Vegas

Thankfully, CBS fired one of the company’s top lawyers after she said she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican,” when discussing the tragic mass shooting that occurred in Las Vegas late Sunday night.

. . . . . Pete
 
so great to live in a place where you can only have 3 (or 5) shells in your gun if you wanna go out and kill bambi or donald duck, but if you wanna kill people, then 30 shot clips (and larger, no doubt) and guns that are only designed for maximum kill in minimum time, are readily available. and yes, it must be said, these are guns that are designed to maximise the killing of human beings. designed for no other purpose.

we are completely nuts. berserk.

as the kinks said, "paranoia will destroy ya". and the paranoia of the gun lobby is doing just that.
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Thankfully, CBS fired one of the company’s top lawyers after she said she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican,” when discussing the tragic mass shooting that occurred in Las Vegas late Sunday night.

. . . . . Pete
Click to expand...

This is not much of a silver lining, imho.
 
Tragedy beyond measure, insanity beyond all comprehension. America, I hardly know ye. I would love to think that an event this horrific would jumpstart a substantive national conversation about these mass shootings and public safety, but after Sandy Hook I know all too well that that's hopelessly naive.

Fuck.
Mark Lipton
 
I think the Constitutional originalists need to define "right to bear arms" based on the technology of the day - smooth bore, single shot muskets that at best could shoot three times a minute. But then they'd have to be consistent.

The founders would be appalled by the bullshit of it all.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Thankfully, CBS fired one of the company’s top lawyers after she said she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican,” when discussing the tragic mass shooting that occurred in Las Vegas late Sunday night.

. . . . . Pete
Click to expand...

This is not much of a silver lining, imho.
Click to expand...

My thoughts, too, Ian. I was a bit sunken that this was the most noteworthy aspect of the incident for anyone. I am heartbroken for the 59 families, and the 500+ families, and for an entire country that is now living in a reality that assumes that this is just going to happen ad infinitum et ad nauseum (with heavy emphasis on the nauseum).
 
originally posted by BJ:
I think the Constitutional originalists need to define "right to bear arms" based on the technology of the day - smooth bore, single shot muskets that at best could shoot three times a minute. But then they'd have to be consistent.

The founders would be appalled by the bullshit of it all.
Click to expand...

i agree completely. if scalia were the originalist that he took great pride and sancitmony in claiming to be, he never would have made the decisions re: firearms that he did.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Fortune says this is the 273rd mass shooting in the U.S. so far this year (275th day?).

Maybe this is the right time to talk about gun control.
Click to expand...

sadly, i think the cat is completely out of the bag. america is so awash in guns designed to kill people that there is no way it can be made safe from this sort of thing. period.

an update to the firearms act of 1934 back say in the 60's is what was needed.

the firearms act of 1934 outlawed the guns that were being used during the gangland violence of prohibition. so no machine guns, no sawed off shotguns, and i think also guns of 50 caliber and higher. and the firearms act of 1934 was written in cooperation between the nra and the lawmakers. the nra's stance now is the opposite. and citizens united means that even though a goodly majority of u.s. citizens wish for gun control legislation the gun lobby is able to make sure this never will happen.

so here we sit.

as bob dylan said, "when money doesn't talk, it swears obscenities".
 
originally posted by BJ:
I think the Constitutional originalists need to define "right to bear arms" based on the technology of the day - smooth bore, single shot muskets that at best could shoot three times a minute. But then they'd have to be consistent.

The founders would be appalled by the bullshit of it all.
Click to expand...
Right, like how the 1st Amendment only applies to newspapers and pamphlets.
 
what Dylan actually said was: "money doesn't talk, it swears; obscenity-who really cares? Propaganda all is phony"

I keep reading how everyone feels that, since the obscenity of the Sandy Hook massacre was not sufficient to galvanize any momentum to turn things around vis a vis regulating the accessibility of weapons of mass destruction to the average citizen, that they've given up on the possibility that anything can change.

Sorry, my friends, but that's way too passive. If we are not willing to step forward and work, maybe harder than we ever imagined we might, then nothing will change. It certainly won't change if we're not willing to do that. It's past time to get real about this.
 
steve, thanks for filling in the omissions on my (at best) memory addled paraphrase.

but to your point, short of going house to house to rid our society of firearms designed to slaughter human beings, i just don't see any solution to what we have allowed, over these last decades, to transpire. if another assault rifle was never allowed to be retailed in america we would still have the situation that we are living with now. to say that america is awash with such is an understatement.

i wish it were not thus.

i can't conceive of a scenario where the cat is not out of the bag and the horse has not left the barn.

i would love to hear of one.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by BJ:
I think the Constitutional originalists need to define "right to bear arms" based on the technology of the day - smooth bore, single shot muskets that at best could shoot three times a minute. But then they'd have to be consistent.

The founders would be appalled by the bullshit of it all.
Click to expand...
Right, like how the 1st Amendment only applies to newspapers and pamphlets.
Click to expand...

The founders were wise but they also had no model to work from; they guessed at a lot of it.

But the point today is whether the incidental carnage is or is not so worrisome as the threat of a tyrannical government that needs over-throwing.

It is my opinion that an uprising of 300,000,000 people against their federal government would kill a lot more people than the daily lunatics. I prefer gun control as the Insurrection Option isn't one I care to support anymore.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by BJ:
I think the Constitutional originalists need to define "right to bear arms" based on the technology of the day - smooth bore, single shot muskets that at best could shoot three times a minute. But then they'd have to be consistent.

The founders would be appalled by the bullshit of it all.
Click to expand...
Right, like how the 1st Amendment only applies to newspapers and pamphlets.
Click to expand...

The second amendment says "arms," not "firearms." In English, arms means any kind of weapon, but we don't think the first amendment guarantees the right to own nuclear bombs, or even automatic firearms. Any cursory study of military history will make clear the effect of breach loading rifles and then repeating rifles on the destructive power of warfare. I don't think BJ's suggestion is remotely similar to suggesting that the first amendment's reference to speech applies only to the 18th century media for disseminating speech.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by BJ:
I think the Constitutional originalists need to define "right to bear arms" based on the technology of the day - smooth bore, single shot muskets that at best could shoot three times a minute. But then they'd have to be consistent.

The founders would be appalled by the bullshit of it all.
Click to expand...
Right, like how the 1st Amendment only applies to newspapers and pamphlets.
Click to expand...

The second amendment says "arms," not "firearms." In English, arms means any kind of weapon, but we don't think the first amendment guarantees the right to own nuclear bombs, or even automatic firearms. Any cursory study of military history will make clear the effect of breach loading rifles and then repeating rifles on the destructive power of warfare. I don't think BJ's suggestion is remotely similar to suggesting that the first amendment's reference to speech applies only to the 18th century media for disseminating speech.
Click to expand...

"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."

Are those who own these semi-automatic weapons part of a well regulated militia? Are such citizen militias necessary to the security of the US today? To take an example from this week, are silencers necessary to the security of a free state? Does a well regulated citizen militia, assuming one remains relevant, require silencers?

It is no accident that the Second Amendment immediately preceded the third: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

How applicable is the Third Amendment to contemporary American life?
 
And the third preceded the fourth, which is coming before the SC this term, as it relates to cell phones. All were formed by the experience of the colonies, unrepresented in parliament under British rule. They make sense today only if generalized into principles, which are reapplied as needed to present circumstances.

Anyway, the second was hashed out extensively before the high court in Scalia's day. But, hey, if stare decisis can't hold the line vis-a-vis Roe v. Wade, then rulings on gun safety must be subject to reconsideration, as well.

Personally, I think Steve is on the right track. To quote that old Churchill chestnut: "Success is going from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm."
 
Actually, the recent decision from "Scalia's day" overturned a tradition going back to the 1930s of ruling that the Second Amendment did not prohibit reasonable firearm regulation. My point is that even originalist interpretation does not automatically, or even by usual readings of English, produce the interpretation of the Second Amendment that originalists claim it does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top