snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Police Blotter

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 05 October 2017, 09:27 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,906
Default

Random thoughts;

I've always figured gun and ammo makers secretly support democrats in elections. When Obama, Clinton, Carter etc. were elected gun and ammo sales went through the roof. Sales drop when republicans are elected.

I wonder why the shooter stooped shooting? He fired for about 11 minutes but police didn't get to his room for an hour after he started. It is certainly good that he stopped, but why did he stop?

When a 2nd amendment type says "shall.not.be.infringed" I counter with "well.regulated". So apparently you can be "regulated" without infringing. he 2nd amendment is kind of internally inconsistent. I believe the supreme court has ruled that "Militia" and "the people" are the same things. If they aren't the same people then the first half of the 2nd amendment is completely unnecessary. If they are the same then why two different names?
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 05 October 2017, 09:47 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is online now
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,093
Default

My unlearned opinion is that it was based on state distrust of an empowered Federal government*. Since members of the militia were all able-bodied white men between 18 and 45 and were required to supply their own arms and ammunition, the Federal government could theoretically have disarmed the state militias by banning private ownership of arms.

Note the wording of Section 13 of the Virginal Declaration of Rights (pretty much where the Bill of Rights came from).

Quote:
Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Note how the militia of trained citizen soldiers is contrasted with a standing army. The writer (George Mason?) clearly felt that only a militia could be trusted with safeguarding the freedoms. Probably because a militia has local ties to the community that they would protect. A standing army would be composed of many men with no local ties** but a militia would be all local men.

* Which, if true, would make the claim that the 2nd Amendment is there so we can defend ourselves against the Federal government valid, but horribly outdated.
** Remember, at this time most people thought themselves citizens of their state before any national identity.

Last edited by GenYus234; 05 October 2017 at 09:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 05 October 2017, 09:51 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Note how the militia of trained citizen soldiers is contrasted with a standing army.
Also note how much difference there is between "trained citizen soldiers" and "everyone has the right to own an AR-15".
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 05 October 2017, 10:02 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,159
Default

To operate a rifle with a bump fire stock, you use your forward hand to push the gun forward against the trigger finger, and the gun then moves back and forth as long as you keep forward pressure on it. One reason why he stopped may be that his arms got tired. He also shot more than 200 rounds into the hallway when a security guard approached at about the 10 minute mark. He may have realized he was going to be captured and ended it then. Two police officers arrived and spoke to the security guard a couple of minutes after the security guard was hit, and he identified the room.

Police took as long as they did to breach the room in part because Paddock was not shooting. By 20-25 minutes in, there were around 18 officers on the 32nd floor and in the stairwell near his room. From what the sheriff said, they would not have waited for SWAT if he had been shooting at that point. Because he had stopped, they took the time to clear the rooms and check for wounded as they worked toward his room, and waited for SWAT to breach.

I don't have the link handy, but you.can see.the time line released by the Sheriff if you Google Las Vegas shooting time line.

Last edited by erwins; 05 October 2017 at 10:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 05 October 2017, 10:10 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is online now
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
Also note how much difference there is between "trained citizen soldiers" and "everyone has the right to own an AR-15".
And the difference between arms that had a decent chance of standing up to the army of 1790 and the army of 2017. Other than some urban combat scenarios, a legally armed citizen would have almost no chance of successfully defending himself against military aggression. Note that IEDs caused almost 6 times as many injuries as conventional arms in the US' recent conflicts. Other than a relatively few licensed demolition experts, no on in the US has legal access to explosives in quantities that would pose significant risks* even to ground troops or unarmored vehicles.

* Nor should they.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 05 October 2017, 10:45 PM
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
My unlearned opinion is that it was based on state distrust of an empowered Federal government*. Since members of the militia were all able-bodied white men between 18 and 45 and were required to supply their own arms and ammunition, the Federal government could theoretically have disarmed the state militias by banning private ownership of arms.

Note the wording of Section 13 of the Virginal Declaration of Rights (pretty much where the Bill of Rights came from).



Note how the militia of trained citizen soldiers is contrasted with a standing army. The writer (George Mason?) clearly felt that only a militia could be trusted with safeguarding the freedoms. Probably because a militia has local ties to the community that they would protect. A standing army would be composed of many men with no local ties** but a militia would be all local men.

* Which, if true, would make the claim that the 2nd Amendment is there so we can defend ourselves against the Federal government valid, but horribly outdated.
** Remember, at this time most people thought themselves citizens of their state before any national identity.
Well it is horribly outdated IMO. The Second Amendment's purpose was both practical (living in a land where you could be days from civilization with dangerous natives after you) and to prevent having a standing army. Many founders were skeptical of the idea of a standing army seeing it as a potential for tyranny and unnecessary given the size of the country.

Things changed. We went the approach of having a full time centralized army and we have not only have grown in size as a country, we got real good at building weapons that (if we are honest) are really good at killing people and other things. Our laws need to address the reality that times have changed and the realities surrounding them have changed.

We don't need guns to ensure our freedoms. It just causes problems because we can't just trust in the idea that there are random good guys with guns. I don't like the idea of walking around knowing that if I am in the wrong state, I could be right next to someone who legally has a gun and maybe shouldn't be. Having everybody armed gives me less freedom since people don't always act responsibly and I sure as heck am not cool with the idea that I have to assume everyone out there could be packing heat except me and what should happen if the worst does. Except the worst is happening way more often then it should.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
And the difference between arms that had a decent chance of standing up to the army of 1790 and the army of 2017. Other than some urban combat scenarios, a legally armed citizen would have almost no chance of successfully defending himself against military aggression. Note that IEDs caused almost 6 times as many injuries as conventional arms in the US' recent conflicts. Other than a relatively few licensed demolition experts, no on in the US has legal access to explosives in quantities that would pose significant risks* even to ground troops or unarmored vehicles.

* Nor should they.
From what I am reading, a lot of people are dismissing that as a baseless assumption. They state that there are way more private guns than members of the Military and that the Military would become fractured when faced with the notion of firing on their fellow citizens. They state that the number of military members is mostly comprised of people that do not have a job and are only in it for the benefits. They also think that they would get external support from another country.

I am not sure if I believe that - anything that can happen with the military hypothetically can easily happen with a citizen militia. Worse, it would be not as good for them since they are inherently less organized and supplied than the military has and I don't think that there would be mass abandonment.

Of course the people that think that they can take on the military cite Vietnam and Korea (saying the military lost these wars) as reasons that they could fight back,

Last edited by diddy; 05 October 2017 at 10:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 05 October 2017, 11:37 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,159
Default

The post-Civil-War amendments are often referred to by constitutional scholars as a second founding, in which the relationship of the states to the federal government changed. I have not thought about whether there is a textual basis to build on, but it seems clear that when those amendments were passed and ratified, the states were not understood to have a right to take military action against the federal government. So if that was the reason for the second amendment, it could be gone.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 06 October 2017, 12:43 AM
musicgeek's Avatar
musicgeek musicgeek is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2005
Location: Fairfield, CT
Posts: 5,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
When a 2nd amendment type says "shall.not.be.infringed" I counter with "well.regulated."
Oh, don't worry, they have an answer for that one all set:

"See, in the parlance of the times, 'regulated' just meant 'rehearsed' or 'drilled.' A 'well-regulated militia,' then, is one that is well-versed in the firing of guns, so what the founders really wanted is for everyone to be proficient with their firearms."

"But doesn't even 'rehearsed' or 'drilled' imply some kind of organization or oversight?"

"SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED."

Repeat ad nauseam.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 06 October 2017, 12:44 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
Of course the people that think that they can take on the military cite Vietnam and Korea (saying the military lost these wars) as reasons that they could fight back,
Which, of course, completely ignores the fact that both wars were fought against well trained and equipped armies that were being supported by China, not a rag-tag bunch of misfits armed with hunting rifles.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 06 October 2017, 01:36 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,395
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
Of course the people that think that they can take on the military cite Vietnam and Korea (saying the military lost these wars) as reasons that they could fight back,
Of course a Korea/Vietnam scenario wouldn’t happen because, let’s face it, most militia gun-nuts suck at strategy. “Heavy on the Red Dawn, light on the Che Guevara,” as a wise soul on the Internet said.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 06 October 2017, 02:51 AM
UrbanLegends101 UrbanLegends101 is offline
 
Join Date: 24 November 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post

Note the wording of Section 13 of the Virginal Declaration of Rights (pretty much where the Bill of Rights came from).


.
May we assume from the Virginia Declaration of Rights?
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 06 October 2017, 06:43 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
... the Military would become fractured when faced with the notion of firing on their fellow citizens.
Haha yes, and those fellow citizens would meanwhile remain completely united in disciplined co-operation! Because co-operation for the common good is one of the things that isolationist gun fanatics are famous for liking.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 06 October 2017, 06:54 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,599
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
Sounded to me like she had no other options, or it was irrelevant that she did have options that most would not have.
That's what I mean: What do you mean she "did have options that most would not have"? All we know is that she has family elsewhere and she's lived in another place. That doesn't mean she doesn't have other options but we have no reason to assume she does - and certainly not to the extent that "most would not have". We have no idea what other options she may have. Simply having family in another place or having lived elsewhere does not imply anything of the sort.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 06 October 2017, 08:25 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,159
Default

She had lived in two other countries, was a citizen of one of them (Australia), and had family in both. I don't understand how you could think that she did not have more options than most people in the US if she wanted to leave. Are you saying that most people in the US have dual citizenship and close family in other countries?

One of the things that people frequently point out about all of those Americans who say they are going to Canada if X happens is that Canada won't just let them move there. If you want to leave the US to live somewhere else, you need to figure out what country will actually let you do that. Being a citizen of another country is a huge advantage. Having family where you want to go can also help, as can having lived there before. Those can help with gaining entry and with making it less daunting to move.

I do agree that there's no reason to assume that she would be any less attached to the US--that she would take such a move lightly. But I'm surprised that you are arguing that there's no reason to think that she had more options than most people.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 06 October 2017, 09:31 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,599
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
She had lived in two other countries, was a citizen of one of them (Australia), and had family in both. [...] But I'm surprised that you are arguing that there's no reason to think that she had more options than most people.
I didn't say no reason to think it but no reason to assume it, which is very different.

My reason is that it depends on so many other factors that I think it's wrong to assume anything from these two facts. For example, I do not know that it is even the case that most Americans do not have family or good friends in other countries. About one percent of citizens live abroad and about 25 percent are first or second generation immigrants. A lot more, of course are third or fourth but the data gets murkier. Almost half of trips overseas are to visit family and friends -- something like 15 million people a year.... A heck of a lot of Americans have family or friends overseas! That's just an example of one problem with the assumption. (Another is I don't know what you mean by family in Australia. Where did you see that? ETA Never mind: sisters. OK)

There is also the question of its relevance: I don't think we need to discuss what "most" people have has to do with making assumptions about one person. We simply don't know enough about her situation to say whether she has any advantage for voluntarily exiling herself from the country she's lived for the past 20 years.

Last edited by ganzfeld; 06 October 2017 at 09:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 06 October 2017, 03:36 PM
Dark Blue's Avatar
Dark Blue Dark Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 June 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,335
Default N.R.A. Supports New Rules on ‘Bump Stock’ Devices

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/u...-shooting.html
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 06 October 2017, 04:07 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is online now
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
Things changed. We went the approach of having a full time centralized army and we have not only have grown in size as a country, we got real good at building weapons that (if we are honest) are really good at killing people and other things. Our laws need to address the reality that times have changed and the realities surrounding them have changed.
Agreed. Many of the amendments themselves have qualifications built in, so clearly the founders thought they shouldn't be taken as absolutes. And those that don't still have been interpreted to include exceptions. As many others have mentioned, there are lots of laws abridging total freedom of press and speech. Several prohibiting free exercise of religion (for example, only West Virginia permits snake worshiping).

Quote:
From what I am reading, a lot of people are dismissing that as a baseless assumption. They state that there are way more private guns than members of the Military and that the Military would become fractured when faced with the notion of firing on their fellow citizens. They state that the number of military members is mostly comprised of people that do not have a job and are only in it for the benefits. They also think that they would get external support from another country.
While much of that would probably happen, even a severely weakened military would be more than a match for a citizen militia. It isn't just that the army is bigger and better trained, it is that they have much better equipment. I've not heard the argument about outside assistance before. I'm thinking they've really not thought that one through. The countries most likely to get involved in another US civil war will not be ones that are altruistic, but ones looking to carve off a piece (or the total) for themselves. Witness how well foreign assistance worked for Poland or other Eastern European countries in WWII. The 5 largest armies in the world are China, India, US, North Korea, and Russia. India would likely be neutral and not get involved and the rest would be very dangerous allies. Then there is the issue of force projection. Russia and China are the only other powers with any aircraft carriers, which would be critical to any invasion force. The UK does have amphibious landing craft, but they'd be sitting ducks if the US military still had any aircraft strike capability.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 06 October 2017, 04:34 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,194
Default

I have to play a little bit of Devil's Advocate here. No, of course armed citizens couldn't stand up to the army in a battle. But could they fight back in ways that would make it difficult for a tyrannical regime to govern? Sure. Maybe the average gun nut's "Red Dawn" fantasies are absurd, but serious resisters would learn quickly and get smarter.

Does that mean we need unrestricted access to military-style firearms for all citizens? No, I don't think so. As far as reducing deaths from firearms, however, I think it would be much more effective to concentrate on handguns than on assault rifles. We still have on the order of 10,000 gun-related homicides in this country every year (plus another 20,000 suicides). To compete with that, we'd have to have a Vegas-style massacre every other day. While mass shootings are on the rise, they aren't anywhere near that level yet (and since "mass shootings" are usually defined as something like 4 or more victims in once incident, a lot of those are committed with handguns, too). Throw in another 20.000 suicides by gun annually (again, the great majority with handguns), and it becomes apparent that assault weapons are a pretty small part of the problem.

(I think you could also make an argument that if the idea is to have an armed citizen militia, then a standard-issue infantry rifle is exactly the weapon the Second Amendment should most protect. Infantrymen rarely use or even carry handguns.)
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 06 October 2017, 04:53 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft View Post
I have to play a little bit of Devil's Advocate here. No, of course armed citizens couldn't stand up to the army in a battle. But could they fight back in ways that would make it difficult for a tyrannical regime to govern? Sure.
If the hardliners made a reasonable claim like that, I wouldn't find their position so ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 06 October 2017, 05:04 PM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is offline
 
Join Date: 22 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,532
Default

EQT makes some good points.

Although an armed militia probably couldn't go toe to toe with a modern army on a battlefield, they wouldn't be looking to get into such a battle. They could be very effective at disrupting whatever the government was trying to do though.

Further agreeing, that if we truly want to reduce gun violence, we need to stop focusing on mass shooting such as this one, and look more to restricting hand gun usage.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Congresswoman Critical of Gamergate Says She Was Targeted by Active Shooter Hoax omegazord Soapbox Derby 0 02 February 2016 04:01 PM
Active Shooter Reported At Planned Parenthood In Colorado Springs Tootsie Plunkette Police Blotter 165 23 December 2015 08:37 PM
My workload situation Magdalene SLC 6 26 January 2015 10:47 PM
Maryland Mall Shooter Also Had Explosives, Police Say snopes Police Blotter 0 26 January 2014 05:37 PM
Dry lips lead to sticky situation snopes Crash and Burn 4 02 July 2013 03:16 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.