Another US Campus mass shooting.

[benjj]

For any of you who've not seen it this is well worth 15 minutes of your time and is very very funny.

Jim Jeffries (aussie standup) doing a routine on US gun control.

Warning: it's got LOADS of really rude words in it. Plenty of sts, tts, fks and aholes. Also a few s.

It's also incredibly perceptive.

Enjoy.

https://youtu.be/awgs0burFTk

[Erudite geezer]

iphonedyou said:

He wasn't a terrorist. That's why he wasn't labelled a terrorist. It is, to be frank, very clearly apparent.

Irrespective of whether you or anyone else on PistonHeads deems him to be a terrorist or not, I am fairly certain that a large number of people at Umpqua Community College were terrorized yesterday.

Terrorized alot.

[creampuff]

Sway said:

The actual wording of the SA strongly supports an interpretation of those two scenarios as it's rationale - both are demonstrably inapplicable in the modern day world, and shouldn't therefore the justification for keeping the SA be viewed as the outdated principle most of us on here seem to believe it is?

Tricky question. If you read up on the Heller judgement, there was discussion on what the term "militia" meant and what the "right of the people" meant.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER
is here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.h...

This provides a good a summary as any.

However, at every point in US history, ordinary citizens have been able to bear arms, so IMHO unless it is a goal to engage in constitutional rewriting to make the meaning explicit, I think it is just to best accept that Americans can have guns. The question then is should it be unfetted access to guns or should there be some additional restrictions.

Yanks, when polled say two things:
- The large majority believe in the 2nd amendment right to bear arms (arms of some kind, they may not agree on this meaning that anybody can walk around with an AR15)
- About half (slightly under half now, slightly over half in past years) believe there should be more gun control

I think more control, e.g. compulsory background checks, no off-book gun show sales, waiting periods would be a good thing. I don't see why any of these are incompatible with the current interpretation of the constitution. Illinois has quite restrictive gun laws (ironic since Chicago was earlier used as a showcase of how bad violent crime is, Chicago is one of the hardest places to get and use a gun in the US); Arizona doesn't. Obvs there is scope for varying levels of gun control, still within the current interpretation of the constitution.

It ain't going to happen while the likes of WinstonWolf and the like basically tell middle-America who are the majority of gun owners and have used them safely for decades without incident, that they are murderous nutters in possession of killing machines. Piers Morgan should get paid by the NRA, he does that much to ensure there won't be sufficient popular support for more restrictive gun laws.

[anonymous-user]

Ducked my question, I see, Creampuff. Simpler version: What are arms? Tank? Rocket launcher? Nuke? Medieval Siege Weaponry? Ninja throwing knife? Halberd? Gatling gun?

[creampuff]

Oakey said:

If you're going to keep harping on about centuries old texts then I'll refer you back to this



Times change. Move on.

True, but as I wrote above I don't think is necessary to change or reinterpret the constitution in order to reduce the number of guns in circulation or to reduce the number of mass shootings. You could make guns a bit harder to get and have less trivialisation of guns and killing in movies; I think that would be a good start.

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

Breadvan72 said:

So all those people killed by single shot firearms have nothing to worry about, eh? You are either an uber troll or really need to get a grip on reality! The fact that you think it OK for an eight year old to own a gun is too fruitloop for words.

Says the man who thinks a helicopter door gunner uses his gun as a penis substitute. OK.

Don't make stuff up. I never said any such thing. The fact that you are resorting to fabricating other people's positions shows the desperation of your case. Anyway: Dum dum bullets? Laser rifle (if ever invented)? Pike Crossbow? Bangalore Torpedo? Mine?

[creampuff]

Breadvan72 said:

Ducked my question, I see, Creampuff. Simpler version: What are arms? Tank? Rocket launcher? Nuke? Medieval Siege Weaponry? Ninja throwing knife? Halberd? Gatling gun?

You can legally own some miniguns in the US. Mini, in that they are smaller than the 20mm Vulcan Phalanx (Phalanx, you should like that, it sounds like phallus) from which it is derived. It has 6 x electrically driven barrels like a gattling gun and fires 7.62 NATOs at about 6000 rounds per minute. It is the gun used to waste Hugo Weaving in the helicopter gunship scene in Matrix, though for that scene they derated the gun to about 3000 rounds per minute.

Of course, you have to buy used one of the very few which were in public ownership before the automatic weapons ban, so there are only 11 from memory legal to own and they go for about $400,000 a time, plus they will cost about $5000 per minute to fire.

Breadvan72 said:

Don't make stuff up. I never said any such thing. The fact that you are resorting to fabricating other people's positions shows the desperation of your case. Anyway: Dum dum bullets? Laser rifle (if ever invented)? Pike Crossbow? Bangalore Torpedo? Mine?

Err, you did use helicopter door gunner as an example of a gun-penis extension.

[Oakey]

Sky said:

Police have recovered six weapons from the scene of the attack, including at least three pistols and a rifle, and another seven at his home.

They said all were purchased legally, some by Harper-Mercer and others by his family.

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

True, but as I wrote above I don't think is necessary to change or reinterpret the constitution in order to reduce the number of guns in circulation or to reduce the number of mass shootings. You could make guns a bit harder to get and have less trivialisation of guns and killing in movies; I think that would be a good start.

So, the First Amendment (free speech) can be trashed, but the Second Amendment is sacrosant, eh? If this were not such a serious subject, your ideas would be risible.

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

Breadvan72 said:

Ducked my question, I see, Creampuff. Simpler version: What are arms? Tank? Rocket launcher? Nuke? Medieval Siege Weaponry? Ninja throwing knife? Halberd? Gatling gun?

You can legally own some miniguns in the US. Mini, in that they are smaller than the 20mm Vulcan Phalanx (Phalanx, you should like that, it sounds like phallus) from which it is derived. It has 6 x electrically driven barrels like a gattling gun and fires 7.62 NATOs at about 6000 rounds per minute. It is the gun used to waste Hugo Weaving in the helicopter gunship scene in Matrix, though for that scene they derated the gun to about 3000 rounds per minute.

Of course, you have to buy used one of the very few which were in public ownership before the automatic weapons ban, so there are only 11 from memory legal to own and they go for about $400,000 a time, plus they will cost about $5000 per minute to fire.

You have been asked the question about the limits of what "arms" means three times and each time have failed to answer it and have instead attempted to lay smoke. Readers can draw the appropriate inference from your failure or inability to answer the question.

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

You can legally own some miniguns in the US. Mini, in that they are smaller than the 20mm Vulcan Phalanx (Phalanx, you should like that, it sounds like phallus) from which it is derived. It has 6 x electrically driven barrels like a gattling gun and fires 7.62 NATOs at about 6000 rounds per minute. It is the gun used to waste Hugo Weaving in the helicopter gunship scene in Matrix, though for that scene they derated the gun to about 3000 rounds per minute.

Be honest - did you get a bit of a lob-on when you were typing that?

[anonymous-user]

By the way, I know the derivation of the word phalanx (unlike you, it appears). It originally referred to an infantry formation used by Greek and Macedonian troops in the Classical era. You should try education some time. It is most refreshing.

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

Err, you did use helicopter door gunner as an example of a gun-penis extension.

No, I did not. Read the thread again. Do not make stuff up.

[creampuff]

Breadvan72 said:

You have been asked the question about the limits of what "arms" means three times and each time have failed to answer it and have instead attempted to lay smoke. Readers can draw the appropriate inference from your failure or inability to answer the question.

The current interpretation from is that it means bolt or break action or semi-automatic long guns and specifically according to the supreme court, handguns. I didn't answer because the answer is obvious, because the Supreme Court clarified what it means and I already posted a link.

Sorry I was mistaken about a helicopter door gunner having a machine gun penis. You only used a helicopter door gunner as an example of a phallic use of a gun which does not necessarily have to be fired from the groin. I think your earlier post with a picture of Jane Fonda threw me.

[anonymous-user]

CP, again, do not make stuff up. Read the thread. Do not misquote other posters. It makes you look even more of a dick.

Why is it that a tank is not "arms" but a rifle is "arms? If you say "because the Court says so" you are accepting that your sacred text is not in fact sacred. It is some words written by some people in a particular context, interpreted by some other people in another context. Will you cry if (probably when) the balance of the Court shifts under the next President and it revisits its recent decisions and tightens gun control? Will you say that the Court is betraying the Constitution?

[creampuff]

Symbolica said:

Be honest - did you get a bit of a lob-on when you were typing that?

Err no. At least not in the way like when I watched Miley Cyrus sing "Wrecking Ball" in the music video. As an aside Miley Cyrus being butt naked on top of a black foam wrecking ball made about as much sense as Breadvan's gun=penis theory, only Miley is a lot more entertaining to think about.

[creampuff]

Breadvan72 said:

Why is a tank not "arms" but a rifle is "arms? If you say "because the Court says so" you are accepting that your sacred text is not in fact sacred. It is some words written by some people in a particular context, interpreted by some other people in another context. Will you cry if (probably when) the balance of the Court shifts under the next President and it revisits its recent decisions and tightens gun control? Will you say that the Court is betraying the Constitution?

A rifle is arms because it can be used by an individual person for individual self-defence, which appears to be the meaning within the constitution. You don't need a tank for individual self-defence and a tank is not operated by an individual person.

Breadvan72 said:

By the way, I know the derivation of the word phalanx (unlike you, it appears). It originally referred to an infantry formation used by Greek and Macedonian troops in the Classical era. You should try education some time. It is most refreshing.

Duuuuhhhh, I learned that about 30 years ago in basic high school history. Phallus and phalanx sound similar, I'm disappointed you tried to use it for cheap point scoring.

Edited by creampuff on Friday 2nd October 19:54

[anonymous-user]

Rocket launcher, then. I might want to use that for persomal defence and it only needs me to operate it. Why can't I carry a rocket launcher around and say I am bearing arms? Can you not see that your position has no principled basis?

What is a ban on full automatic OK but not a ban on semi automatic?

[WinstonWolf]

Breadvan72 said:

Rocket launcher, then. I might want to use that for persomal defence and it only needs me to operate it. Why can't I carry a rocket launcher around and say I am bearing arms? Can you not see that your position has no principled basis?

What is a ban on full automatic OK but not a ban on semi automatic?

Can I have a small trebuchet?

[creampuff]

Breadvan72 said:

Rocket launcher, then. I might want to use that for persomal defence and it only needs me to operate it. Why can't I carry a rocket launcher around and say I am bearing arms? Can you not see that your position has no principled basis?

What is a ban on full automatic OK but not a ban on semi automatic?

I can't think of a sketchy situation in the 'hood where you would want a rocket launcher for self defence. For a start most defensive gun use happens with your assailant within a few feet of you, so if you used a rocket launcher you would blow yourself up. At longer ranges a rifle is much more accurate so again you don't need rockets. I can't see why you would need fully automatic for self-defence either. It's not spray-and-pray like in a Tarantino movie.