Incomprehensible mass shooting happens again

[Saylick]

That's exactly how the black security guard Jemel Roberson was killed and he was detaining a perp while working. Cops shot the first black guy they found.

Sorry, you're right. Let me correct myself.

Only the white guys in uniform are the good guys.

/s, in case I wasn't obvious enough.

 

[dlerious]

As this Supreme Court has explicitly claimed to believe in using original 18th century intent in interpreting the 2nd amendment (although that is an absolute lie, as they ignore the context of the amendment), he should have only been armed with nothing more powerful than a single shot, muzzle-loaded musket... which might have left 1 or 2 injured.

What about all the multiple round firearms in existence then? Search for volley gun, belton flintlock, Girandoni air rifle, duck foot pistol, Kalthoff repeater, or an early machine gun - the puckle gun.

 

[fskimospy]

What about all the multiple round firearms in existence then? Search for volley gun, belton flintlock, Girandoni air rifle, duck foot pistol, Kalthoff repeater, or an early machine gun - the puckle gun.

Their (made up) reasoning was weapons in common use at the time and semiautomatic guns were not in common use anywhere as of 1789.

 

[Pens1566]

We're the only country with

1) violent music/movies/video games
2) mental health issues
3) lack of doors
4) not enough thoughts and prayers

 

[biostud]

please don't take my comment as callousness towards the people of Denmark - it's entirely a dig at our failure in the United States to enact meaningful change and to do something that actually might protect people from harm.

No worries, I could taste the bitterness in comment all across the Atlantic Ocean.

 

[eelw]

We're the only country with

1) violent music/movies/video games
2) mental health issues
3) lack of doors
4) not enough thoughts and prayers

Ban rooftops and womens clothing

 

[vi edit]

I'll still never forget walking up to my starting time corral for the 2019 Rock and Roll Marathon in Vegas. This was 2 years after the shooting at Mandalay Bay. And looking up and seeing cops in full tactical gear overlooking the entire thing.

I've never been at a race like it and never have a desire to again. That's not freedom.

 

[nOOky]

I'll still never forget walking up to my starting time corral for the 2019 Rock and Roll Marathon in Vegas. This was 2 years after the shooting at Mandalay Bay. And looking up and seeing cops in full tactical gear overlooking the entire thing.

I've never been at a race like it and never have a desire to again. That's not freedom.

My niece was a first responder in Las Vegas at the time, she was right there for that shooting. She quit a few months after that, she didn't mind the blood etc. of the job. It was the fact that people could do such horrible things to themselves and others that got to her.

 

[eelw]

I've never been at a race like it and never have a desire to again. That's not freedom.

This happen for the Canada Day celebration in Ottawa. People complained why they had to be searched with metal detectors before entering - adults and children. Like if the freedum convoy people weren’t threatening to arrest Trudeau, maybe the extra precautions wouldn’t be necessary.

 

[dawp]

I suspect nothing is really going to change until a state legislature gets stormed and lawmakers are slaughtered, similar to Jan 6 but worse.

 

[thilanliyan]

I suspect nothing is really going to change until a state legislature gets stormed and lawmakers are slaughtered, similar to Jan 6 but worse.

Yeah, until it affects them directly nothing will change.

 

[dlerious]

Their (made up) reasoning was weapons in common use at the time and semiautomatic guns were not in common use anywhere as of 1789.

Why common use? Belton wanted to sell his gun to the first congress. Their existence was common knowledge even if their use wasn't. The Girardoni air rifle was used by the Austrian army in 1780 as well as later in the napoleonic wars.. Does the first amendment apply to the internet, TV, or phone? They didn't exist back then.

 

[vi edit]

I suspect nothing is really going to change until a state legislature gets stormed and lawmakers are slaughtered, similar to Jan 6 but worse.

I don't know if it's because it's intentionally suppressed or just lost in the insanity that has been the last 5 years of our lives, but lest we forget about the congressional baseball game that got fired on. We have current members of congress that got fucked up at that. Couldn't even be arsed to do anything there.

 

[vi edit]

Why common use? Belton wanted to sell his gun to the first congress. Their existence was common knowledge even if their use wasn't. The Girardoni air rifle was used by the Austrian army in 1780 as well as later in the napoleonic wars.. Does the first amendment apply to the internet, TV, or phone? They didn't exist back then.

All of this is just bullshit and noise.

We schedule and regulate drugs based upon lethalness and usefulness. We sorta kinda but don't really for guns. But sort of do since I can't own an Uzi or similar. I just think we need to crack down on scheduling and classifying weapons and adding AR style things to the naughty list. Much like cocaine. Doctors use it for a local anesthetic for eye surgery. But it's not really a good thing for every day Joe Blow to possess. I'd make the same argument for weapons of war.

Now I know you are just going to come back with some vague chart about "these are all the same thing" but I really don't care. If we want to fix things we can. We just don't want to. Or won't let other do it. Because...freedom or something.

 

[dawp]

I don't know if it's because it's intentionally suppressed or just lost in the insanity that has been the last 5 years of our lives, but lest we forget about the congressional baseball game that got fired on. We have current members of congress that got fucked up at that. Couldn't even be arsed to do anything there.

no lawmakers died in that event

 

[eelw]

Why common use? Belton wanted to sell his gun to the first congress. Their existence was common knowledge even if their use wasn't. The Girardoni air rifle was used by the Austrian army in 1780 as well as later in the napoleonic wars.. Does the first amendment apply to the internet, TV, or phone? They didn't exist back then.

Okay I demand to have my drones and nukes then

 

[fskimospy]

Why common use? Belton wanted to sell his gun to the first congress. Their existence was common knowledge even if their use wasn't. The Girardoni air rifle was used by the Austrian army in 1780 as well as later in the napoleonic wars.

Because that's the standard the Supreme Court said they determined the original framers of the 2nd amendment meant.

Does the first amendment apply to the internet, TV, or phone? They didn't exist back then.

If you're arguing our understanding of what is protected by the Constitution should evolve with changing circumstances over time I wholeheartedly agree with you.

It's frankly stupid to have judges play ouija board and try to discern what people dead for two centuries would think about the 4th amendment protections afforded against thermal imaging or if they would have thought that it was just as important for people to carry weapons that can slaughter dozens of people in seconds as they did for a frontiersman to have a gun to protect his family from bears or whatever. It's why the entire bill of rights doesn't say 'the following guns are permitted', it says they are not to be unreasonably restricted. It's why searches have to be 'reasonable', and doesn't spell out the five types that are okay.

The main problem here is that SCOTUS plays calvinball with our rights. They come to their desired outcome first then find a way to justify it. That's why the most recent abortion decision was jibbering nonsense - they couldn't even keep their story straight within a single opinion, must less hold a coherent principle between gun rights and other rights.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The main problem here is that SCOTUS plays calvinball with our rights. They come to their desired outcome first then find a way to justify it. That's why the most recent abortion decision was jibbering nonsense - they couldn't even keep their story straight within a single opinion, must less hold a coherent principle between gun rights and other rights.

My argument against the SC's decision regarding reproductive rights and for the current 2A decision remains the same: The Constitution limits the powers of the government, it does not grant rights.

The SC's decisions across the last two weeks have been beyond the pale, though.

 

[IronWing]

Ban womens clothing

I find myself to be not in opposition to this proposal.

 

[fskimospy]

My argument against the SC's decision regarding reproductive rights and for the current 2A decision remains the same: The Constitution limits the powers of the government, it does not grant rights.

The SC's decisions across the last two weeks have been beyond the pale, though.

This amounts to the same thing. It limits the government’s ability to intrude on certain rights. If SCOTUS were at least consistent you could claim it was based on some sort of larger consistent value framework but it’s clear it is not.

Really though, there is no such thing as the grant of rights because inherent rights are obviously not a thing that exist. Rights only exist insofar as we make systems that protect them

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

This amounts to the same thing. It limits the government’s ability to intrude on certain rights. If SCOTUS were at least consistent you could claim it was based on some sort of larger consistent value framework but it’s clear it is not.

Really though, there is no such thing as the grant of rights because inherent rights are obviously not a thing that exist. Rights only exist insofar as we make systems that protect them

That isn't what the Constitution states though. Regardless of the recent rulings, the concept should still apply. Rights are inherent, and the government's limits of power are clearly defined by the constitution. If we abandon that, we may as well just reform our government entirely since the entire basis of our govt is up for interpretation.

I agree wrt the SC. They've intruded on rights that they have no business approaching.

 

[fskimospy]

That isn't what the Constitution states though. Regardless of the recent rulings, the concept should still apply. Rights are inherent, and the government's limits of power are clearly defined by the constitution. If we abandon that, we may as well just reform our government entirely since the entire basis of our govt is up for interpretation.

I agree wrt the SC. They've intruded on rights that they have no business approaching.

But rights aren’t really inherent and in our hearts we all know this. Your right to life is inherent, right? Tell that to the ocean while you are drowning - it does not care. Freedom of speech? Val Kilmer’s throat cancer begs to differ.

Rights only matter in how we relate to each other. Everything else is rhetorical flourish. Granting rights, prohibiting the violation of rights, they only matter because we have identified them as values we want to protect.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

But rights aren’t really inherent and in our hearts we all know this. Your right to life is inherent, right? Tell that to the ocean while you are drowning - it does not care. Freedom of speech? Val Kilmer’s throat cancer begs to differ.

Rights only matter in how we relate to each other. Everything else is rhetorical flourish. Granting rights, prohibiting the violation of rights, they only matter because we have identified them as values we want to protect.

Don't be obtuse, we're not in control of the ocean or cancer. We are in control of how we act and how our government acts, that's the thing that we define the actions of.

Yes, we've 'decided' to say that humans have rights, but we have to maintain consistency regarding that through our system of law or it doesn't mean anything. If you dilute the spirit of law and order within the government, it reduces faith in the system, which leads more people astray, which dilutes it further. If you just accept that we're going to toss out whichever 'inherent, inalienable' rights that we find inconvenient to our sensibilities or sense of morality, there's no point in even having a Constitution. May as well just live by the sword.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't be obtuse, we're not in control of the ocean or cancer. We are in control of how we act and how our government acts, that's the thing that we define the actions of.

Yes, we've 'decided' to say that humans have rights, but we have to maintain consistency regarding that through our system of law or it doesn't mean anything. If you dilute the spirit of law and order within the government, it reduces faith in the system, which leads more people astray, which dilutes it further. If you just accept that we're going to toss out whichever 'inherent, inalienable' rights that we find inconvenient to our sensibilities or sense of morality, there's no point in even having a Constitution. May as well just live by the sword.

I’m not being obtuse, I’m looking at reality. Look at the various exhortations of the glorious rights provided to the people by the Soviet and North Korean constitutions. They are arguably more expansive than ours.

What I’m saying is your distinction is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is a commitment to those rights and language games are a waste of time.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I’m not being obtuse, I’m looking at reality. Look at the various exhortations of the glorious rights provided to the people by the Soviet and North Korean constitutions. They are arguably more expansive than ours.

What I’m saying is your distinction is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is a commitment to those rights and language games are a waste of time.

So arguing that humans don't have inherent rights because we die from cancer isn't playing language games? At least I'm working within the framework we started with rather than creating strawmen.

And your presentation of other countries' Constitutions further proves my point, if the government doesn't actually stick to what the law says, the whole thing falls apart into a dictatorship (or some version of one).