Las Vegas shooting, automatic weapon used at outdoor concert

When it comes to 'official sources say' I don't believe a word I hear.

 

Ill defer to your expertise as to what animals are inside your butt.
Paranoia? lol says the leftist afraid that global warming is coming to get us, statues are gonna get us, flags are gonna get us, plastic is gonna get us, police are hunting us, bakers are making cakes that will get us, guns are leaving the shelves on their own accord and shooting us and most recently, rust spots on our cars are going to somehow magically fly off and harm pedestrians....despite this never happening since the first wagon was made thousands of years ago.
Before you imply other are paranoid you should make sure your arent sitting on the paranoia throne.

 

Being paranoid was one thing and bad enough. Desperately making stuff up now just to throw anything and see what sticks indicates you've lost all touch with reality. Schizophrenia. Best seek help immediately or get back on your meds.

 

Therein lies the dilemma. Who you gonna believe these days? The press supposedly serves as the "Fourth Estate" or watchdog. Whatever perceptible truth there is percolates through in time. We are increasingly left to filter it from din. This is no accident.

 

I agree, I don't think it's accidental either. Something's going on but I can't quite put my finger on what. But whatever it is, it only seems to be affecting the West.

 

Do any of the cited state-level amendments state that the right to keep and bear arms is about fulfilling a duty to the state? Does it speak of the right to take part in a state-sanctioned militia? Indeed they do not. Instead they speak of an individual right to defense. Observe.

Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, art. I, § 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).
Alaska: 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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Art. I, § 19 (first sentence enacted 1959, second sentence added 1994).
Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).
Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. Art. II, § 5 (enacted 1868, art. I, § 5).

Defense of himself, the individual. The individual right to keep and bear arms. All of your citations refer to the individual right to utilize firearms for their own defense, not to protect the state from dangers.

The keep and bear arms provision of the state of Arizona goes even further, specifying that it refers exclusively to individual defense, not formation or serving in a militia.

Try again. Come up with a citation of a state-level keep and bear arms provision, that states in explicit terms how it relates only to serving in a state-sanctioned militia, and is about the public fulfilling a duty to the state.

 

NRA oppose the ban

 

Apparently? Either there is or there isn't. If there is, I'm sure that you will post it.........

 

Guns are chosen because they are much more exciting to mass murderers

 

They are certainly glamorized by the liberals in Hollywood

 

Do you have anything to say on topic or have I reduced you to just insults?

 

Pray tell where is the evidence of such?

 

Someone who wanted to just kill random people would plant bombs. Much easier and little chance of getting caught allowing the murderer to carry out more bombing targets on other days. The IRA used that tactic but most of the time did give warnings significantly reducing the death count. Very few of them were caught. But using a gun gives that required Adrenalin rush that gun nuts crave - to go out in a blaze of glory

 

Your words were:

Thus I conclude you believe there IS a gun ban agenda BEHIND this shooting. This would be a motive, what induced the shooting, that's why I asked.

Law enforcement has specialists in ballistics and forensics who can determine from the caliber, trajectory and type of bullets the weapon used and it's situation. Nothing so far indicating multiple shooters, could be, but no evidence yet.

 

Which is neither proof nor evidence. Rather it is just theory and speculation about the psychological makeup of undetermined individuals.

 

The latest theory is that the shooter actually did convert to Islam and join daesh, there is evidence of this and the Islamic fundamentalists are withholding it for the authorities to make some categorical assertion there is none before publishing the incontrovertible facts showing this, that there aim is to this way cause doubt among the citizenry on the efficacy of their law enforcement and intelligence communities.

 

Do you mean in your latest theory to support your desperation? BTW still waiting for this video of him in front of the daesh flag.........or is that your latest theory......

 

Asked and self-refuted. Give up. You've lost.

 

Except for the fact that such is incorrect. The cited provision for the state of Alabama gives first mention to defense of self rather than the state, meaning the right to self defense would take precedent over protecting the state from any unspecified harm. Nothing that has been cited speaks of a duty to fulfill any state sanctioned militia duties, nor does it suggest legally owning firearms in the state of Alabama is made contingent upon fulfilling obligations to the state.

Unless it is possible for yourself to cite a court ruling that has interpreted the keep and bear arms provision of the state of Alabama in a collective approach, then it does not mean what is being suggested by yourself.

So far nothing has been presented by yourself, which would suggest conclusively that the second amendment at either the federal or state level, was focused exclusively on a collective right of the people to serve government and die for their country.

 

Like so many other events, this is nothing but a bunch of competing theories. The facts are few and far between. At first I was neutral and tending to believe the official story, but now it seems to be just like Sandy Hook, San Bernardino and Pulse, staged events for some nefarious agenda by powers unknown.

I am no longer certain that anybody died in this. With "crowds on demand", it's very likely this was utterly staged.

 

You wish.

Or, exactly as it appears, neither takes precedent. In reality, specifying which of two such things takes precedent would be a no brainer if one of them actually did. Presuming one does simply due to their order is a desperate reach.

Say all that were true. You asked, I provided Alabama and a few more "A" States (clearly lifted from a gun nut website, by the way - thus their bold as opposed to my red) to refute your prior claims (as well as theirs). Left the rest for you to find and read. You're welcome. Who care's about Alabama in particular? You presume, declare, get refuted, backpedal (while explicitly admitting nothing), rinse, and repeat. Why the pretense of attempting honest conversation? Logically, when one declares factual matters in such absolute terms, that means they are also claiming absolute authority over and ultimate knowledge of the subject. One counter example serves to reveal their lack of clothes.

Try to get it straight. You're the one who's, not only "suggested" things here, but declared them irrefutably true and so forth. I suggested further reading but readily admit to possessing no control over another's comprehension.

On that we agree, my friend. I never said anything of the sort and never would.

 

Pray tell why was defense of self put ahead of defense of the state? If the order ultimately makes no difference, why did the state of Alabama not go with defense of the state and self instead?

None of which went on to prove whether or not the Heller ruling was historically unprecedented, or that the second amendment was focused on militia membership rather than legal firearms ownership. Nor did any of the citations do anything to suggest the united state supreme court had actually endorsed the militia only interpretation.

What has ultimately been suggested by yourself is that the Heller ruling was completely unprecedented, and nothing in the history of the united states even suggests it was correct.

Other than endorsing the militia only interpretation, which is exactly what the above means. The militia only interpretation is that the only time the public is allowed to have legal access to firearms, is when they are fulfilling a duty to government and putting their lives on the line in the process. Ultimately, boiled down to basic terms, the militia only interpretation means a constitutional right to serve government and die in the line of duty.

 

Exactly. Or why don't we generally say oranges and apples instead of apples and oranges? Why ask me? You're the one who's been presuming the order significant, apparently simply to justify your next logical leap - pretending the state's not mentioned there at all.

None of which proves you searched, read, or attempted to understand what you read. All you've asserted as fact here? - I've exposed as nothing but wishful thinking. Don't continue kidding yourself otherwise. Now sit down and quietly eat your crow like a good boy.

Why continue arguing with yourself about things you think I've "suggested"? Here's an idea, quote what someone actually says and try dealing with it straight up!

Wrong. The 2nd grants members of a state or federal militia a right to firearms. This notion that it disallows firearms otherwise has always been utter, fear inducing nonsense. Point is, it provides no legal basis for a "right to bear arms" otherwise. The Constitution defines the limits of federal power. What's not specified in the Constitution is left up to the States.

 

Why did you choose to not understand what I said?

 

This statement is wholly unsupportable.