Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread 2

[Heavy Jack]

For those who argue that taking these types of guns away is an infringement on their 2nd amendment rights I’d argue that having weapons of war so easily accessed and available to the general public is an infringement on my 1st amendment rights.

Final sentence of the first amendment of the constitution: The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals, ensured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (1791).

[CaptainCrunch]

The ease of access to every gun type under the sun is a serious flaw. The founding fathers when they defined the right to bear arms didn't have the imagination to see marge capacity magazines, rapid fire semi automatic weapons, high powered scopes, and high velocity rounds. If they did, I have my doubts that the right to bear arms would be enshrined in the constitution.

With the exception of Bill Clinton with the assault rifle ban that was allowed to lapse, no president has had the stones to take on the battle against gun ownership, nor has the senate of congress. All we get after every mass shooting is the usual litany of hopes and prayers from both sides of the political spectrum.

It makes me believe that the Administrative side of the US government is either unwilling or unable to break the chains of NRA lobbying, special interest groups and the entrenched gun culture of the United States

Realistically you'd think that this is a fight that should rightfully be fought in the courts. We see massive lawsuits against Big Tabacco.

I mean we rightfully have seen lawsuits for mass shootings, there is an $800 million dollar lawsuit against MGM for the Vegas shooting, but there is never ever the expected mass lawsuit against the gun manufacturers. Why isn't there a mass action lawsuit for billions that could force reform?

There has been a lawsuit filed against Colt for the mass shooting in Nevada, but its likely to go nowhere because frankly the NRA and Colt will fight it tooth and nail until the other side gives up.

There's no courage on the side of the government to use the supreme court in this battle because the Supreme Court isn't exactly friendly in terms of changing the Constitution in a meaningful way.

Instead we get minor concessions from the government, the concept of limiting magazines or removing bump stocks from the market.

Its insane that the US Constitution is in essence a murder suicide justification.

Make no mistake, Canada has quite a few radicalized individuals of all political and ideological beliefs. We have gun violence and mass shootings, but what keeps it controlled is simple. We don't have a gun culture here, we don't have the same belief in the right to bear arms no matter what the cost.

But we're a model that will never ever be replicated in the States.

Unless the American people decide that enough is enough and rebel against the Gun Lobby and the gun ownership belief in the states this isn't ever going to change, and in a 100 years it will be the complaints around the use of commercially based laser rifles that have a 6000 round battery and can fire a 1000 rounds a minute.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

For those who argue that taking these types of guns away is an infringement on their 2nd amendment rights I’d argue that having weapons of war so easily accessed and available to the general public is an infringement on my 1st amendment rights.

Final sentence of the first amendment of the constitution: The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals, ensured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (1791).

Unless someone can outright convince the courts that the commercially available weapons are weapons of war, you're argument dosen't work. A gun manufacturer will just point out that civilian designed weapons are far more limited then the ones that they sell to the US government.



I'd also ask you to clarify for me, because I'm dumb how you're argument around that phrase of the first amendment impacts at all on the second amendment.

[Heavy Jack]

That’s the heartbreaking truth of it CC

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I was surprised to read that the US wasn't even ranked in the top 10 in mass shooting rates based on population. I think though that we hear about more mass shootings in the States just because its a major media center, and the coverage is there everyday.

You'd probably be surprised mostly because it's not really true...


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/un...ath-shootings/


It's only true if you first tightly define mass shootings, then cherry pick smaller countries that had significant fatalities in single events and narrow the comparison date ranges to include those shootings. Also, even that falls apart if you include the years after 2015.

[Heavy Jack]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Unless someone can outright convince the courts that the commercially available weapons are weapons of war, you're argument dosen't work. A gun manufacturer will just point out that civilian designed weapons are far more limited then the ones that they sell to the US government.



I'd also ask you to clarify for me, because I'm dumb how you're argument around that phrase of the first amendment impacts at all on the second amendment.

How long have people been calling for gun control both federally and through their own state governments? When these shootings happen all I see is the people who are affected take their grievances on this issue to their political leaders only to see their complaints and pleas for proper gun reform fall on deaf ears. You say so yourself that if the founding fathers could have envisioned guns of the future that they probably would have made adjustments to or outright omitted the 2nd amendment. Well to me how I understand that part of the first amendment is it implores and gives the right to Americans to speak grievances to issue that affect them directly to the government and seek their aid for a solution to said grievances.

Maybe I’m dumb on that, maybe I’m wrong on how I understand it, or how I’m reading that part of the constitution... but I don’t think it’s wrong for people to want or expect an answer on this problem after tragedy upon tragedy and when ever it’s brought up or talked about the solutions for the 2nd amendment are both weak and a callous disregard of the problems that stem from them.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Unless someone can outright convince the courts that the commercially available weapons are weapons of war, you're argument dosen't work. A gun manufacturer will just point out that civilian designed weapons are far more limited then the ones that they sell to the US government.

I'd also ask you to clarify for me, because I'm dumb how you're argument around that phrase of the first amendment impacts at all on the second amendment.

Why even have to suggest that civilian guns aren’t weapons of war? Isn’t it sufficient to suggest that those guns have no other reason to exist than to quickly kill people? If any other company were to try to manufacture and sell a product that was only useful in killing people, how would that go over? How would there not be an outright ban and lawsuit as soon as somebody used that product to kill someone?

[CaptainCrunch]

Fair enough Jack, but that only works if the US Government was still a government by the people and for the people.


There is a huge level of separation between the government and the people.


The best way to bring accountability to the government is through the exercise of the vote.



But until you see a massive amount of people running on an anti gun platform or gun ownership reform platform and getting elected, the government just isn't going to make a change..

[Heavy Jack]

And that my friend is what truly is heartbreaking... I do think a lot of people, a healthy majority even, want to see proper gun control but because the big players of the world are truly who make it and shake it, there really is no hope for change on such a devastating issue like this one. To me the only hope is to effectively put an end to entities like the NRA being such big players/donors on the political scene but sadly money always seems to talk doesn’t it. Absolutely maddening.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Why even have to suggest that civilian guns aren’t weapons of war? Isn’t it sufficient to suggest that those guns have no other reason to exist than to quickly kill people? If any other company were to try to manufacture and sell a product that was only useful in killing people, how would that go over? How would there not be an outright ban and lawsuit as soon as somebody used that product to kill someone?

You shouldn't have to however, if you go to Colt and do a comparison between the military only M-16, and the civilian comparable ar-15 there are enough differences to make them distinctively different.

You're always going to have to get into those points of distinctive in any argument. A shot gun will kill a person dead, its designed to kill, however its accepted as a civilian available weapon.

If you look at weapons manufacturer's they are very careful to discern the differences between military models and civilian models.

It allows them to protect from the argument that they're selling military weapons or weapons of wars to civilians.

[Heavy Jack]

I think they should have to justify the need for a civilian to fire those guns at that rate though whether it’s deemed ‘civilian’ or not is irrelevant at this point; are hunters mowing down mass amounts of deer? Do they need clips that can fire dozens to even hundreds of rounds a minute? I get the game that the manufacturers are playing but what’s sickening is that both political parties still seem content with lending thoughts and prayers and leaving it at that even as the problem is starting to become embarrassingly obvious. I know I must sound like a broken record... it’s just so hard to understand the justifications of having guns like this so available that someone under the age of 21 can walk away with one yet not order a beer at a bar. To put it so eloquently as Trump. ‘SAD’

[CaptainCrunch]

Hey I'm on you're side on this, I've stated before that all guns should be a single shot and you have to enter in a 50 digit pass code to reload it.

[Heavy Jack]

No I know CC, that’s my frustration talking

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

For those who argue that taking these types of guns away is an infringement on their 2nd amendment rights I’d argue that having weapons of war so easily accessed and available to the general public is an infringement on my 1st amendment rights.

Final sentence of the first amendment of the constitution: The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals, ensured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (1791).

Your interpretation is incorrect. You have the right to redress, but there is no guarantee that the government is going to acknowledge or act upon your complaint. Just as god hears all prays, he just doesn't answer all of them, the government hears all complains, they just choose not to act on them.

The weapons of war thing is also a bit off. The guns in question are not the same as the ones issued to military or law enforcement. I can get as many rounds down range with both of these rifles using a similarly configured magazine. NSF for size.

NSFW!

The furniture seems to scare people more than anything. They perform the same function. Maybe the government needs to ban semi-automatics? Maybe that is the problem.

[Tsawwassen]

The El Paso shooter had a hit list and a rape list. Yikes.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world...id=mailsignout

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

So you have a white supremacist Trump loving sicko and a leftist Warren/Squad loving satanist both committing horrible mass shootings within 13hrs of each other. America is in trouble.

BoTh SiDeS

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

BoTh SiDeS

As we speak, the Twitter Right-Wing Grift-O-Sphere is trying to now claim that the El Paso shooter was a closet leftist, and that his manifesto was written by "bad actors" who want the president to look bad.

[DFO]

Originally Posted by New Era

Your interpretation is incorrect. You have the right to redress, but there is no guarantee that the government is going to acknowledge or act upon your complaint. Just as god hears all prays, he just doesn't answer all of them, the government hears all complains, they just choose not to act on them.

The weapons of war thing is also a bit off. The guns in question are not the same as the ones issued to military or law enforcement. I can get as many rounds down range with both of these rifles using a similarly configured magazine. NSF for size.

NSFW!

The furniture seems to scare people more than anything. They perform the same function. Maybe the government needs to ban semi-automatics? Maybe that is the problem.

So are extended & drum magazines available for the autoloader rifles? I have a hard time comparing a 5 shot rifle to what can be done with an AR platform.

[Bunk]

Things the rest of the advanced world looks at US with admiration:
- Technological ingenuity
- Entertainment

Things the rest of the advanced world looks at the US with confusion/horror
- Gun violence
- No universal health insurance
- No paid family leave
- Eroding Democratic norms
- Racial justice and broken criminal justice systems
- Extreme wealth inequality

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

As we speak, the Twitter Right-Wing Grift-O-Sphere is trying to now claim that the El Paso shooter was a closet leftist, and that his manifesto was written by "bad actors" who want the president to look bad.

the scumbags who harass survivors' families with the crisis actor bull#### are as bad as the shooters themselves.

if there's any kind of God or higher power in this existence, every single one of those people will have go through having loved ones die at the hands of a mass shooter.

that would be justice