quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

A good man with a gun didn't stop him, you see, so it's unwise to mention that one.
(Really, you'd have thought that a big country concert in Nevada, somebody in the crowd would have been packing and might have shot back, wouldn't you?)

I read that there were armed roadies there. But they immediately worked it out that if they opened fire, they'd be mistaken by the cops for the perp, and get shot themselves. (However were such a mistake to have happened, of course, the judge would have completely understood the cops' position.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
The Second Amendment, as ratified by the States:
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.

That's all it says. Right to bear arms! It doesn't say ANY arms. And it doesn't say you can't put a maximum limit.

People will still be able to bear arms. Just selective ones. I know the fact that there are already some type of weapons that are considered illegal, so this amendment can be worked around to some kind of realistic compromise.

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Never mind that you completely ignored the rest of my post, explaining the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

No other Constitutional Amendment is worded so strongly. None of them.

So presumably it's cool to complete ignore those the way a lot of "christians" ignore the whole of Leviticus besides the thing about not laying with another man as one lays with a woman.
Just out of interest, how many of the constitutional scholars/gun bunnies on here can name the other nine amendments in the original bill of rights without resorting to Google?

What's being ignored?

This has nothing to do with the freedom of speech, religion, or the press. Yes, the shooter did disrupt the concertgoers freedom of assembly, but the First Amendment technically only prohibits Congress from doing that.
We aren't dealing with the military taking over anyone's homes.
We aren't dealing with due process of the law, though I doubt the cops had a warrant to search the hotel room so quickly.
Since the shooter killed himself, he has taken full advantage of his Fifth Amendment rights.
Sixth Amendment doesn't apply, since you can't convict and punish a dead guy.
Civil suits may be possible, for wrongful death. And I hope the victims and families take everything he had.
Dead people don't get bail. And it's too late for cruel & unusual punishment.
9th & 10th Amendments don't even apply here.

I'm not talking about any other amendments applying here, just that there's always a lot more noise the second than any of the others. Was that not clear?
(You are familiar with the others, it seems, so nice work on that.)

quote:


More to the point they didn't know where the fire was coming from.
The cops only found his position because the smoke detector was set off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
If a deer is wounded, would it still be able to run so fast that you can't catch up with the deer to make the second shot? With a normal gun that doesn't load as fast?
I would think it would immediately go down. And as you said, "crawl off". Which is in slow motion.

No, Greta. It honestly doesn't work that way. When deer are wounded, they run to the best of their ability, meaning even up to top speed. You're talking about a scared, wounded animal that by instinct is running for it's life. You want to put the animal down, rather than let it suffer.

I've hit a deer with a car going 60 MPH. The deer ran away after the impact. I have no idea if it died from it's injuries or not.

I also wanted to add something about your comment about how it's not sportsmanship to use more than one bullet. That's nice and all, but you are conveniently forgetting that hunting isn't just sport for some people. There are still people in this country that hunt to eat/supplement their food budget. They depend on the meat from hunting to feed their families. If it takes two shots to put the deer down, it's better to do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


More to the point they didn't know where the fire was coming from.
The cops only found his position because the smoke detector was set off.

Would there have no flash from the gun itself to see, then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


More to the point they didn't know where the fire was coming from.
The cops only found his position because the smoke detector was set off.

Would there have no flash from the gun itself to see, then?

How many lights were there at the concert? they would have blinded people effectively.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


More to the point they didn't know where the fire was coming from.
The cops only found his position because the smoke detector was set off.

Would there have no flash from the gun itself to see, then?

How many lights were there at the concert? they would have blinded people effectively.

Good point Then there are the minutes it took to work out that it took to realise it was gunfire and not fireworks; plus the priority to duck or run and hide, all in a great state of panic .... Not at all easy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


More to the point they didn't know where the fire was coming from.
The cops only found his position because the smoke detector was set off.

Would there have been no flash from the gun itself to see, then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
I said this earlier in the thread, but the Second Amendment provides American citizens with a backup plan, in case we are ever invaded. If our government fails, for any reason, then we still have a chance to carry on as a nation, under our own terms. We still have the ability to defend ourselves from invaders, and to band together as a militia to take on foreign attackers.

We weren't always the strongest nation on Earth, and it's like that we won't always be.

I am really struggling to think of a scenario where the US could be invaded by a foreign power at all, let alone where the only remaining defense would be citizens with guns. Even if the US military is antiquated by 2100, I still can't imagine anyone else's military becoming so powerful that the US is unable to resist, or suddenly becomes an inviting target. Are we talking about a president selling off military assets to pay off foreign debts or something?
How far into the future would we even have to go before over 7200 nukes as well as ONE of the world's most powerful militaries stopped being a deterrent? Global civilization would practically need to collapse, I think. Muskets can be obsolete, but thousands of nuclear bombs will always be able to render the entire planet practically uninhabitable and probably kill off most living things.

If nuclear weapons are no longer the most powerful weapons in the world, then I have no idea how it would even be possible to fight a war.
It would just be flat out extinction at that point.

Bear in mind, you are talking about scenarios where people will still be able to fight back with guns... so not mind control weapons, cyberattacks, nanobots, drones, satellites, etc.

I think this is why the gun-lovers tend to emphasize internal threats over foreign ones... they think they can fight back against the most powerful military in the world when it comes for them. How is a well-armed population going to fight back against a drone that is invisible to the naked eye, and can launch a missile directly at their face without them even knowing it? By constantly shooting at random into the sky?

Look, I get that you're scared and a gun makes you feel safe... but does feeling safe mean you actually are safe? If you're afraid of getting jumped, why not take up self defense or a martial art? Why go all the way to a weapon that could potentially be taken from you and used against you? Maybe if you have training... but I don't know how it's going to protect you if someone drops GHB into your drink.

I know I've never felt so unsafe that I needed a gun... ever. Maybe I just haven't been living the nightmare areas that everyone else seems to live in?

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

It's interesting that, other than jlfs hog hunting, the only thing talked (argued?) about has been the needs for hunting deer. There are many other game animals, and many other types of guns needed/wanted for hunting them, from a .22 for plinking at varmints and pests up to heavy guns for hunting or protection from game like bear and moose. And there is also the variations in shotgun size and ability whether you're hunting doves or geese and turkeys. An avid hunter will often hunt all of those and more, and will need/want a variety of firearms for hunting them.

And don't get me started on what's needed to hunt bigfoot! (yes, that last one is said in jest)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


More to the point they didn't know where the fire was coming from.
The cops only found his position because the smoke detector was set off.

Would there have been no flash from the gun itself to see, then?

Did he have flash suppressors?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

greta, by way of trying to answer your question of "what is 'the right' doing about it?" let me ask you a couple of things first.

by "the right" im assuming you mean republicans in congress?

can you say what it is you would like them to do that would have prevented this event?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Never mind that you completely ignored the rest of my post, explaining the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

No other Constitutional Amendment is worded so strongly. None of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


More to the point they didn't know where the fire was coming from.
The cops only found his position because the smoke detector was set off.

Would there have been no flash from the gun itself to see, then?

Did he have flash suppressors?

No idea. Really, though, the situation he was in - it was pretty much a modern-day castle, that hotel, wasn't it? Until the police got to him as a result of the smoke alarms, he was next to 100% safe from retaliation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Never mind that you completely ignored the rest of my post, explaining the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

No other Constitutional Amendment is worded so strongly. None of them.

The RIGHT to BEAR ARMS.

Not the RIGHT to bear ALL types of Arms or Unlimited Arms.

As I said, the law is NOT specific. And reality is, you don't have the right to Bear ANY TYPE of arms in the US currently.

The fact that there are forbidden weapons currently, tells me that, this LAW isn't bullet proof that protects you from the right to Bear ANY ARMS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
The Second Amendment is not sacred. It can be changed by a bill before congress, passed by a 2/3 majority, then ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Good luck on getting enough support on the issue to pass such a change.

quote:

A firearm can put a 95 lb young female on an equal footing with a 250 lb male body builder with a bludgeon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So we should violate it a little so later we can violate it more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
The Second Amendment is not sacred. It can be changed by a bill before congress, passed by a 2/3 majority, then ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Good luck on getting enough support on the issue to pass such a change.

Oh wow! There is hope!

quote:

A firearm can put a 95 lb young female on an equal footing with a 250 lb male body builder with a bludgeon.

I live in a world where I expect most 250lbs male not to attack women. And I've never been attacked by a man nor a woman. Whether the gun will save her life or not also depends on the "kung fu" skills of the 250lbs male, don't ya think. I think there are other self-defense tactics a woman can learn when dealing with thugs besides relying on keeping a gun on her at all times.