(79) comments Back to story

Carlos Ponce

OK Jerome, give us one piece of legislation that would have prevented what happened at Las Vegas.

Jean Casanave

People intent on killing, will always find ways to kill.

Mark Aaron

Jean: "People intent on killing, will always find ways to kill."

So we should do away with laws because the bad guys will ignore them anyway? Have you met George yet? I think you two would get along.

Craig Lindberg

Classic dishonest Mark. Ignore the subject of the argument he can't win and set up a strawman.What we shouldn't do is make new laws that bad guys will ignore that also make good guys more vulnerable.

Mark Aaron

Craig: "What we shouldn't do is make new laws that bad guys will ignore"

I see wingnut Craig has joined George's no new laws because the bad guys will just ignore them club. You must be very "blissful."

Mark Aaron

Carlos: "OK Jerome, give us one piece of legislation that would have prevented what happened at Las Vegas. "

How about a national registry of gun buys so the government can keep an eye on people building arsenals for a start?

Craig Lindberg

Of course Mark fails to explain how a "national registry" would have prevented Las Vegas. Are you saying that the government should surveil firearm owners 24-7? Is exercising your 2A rights now probable cause? The firearms used were legally obtained, so ATF had a record and knowledge of the transfers to the shooter. If you’re right, that should have been enough.

If it’s OK to require registration of the exercise of rights under the 2A, you have to believe it’s OK to require registration for the exercise of rights under the 1A as well. After all, a right is a right. That's a pretty racist position Mark. You're implicitly arguing that BLM should be required to register to protest and that Muslims should be required to register to exercise their freedom of religion. Infringing on civil rights cuts both ways. Try thinking past the tip of your nose for a change.

Mark Aaron

Craig: "Of course Mark fails to explain how a "national registry" would have prevented Las Vegas."

That's because it is blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't an NRA dupe.

Craig Lindberg

Predictable Mark calls someone a dupe when he can't defend his position. Run and hide under your desk Mark. That's all you can do when all you have is lies.

Craig Lindberg

Mark, if I'm wrong about you being a shallow shill, do tell us in detail how a national registry would have prevented Las Vegas. Stop with the drive-by comments. Come out from under your desk and enlighten us with your grand leftist wisdom. Just give us the facts you claim to sheppard. No attacks, no diversions, no red herrings, for once back up something you claim. I look forward to crushing your pathetic attempts at reason to a pulp.

Carlos Ponce

"Will Congress take this baby step or will they finally make it illegal for one person to buy three dozen weapons of war in one year?"
Do you really think that would work? Would it have stopped the Las Vegas killer from obtaining the means to achieve his evil goals? If limited he could have bought them "off market". Or he could have his girlfriend buy some. Should a background check now indicate if you have friends who bought some for you? Good luck on that one. Did he actually use all his weapons in his assault? No.
In Houston there was a robbery at Carter's Country gun store on South Wilcrest where 10 masked thieves made off with 50 or more firearms. Is there a limit on purloined firearms? How about passing a law that limits the number of firearms one can steal. There is already a legal limit - ZERO.
How about the Barney Fife Bill - limit ammo sales to one bullet? [rolleyes]
In the Paddock case, someone knows more than they're letting on because that person may be implicated in murder.

Carlos Ponce

Correction: In the Paddock case, someone knows more than they're letting on and they are silent because that person may be implicated in murder.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: "Do you really think that would work? Would it have stopped the Las Vegas killer from obtaining the means to achieve his evil goals?"

Obviously limiting huge gun purchases would have made his grisly task much harder. Why would you pretend otherwise Carlos? Are you that dedicated to being an NRA dupe?

==> "If limited he could have bought them "off market"."

So you are a fan of George-logic where laws don't matter because the bad guys will ignore them? That should earn you another pat on the head from the NRA.

Craig Lindberg

Really Mark? Are you that dedicated to ignoring common sense? One gun was all he needed - maybe two or three if he was really worried about failures. And of course laws matter, and bad guys ignore them by definition. Your low-information, shallow thinking should earn you a pat on the the head from the Democrat party.

Carlos Ponce

"keep and bear arms": Arms is plural meaning more than one is Constitutional. But my question is how many of the weapons in Paddock's possession did he actually use? As Craig points out "One gun was all he needed - maybe two or three if he was really worried about failures."
Before some Liberal anti-gun zealot says when the Bill of Rights was written, firearms could fire but one round, let me point out that the common arms in use at the time.were swords and bayonets. Muskets took too long. Look at the number one sword can kill.

Mark Aaron

Craig: " One gun was all he needed - maybe two or three if he was really worried about failures. "

You clearly know nothing about guns if you think you can rapid fire hundreds of rounds through an AR-15 without melting the barrel. You are just embarrassing yourself now Craig.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: ""keep and bear arms": Arms is plural meaning more than one is Constitutional."

Poor Carlos, duped again.From an Amicus Brief to the District of Columbia v. Heller Case:

_The term “bear arms” is an idiomatic expression that means “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight.” Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989) (arm, n.2, I.4.) available at http://dictionary.oed.com; see also id. (bear, v.1) (“6. To carry about with or upon one, as material equipment or ornament. a. To carry about with one, or wear, ensigns of office, weapons of offence or defence. to bear arms against: to be engaged in hostilities with”).15 Examples of historical usage include, in 1609, “He bure armes, and made weir against the King”16 and, in 1769, “An ample . . . pardon to all who had born arms against him.”17Since bearing arms inherently involves the use of weapons, it is not surprising that the term originates from the Latin arma ferre, which literally translates as “to bear [ferre] war equipment [arma].” At the time of the Second Amendment’s adoption, the word “arms” had an overwhelmingly military meaning. For example, Samuel Johnson’s eighteenth century dictionary defines “arms” as: “1. weapons of offence, or armour of defence. . . . 2. A state of hostility. . . . 3. War in general. . . . 4. Action; the act of taking arms. . . . 5. The ensigns armorial of a family.” Samuel Johnson, 1A Dictionary of the English 20 Language (1755) (arms, v.). This definition was universal at the time._

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_07_08_07_290_PetitionerAmCu3LinguisticsEnglishProfsnew.authcheckdam.pdf

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: "You clearly know nothing about guns if you think you can rapid fire hundreds of rounds through an AR-15 without melting the barrel. You are just embarrassing yourself now Craig."

I am literally laughing out loud at you Mark. This is the most 'self-identifying as ignorant' comment you have ever made. I have more than enough AR's to make you wet your bed. I have more ammo than a hundred Marks would think any human would ever need. My boys and I have fired more rounds that the Las Vegas shooter ever had in his wet dreams. You think I'm lying? Let's get together for a cup of coffee if you are not too much of a coward. I don't bite. Brother, I don't BS about guns, and you don't know jack about guns, so let's cut the crap.

Willis Briggs

If someone is going to commit murder, I doubt another law is going to enter their mind (providing they have one).[wink]

Mark Aaron

Willis: "If someone is going to commit murder, I doubt another law is going to enter their mind (providing they have one)."

Add another dupe to George's laws-don't-work club. So sad.

Craig Lindberg

Good old predictable Mark. Can't argue the point so he calls you a dupe. It's jus his way of admitting defeat.

Craig Lindberg

It’s always entertaining to listen to or read the words of someone talking about gun control who has no knowledge about guns. As is always the case with gun grabbers, no solution is proposed that would have prevented any mass shooting. These are the last person anyone should listen to when talking about trampling on our rights under the Constitution.

To the anti-2A crowd, which part of something being a “right” do you not understand? Why do you read the 1A in a completely different way than you read the 2A? Why do you think it’s OK to read the maximum conceivable breadth into every word in the 1A while seeking to limit the 2A to the narrowest possible definition?

This has nothing to do with mass shootings per se. To those seeking to infringe our rights under the 2A, they just make a convenient opportunity to try to trick people into a knee-jerk reaction. As Democrat Rahm Emanuel said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." However, anyone with common sense can understand why times when emotions run high are not the times to take away civil liberties.

In the end, this comes down to fear and right. Horrific crimes notwithstanding, your fear of guns does not trump my right to keep and bear arms.

Queue up predictable Mark to give us his authoritative sounding yet completely uninformed, incorrect, and intellectually dishonest arguments against the 2A conferring an individual right.

Jim Forsythe

 How do you know that someone has no knowledge about guns? 
Are you for bump stocks, 60 round clips,registered sear kits.
Gun laws are to limit the amount of high powered weapons that a person has at their disposable.
That's why a machine gun is regulated, as I can still use one , but with constraints.

Someone that has no knowledge about guns is a statement that is not true. Many people that are for control , were in the service.enjoy hunting, sport shooting, reloading, gun shows.
Does the average person have a need for a SSK  .950 JDJ or a 2-gauge punt gun. 
Please explain how a bump stock  is a good thing?

“I own a lot of guns, and as a hunter and sportsman, I think that’s our right as Americans, but I don’t understand the use of this bump stock,” Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said, adding, “It seems like it’s an obvious area we ought to explore and see if it’s something Congress needs to act on.”


Craig Lindberg

How do you know that someone has no knowledge about guns? When they make comments like “Now comes the Las Vegas massacre where using fully automatic weapons…”

I could personally care less about bump stocks, but that isn’t the point. The point is that the anti-2A crowd won’t accept a narrow ban because that is not what they want despite what they say. Case in point, Dianne Feinstein’s recently introduced Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act that would ban any “accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle.” Any aftermarket target trigger could fall into that definition. For that matter, what would be stopping them from working up the other direction and setting a minimum trigger pull weight and classifying anything less as “designed to accelerate the rate of fire?” You pass a law like this and your rights are at the mercy of the regulation of whatever administration happened to be over the ATF at a given time. It’s not a right if it’s subject to arbitrary interpretation.

If you have the gun knowledge you claim then you know that registered sears are extremely limited in supply, the supply is fixed, the cost is extreme, the transfer process is long and arduous, that the ATF can demand to inspect the gun, and that a legally owned full-auto weapon has never been used in a violent crime. You must also know that there are only 3 SSK .950 JDJ’s in existence, the rifle weighs on the order 100lbs, ammunition must be custom made, and it too has never been used in a crime. YOu must also know that a new weapon over 0.50 cal is classified as a “destructive device” and is controlled the same as a FA, SBR, or suppressor. This is all meaningless BS intended to distract from the real issue which is that we are talking about civil rights not big scary sounding guns.

Statement like “Does the average person have a need for a…” are meaningless. If it’s a right, the only need I need to have is that I want it. Does the average person have a need for a video game where you run around killing people and raping women? A right is a right or it isn’t a right.

Jim Forsythe

If you have the gun knowledge
My Brother was a Gunsmith which I helped him with, we hunted for food on the table. We reloaded all are own ammo (if you reload shotgun shells , have you tried  brass shotgun shells) , traded guns , did Turkey Shoots, ran traps, snares, sold hides. Fishing, , bottle fishing , bank lines, noodling, rods, Cain poles etc.. This was not a hobby , but a must for us.

The question was" Are you for bump stocks, 60 round clips, registered sear kits." not are they legal, not about the cost, or the paperwork.
Just as it is simple to change a Simi auto to auto ,are you in favor of this, not is it legal. If not , is a bump stock OK?
What can a bump stock be used for, except for killing in mass? 

Does a well regulated Militia, need to have meetings? If not, how can they be, well regulated ?
If you say no, what does a well regulated Militia mean to you?

"This is all meaningless BS intended to distract from the real issue which is that we are talking about civil rights not big scary sounding guns" The big scary guns are legal for me to own, but you are trying to make it sound like I should not own one , , the only need, I need to have, is that I want it. 

Jim Forsythe

The heart of the discussion is what is meant by "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 there any weapons that should be for the military only? Yes.
Who is the well regulated Militia going to be fighting against?
Does a well regulated Militia, need to have meetings? If not, how can they be, well regulated ?
If you say no, what does a well regulated Militia mean to you?

When rulings are made, sometimes they talk about law-abiding citizens .Laws are made, to punish the one that are not law-abiding citizens. If no laws were in place , then they would just go free.
If one is willing to die , then laws will not stop them!

District of Columbia v. Heller  The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court  in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate ther Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Recent lower-court case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to uphold
regulations which ban weapons on government property.
, 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment);US v Reneregulations which ban the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, convicted felon. 
,701 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2012) (holding that a New York law preventing individuals from obtaining a license to possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper cause did not violate the Second Amendment.)
Kachalsky v County of Westchester regulations which require a permit to carry concealed weapon.

Carlos Ponce

Just like Liberals tend to ignore the phrase " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in the First Amendment they also try to ignore "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " in the Second. TWO separate phrases. If it did not refer to "the people", it would have been written "the right of members of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
To avoid further confusion the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller defined it as referring to INDIVIDUAL ownership of firearms. It is the LAW OF THE LAND. You don't have to agree with everything the Supreme Court says but once said, IT'S DONE, IT'S LAW. Get over it. I don't care for a few Supreme Court decisions but there is no use to argue with established Supreme Court decisions.

Craig Lindberg

Jim writes: “Does a well regulated Militia, need to have meetings? If not, how can they be, well regulated ? If you say no, what does a well regulated Militia mean to you?”

The answer is no, but probably not for the reasons you might expect. You have to study the Constitution and its history to determine the meaning of the words given the context and the fact that the vernacular has changed over time. Consider the following:

The Bill of Rights, including the 2A are all limits on the power of the government. It’s nonsensical on it’s face to read the 2A as granting power to the government.

At the time of the writing of the constitution, the term “militia” included all people capable of bearing arms. If you disagree, show us ANY contemporaneous definition of “militia” by the framers that means differently. Such an alternative definition doesn’t exist. The word militia as used today is not the same as the word in the 2A.

Note that the wording of the 2A is “A well regulated…,” and not “THE well regulated…” The framers were talking about the concept of an indefinite object - an armed citizenry – not a definite militia.

The 2A is the ONLY place in the Constitution where the term “regulated,” “regulate,” or “regulations” is used without precisely defining what is being regulated and who is doing the regulating. This clearly suggests a separate and distinct meaning of “regulated” as used in the 2A that doesn’t require further definition.

So to the second half of your question, as used in the 2A, “well regulated” means “well prepared” and “well armed” […to provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…]. There are ample contemporaneous examples that support this reading. For example:

In this quote from a letter by George Washington to General Schuyler in 1776, Washington clearly not suggesting using the troops with the best set of rules but rather those best prepared: “If your present Numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all Means advise Your making up the Deficiency out of the best regulated and equipped Militia.” https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-07-02-0009

And, in this quote from 1788, the US Government was not clearly not expressing concern the Wabush Indians had better “regulations” than the Creek Indians – rather that they were better armed and prepared: “That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence… That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.” http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc034117))

The 2A like the other 9As is an individual right meant to limit the power of the federal government and as such, the Constitution does not define “regulated” as used in the 2A. With this understanding, “regulation” can only refer to “self-regulation” – citizens arming and preparing themselves. The framers did not see armed citizens as a threat to other citizens. Rather they saw them as an absolute necessity. If the political left in this country read the 2A the same way that they read the 1A, they would have to conclude that every American capable of bearing arms is REQUIRED to own a firearm.

Mark Aaron

Craig: "It’s always entertaining to listen to or read the words of someone talking about gun control who has no knowledge about guns. As is always the case with gun grabbers, no solution is proposed that would have prevented any mass shooting."

You don't need to know technical aspects of a gun to understand that our nation is experiencing an epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence unlike anything anywhere in the civilized world.Despite your NRA-dupe claim there are many solutions proffered that would help matters. Banning assault style weapons and high capacity magazines would be a good start. Banning bump stocks of course, only a crazy person can defend them now.

==> "These are the last person anyone should listen to when talking about trampling on our rights under the Constitution. "

As if you ever understood them.

Craig Lindberg

Shallow predictable Mark continues to make up nonsense and pretend like his wishful thinking is fact. Per the NIJ after the sunset of the last 10-year ‘assault rifle’ ban: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

Craig Lindberg

Predictable Mark writes: “You don't need to know technical aspects of a gun to understand that our nation is experiencing an epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence unlike anything anywhere in the civilized world.”

--> This of course is not the issue. It’s just Mark sad and tired MO of throwing out a strawman when he has no chance of successfully arguing the merits of his position vis-à-vis the relevant argument which is pretty much all the time.

Let’s get back to the REAL matter – infringing on Constitutional rights. When you are talking about taking away people’s gun rights, yes you do need to know the technical aspects of a gun else you are talking from a position of fear and emotion as opposed to logic and reason. Here is an example:

As this article points out, almost all of the crowd was within a 15 degree angle from the shooter’s line of fire. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-las-vegas-shooting-live-updates-the-trigonometry-of-terror-why-the-las-1507085772-htmlstory.html Get out your protractor and see just how small that angle is. If you know anything about bump stocks, you know that the nature of their operation makes them extremely inaccurate at anything other than very short distances. There is no doubt that the shooter was firing fast, but he was also firing wildly with many shots outside of the 15 degree window.

You write “Banning bump stocks of course, only a crazy person can defend them now.” Implying that this incident somehow proved something you or others have been saying for a long time. I’d bet good money that you had never heard of a bump stock before this. It also implies that Las Vegas somehow demonstrated that bump stocks contributed to the carnage when it is likely that just the opposite is true and that if shooter had instead relied on controlled fire, it may have resulted in many more casualties than using the bump stock. Of course I don’t expect you to understand this because you don’t have the first clue about guns, shooting, or the science of ballistics.

I personally could care less about bump stocks per se. I’ve never owned one and I have no interest in them. They are a stupid gimmick. Banning them specifically doesn’t concern me. What concerns me is the unintended (or more likely intended consequences) that will follow with continued incremental infringements on our rights.

The bottom line is that if we are going to take actions infringe on our rights we need to do it for the right reasons, not because it feels good at the moment or because we’re scared, and when it comes to guns and gun rights, that means understanding guns is absolutely necessary.

Mark Aaron

Craig: "Let’s get back to the REAL matter – infringing on Constitutional rights."

From Jeffery Toobin in The New Yorker:

_For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

But the N.R.A. kept pushing—and there’s a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)

The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find “clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.” The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outré constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.

And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment. It was a triumph above all for Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the opinion, but it required him to craft a thoroughly political compromise. In the eighteenth century, militias were proto-military operations, and their members had to obtain the best military hardware of the day. But Scalia could not create, in the twenty-first century, an individual right to contemporary military weapons—like tanks and Stinger missiles. In light of this, Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

So the government cannot ban handguns, but it can ban other weapons—like, say, an assault rifle—or so it appears. The full meaning of the court’s Heller opinion is still up for grabs. But it is clear that the scope of the Second Amendment will be determined as much by politics as by the law. The courts will respond to public pressure—as they did by moving to the right on gun control in the last thirty years. And if legislators, responding to their constituents, sense a mandate for new restrictions on guns, the courts will find a way to uphold them. The battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled._

Craig Lindberg

What a surprise, predictable superficial Mark, incapable of doing any analysis on his own, just copies and pastes stuff he doesn't understand.

Mark Aaron

Craig: "What a surprise, predictable superficial Mark, incapable of doing any analysis on his own, just copies and pastes stuff he doesn't understand."

Your delusional confirmation bias is so severe that trying to educate you on any subject is like trying to teach calculus to a toddler, Craig. I have explained the same things the article I quoted said and you pretend I am insane. I post scholarly works and well researched journalism saying the same thing and you whine about me copying and pasting. The truth is your confirmation bias is so profound that you are incapable of recognizing anything outside of your wingnut conceit. So pathetic.

Diane Brodie

If the security guard had been armed he could have stopped Paddock, as he was shot in the leg 6 minutes before the shooting started. Armed adults at Sandy Hook could have stopped the shooting there. Taking away law abiding citizen's ability to defend themselves won't ever stop criminals intent on murder.

Andy Brown

The security guard was shot through the door of the suite after being spotted by Paddock via cameras in the hallway. There is not a snowball's chance in hell the guard would have had any opportunity to stop Paddock if he were armed. The only thing he could have done is notify the police of Paddock's position earlier.

Mark Aaron

Diane: "If the security guard had been armed he could have stopped Paddock, as he was shot in the leg 6 minutes before the shooting started. Armed adults at Sandy Hook could have stopped the shooting there. "

So your answer to the gun epidemic in America is even more guns. Do you not have any idea how crazy that is?

Craig Lindberg

The sad thing is that you're just a blathering of banal platitudes with zero substance. We don't have a "gun epidemic" we have a crime epidemic, and we have an epic lack of resolve to enforce the laws already on the books. Only a complete fool could believe that arming law-abiding citizens will increase crime or that disarming law-abiding citizens would reduce crime. It's also beyond pathetic that you are so wishy-washy when it comes to defending civil liberties wanting to read everything that suits your fancy into the 1A no matter how big a stretch while simultaneously disregarding the clear meaning of the 2A. What's crazy is fighting to take away rights under the 2A and thinking it won't have any impact on your other rights.

Mark Aaron

Craig: "The sad thing is that you're just a blathering of banal platitudes with zero substance."

You bring nothing to the conversation but insults, sophistry, and baseless assertions, Craig. You ignore all facts, no matter how noble or credible. You back up nothing you claim. And then you talk about blathering. Try again if you ever figure out what intellectual honesty is.

PD Hyatt

The progressive left will not stop until they have taken away our 2nd Amendment , and that is the only right in our Constitution that guarantees the rest of them.... People who would trade away their freedoms and rights are not worthy to have either of them....

Mark Aaron

Paul: "The progressive left will not stop until they have taken away our 2nd Amendment , and that is the only right in our Constitution that guarantees the rest of them...."

You are beyond duped Paul. Our Constitutional Democracy is based on the checks and balances of three branches of government. Not on high speed high capacity firearms. Get a clue.

Craig Lindberg

Can you ever make an honest argument? Our Constitutional Republic is based on our Constitution which guarantees certain individual rights set forth in the Bill of Rights whether you like it or not.

Steve Fouga

He tried honest arguments when he first joined the forum. He quickly found they don't always work. [cool]

Mark Aaron

Craig: "Our Constitutional Republic is based on our Constitution which guarantees certain individual rights set forth in the Bill of Rights whether you like it or not. "

Do try to keep up Craig. The Bill of Rights are amendments later added to the US Constitution. You embarrass yourself yet again.

Mark Aaron

Steve: "He tried honest arguments when he first joined the forum. He quickly found they don't always work."

Quite right. My arguments are still honest, but I find a little snark is also appropriate when dealing with such profound cognitive dissonance and insults.

Carlos Ponce

Steve posted:" He tried honest arguments when he first joined the forum. He quickly found they don't always work."
They did not work because he draws from the FAR-LEFT. Of course that would appeal to Leftist readers but the majority of Galveston County doesn't spin that way so he should have expected disagreement. That was okay. But when he turned nasty and insulting other forum users........[sad] If he doesn't agree with you then you're a bigot, a racist who has been duped. Hardly intellectual conversation. More like a school yard bully.

Craig Lindberg

Mark the only thing embarrassing around here is you hiding under your desk in the fetal position rocking back-and-forth hoping people with the facts will go away.

Craig Lindberg

Honest arguments never work for a liberal. Their ideas are so repulsive to anyone with common sense, they have no choice but to lie.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: "They did not work because he draws from the FAR-LEFT. Of course that would appeal to Leftist readers but the majority of Galveston County doesn't spin that way so he should have expected disagreement."

Other than what my research has taught me about the real history of the 2nd Amendment most of my political positions are quite centrist. You are just so far out on the evangelical right fringe that everything looks far left to you. Normal people don't get their news from Pat Robertson and CBN Carlos.

==> "But when he turned nasty and insulting other forum users........ If he doesn't agree with you then you're a bigot, a racist who has been duped. Hardly intellectual conversation. More like a school yard bully."

My first message on this forum you denigrated and questioned my patriotism despite knowing I was a war veteran, Carlos. How long did you think I was going take crap like that without responding? As for you being a racist, you constantly prove me right with your comments. Your similarly constant refusal to admit that Trump is a liar or an incompetent earns you the fair label as a dupe. You have zero intellectual honesty, why would you expect respect from anyone?

Mark Aaron

Craig: "Honest arguments never work for a liberal. Their ideas are so repulsive to anyone with common sense, they have no choice but to lie."

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a classic example of confirmation bias. The "tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs."

Raymond Lewis

Yes, Ms Brodie, "If". If the Windows had been bullet proof. If the shooter didn't want to shoot people for the sport of it. "If" eagles had trumpets in their rear there would be music in the air. "If" we would come to our senses this heinousness would stop. Mr. Forsythe, you are right on target.

Kelly Naschke

Mark... your getting SPANKED and made a fool of seems to be becoming a daily occurrence. Keep it up!!

Mark Aaron

Leroy: "Mark... your getting SPANKED and made a fool of seems to be becoming a daily occurrence."

*you're

Craig Lindberg

Predictable Mark sneaks out from hiding under his desk to correct grammar. This is the guy who likes to tell people how sad they are...

Mark Aaron

Craig: "Predictable Mark sneaks out from hiding under his desk to correct grammar. This is the guy who likes to tell people how sad they are..."

Poor sad delusional Craig. He has no viable arguments, no sources, no facts. Pobrecito.

Carlos Ponce

Why was the Bill of Rights created?
Amendment 1 "Congress shall make no law..."
Amendment 2: "....shall not be infringed"
Amendment 3: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house..."
Amendment 4: "..., shall not be violated..."
Amendment 5 "No person shall be held to answer", "nor shall any person be subject", 'nor shall be compelled ". " nor shall private property be taken ..."
Amendment 6: "...the accused shall enjoy ..."
Amendment 7: " ...no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States..."
Amendment 8: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Clearly the Bill of Rights were written to LIMIT the central government. This is contrary to Liberal thinking that the right to keep and bear arms only pertains to the state militias or military.
"The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for INDIVIDUAL liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power."
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
"All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are designed as limits on government. They say what government cannot do, not what it must do."
http://www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/rights/
"These first ten amendments to the Constitution became known as the Bill of Rights and still stand as both the symbol and foundation of American ideals of individual liberty, limited government, and the rule of law."
http://www.ushistory.org/us/18a.asp
"In the late 1900’s century, there was a lot of debate around
whether the Second Amendment only protected the right to bear arms as a
collective right or individuals also had that right. The debate was about
whether the right to bear arms was only for militias and armies, or if
individuals also were provided that right. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that the right was an individual one in the case."
https://kids.laws.com/bill-of-rights

Mark Aaron

Carlos: "The Supreme Court ultimately decided that the right was an individual one in the case."

So said a partisan majority in a bitter 5 to 4 vote and against 200+ years of judicial precedence. Even then, uber activist judge Anton Scalia admitted that it was a limited right and subject to regulation.

Steve Fouga

Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee our right to own any type of firearm? Any piece of firearm-related equipment we please? Any number of firearms? Any amount of ammunition? Any amount of ammunition within a single firearm or magazine? Our right to move our firearms anywhere we please? Have as many with us at a time as we please? Does it guarantee their possession won't be taxed? Does it guaranteed their cost won't be exorbitant? Does it guarantee that owning certain of them won't subject us to rigorous and intrusive background checks?

Those of you asking what sort of legislation would help prevent mass shootings, read the above questions from the perspective a lawmaker trying to inhibit mass shootings. I didn't say "eliminate" because as many have already said, that's impossible. If I were a lawmaker wishing to limit mass shootings, I would start with the above, rather than bayonet lugs, vertical grips, collapsible stocks, etc.

Personally, I'm a 2nd-Amendment supporter. But if I weren't... well, I'd address those questions.

Craig Lindberg

The intellectual dishonesty exposed by discussions of Constitutional rights never ceases to amaze. It’s beyond laughable that someone will argue with a straight face that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” can be stretched so broadly as to mean that the 10 Commandments can’t be posted on public property, and in the same breath, argue that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” can be interpreted so narrowly as to have effectively no meaning.

As to your question, no the 2A doesn’t guarantee the right to any type of fire arm any more than the 1A grants you the right to any type of speech, however I would argue that it does guarantee you the right to unlimited guns and ammunition just as the 1A guarantees you unlimited free speech. As recent SC rulings are demonstrating, the 2A guarantees you the right to move your firearms as you please just as the 1A guarantees you the right to free speech where you please (with obvious exceptions such as private property and I would include government buildings in that group but now we’re in the realm of trespassing rather that a 1/2A question). Just as the 1A guarantees free speech won’t be taxed out of existence, the 2A does the same. Background checks are obviously necessary though they can’t be a source of infringement any more than you can have an intelligence test as a qualification for voting (or free speech). Background checks must also be “shall issue” meaning that there is nobody that gets to decide if you are worthy. If you pass the check you get to buy the gun. By definition, that’s the only way it’s a right.

Gun grabbers can hem and haw all they want, but it is the simplest of common sense that laws that laws restricting firearm ownership and possession put law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage vis-à-vis criminals. Think about what happens when, rather than banning, you attempt to restrict ownership via tax on the gun or restrict usefulness via tax on ammunition? You simply disarm the law-abiding poor people. As if we needed any more proof that leftists couldn’t less about the poor.

Mark Aaron

Craig: "The intellectual dishonesty exposed by discussions of Constitutional rights never ceases to amaze. It’s beyond laughable that someone will argue with a straight face that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” can be stretched so broadly as to mean that the 10 Commandments can’t be posted on public property, and in the same breath, argue that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” can be interpreted so narrowly as to have effectively no meaning."

That is because your cognitive dissonance is so profound that you can not fathom that laws are interpreted through legal terms of art and through judicial precedence. Or put more bluntly, you are too ignorant of the nuances to accurately interpret constitutional law.

Craig Lindberg

The anti-2A gun grabbers should take a step back and ponder their extreme arrogance. When you seek to infringe someone’s rights under the 2A, what you’re really saying is you have a right to decide for everyone else, when, where, and by what means they have a right to defend themselves. When you suggest that someone doesn’t “need” a certain type or number of guns or need carry them where they please, you are suggesting that you have a right to decide when, where, and how everyone else expresses their “Blessings of Liberty.” These people would never suggest limiting the 1A in these ways, and there is nothing in the Constitution that even remotely suggests that any enumerated right deserves less deference than any other.

Mark Aaron

Craig: "what you’re really saying is you have a right to decide for everyone else, when, where, and by what means they have a right to defend themselves."

Uh, no. Courts have the constitutionally designated right to interpret the law. We the people have police and military whose job it is to defend us. We no longer have marauding pirates or Indian bands we must defend against. Traditional hunting rifles are more than adequate to defend us against any dangerous animals we might encounter. The rest is just nonsense. We and our local police do not need military grade weapons. They do far more harm than good.

Steve Fouga

Thanks for your responses, Craig. I predict the next time both the Executive and Legislative branches are under the control of Democrats, we will see these questions and similar ones addressed, with respect to 2nd Amendment rights. And I think the government WILL eventually decide or at least try to decide what an individual requires for personal and home defense, for hunting, for competitive shooting, etc.

I guess this sort of prediction doesn't exactly require a soothsayer, LOL... [cool]

Speaking just for myself, I believe more rigorous background checks WOULD weed out folks that "shouldn't" possess firearms, but of course they wouldn't catch every one.

Carlos Ponce

Steve posts: " I predict the next time both the Executive and Legislative branches are under the control of Democrats, we will see these questions and similar ones addressed, with respect to 2nd Amendment rights."
After DC v. Heller it won't matter what the executive and legislative branches do. Precedent has been SET. Highly unlikely that it will be overturned.

Steve Fouga

On the contrary, Carlos... Although DC v. Heller confirms an individual's right to bear arms, it leaves the door open for stricter regulatory measures. That's my reading of the decision. I guarantee it will be tested at some point. Sooner rather than later, if the GOP delays much longer in ditching Trump. If Trump is still in power this time next year, I'll make you a bet the GOP loses both Houses. After that, impeachment and removal (we'll call it "remove and replace") will follow quickly. And after that, when a Democrat takes the presidency in 2020, tougher gun legislation. Maybe even sooner.

Dump Trump early, and the midterms will retain the status quo, and everyone's guns are safe! [beam]

Carlos Ponce

We shall see.

Craig Lindberg

Steve, you're going to have to do better than that if you want to challenge Mark for the position of King of Wishful Thinking.

Steve Fouga

Well, Craig, I'm in a weird position. As a mostly-Centrist, it's hard to be very wishful in any direction. I see nothing but crackpots and tinhorn politicos everywhere I look. [unsure]

Carlos Ponce

"mostly centrist", Steve? Your posts betray you true political leanings.

Steve Fouga

Not really, Carlos. I'm a little left of center, but only a little. Have you taken any of the political tendencies "tests" that place a person on x-y axes for their preference of either liberal or conservative policies and their preference for either authoritarian or libertarian leadership? I tend to be slightly liberal and fairly strongly libertarian. I'm not saying these tests are infallible, but since the results match how I feel, I trust them more than I do your opinion. I'm mostly Centrist.

Being a wild-eyed conservative, your frame of reference is skewed. You can't see me for what I really am.

If you were a flaming liberal, we would be having a different set of arguments. [cool]

Mark Aaron

Craig: "Steve, you're going to have to do better than that if you want to challenge Mark for the position of King of Wishful Thinking. "

We long ago conceded that designation to you and Carlos. We aren't even in the running. Never were.

Mark Aaron

Craig: ""mostly centrist", Steve? Your posts betray you true political leanings."

So says the confirmed trumpist. Craig you can't even see the center you are so far out on the right hand fringe.

Carlos Ponce

Like I posted - your forum posts betray your true nature, not the words of a man slightly left of center. Not that there's anything wrong with that. [beam]

Mark Aaron

Craig: "After DC v. Heller it won't matter what the executive and legislative branches do. Precedent has been SET. Highly unlikely that it will be overturned."

Heller is a single, poorly decided, partisan outlier in 230 years of precedent. Despite your wishful thinking it is near certain to be overturned given the damage it is causing. We have the world's worst gun violence epidemic. That is no accident, and the Framers of the US Constitution did not sign on to a suicide pact. It will go down in history as the 'Dred Scott' decision of our era.

Craig Lindberg

You're right that it will ebb and flow to some extent. That being said, the Democrats know this is an issue that kills them every time they push it. They will be a lot less vocal and active on "gun control" when they are in power just as the Republicans look like a totally different party on Obamacare now that they are in power.

Personally, I like more extensive BG checks. Being a CHL holder, I've been through the more extensive FBI check, and I can buy a gun without a BG check. That's the way it should be.

Steve Fouga

The CHL check is a step in the right direction.

A check similar in depth to a Defense Security Service single-scope background investigation (required to grant a Top-Secret security clearance) but targeted more toward mental health background, would make a much greater difference. Unfortunately those checks are intrusive and so expensive as to necessitate a one-time tax on the firearms/equipment they would apply to. Tough problem.

Carlos Ponce

On Jeffery Toobin in The New Yorker: "For more than a hundred years..."
I suggest Jeffery go back to over 200 years to the Federalist papers where Alexander Hamilton referred to the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Those arms were used for self defense against attackers. Those arms were used to fend off wild animals. Those arms in the hands of the youth were teaching tools when these young men became soldiers in defense of this country. To say that the right to keep and bear arms is only for the military goes against common sense, the Founding Father's intent and the Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: "I suggest Jeffery go back to over 200 years to the Federalist papers where Alexander Hamilton referred to the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Those arms were used for self defense against attackers. Those arms were used to fend off wild animals."

If you read all of Federalist 28 and not just cherry pick it you will see that Hamilton was talking about manning militias back when they were a necessity. They haven't been a necessity for more than a century. We now have law enforcement agencies, state guards, and a standing military.

Carlos Ponce

Question: Why was the Bill of Rights created?Bill of Rights from archives.gov

Answer: To assuage colonial fears.

On September 12, 1787, shortly after the finishing touches had been put on the new United States Constitution, George Mason, a delegate from Virginia, pointed out a serious omission--the absence of a bill of rights. He felt a bill of rights would appease the people who feared a too-powerful central government, and believed such a bill could be drafted in a few hours based on various state constitutions, the most notable being his own Virginia Declaration of Rights. His motion was not seconded and the Constitution went forth without a bill of rights.

The Constitution was signed by delegates from 12 of the 13 colonies, Rhode Island refusing to sign it without a Bill of Rights. When the Constitution went to individual states for ratification, most ratified it on certain conditions. These conditions were finally embodied in the Bill of Rights written after the Constitution had been ratified. James Madison introduced the proposed Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. Congress approved 12 amendments for ratification on September 25, 1789, and sent them to the states for ratification. Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, and 10 of the 12 proposed amendments officially became a part of the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.brighthubeducation.com/history-homework-help/53468-why-was-the-bill-of-rights-created/

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.