nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

10 people shot dead in Texas

McMurphy

Breaking on BBC.

Another High school shooting by the looks of it.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-44173954

How many more will it take before they reaxminne their gun policies?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Manic Moran

wexie wrote: »

Could you explain that to me please? ie. do not all states have a constitutional right to arms? And if so how does that work? Is the constitution not the constitution for all states?

And what about gun ownership in the rest of the states?

They do not all have a right to arms: New York, California, Maryland, Iowa, Minnesota and New Jersey are the six outliers.

Think of it as the difference between the proposed Constitution of the European Union and the Irish Constitution.

Quick US civics lesson: A lot of foreigners don't realise "The United States" was formed as a plural: Each State was basically an independent country, which banded together for, as they say, the common betterment. The Civil War changed the common thinking of the US to an "it" and not a "them" (and thus saw a change in the oaths of office), but the fundamental nature of each State as an independent jurisdiction, with their own executive, legislature and judicial systems remains the same as it did in 1789, even after the Federal government started to expand its powers under the commerce clause of the Federal constitution in the 1930s.

Anyway, as an independent jurisdiction, each State has to have its own foundation documents, their constitution. As you can imagine, they cover the running of the State: What offices run the state, how are they elected, what are the rights of the citizens, how are taxes run, how bills are passed, how the military is organised, how judges are appointed, that sort of thing. Basically what you might find in any nation's constitution.

The Federal Constitution has supremacy: If the Federal Constitution says one thing, and the State constitution directly contradicts it, the Federal Constitution rules. However, the Federal constitution is deliberately limited in scope: It covers the running of the federal government, but little else. The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the federal powers, not a granting of rights, with the big one for this context being the Tenth Amendment: If it's not specifically granted to the Feds by the Federal constitution, it remains the purview of the States.

Anyway, civics lesson over.
The remaining 44 States have a right to arms which varies from a direct copy/past of the Federal right (eg Hawaii: "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") to quite definitive (eg Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use"). So, if, somehow, 38 State representatives agreed to remove the 2nd Amendment from the Federal Constitutition, life would suck for gun owners in the six states mentioned, but the other 44 States would retain their provisions.

Of course, it could be that the States can amend their own constutitions as well. As I said, though, the trend has been towards firearms rights, not away from them. The most recent amendment was Missouri, in 2014, which now reads "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. " The one before that was Wisconsin, in 1998, which now reads ""The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."

TOss Sweep

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

None of those would prevent mass shootings - you're just like any other American gun nut, suggesting weak ineffective gun control measures which don't actual control anything.

Paddock bought 33 guns in the space of 12 month and under Federal Law Gun stores are supposed to report multiple handgun purchases to the ATF but not rifles. If you walk into a gun store in the US tomorrow and buy more than 1 handgun the owner by law has to report you and the ATF will then investigate where they see fit. That same law should apply to rifles and the ATF have been trying for years to make the law cover Rifles also.

They don't do it all the time but had stricter laws on Rifles been in place and they found Paddock had bought a combination of 33 guns in the 12 months the likelihood of him being investigated was high and given he was spiraling downhill in his personal life with Gambling and Alcohol it might have flagged an issue. They might then have investigated his purchase of bump stocks to turn them into fully automatics rifles.

They investigation alone would have at least flagged Paddock and maybe prevented it but then again the system has failed on a few of the shootings in recent years.

Better to have stricter laws in place than horrendously loose ones in some states. I live in MA and am about to become a gun owner and in MA its not easy to buy a gun and some rifles are not legal here.

BattleCorp

TOss Sweep wrote: »

Better to have stricter laws in place than horrendously loose ones in some states. I live in MA and am about to become a gun owner and in MA its not easy to buy a gun and some rifles are not legal here.

What type of rifles are not legal there? Is it like some other States where you can't but a specific named rifle e.g. a Bushmaster AR15 rifle but you can buy a different brand of rifle that does exactly the same thing e.g. any other semi auto centrefire?

TOss Sweep

BattleCorp wrote: »

What type of rifles are not legal there? Is it like some other States where you can't but a specific named rifle e.g. a Bushmaster AR15 rifle but you can buy a different brand of rifle that does exactly the same thing e.g. any other semi auto centrefire?

Wiki breaks it down nicely and take it directly from the MA state law book

Assault weapons

Assault weapons are defined (with no exceptions, except pre 1994 models) as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models), Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil, Beretta Ar70 (SC-70), Colt AR-15, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC, SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12, Steyr AUG, INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22, revolving cylinder shotguns, Street Sweeper, and the Striker 12.
Assault weapons are also defined as:

A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any two of the following:
- A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
- A folding or telescoping stock.
- A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
- A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor;
- A bayonet lug
A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any two of the following:
- A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor
- A second handgrip.
- A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
- The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
A semiautomatic shotgun that has two of the following:
- A folding or telescoping stock.
- A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
- A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds
- The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

BattleCorp

TOss Sweep wrote: »

Wiki breaks it down nicely and take it directly from the MA state law book

Assault weapons

Assault weapons are defined (with no exceptions, except pre 1994 models) as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models), Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil, Beretta Ar70 (SC-70), Colt AR-15, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC, SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12, Steyr AUG, INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22, revolving cylinder shotguns, Street Sweeper, and the Striker 12.
Assault weapons are also defined as:
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any two of the following:
A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.

A folding or telescoping stock.

A grenade launcher or flare launcher.

A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor;

A bayonet lug

Here's why the above law is pretty pointless. Both rifles below are exactly the same rifle but with a different stock. They both do exactly the same job. They both fire at exactly the same rate. One is classed as an assault rifle under the above law but the other one isn't.

Ruger Mini 14 - Not an assault rifle.

Ruger Mini 14 - Apparently an assault rifle.

TeaBagMania

exactly why I wont live in any of those communist run libtard states

Edit: you should add Hawaii to that list as they're another gun hating state, learned upon moving there they want everyone to register their guns... nope that's not going to happen

[Deleted User]

Just get rid of Semi Auto weapons, absolutely no need for them. Bolt action FTW

Even if there is an insurrection against the Govt your semi auto is not going to get far against full auto military and LEO weapons.

weisses

TeaBagMania wrote: »

exactly why I wont live in any of those communist run libtard states

Edit: you should add Hawaii to that list as they're another gun hating state, learned upon moving there they want everyone to register their guns... nope that's not going to happen

What up with your unhealthy obsession concerning liberals ?

BattleCorp

Edz87 wrote: »

Just get rid of Semi Auto weapons, absolutely no need for them. Bolt action FTW

Even if there is an insurrection against the Govt your semi auto is not going to get far against full auto military and LEO weapons.

Semi-auto firearms aren't even banned here in Ireland and we are way more restrictive than the US. There are plenty of reasons for needing a semi-auto firearm.

TOss Sweep

TeaBagMania wrote: »

exactly why I wont live in any of those communist run libtard states

Edit: you should add Hawaii to that list as they're another gun hating state, learned upon moving there they want everyone to register their guns... nope that's not going to happen

I don't fall on either side of the political divide but in one post you sum up the attitude in the US on both sides of the political divide. Come together to solve problems? Fook No, We will just call each other names and blame each other for things wrong with the country. Got to love it.

TOss Sweep

BattleCorp wrote: »

Here's why the above law is pretty pointless. Both rifles below are exactly the same rifle but with a different stock. They both do exactly the same job. They both fire at exactly the same rate. One is classed as an assault rifle under the above law but the other one isn't.

Ruger Mini 14 - Not an assault rifle.

Ruger Mini 14 - Apparently an assault rifle.

There is a loophole in the law though. You can buy transfer ownership privately an AR15 in MA that predates the July 20th 2016 ruling once its done privately and not through a dealer. And once you carry a permit you can legally own said gun. You will notice all dealer websites say "Pre-Ban" and consult your local laws on their websites when advertising said guns.

Funny old place is America

evolving_doors

Maybe too many guns
https://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/active-shooter-situation-at-noblesville-middle-school

BabyCheeses

I wonder how long we'll have to wait until the thread title can be reused.

TeaBagMania

TOss Sweep wrote: »

I don't fall on either side of the political divide but in one post you sum up the attitude in the US on both sides of the political divide. Come together to solve problems? Fook No, We will just call each other names and blame each other for things wrong with the country. Got to love it.

Fook No is right, lets focus on comifornia for a second.

If I carry my 357 on my person without a permit I go to jail for a long time.
My second amendment (federal) should trump all state laws, how is that legal?
so yeah fook libtards

all they spout is "ban all guns" ... how about some options?

[Deleted User]

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I wonder how long we'll have to wait until the thread title can be reused.

Like the Onion's "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" article that just changes the location each time.

NinetyTwoTeam

weisses wrote: »

What up with your unhealthy obsession concerning liberals ?

it's just the way conservative gun nut Trump supporters go on, they are like parrots or robots. everyone who wants the only sensible solutions to kids being massacred is a 'libtard'. If you think using a play on the word retard is offensive, you're a 'snowflake'. and if they use these terms you can guarantee they are racist. basically just hateful bitter people who paradoxically spout off about freedom and rights when they really would be quite happy to see the world look like the one in the handmaid's tale. but if anyone else wants the government to do something about anything, you're a commie. like Trump, everything is spin, lies and exaggeration. when they sense they are about to lose an argument, they try and shoehorn something about Obama or Hillary into it.

while there is no shortage of things Trump has messed up, he will be remembered most for his failure to do anything about the rash of school shootings. the muppet overturned a ban on people with mental problems owning guns simply because Obama enacted it. same rationale for overturning the affordable healthcare act.

the violence in American schools is being perpetuated by these types of people, but they'll tell you the solution is more guns, guns for teachers, etc. but it isn't. schools are crowded, chaotic places, especially large US high schools. no teacher or security guard with a handgun is going to stop a kid with an AR-15 who is happy to die anyway. ffs the teachers in my school could hardly work the VCR when they tried to show a film.

the bright side is i think future generations, the young people who will be adults soon, many of them are much more aware of all the issues that plague society than past generations, and i think they will change a lot of things eventually. they may get called generation snowflake or whatever but a kinder, gentler world is actually exactly what we need and should be working towards. i think this is like the darkest hour before dawn. eventually the light will win out.

NinetyTwoTeam

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Fook No is right, lets focus on comifornia for a second.

If I carry my 357 on my person without a permit I go to jail for a long time.
My second amendment (federal) should trump all state laws, how is that legal?
so yeah fook libtards

all they spout is "ban all guns" ... how about some options?

you know how you can tell conservatives are rarely smart people? they think coming up with terms like Comifornia and libtards are really clever uses of language. it should come as little surprise that conservatives frequently score significantly lower on IQ and creativity tests than those who have more left leaning views. where do you think people are smarter on average, California or Alabama?

i almost never hear anyone in the US saying ban all guns. no one is spouting that. everyone knows that is impractible. where are you hearing this, voices in your head? It's actually amazing how similar Trump voters are to the man himself. It's not just the making up stuff and stating it as fact that is a problem, what's really ridiculous is that they believe the stuff they invented is true, without any proof or substantiation. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes truth doesn't work anymore because we all have Google now you know.

was the ban on people with mental issues owning guns not a sensible option? why was that overturned, explain it to me if you can please. the 2nd amendment gives you the right to own firearms, it doesn't mean you can't be required to register guns or have permits to carry them in public. same way a person has the right to own a car, but must prove they can safely operate the car to get a license, and the car needs to be registered so that if you commit a crime with a car, it can be traced to you so you can be held responsible.

a ten year old child can understand these simple concepts. the fact that you cannot wrap your head around them is baffling, and the thought of someone with such limited mental capacity walking around armed is alarming. why is registering a gun such a problem? why is getting a permit a problem? would you like to share the road with unlicensed drivers driving cars with no license plates to identify them?

I'm willing to bet you cannot and will not answer a single one of the questions above. you'll just repeat the nonsense from above, commie, libtard, 2nd amendment, blah blah. but you don't even understand the 2nd amendment. the right to bear arms doesn't mean the government can't keep a record of what guns you own or carry.

evolving_doors

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Fook No is right, lets focus on comifornia for a second.

If I carry my 357 on my person without a permit I go to jail for a long time.
My second amendment (federal) should trump all state laws, how is that legal?
so yeah fook libtards

all they spout is "ban all guns" ... how about some options?

Why would you be walking around with a 357 anyway?

Wanderer78

evolving_doors wrote:

Why would you be walking around with a 357 anyway?

Good guys with guns makes the world a safer place, apparently!

TOss Sweep

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Fook No is right, lets focus on comifornia for a second.

If I carry my 357 on my person without a permit I go to jail for a long time.
My second amendment (federal) should trump all state laws, how is that legal?
so yeah fook libtards

all they spout is "ban all guns" ... how about some options?

Ban all Guns? See this sums you up. You are living in the propaganda fantasy world that absorbs both sides. The fact you use buzz word insults tells me that. Stricter Gun control is whats called for.

Anyone with a brain knows America is too far gone to ban all guns. Besides many in between and on the left carry guns just the same as those on the right so why would they want them banned?

Trump is a moron and there is morons on both sides of the political divide bring down those who are actually good politicians. There is good guys on both sides of the fence. If things go pear shaped for Trump you will find many bail overboard as fast as you can say clown.

But you should stop getting your information from social media and Fox news as its bringing your ignorance to the forefront on the issue.

weisses

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Fook No is right, lets focus on comifornia for a second.

If I carry my 357 on my person without a permit I go to jail for a long time.
My second amendment (federal) should trump all state laws, how is that legal?
so yeah fook libtards

all they spout is "ban all guns" ... how about some options?

I think you turned out to be the perfect example as to why have tougher gun laws

Manic Moran

TeaBagMania wrote: »

My second amendment (federal) should trump all state laws, how is that legal?

For the sake of another civics lesson, it is because no authority competent in California has held that the reasonable restrictions permissible upon the exercise of Constitutional rights does not include carriage in public.

As California is one of the six states without a Constitutional right to arms, State courts have not ruled on the issue. Thus far, the 9th has only ruled that 2A does not confer a right to concealed carry, but has remained silent in the idea of open carry. Heller does not rule, as it concerned ownership and carriage within the home.

It seems likely that 9th will indeed rule that some form of carriage will be mandated, it will follow the rulings in other circuits such as the 7th, and the line of questioning at oral argument in Young v Hawaii indicates as much, but until it so holds, that’s how it is considered legal. The way our system works.

TeaBagMania

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

you know how you can tell conservatives are rarely smart people? they think coming up with terms like Comifornia and libtards are really clever uses of language. it should come as little surprise that conservatives frequently score significantly lower on IQ and creativity tests than those who have more left leaning views. where do you think people are smarter on average, California or Alabama? .

Everyone asks, what can we do to stop school shootings?
how about being polite to start with
you my friend are a bully and its callus people like you that push people over the edge, and ulitmately lead to these kind of shootings
personally, I have thick skin and couldn't care less about your opinion

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

i almost never hear anyone in the US saying ban all guns.

give the libtards an inch (AR15's) and they'll take a mile... all guns

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

was the ban on people with mental issues owning guns not a sensible option? why was that overturned, explain it to me if you can please. .

Couldn't agree more, peeps with mental issues have no business owning a firearm

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

the 2nd amendment gives you the right to own firearms, it doesn't mean you can't be required to register guns or have permits to carry them in public. .

Where does the 2nd amendment state "must register fire arms"?
I have a permit to carry thank you

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

a ten year old child can understand these simple concepts. the fact that you cannot wrap your head around them is baffling, and the thought of someone with such limited mental capacity walking around armed is alarming.

just an example of another bully comment

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

I'm willing to bet you cannot and will not answer a single one of the questions above.

you lost that bet and owe me a cold Guinness

TeaBagMania

weisses wrote: »

I think you turned out to be the perfect example as to why have tougher gun laws

Please explain?

TOss Sweep

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Everyone asks, what can we do to stop school shootings?
how about being polite to start with
you my friend are a bully and its callus people like you that push people over the edge, and ulitmately lead to these kind of shootings
personally, I have thick skin and couldn't care less about your opinion

Hilarious. The irony of your posts. You call NinetyTwoTeam a bully but yet you keep using

give the libtards an inch (AR15's) and they'll take a mile... all guns

You understand what libtard is supposed to mean right? So wouldn't that make you a hypocrite? I am going to bully Liberals until they bully me back and then I am going to complain about being bullied is how it looks.

I also love how you say people should be polite and you don't care about their opinions but yet you keep responding. Also the fact you believe weisses is a bully really doesn't make that thick skin of yours seem thick.

You yourself are part of the problem in the US both you and your buddies on the extreme right and those on the extreme left. Anybody who wants whats best for America sit in between regardless of political party.

TeaBagMania

There is a difference between using a derogatory term to describe a political group and attacking an individual person

Wait, does libtard describe you, is that why you're mad?

Manic Moran

It’s a cheap, divisive insult used mainly by folks who are apparently unable to articulate a coherent argument and have no interest in attempting discourse.

TOss Sweep

TeaBagMania wrote: »

There is a difference between using a derogatory term to describe a political group and attacking an individual person

There really isn't.

Wait, does libtard describe you, is that why you're mad?

The more you post the funnier it gets. Mad thing is if I said I was a liberal that would make you 100% a hypocrite and demolish the quote above. You truly are living up to the stereotype. Well done.

TeaBagMania

TOss Sweep wrote: »

The more you post the funnier it gets. Mad thing is if I said I was a liberal that would make you 100% a hypocrite and demolish the quote above. You truly are living up to the stereotype. Well done.

LOL, awww you just a mad wittle guy

TOss Sweep

TeaBagMania wrote: »

TOss Sweep wrote: »

The more you post the funnier it gets. Mad thing is if I said I was a liberal that would make you 100% a hypocrite and demolish the quote above. You truly are living up to the stereotype. Well done.

LOL, awww you just a mad wittle guy

Awe how cute you think Im mad. Are you posting from your safe place just in case someone bullies you online? Hilarious