Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Multiple Shootings at Las Vegas Concert

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Multiple Shootings at Las Vegas Concert

Old 3rd Oct 2017, 09:51
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
Well, that made it "illegal", didn't it?
Not necessarily if the reports of a slide-fire stock are correct. Totally legal by the ATF and can be bought without any checks.
All it is is a replacement stock that mounts over the buffer tube, rather than being solid it can slide back and forth from the recoil impulse. All you have to do to turn a semi into a "fake" FA rifle is stick your finger into the trigger guard and the recoil will do the rest.
SnowFella is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 09:55
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 349
Much as it would be wonderful to stop the daily slaughter by gun owning nutters - and by police who shoot first because that might be a gun owning nutter he's facing - it will not, can not change.

No change of laws will make gun owners surrender 300 million weapons. It's just as simple as that.

The US has grown up this way, and the US will always have to live, or die, with it.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 10:01
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,739
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 View Post
Much as it would be wonderful to stop the daily slaughter by gun owning nutters - and by police who shoot first because that might be a gun owning nutter he's facing - it will not, can not change.

No change of laws will make gun owners surrender 300 million weapons. It's just as simple as that.

The US has grown up this way, and the US will always have to live, or die, with it.

That's what I think every time there is a gun massacre in the USA. They live in a democracy, and that's the way they choose to live. So let them get on with shooting each other - it's their national sport after all.

I feel sorry for the kids who get caught up in it though - they don't get the chance to vote.

I am also uncomfortable with the way in which their choice gets subliminally exported around the world in their Hollywood films, which are predominantly based around gun violence.
Trim Stab is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 10:06
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,435
They republish that article regularly, just changing the location and the number of dead.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 10:21
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,829
I am also uncomfortable with the way in which their choice gets subliminally exported around the world in their Hollywood films, which are predominantly based around gun violence.
That is so true, although I don't go to the cinema, and have little interest in movies in general, I'm hard pressed to remember a trailer or advert I've seen on TV for a US film, or for TV drama that doesn't include somewhere the use or pulling of a weapon, or other violent act / potential death or injury to another. Sadly UK TV drama is going the same way, which bears out the subliminal message sent from the US through "entertainment".
ATNotts is online now  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 10:42
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 18
Discussion on this matter is surely a waste of time. The majority in the US do not care about these deaths despite the hypocritical nonsense from politicians, religious groups and the so called POTUS. Give it some time and the next slaughter will occur, probably a copy cat, with the intention of breaking the record of deaths so far achieved.

This is not remarkable when a country will tolerate far more home civilian deaths by lethal weapons than it does from modern military warfare. Move on.
whiterock is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 11:08
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 313
If people who choose to smoke can then sue the manufacturers of fags for billions because they caught cancer why can't the victims of shootings sue the manufacturers of guns because they caught a bullet?
1 or 2 multi billion dollar lawsuits would soon curtail their activities. No need for government gun control let the courts do it.
sirwa69 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 11:28
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 727
They found bomb traces in his car. Shades of Timothy McVeigh who at 168 should surely hold the record?


"ammonium nitrate fertilizer and nitromethane truck bomb..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
jolihokistix is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 11:32
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 418
sirwa69, a good comment! That would give the lawyers a lot to live off for a long time there and hopefully start to create cracks in that abuse of their 'right to bear arms'!

Could someone answer one question: Does the US Constitution give any rights to its citizens not to face death, injury and bereavement the way that thousands have been affected in this single incident, or does it give greater rights to its citizens to become part of a gun-culture and be able freely to possess the quantities of ammunition that enable them to carry our this sort of atrocity?

This incident should completely have put to bed any of the arguments that you need to 'bear arms in order to protect yourself'. The only way that those people were protected was by the response of the police. As should happen in any civilised society. There was no need for any single person in that crowd to have carried a firearm.
Trossie is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 11:36
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
The ownership, use, and threat of guns is the American way. It's their way of life, and death.

They don't know any better and they die in their thousands, tens of thousands actually, as a result of their gun mania.
Cazalet33 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 11:42
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
The problem goes right back to the political situation that existed at the time that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was drafted. The "right to bear arms" was never written into the Constitution as right for any citizen to gun down any other citizen, it was far more specific in it's intent.

Few people bother to quote the whole of the 2nd Amendment, but it actually reads"

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
It's been re-interpreted a few times, but from the wording it seems pretty clear exactly what the original intent really was; it was to allow people to keep and bear arms specifically for "the security of the state", something that has been changed, by interpretations over the years, to now mean "the security of the individual", in effect.

I can understand the original intent - just look at what happened before US independence.
VP959 is online now  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 11:43
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,243
Originally Posted by sirwa69 View Post
If people who choose to smoke can then sue the manufacturers of fags for billions because they caught cancer why can't the victims of shootings sue the manufacturers of guns because they caught a bullet?
1 or 2 multi billion dollar lawsuits would soon curtail their activities. No need for government gun control let the courts do it.
Are you also going to sue the makers of the van that was used in the London terror attacks - or the truck manufacturer that was used in Nice?
Jet II is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 11:44
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,243
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post

It's been re-interpreted a few times, but from the wording it seems pretty clear exactly what the intent really was; it was to allow people to keep and bear arms specifically for "the security of the state", something that has been changed, by interpretations over the years, to now mean "the security of the individual", in effect.
Well the wording might be clear to you but the Supreme Court begs to differ.
Jet II is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 11:45
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by Jet II View Post
Well the wording might be clear to you but the Supreme Court begs to differ.
Exactly why I specifically wrote "It's been re-interpreted a few times".....................
VP959 is online now  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 11:50
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 68
Posts: 913
CBS fires vice president who said Vegas victims didn't deserve sympathy because country music fans 'often are Republican' | Fox News

Her attorney, Carrie A. Goldberg, responded: “In the last few hours my client, her family and friends have been bombarded by online death unimaginable in quantity and detail.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind!
sitigeltfel is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 11:53
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,243
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Exactly why I specifically wrote "It's been re-interpreted a few times".....................
So its not clear then..
Jet II is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 11:54
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,243
What did she think was going to happen - or perhaps she just doesnt think.
Jet II is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 11:58
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by Jet II View Post
So its not clear then..
My meaning was very clear. The original wording was influenced by the political situation that led to independence, and the desire to allow the people to keep and bear arms for the security of the state.

It's since been re-interpreted, legally, and broadened to mean that the right to keep and bear arms need have no connection to the security of the state, or the need for a well-regulated Militia, it is a separate right that applies to any citizen, irrespective of intent, in effect.
VP959 is online now  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 11:59
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
It's been re-interpreted a few times, but from the wording it seems pretty clear exactly what the original intent really was; it was to allow people to keep and bear arms specifically for "the security of the state"
Ummm, the first (and only) time the Supreme Court was asked to interpret whether the 2nd amendment was an individual right or a collective right they ruled (in District of Columbia v. Heller) that it was in individual right. There has been no "re-interpretation" on that subject. So while the "original intent" is "pretty clear" to you, the Supreme Court disagrees.
KenV is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 12:02
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,435
Originally Posted by Trossie View Post
Could someone answer one question: Does the US Constitution give any rights to its citizens not to face death, injury and bereavement the way that thousands have been affected in this single incident, or does it give greater rights to its citizens to become part of a gun-culture and be able freely to possess the quantities of ammunition that enable them to carry our this sort of atrocity?
The answer I usually get to this question is "no, because the right to life is only in the preamble to the declaration of independence, not in the constitution, so it doesn't count".
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.