Today's shooting in America thread

[I'm With Stupid]

Then, why wasn’t it made the law of the land before the “round-the-clock sensationalized media coverage”?

Presumably because it hadn't been well researched at that point and the potential for widespread media coverage was more limited in the past. This isn't an American-specific phenomenon, incidentally. It applies equally to terrorist attacks in Europe, which is why they often appear in waves, because of copycat attacks inspired by the initial one.

I'm not sure there's a lot you can do about it nowadays, especially in the era of social media where the public are even less responsible with what they share than the professional media.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

You give a fuck, you can’t help yourself in replying.

I’m trying to explain your, and others, misconceptions to you.

I literally couldn’t care less what you (or anyone else without a vote) thinks, especially when arguments are often specious or simply patently false.

What you or anyone else here thinks, it won’t change 2A or my own gun ownership. However, perpetuating erroneous arguments is detrimental to the discussion.

If you’d like me to stop correcting the misperceptions, just say so and I’ll take your views under advisement.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

FWIW I agree with most of what you posted on page 248.


What I don't understand is the general consensus from the majority of gun owners their acceptance that 2A (and its numerous legal interpretations) is here to stay.

Because the Constitution Amendment process makes it impossible today and there would be a SCOTUS challenge to any Federal law that attempted to covertly overturn it legislatively.

You may notice that Roe vs Wade is not actually the case under consideration in the abortion debate right now. Rather, it is a STATE LAW that greatly restricts it. This is how you get a particular law in front of SCOTUS, do they can address it!

If there had been a straightforward “No more abortions!” it would have been considered unconstitutional . Instead, they push a shorter (15 weeks in this case) and even shorter (6 weeks in the Mississippi case) abortion cut off terms.

The charade allows the conservative Justices to address the entire Roe decision, and it looks like they’re going to state that the original decision was erroneous and should never have been affirmed under the Constitution in the 70s!

This is how Chicago, and thus Illinois, was forced to allow firearms ownership and Concealed Carry! You write a law, get it passed, then challenge it all the way up to SCOTUS, by claiming it’s unconstitutional. Once it gets there, the Justices can do whatever they want!

 

[stonerblue]

Odd how none of our usually quick off the mark thread starters haven't started a new thread about a 'Terrorist incident'' as this story was breaking..?

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Because the Constitution Amendment process makes it impossible today and there would be a SCOTUS challenge to any Federal law that attempted to covertly overturn it legislatively.

You may notice that Roe vs Wade is not actually the case under consideration in the abortion debate right now. Rather, it is a STATE LAW that greatly restricts it. This is how you get a particular law in front of SCOTUS, do they can address it!

If there had been a straightforward “No more abortions!” it would have been considered unconstitutional . Instead, they push a shorter (15 weeks in this case) and even shorter (6 weeks in the Mississippi case) abortion cut off terms.

The charade allows the conservative Justices to address the entire Roe decision, and it looks like they’re going to state that the original decision was erroneous and should never have been affirmed under the Constitution in the 70s!

This is how Chicago, and thus Illinois, was forced to allow firearms ownership and Concealed Carry! You write a law, get it passed, then challenge it all the way up to SCOTUS, by claiming it’s unconstitutional. Once it gets there, the Justices can do whatever they want!

I get how it works, but the whole argument against abolishing 2A (or at least proffering another amendment to the Constitution) appears to boil down to it being TFD which is a really shit excuse for essentially doing nothing.

 

[SWP's back]

 

[Slipper One]

Such a load of absolute wank in one post.

What an absolute wank of a reply, totally without substance.

 

[Slipper One]

I read those bits and it read to me like a list of excuses.

Excuses for what Trevor? These are the people dealing with gun violence every day and if they say that gun ownership is not the issue, but guns in the hands of criminals are, then surely they should know.

They understand that it's not the individual legally owning a gun that is the problem, it's the criminal element.

Banning guns would make no difference to gun death stats, because firearms would be still be brought across a porous border from the US, as they are now.

Outside of the major cities, gun violence is very low here and what we do have, is almost always attributed to drugs.

 

[Slipper One]

But you fail to understand that every other, mentally stable, pre-breakdown gun owner would likely have said the same things “I’m not a danger” and they weren’t, right up until they were.

I’m sure you’re a lovely friend and a great husband and father but I’m glad we don’t share the same social circle or suburb because you own a gun and I don’t want to be in the wrong place the day you’re no longer sane and rational and you snap. It likely will never happen but…. but it’s like playing the lottery. It’s unlikely one will win with any given ticket but someone tends to win each week anyway.

...........and I'm sure you're a very safe and considerate driver, but I don't want to be on the road when 'you' when you decide to use your phone, send a text, overtake, speed, drink/drive, run an amber or whatever people do when they cause accidents. Better to ban cars, because that would solve the problem.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Excuses for what Trevor? These are the people dealing with gun violence every day and if they say that gun ownership is not the issue, but guns in the hands of criminals are, then surely they should know.

They understand that it's not the individual legally owning a gun that is the problem, it's the criminal element.

Banning guns would make no difference to gun death stats, because firearms would be still be brought across a porous border from the US, as they are now.

Outside of the major cities, gun violence is very low here and what we do have, is almost always attributed to drugs.

Excuses for not tackling the wider issues surrounding gun ownership. The guy who just killed all those people in Buffalo had a LEGALLY owned assault style weapon. Not one single civilian has a legitimate reason for owning one of those weapons aside from simply wanting to own one.