Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Teallaura]

...

It's not quite like that. The Constitution limiting the Federal government from something doesn't mean it limits the States from doing it; heck, the 10th Amendment explicitly says states can do anything the Federal government doesn't have power to do and also isn't prohibited for states to do under the constitution. That's why, until the 14th Amendment, states could curtail freedom of speech however they wanted, because the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government (though I know some states had a First Amendment-esque clause in their own constitutions to forbid them from doing so, not sure if all of them did though). However, there's no such clause in the constitution in regards to cities versus states, so I believe the rule is pretty simply that if a state is banned from doing something due to the Constitution, the cities within that state can't do it either. After all, one wouldn't claim "the Constitution only bans states from making treaties with other countries" as rationale for cities having the ability to.

State law is superior to city/county law. Which is the answer to his question. Since the Second has been incorporated, the rest of this is largely moot, albeit technically correct.

[Jedidiah]

There goes that argument.

Does not alter anything I have said.

[Sea of red]

Does not alter anything I have said.

Actually, it completely undermines your point, as Scalia (the man you quoted) also agrees the constitution allows for the regulation of firearms.

[Mountain Man]

I have a number of gun owning friends. I've talked to lots of gun owners over the years. BUT where it counts - out in the woods where they are actually shooting, I have NEVER seen a 'responsible gun owner'. I would believe in unicorns first.

Fire arms are weapons. They are designed to kill. They are NEVER 'perfectly safe' and can never be handled in 'perfect safety' because only humans handle them - and humans are anything but 'perfectly safe'. They make stupid mistakes. They get careless. They do things that they know better than do for no readily apparent reason. Basically, they act like what they are - human.

People have rights - and value. So no, regulating human behavior isn't going to keep their innocent neighbors safe. Regulating inanimate weapons is a way to try to save some of them, however.

"If handled responsibly' - hmph, how the heck do you plan to enforce that?

Now you're being pedantic. "Perfectly safe" is a figure of speech. I don't mean it literally.

How do you enforce responsible handling of a firearm? The same way you enforce responsible handling of a motor vehicle. I mean, last I checked, there are penalties for recklessly discharging a firearm or accidentally shooting someone.

[lilpixieofterror]

No, you seem to have missed the point entirely. You never, ever, seem to take responsibility for your own actions - you always point to the other guy.

Can’t let this drop as your fellow red suggested, eh? I don’t know about you, but I am quite looking forward to letting this drop so this lovely slugfest err... I mean ‘discussion’ can continue on for a few dozen more pages, while both sides repeat themselves, ad nauseam, while talking past each other, only for it to be repeated again in a few months time when the topic comes up again. I sure don’t want to interrupt this important ‘policy discussion’ so I can watch you miss my point while accusing me of missing yours.

[lilpixieofterror]

I have a number of gun owning friends. I've talked to lots of gun owners over the years. BUT where it counts - out in the woods where they are actually shooting, I have NEVER seen a 'responsible gun owner'. I would believe in unicorns first.

Fire arms are weapons. They are designed to kill. They are NEVER 'perfectly safe' and can never be handled in 'perfect safety' because only humans handle them - and humans are anything but 'perfectly safe'. They make stupid mistakes. They get careless. They do things that they know better than do for no readily apparent reason. Basically, they act like what they are - human.

People have rights - and value. So no, regulating human behavior isn't going to keep their innocent neighbors safe. Regulating inanimate weapons is a way to try to save some of them, however.

"If handled responsibly' - hmph, how the heck do you plan to enforce that?

One could say the same for cars, knives, electronics, or lots of stuff for that matter. You’re more likely to accidentally poison yourself of fall and kill yourself than be the victim of an accidental shooting.

[Sea of red]

Can’t let this drop as your fellow red suggested, eh? I don’t know about you, but I am quite looking forward to letting this drop so this lovely slugfest err... I mean ‘discussion’ can continue on for a few dozen more pages, while both sides repeat themselves, ad nauseam, while talking past each other, only for it to be repeated again in a few months time when the topic comes up again. I sure don’t want to interrupt this important ‘policy discussion’ so I can watch you miss my point while accusing me of missing yours.

OBP and I are 'fellows' now?

[lilpixieofterror]

I’m not trolling, I’m educating Christians. It’s more difficult than it looks.

The thing about guns is that they are hatred amplifiers if people want to use them that way; and they do. Certainly they need a human operator but why would anyone, especially a Christian love a device that was so dangerous?

“It also bothers me because so much of the reason people want to have a gun comes down to fear and control. They want to have the say when they die, not some punk on the corner. They’re afraid for their safety. Often, they’re afraid of “the other.” And these are not traits that should be said of Christians. We don’t control our fate — we trust God that we will follow Him, live faithfully, and He will either protect us or bring us home. We don’t fear for our lives — we know death brings us to Christ and we know we’re protected by the sovereignty of God. And we don’t fear the other. We love them. We pray for them. We show them Christ, even if that means we lay down our right to take their lives.”

And yet over 100 million people a year manage not to use these ‘hate amplifiers‘ for all that much hate amplification. The only thing I’ve been able to amplify is bragging rights if I can get a higher score at the range than whoever we happen to go with. Are we just using them wrong for this hate amplification to take place?

[lilpixieofterror]

OBP and I are 'fellows' now?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post480757

[Sea of red]

¡Ah! No entiendes español.

Roy, you know I respect you, and sympathize with your issues with LpoT, but you shouldn't give her crap for her spelling mistakes.

She has dyslexia which causes her to sometimes mix-up words, and she's probably sensitive to people picking on her for it. Maybe she never told you but since you now know, I think you should stop -- it only provokes her.

[Roy]

The facts are simple, even for you.
...there were six other mass shootings in America this past week alone.
...There hasn’t been a single one in Australia during the 21 years since.

False. These are not facts. You are using different criteria for the two countries. This is dishonest. Desist.

[Tassman]

False. These are not facts. You are using different criteria for the two countries.

The “different criteria for the two countries” is the point.

In the US, where gun restrictions are virtually non-existent, there have been 1,516 mass shootings in 1,735.days plus a long list of other mass shootings.

By contrast, in Australia where stringent firearm restrictions apply, there hasn’t been a single mass shooting during the 21 years since the firearm buy-back and introduction of the gun restrictions...whereas there had been 13 fatal mass shootings in the preceding 18 years.

In short, tight gun restrictions in Australia and places like Japan, appear to make a significant difference.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...do-gun-control

This is dishonest. Desist.

It's not dishonest. "Desist" with your orders.

[Mountain Man]

blah blah blah

Do you really think that simply repeating your already refused arguments will magically make them valid again?

[Roy]

The “different criteria for the two countries” is the point.

In the US, where gun restrictions are virtually non-existent,

That's not the different criterion.

You are using a different definition of "mass shooting" for Australia (four or more killed) than you are for the US (four or more injured). Your comparison is worthless. Continuing to use it is dishonest, and counter-productive.

[Mountain Man]

Do you really think that simply repeating your already refused refuted arguments will magically make them valid again?

Autocorrect strikes again... :p