Las Vegas shooting, automatic weapon used at outdoor concert

yeah, forget about the person next to the one shot and with a cell phone.

 

go ahead, dig up another grave.

 

I accept your concession of the point.

 

You say as you pray for another school shooting.

 

yeah right

 

Gives you those bodies to stand on - be sure to let most of the blood drain out; the effect is better and you won't get as much on your shoes.

 

truly pathetic!!!

 

Yes, I'd also hold that view of myself if I were you.

 

you are trolling, now on ignore

 

Can't handle the truth, eh?

 

It took less than 10 seconds from when the shooting started to when the music stopped. It took one magazine rd before the crowd knew what was happening.

 

Anyone has the right to own and operate a car, but for reasons of public and sometimes personal safety, we control who has access to driving by requiring licenses and when getting a license, that the applicant demonstrates their competence to drive. I'm simply supporting some form of similar controls for automatic weapons and other gun related paraphernalia to help us control public safety. I'm not attacking the 2nd Amendment; just limiting a small group of potentially dangerous individuals from having legal access to guns.

 

False. Requiring licenses and demonstrated abilities does NOTHING to control who has access to driving. Anyone who has access to a car and a key can drive it, if they can reach the pedals.

 

Purchase, ownership and possession of a car is unregulated, as is operation of a car on private property.
Tell us again how you believe guns should be treated like cars.

 

Anyone who drives on public property without a license or insurance is breaking the law. Now apply that same condition to carrying a gun on public property

 

Anyone who shoots up a concert is breaking the law too. You have not refuted my assertion: Requiring a license does NOTHING to prevent anyone from owning a car, or driving.

 

As opposed to someone who has a felony conviction and is in possession of a firearm?

The courts will not even prosecute felons for possession of a firearm, which is a felony in itself. Is it honestly believed by yourself that these same could would suddenly change course, and actually pursue charges against those who do not have a criminal history, and at best are committing paperwork offenses?

 

In this case, the correct action is to use the gun, not carry it. carrying a gun is to transport it; you do not need a license or insurance to transport a car on public property.

But, it is good of you to cede the point that purchase, ownership and possession of a firearm, or use on private property, cannot be subject to a license.

 

I think that any person caught carrying out a crime and carrying a gun should be prosecuted as if they actually used the gun

 

Such is how the matter is supposed to proceed in the united states. But such is not how the matter actually does proceed. Firearm-related charges are almost never pursued in a court of law, either at the federal or the state level. So how will the offense if carrying an unlicensed/unregistered firearm likely to fair any better than the offense of felon in possession of a firearm?

 

Sounds good on the surface, you may get wide support amongst the right
The devil is in the details tho. Your not going to charge a speeder with murder are you?

 

If those have been my stated positions then you should be able to quote me stating them. Instead you repeatedly just make stuff up to argue with yourself about in public and ignore what I've actually said. And this kicking off a post for all the world appearing to be in direct response to something I actually wrote. Sad.
Furthermore, I have presented actual material here. Documented evidence that you denied existed and have since utterly failed to acknowledge. It is in fact you who has presented exactly nothing but faith based denial here.

So you're confessing?

Great. So, according to you then, the 2nd grants no one any right to bear arms and the 18th never prohibited alcohol. Is it possible that you remain unaware that this is a nation supposedly based on Constitutional law or that members of our military swear to defend, with their life, only one thing - the U.S. Constitution? Why do you suppose they would they do that if all it did was "recognize" some stuff and restrict government? Where do our rights emanate from if not the Constitution? Who enforces their existence if not our Constitution based government? Mouthing catchy little talking points is fun, I get it. But you really need to step back and actually think for yourself now and then.

Wow. Truly amazing! Somehow you conveniently left out the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part! Funny, 'cause that's the first clause, ya know, and we've already established that what comes first must take precedent - according to you anyway!

So no right to assemble for instance? Again, do you never think for yourself? Again, read reality and weep:

Deny it some more, why don't ya. And, while you're at it, pretend I said it, not Cornell Law School. Well, go on.. You know you can't help yourself..

Well done! Lol.

 

As was said here.

And here.

The assessment made by yourself is wrong.

Then cite a united state supreme court ruling that states, in outright and explicit terms, that the second amendment applies only to militias, and that it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the private ownership of firearms. That is the only thing which will amount to actual proof of concept. Anything less is just speculation by those pushing an agenda.

More accurately it is a matter of your citations being disregarded on the basis of a lack of factual basis.

As was stated by the united state supreme court itself in Cruikshank. The right to keep and bear arms does not come from the second amendment, nor is the right dependent upon it for its existence.

Irrelevant and immaterial. Is the eighteenth amendment in the bill of rights?

If rights come from nothing more than the constitution, then they are nothing more than privileges granted by government, and able to be taken away for any reason, or even no reason whatsoever.

None of which changes the fact that relevant portion of the united states constitution is the bill of rights, and it refers to rights held by individuals, not by groups. It is the right of the people, not the right of the militia.

Irrelevant and immaterial.

Which is still not that elusive ruling by the united state supreme court, stating in absolutely unambiguous terms, that the second amendment pertains to a right held by the states to assemble and form their own militias.

Legal scholars are still not justices on the united state supreme court. Nor are they bound to any level of integrity in presenting what is ultimately the truth.

 

"Irrelevant and immaterial."
"Irrelevant and immaterial."

So fun. And mature!
Well, good luck with all that nothin' of yours.

 

Just to be crystal, in your usual non sequitur fashion, you responded back here with:

You Introduce this as though I had previously discussed "whether or not the Heller ruling was historically unprecedented" with you. Just the "ruling", mind you, not the case. I had not said and would not say "the Heller ruling was historically unprecedented" nor would I say "that the second amendment was focused on militia membership rather than legal firearms ownership".

Make no mistake, these sorts of straw man arguments are, not simply examples of logical fallacy, but of deliberate lies regarding another's stated positions. Publicly conversing with only oneself?.. Presenting it as though conversing with another?.. is a despicable habit. One far too commonly practiced, tolerated, and encouraged across this site. It is not discussion, honest, healthy, nor productive. I will never suffer such charlatans lightly.