NEVER about what you state in your first sentence above. It was about enabling the new (free) State governments to be able to rouse a militia to quell any uprisings or threats. This has been affirmed by subsequent court cases. Today, though, each State has their own National Guard, which many people usurps the need for “people to keep and bear arms.” Indeed, even the phrase “bear arms” has a different context today than it did in the 18th century.

    I don’t disagree with your overarching feeling that 2A is antiquated, but I am also cognizant of the fact that it has been a vital part (notice it is the Second Amendment, which many believe ascribes it added importance) of the history and development of the United States, from a colonial power to a full-fledged Republic, which has reached far beyond its original borders on the East coast.

    Additionally, understanding HOW any part of the Constitution can be repealed should help anyone understand how it is almost impossible to repeal this specific Amendment under the current political climate. Republicans control all three branches of the Federal Government, which makes it virtually impossible, but then they also control 38(?) of the 50 Governorships, and 75% are required for any repeal. That removes the “virtually” from th previous sentence!

    Here’s hoping the country can evolve, but the recent Presidential vote doesn’t bode well for any evolution of 2A.
     
  3. ChicagoBlue

    ChicagoBlue

    Joined:
    10 Jan 2009
    The warning comes while I am in a position to kill you. From there, there is only one action that saves your life...and it ain’t swinging anything in your hand! I don’t come looking for you, because I’m not the hunted, but the hunted. Rather, it is a warning to leave now OR you will be killed. I have no desire to kill anyone, but if you don’t understand that in my house I will defend my space and my family, then we will have to have that conversation in the afterlife!

    I do admire the strategizing, though. Impressively thought out....with the exception that I don’t need to be within swinging distance, my weapon travels a tad quicker than a nine iron, and the wardrobe door (which we don’t have!) is no match for a .40 cal S&W round!

    ;-)
     
  4. ChicagoBlue

    ChicagoBlue

    Joined:
    10 Jan 2009
    Armed robber with a gun gets shot dead.

    Cry me a fucking river!

    The “death sentence” is for threatening the life of someone on the street with a deadly weapon. If the guy had shot the guy after getting his money and cards, etc...what would you have said then? More importantly, what would the victim have said! EXACTLY...too dead to say a damned thing!

    I abhor personal violence, but I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with someone meeting force with an overwhelming, and proportionate, response, especially when fearing for one’s own life.

    If a guy punches you in the face once, do you punch him back once, or do you fight him enough to neutralize his threat to you? If so, how do you address someone with a gun held to you? How do you neutralize that threat without deadly force?

    I see fights on CCTV from downtown Manc all the time. Starts with a guy beating another guy. Next thing, people are headstomping? WTF? How do you meet THAT with appropriate and proportionate force? It is attempted murder, but if I got up and punched him such that he fell and it killed him, am I the victim or did I suddenly become the Perp? These are post facto fine lines that re meaningless when one feels like their life is in danger. I’ll take living and fighting charges over potential death any time.

    As they say in America, “No jury in the country would convict me for protecting my own life, even if it cost him his.”
     
  5. Ifwecouldjust.......

    Ifwecouldjust.......

    Joined:
    26 Jan 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    East Stand Level 1


    Your argument is correct and asking America to change the constitution would be like mission impossible...but that is the point that the NRA keep taking you back to. Every time some one shouts Gun control their response will always be the 'Constitution gives us the right to bear arms'. Maybe the focus should be

    'We agree that everyone has the right to bear arms however they shouldn't be able to purchase military attack style weapons capable of firing more than 900 rounds per minute (AR-15)'

    So maybe it should be about controlling what people can buy and also are they mentally capable

    I think its been pointed out that the number of children slaughtered at Sandy Hook was reduced because the shooter had to keep reloading (max of 10 bullets per clip) and on one occasion 11 children managed to get out of the class room whilst that was happening
     
  6. ChicagoBlue

    ChicagoBlue

    Joined:
    10 Jan 2009
    Ifwecouldjust wrote:
    Believe it or not, it wasn’t until a few years ago that this was actually really codified by Scalia’s Majority Opinion. That said, restrictions are clearly allowed, as even Scalia realized. Therein lies the solution, but therein lies the pushback. No-one seriously believes 2A gets repealed.

    You have fallen into a simple trap there. You have picked a sliver of the discussion (an altered AR-15 that is fitted with larger magazines) that negates the salient point. 900 rounds per minute requires two things: a bump stock and a 900 round magazine! A bump stock may soon be outlawed, because I think most people didn’t know they existed and now one has been used to basic turn a semi-automatic into an effectively automatic weapon, but I know of no 900 round magazines. I do know of 100 round AR drum magazines.

    The other trap is the “military attack style” description. It is one of the things that makes gun regulation so difficult. Everyone believes semi auto guns are here to stay. Those “military attack style” words are incendiary to some people, because they are a personal description designed to describe the cosmetic appearance, which is meaningless. At its heart, it is simply a semi-automatic handgun with a stock and a longer barrel. This is why AR-15s are so difficult to legislate against. Whatever cosmetic thing you change, an “AR-16” pops up slightly different in appearance, but with no change to its lethality whatsoever. It is toothless legislation.

    Agreed

    That must have been a handgun, but even a regular handgun can hold 13-15 rounds. Mine hold 12 in the magazine and one in the chamber (13), so it wouldn’t be a fruitless fight to get anything less than about 15-20 rounds banned. Bought even the mention of that word, if such legislation were floated, would mean they would fly off the shelves, because the history of gun control is grandfathering of weapons already in circulation. You can actually still buy a FULLY AUTOMATIC rifle, but it has to have been manufactured before 1986.That means such weapons are very expensive, but available to those who really want them!

    Many people believed that Sandy Hook would change things, but trying to enact new laws that would have stopped that event from happening were already in place! He was a young man who was troubled and stole his mother’s guns. They lived in a semi rural area, where guns are common, and his mother would still pass any background check today and those weapons are still legal.

    As one of the NRA talking points makes clear, and it is hard to refute, usually the laws in place would stop the people who have the guns from owning them....if we knew they were crazy when they went and bought them. Alas, just as happened in Sandy Hook, it was someone getting already illegal access to legal guns caused the problem...and as the NRA says, “You can’t fix crazy!”

    I am totally in favor of much stricter legislation for ownership, registration of ALL guns and licensing of owners. The “R” word is a serious “No way!” from the NRA and their supporters.
     

Share This Page