Another mass shooting in the USA - 10 killed

salmocab

Trump Derangement Syndrome wrote: »

I'm just so surprised posters are now laughing off tyranny and US gun owners being paranoid.

When the same posters were chanting out that there was an "Attack on democracy" and an "Inusrrection" on Jan 6th 2021 just gone.

You do understand the people involved in an attempted insurrection were in fact not the government? These people weren’t fighting back against big government taking away people’s rights they were in fact trying to impose their will on everyone else.

kildare lad

biko wrote: »

Yes, many Arabs and Persians can look European.

They have lobbied for a MENA box on the US Census but was rejected because MENA was seen not as a race, but an ethnicity.
The races are white; black, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific islander.
I suppose Syrians can use Asian, and Egyptians can use African.

Sure look at Assad he looks European both he and the shooter are Syrian . It's amazing how all the woke activists on twitter had no problem sharing the crap out of the fella last week who did the massage parlour shooting because he was white , but once it turned out the latest guy was a muslim , they were hurriedly deleting posts

Samsonsmasher

wes wrote: »

There have been plenty of protests in favour of gun control:
Hundreds Of Thousands March For Gun Control Across The U.S.


Sure there not going berserk, as those protests tend to be very well organized. The issue is that the US isn't much of a democracy.

Representative democracies are very feeble.
You are asked every few years to vote for candidates selected by parties that are owned and represent rich people who want their rival agendas protected. They throw a few crumbs the way of the public to bribe them and keep them docile.
At election time the issues politicians campaign on or the partisan media talk about are never spoken about again and forgotten by the public as soon as their vote is cast. Scrutiny of politicians who never made good on their promises is rare.

There's not much to prevent this feeble system being replaced with a tyranny.

That's what the 2A guards against.

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

Has he become white over night?

Call me crazy, but I was judging his skin colour by the colour of his skin

Snickers Man

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd prefer if nobody was killed but sometimes it's necessary. For example if someone is shooting at the cops, then I've no problem with the cops shooting them.

Nobody deserves to be executed by cops. Your attitude towards cops is showing though as you seem to be hinting that the cops are going around executing lots of people.

If a cop shoots someone, do you consider it an execution?

OK My post to which you originally replied was in response to a post by SamsonSmasher who parroted a familiar line among many US gun-rights advocates that an armed citizenry is necessary to guard against a tyrannical government.

I pointed out, and you can verify these figures yourself, that in round terms about 1,000 people are SHOT DEAD by American law enforcement every year.
Given that horrendous statistic, it is worth asking the question: "How is that freedom from government tyranny working out for you?"

If you think, as you seem to do, that "Hey. As long as the guys who were shot all deserved it, then that's all good man!" I would respectfully suggest that you are an apologist for a situation where the state allocates to its agents an extraordinary influence over the life and death of its own citizens.

Who decides whether the cops shoot or not?
The Cops
What does that say about due process of law?
Not a lot. In fact it reduces it down to a stressed out cop's best guess in often far from ideal circumstances.

If that doesn't sound like big government tyranny to you then what WOULD you regard as an example of "administrative over reach"?

Compare the killings by police in the USA to those by just about any other normal democracy. They are off the scale appalling.

Keep American exceptionalism exceptional!!!

James Brown

Did any cop say the shooter was having a bad day?

BattleCorp

Snickers Man wrote: »

If you think, as you seem to do, that "Hey. As long as the guys who were shot all deserved it, then that's all good man!" I would respectfully suggest that you are an apologist for a situation where the state allocates to its agents an extraordinary influence over the life and death of its own citizens.

That's spot on. That's exactly what I think. If they were shooting at cops or otherwise endangering lives, then I've no problem with the cops shooting them to prevent further injury or death.

Who decides whether the cops shoot or not?
The Cops
What does that say about due process of law?
Not a lot. In fact it reduces it down to a stressed out cop's best guess in often far from ideal circumstances.

If the cop is being endangered or being shot at, then yes, the cop decides whether to shoot back. Again I've no problem with that. If I was being shot at, you can be sure I'd be stressed too. Does it result in far from ideal circumstances, well yes it does. But we don't live in a perfect world and cops have to deal with imperfect circumstances as best they can. Are there bad apples in the cops? Of course there are and hopefully they are dealt with severely when they step out of line.

Compare the killings by police in the USA to those by just about any other normal democracy. They are off the scale appalling.

Keep American exceptionalism exceptional!!!

I think the violent behaviour of a large section of the American population is off the charts and that results in such a large response from the Police force.

Trump Derangement Syndrome

Trump Derangement Syndrome wrote: »

I'm just so surprised posters are now laughing off tyranny and US gun owners being paranoid.

When the same posters were chanting out that there was an "Attack on democracy" and an "Inusrrection" on Jan 6th 2021 just gone.

Was it the same people and what’s the capitol riot got to do with anything?

Dyr

wes wrote: »

Last time I voted I was in and out in 15 minutes.

In the US we see lines several hours long, and most of those long lines are in minority areas. We also see large scale voter suppression targeted at non-white people by conservatives, and not to mention the absurd gerrymandering. Also, the first past the post system isn't all that great at being representative.

None of the above occurs in this country on any meaningful level.

Also, our STV (single transferable vote) system offer far better representation and makes it basically impossible for a 42% minority political party to impose it will on the other 58%.

America is a flawed democracy, and that is me being overly kind.

Just wondering because the evil vote supression tools you're decrying are common in Ireland, you can be refused at a polling station without the correct id, you can find yourself removed from the register without explanation.

So just to be consistent, I'd imagine you consider Ireland to be a flawed democracy?

Dyr

James Brown wrote: »

Did any cop say the shooter was having a bad day?

Nope. Just like they didnt with the shooter in Atlanta.

Tell me how

Bambi wrote: »

Just wondering because the evil vote supression tools you're decrying are common in Ireland, you can be refused at a polling station without the correct id, you can find yourself removed from the register without explanation.

So just to be consistent, I'd imagine you consider Ireland to be a flawed democracy?

There is no comparison in the ways in which ultimately people can lose out in voting in Ireland and what happens in the US.

Bambi wrote: »

Nope. Just like they didnt with the shooter in Atlanta.

Wrong. Again.

"He was pretty much fed up and kind of at the end of his rope. Yesterday was a really bad day for him and this is what he did," Cherokee County Sheriff's Office Director of Communications Jay Baker said during a news conference last week.

Dyr

Tell me how wrote: »

There is no comparison in the ways in which ultimately people can lose out in voting in Ireland and what happens in the US.



Wrong. Again.

You might want to explain what you're opposed to in terms of voting reform in the US before you decide that it cant be compared to in Ireland. Have a crack, make a list even.:)


The police officer was relaying to the press what the investigating officers had been told by the suspect, at no point did he insert any opinion of his own as to why the shooter did what he did. It took some massive Cathy Newmaning to frame the narrative that certain chappies on here swallowed and regurgitated wholesale.

Samsonsmasher

alchemist33 wrote: »

People tend to leave out the "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment.

Read the wording of the 2A.

"A well regulated militia" means the military and law enforcement.

In the 18th century America the militia performed both functions. In the 19th and early 20th century in Ireland the RIC was a paramilitary police force. In 21st century America the US military fights wars but law enforcement especially SWAT units use military style tactics also from time to time.

"Regulated" means organized into companies battalions, regiments etc wearing uniforms, commanded by officers, armed, equiped, trained and fit to fight.

"Being necessary for the security of a free state"

This means the police and military defend the democratic state.

","

This comma is crucial as it clearly delineates the police and military and the state from the people.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms"

This right is inalienable and by implication no state is free that does not recognize it.

"Shall not be infringed."

This amendment cannot be overwritten.

So to sum up because a democratic state is protected by the police and army the people also should have the right to bear arms and this cannot be taken away.


Ergo the actions of a lunatic who killed 10 people does not justify taking away the fundamental rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

BanditLuke

patnor1011 wrote: »

It was a godsend for media to see white male walked out of there by police.
Every holy SJW jumped on issue screaming white supremacist and nationalist so he was not shot dead...
Only crickets now when they learned he was Arab anti Trump and muslim.
Suddenly it become mental health issue and give it a few days they manage to make a martyr from him. Somehow they figure out he had to do it because "system bad or something".

Leftists gone into hiding all of a sudden.

They where creaming themselves until this name was released

salmocab

BanditLuke wrote: »

Leftists gone into hiding all of a sudden.

They where creaming themselves until this name was released

Were they? This seems like one of these things that people just say. Most of the comments here that have any political bent on them from the start were mostly from right leaning posters.

Cody montana

BanditLuke wrote: »

Leftists gone into hiding all of a sudden.

They where creaming themselves until this name was released

What?
Are the lefties not calling for gun control, they seems to be shouting even louder now.

Trump Derangement Syndrome

BanditLuke wrote: »

Leftists gone into hiding all of a sudden.

They where creaming themselves until this name was released

Your in for it now pal :pac:

Tell me how

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Read the wording of the 2A.

"A well regulated militia" means the military and law enforcement.

In the 18th century America the militia performed both functions. In the 19th and early 20th century in Ireland the RIC was a paramilitary police force. In 21st century America the US military fights wars but law enforcement especially SWAT units use military style tactics also from time to time.

"Regulated" means organized into companies battalions, regiments etc wearing uniforms, commanded by officers, armed, equiped, trained and fit to fight.

"Being necessary for the security of a free state"

This means the police and military defend the democratic state.

","

This comma is crucial as it clearly delineates the police and military and the state from the people.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms"

This right is inalienable and by implication no state is free that does not recognize it.

"Shall not be infringed."

This amendment cannot be overwritten.

So to sum up because a democratic state is protected by the police and army the people also should have the right to bear arms and this cannot be taken away.


Ergo the actions of a lunatic who killed 10 people does not justify taking away the fundamental rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

Says it all when you are trying (and failing) to defend the 2A when you have to explain the context in which words were used in the 18th century in order to do so.

Also, your attempt to suggest that the use of the word 'regulated' in the 2A relates to the structure of an army but that the sentence, because of the comma, and without completing the point being made about that well regulated militia goes on to then speak about the people in a disconnected way is close to laughable.

Either the sentence identifies the need for gun control while accommodating people in having guns, or it makes no sense as it is written.

In relation to your point in bold. You must not understand the meaning of the word amendment. Pretty brazen to demonstrate this while resolutely defending the legitimacy of an amendment.

Finally, if the need for the public to be so widely armed so as to prevent run away government officials, then surely the argument would be that more countries should have this provision for their people rather than not have it. Do you think that right now, in Ireland or England for example, that there should be widespread arming of people to prevent a tyrannical government? Or do you think the 2A in the US is no longer relevant as it was originally intended?

Tell me how

BanditLuke wrote: »

Leftists gone into hiding all of a sudden.

They where creaming themselves until this name was released

You must have us on ignore, or haven't read the thread.

Pelezico

This might suit the anti gun lobby. Go on Joe...support a law change.

Trump Derangement Syndrome

The gun can't kill anyone untill a human flicks that safety to Red and pulls the trigger.

The mental health of these American citizens is what is causing me grave concern.

How do we improve the mental health of these people?
What point in their lives did their mental health fall to theses levels?
What triggered the decline?
School system failing kids?
Mental health services failing these kids?

Samsonsmasher

Tell me how wrote: »

Says it all when you are trying (and failing) to defend the 2A when you have to explain the context in which words were used in the 18th century in order to do so.

Also, your attempt to suggest that the use of the word 'regulated' in the 2A relates to the structure of an army but that the sentence, because of the comma, and without completing the point being made about that well regulated militia goes on to then speak about the people in a disconnected way is close to laughable.

Either the sentence identifies the need for gun control while accommodating people in having guns, or it makes no sense as it is written.

In relation to your point in bold. You must not understand the meaning of the word amendment. Pretty brazen to demonstrate this while resolutely defending the legitimacy of an amendment.

Finally, if the need for the public to be so widely armed so as to prevent run away government officials, then surely the argument would be that more countries should have this provision for their people rather than not have it. Do you think that right now, in Ireland or England for example, that there should be widespread arming of people to prevent a tyrannical government? Or do you think the 2A in the US is no longer relevant as it was originally intended?

The amendment clearly upholds the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms under a free state when a regulated militia is necessary for its security. The militia and the people are clearly delineated. The right to bear arms pre-exists the state and is not dependent on the permission of the government. It cannot be taken away by the militia or removed because it is claimed only the military and police should bear arms somehow negating the rights of the people. The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable as the individual right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It defends all the other rights by making them possible.
And yes every person should have right to keep and bear arms.

Tell me how

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The amendment clearly upholds the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms under a free state when a regulated militia is necessary for its security. The militia and the people are clearly delineated. The right to bear arms pre-exists the state and is not dependent on the permission of the government. It cannot be taken away by the militia or removed because it is claimed only the military and police should bear arms somehow negating the rights of the people. The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable as the individual right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It defends all the other rights by making them possible.
And yes every person should have right to keep and bear arms.

The idea that a regulated militia was necessary for the security of a state might have been understood in the late 18th century, a few years after a revolutionary war, that does not mean it is still applicable heading for the middle of the 21st century when elections are held as frequently as every 2 years for members of the House, 6 years for senators and 4 years for Presidents.

You were earlier suggesting that the US democracy is the most exemplar and envied worldwide. If you believe this to be the case for a second, then there shouldn't be a need for armed civilians to maintain it.

And I could go in to the difference in available firepower controlled by government officials versus that available to civilians and were a modern day government of a mind to use its military to override the democracy of the state then an AR15 might not cut it against an F35 or Raider helicopter. FFS, the power of controlled flight was only a myth when the 2A was added to the constitution, but they apparently had the foresight to know that keeping people sufficiently armed was going to prevent tyranny being forced on society?

pjohnson

Tell me how wrote: »

The idea that a regulated militia was necessary for the security of a state might have been understood in the late 18th century, a few years after a revolutionary war, that does not mean it is still applicable heading for the middle of the 21st century when elections are held as frequently as every 2 years for members of the House, 6 years for senators and 4 years for Presidents.

You were earlier suggesting that the US democracy is the most exemplar and envied worldwide. If you believe this to be the case for a second, then there shouldn't be a need for armed civilians to maintain it.

And I could go in to the difference in available firepower controlled by government officials versus that available to civilians and were a modern day government of a mind to use its military to override the democracy of the state then an AR15 might not cut it against an F35 or Raider helicopter. FFS, the power of controlled flight was only a myth when the 2A was added to the constitution, but they apparently had the foresight to know that keeping people sufficiently armed was going to prevent tyranny being forced on society?

US democracy is a faux democracy and oft ridiculed in reality.

riffmongous

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Read the wording of the 2A.

"A well regulated militia" means the military and law enforcement.

In the 18th century America the militia performed both functions. In the 19th and early 20th century in Ireland the RIC was a paramilitary police force. In 21st century America the US military fights wars but law enforcement especially SWAT units use military style tactics also from time to time.

"Regulated" means organized into companies battalions, regiments etc wearing uniforms, commanded by officers, armed, equiped, trained and fit to fight.

"Being necessary for the security of a free state"

This means the police and military defend the democratic state.

","

This comma is crucial as it clearly delineates the police and military and the state from the people.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms"

This right is inalienable and by implication no state is free that does not recognize it.

"Shall not be infringed."

This amendment cannot be overwritten.

So to sum up because a democratic state is protected by the police and army the people also should have the right to bear arms and this cannot be taken away.


Ergo the actions of a lunatic who killed 10 people does not justify taking away the fundamental rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

Nonsense, if they wanted it to be interpreted like that they would have used a full stop and made 2 sentences instead of a comma.

GreeBo

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

"Shall not be infringed."

This amendment cannot be overwritten.

The irony of saying that an amendment cannot change.

GreeBo

BanditLuke wrote: »

Leftists gone into hiding all of a sudden

"hiding"

TomSweeney

Hmm this seems to be a non story now, ah yeah the shooter doesn't fit a narrative ...

salmocab

TomSweeney wrote: »

Hmm this seems to be a non story now, ah yeah the shooter doesn't fit a narrative ...

How is it a non story now? It’s still been spoken about.

banie01

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

What's paranoid about it?
The US system is the most successful democracy in history and the model for modern democracies around the world.
It has only been in existence since the 18th century.
However it is made up of human beings and the default political system throughout history has been monarchy and tyranny and serfdom and slavery.
There's no reason why the ambition and greed of powerful wealthy individuals and fanatical mobs won't endanger this delicate democratic system.
The founding fathers of the US knew this and this is why the 2A was written.

Can you list out the other successful democracies that have instituted the US model?
What other successful(and by that I mean, countries that are considered democratic and fair rather than economic or militarily) countries that utilise the US model of democracy.