It's insane, removing rights without a court order. I'm not sure how that's not a police state, where those who enforce the law decide what rights you may exert.
Look, I don't now how many times I've all but screamed - the right-wing better get smart and start helping with this problem instead of obstructing ideas for solutions, OR they are going to create a NEED for the government to do it. The radical right and the NRA made their choices, and here we are.
The problem is Gun Free Zones, like this bar and virtually every other location for spree kills.
Wrong. There was an armed guard working the club in Orlando that night and he did nothing. I think he got shot.
Well, saying that people on the no fly list can't have guns means that American citizens cannot keep and bear, so it looks like the test is on.
Cite? I read there was an off-duty cop working the door, but hadn't seen mention that he was armed. Furthermore, one even armed guard at one known location does not remove the GFZ designation; by florida law, even those with concealed carry permits can not carry in a bar. That makes it a GFZ with obviously inadequate security to protect their disarmed patrons.
It’s important to note that the Pulse nightclub killer exchanged gunfire with a police officer working security at the venue. The officer was unable to stop the murderer, who proceeded to kill 50 and wound dozens more. This backs-up our conclusions drawn from our school shooting simulation. When a killer attacks, the first person he targets is armed security. Given that action beats reaction, the chances are high that the perpetrator will neutralize the security first and proceed with impunity. Unless, of course, he or she encounters further armed resistance.
2:02 a.m. Shots ring out as a police officer working as a security guard engages in gun battle with assailant, Omar Mateen, 29, of Port St. Lucie, Fla., outside the Pulse Orlando nightclub around closing time, according to Orlando police chief John Mina. Mateen was armed with an AR-15-style assault rifle, a handgun and an unidentified device.
Taking a Right from a citizen without due process. Justify that.
They're doing that right now. Pick up a paper.
What always strikes me about liberals response to mass shootings is that they know the solution .5 seconds after the mass shooting happened. What's the solution? GUN CONTROL! There is no looking over the case and determining the variables in play, just GUN CONTROL! What's hilarious about it is that many times the people that do the mass shootings would have already been barred from having guns from past gun control efforts by liberals.
And really, can we just eliminate home land security already? All the ****ing agency seems to do is violate the peoples rights.
I see so your justification is "they already are so why care now?"
That was sarcasm I'm pretty sure. I know I'm an expert on the matter but you seriously took that sentence seriously? Seriously?You allege that the Founders were INBRED. Provide documentation for that claim.
And this is where it always ends up in this debate (which is rather dull and repetitive to begin with).To be fair, if you could actually ban guns (by which i mean, 100% enforceable), it would have stopped the guy from using a gun. Much like many liberal solutions, its pie in the sky.
I've pointed out before that this is somewhat dishonest. Saying nations with firearms have more homicides from firearms is like saying nations with cars have more auto accidents.While there certainly is in any society "a certain segment...which doesn't care about consequences", why, then, is America's homicide rate (and violent crime rate, and frequency of mass shootings) FAR higher than that of any other first-world nation? If it's no different here as anywhere else as you say, then the rates SHOULD be statistically similar...
...but they're anything but similar.
And when it comes to Muslims, try adding up all the Muslims who have committed terrorist acts in America - go ahead, add them all up - and then compare that total to the 3.3 million Muslims that are in America today. In other words, because of the acts of what is an almost microscopic minority of Muslims, the Right wants to blame and cast suspicions on the far greater whole who are good, law-abiding citizens and legal residents.
On a side note, on this same subject, the American Medical Association pointed out that 10% of ALL American physicians are Muslims. Compare that to the fact that the 3.3M Muslims in America comprise slightly over 1% of Americans...and that tells us that Muslims are almost ten times more likely to become doctors than the "normal" non-Muslim American.
Ah, but Trump and the increasingly-Islamophobic Right would never believe such stuff, 'cause obviously, the American Medical Association must have become a shill for ISIS....
Note the Ninth Amendment and its incorporation of all existing rights in society, including Common Law rights.
Note also the following court rulings following the 1689 English Bill of Rights:
Rex v. Gardner (1739): "And they do not extend to prohibit a man from keeping a gun for his necessary defence, but only from making that forbidden use of it. And the word 'gun' being purposely omitted in this act, the defendant is not within the penalty."
Mallock v. Eastley (1744): "the mere having a gun was no offense within the game laws, for a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family."
Wingfield v. Stratford (1752): "It is not to be imagined, that it was the Intention of the Legislature, in making the 5 Ann.c.14 to disarm all the People of England. As Greyhounds, Setting Dogs ... are expressly mentioned in that Statute, it is never necessary to alledge, that any of these have been used for killing or destroying the Game; and the rather, as they can scarcely be kept for any other Purpose than to kill or destroy the Game. But as Guns are not expressly mentioned in that Statute, and as a Gun may be kept for the Defence of a Man's House, and for divers other lawful Purposes, it was necessary to alledge, in order to its being comprehended within the Meaning of the Words 'any other Engines to kill the Game', that the Gun had been used for killing the Game."
Rex v. Dewhurst (1820): "A man has a clear right to arms to protect himself in his house. A man has a clear right to protect himself when he is going singly or in a small party upon the road where he is travelling or going for the ordinary purposes of business. But I have no difficulties in saying you have no right to carry arms to a public meeting, if the number of arms which are so carried are calculated to produce terror and alarm."
And I support a process where DHS has to appear before a judge and/or jury in open court and explain why a given individual should have a right removed without a conviction.
That was sarcasm I'm pretty sure. I know I'm an expert on the matter but you seriously took that sentence seriously? Seriously?
Youre the only one painting all muslims the same. I was only referring to the ones who practice or support violence. Wheras such crime was limited to gangs in the past, now we have religious crusaders which is a new thing for the US in the last few decades.
And FYI, US murder rate is #14, not FAR higher than any other first world nation.
Really? SHOW ME YOUR REFERENCE.
And when it comes to "painting Muslims all the same", there's two things you need to consider:
first, I don't "paint them all the same" - thanks to having written a book that forced me to research Islam in more detail than the great majority of non-Muslim Americans know, I fully realize that they are as fractured - if not more so - as mainstream "Christianity". Right now, I'd say Islam is where mainstream "Christianity" was about three or four hundred years ago, when it comes to development of doctrine and tolerance of other sects thereof.
second - and this is the really salient point - if you add up all the Muslims of any stripe who've committed terrorist attacks inside America over the past twenty or thirty years, the total will add up to MAYBE fifty individuals...and that's being really generous. The problem is that the Islamophobic Right is casting suspicion upon ALL the 3.3 million Muslims already living peacefully in America because of the actions of a few dozen individuals who happen to follow (or simply just claim to follow) the same religion...
...and that's wrong in every way.
I said "And now we have muslims in our society which are being specifically told not to care." And you assumed that meant all muslims. There have been over 25,000 attacks by muslims around the world in the last few decades. Thats a pattern.
Murder Rates
Countries Compared by Crime > Violent crime > Murder rate. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
Florida Gay Nightclub Massacre Proves Armed Security Isn't Likely to be Effective - The Truth About Guns
Three horrific hours: Inside the Orlando nightclub massacre
So, how many people do you think got shot in the spray of the two shooting at each other?
And one other thing: you think it's a good idea to mix guns and alcohol in public?
AH! The poison pill solution. Which you know damn well is completely unpractical due to logistics and sheer numbers. Or are you advocating radically increasing the budget for government employees to do this very task?
That is why I said one armed security personnel in a known location was inadequate, as this incident proves. If, however, those with a CHL were allowed to carry, there most probably would have been a few inside the club armed. While there are no guarantees in such a situation, it's more likely that the shooter would have been stopped sooner. As for "mixing guns and alcohol", it's no different than expecting drivers to know if they are safe to drive after being at a bar. Several states already allow it, including Ohio, Minnesota, and South Carolina. I'm pretty sure Georgia passed it recently as well. To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a massive uptick in bar gunfights in those states.
No, we don't need to load up a place with guns. We need to keep people from buying stuff that can kill 50 people in 2 or 3 minutes.
Mixing alcohol in urban area nightclubs has been shown over and over again to be a stupid idea.
You're arguments are not credible.
Has there been an increase in bar gun fights/shootings in states that allow CC in them? If so, it's gotten surprisingly little national news attention. What we need to do is allow people to protect themselves when in public accommodations. I'm not sure how many GFZs need to be shot up before people either wise up and change the laws or stop patronizing them. I know, personally, I won't patronize a GFZ, and that's whether I'm carrying or not.
It protects all rights not protected elsewhere. Common Law rights fall under the grouping "all".The Ninth Amendment says NOTHING about natural law or common law rights. NOTHING.
We know better. That's not going to fool anyone.Nobody is trying to take away ones right to have arms.
You do realize that this won't justify unreasonable limitations?And it also recognizes reasonable limitations on that right so thanks for that case.....
Yes we are.We are not under British common law
Common Law rights are incorporated into the Constitution. Legislation is not allowed to violate the Constitution.but do not apply here where we have a Constitution and legislation passed by Congress and state legislatures
Please.
You're grasping. I'm not going around in circles with you. If you don't have anything credible, then we're done.
Please.
You're grasping. I'm not going around in circles with you. If you don't have anything credible, then we're done.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?