'Many killed' in shooting at Walmart in El Paso; suspect in custody

[mogandave]

13 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Wow. Nothing new or interesting in over 20 pages... Like a tennis game that never ends, volley, return, volley, return ad infinitum.

Yet here you are. Why don't you post up something new?

[rabas]

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

Do you really think that armed civilians will prevent a tyrant backed by a modern army from seizing power?  I take it you weren't in Thailand during any of the coups.

 

The second amendment was written at a time when civilian arms were as good as, and sometimes better, than military arms.  It was also written after a well organized civilian militia, working with a hastily assembled and trained army, had defeated the greatest military power on the planet at the time.

 

However much has changed since the 18th century.  Somewhere along the lines the part of the second amendment about the "well organized militia" was forgotten, and all anyone focuses on is "the right to bear arms".  I'm surprised no one has argued for the right of civilians to have chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.  These are "arms", aren't they?

 

BTW, where have I argued for confiscating guns?

 

I cannot imagine the founders had the slightest concern about citizens possessing arms. Such an idea would 'not compute' in the late 1700s. It would be even more ridiculous in such a vast rural wilderness (gun control people would be their version of crazies). Rather, their concern was most certainly about someone restricting the citizenry's rights, especially considering where the founders originated from.

 

In this light, a 'well regulated militia' is clearly an essential extension of the citizens' rights to protect their freedoms.  How could citizens protect their rights and freedoms if they are forbidden to organize? Forbidding assembly and weapons was not unknown in the day but was always used to subjugate a population.

 

It's clear that today is not like yesterday, in fact, that shows you the problem's origin.  I sympathise with wanting quick action but focusing on the root cause would be faster than prioritizing the regulation of 320,000,000 guns, the vast majority of which pose no problem.

 

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

I cannot imagine the founders had the slightest concern about citizens possessing arms. Such an idea would 'not compute' in the late 1700s. It would be even more ridiculous in such a vast rural wilderness (gun control people would be their version of crazies). Rather, their concern was most certainly about someone restricting the citizenry's rights, especially considering where the founders originated from.

 

In this light, a 'well regulated militia' is clearly an essential extension of the citizens' rights to protect their freedoms.  How could citizens protect their rights and freedoms if they are forbidden to organize? Forbidding assembly and weapons was not unknown in the day but was always used to subjugate a population.

 

It's clear that today is not like yesterday, in fact, that shows you the problem's origin.  I sympathise with wanting quick action but focusing on the root cause would be faster than prioritizing the regulation of 320,000,000 guns, the vast majority of which pose no problem.

 

"Militia" had a definite meaning in the context of Constitutional discussions. It did not mean an ad hoc posse or lynch mob. But if you can find some historical evidence to support your contention, please share it with us.

And why go to so much trouble to establish a right if it was of no concern?

Edited August 8, 2019 by bristolboy

[rabas]

32 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"Militia" had a definite meaning in the context of Constitutional discussions. It did not mean an ad hoc posse or lynch mob. But if you can find some historical evidence to support your contention, please share it with us.

And why go to so much trouble to establish a right if it was of no concern?

The Constitution discusses a militia (as in army) for the new country. However, state and even town militia were common in early days especially before the Constitution. It was a way of life.  The US did not come from vacuum. The US is a republic of states, the Constitution did not dissolve the states or their law and governments. If you believe the new Constitution usurped all existing state, local and, citizen power on the continent to organize defence, please provide the documents.

 

ad hoc posse or lynch mob - your conjecture not mine.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

The Constitution discusses a militia (as in army) for the new country. However, state and even town militia were common in early days especially before the Constitution. It was a way of life.  The US did not come from vacuum. The US is a republic of states, the Constitution did not dissolve the states or their law and governments. If you believe the new Constitution usurped all existing state, local and, citizen power on the continent to organize defence, please provide the documents.

 

ad hoc posse or lynch mob - your conjecture not mine.

Discussed in detail at the link below.

 

A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

[MaxYakov]

14 hours ago, BritManToo said:

The whole point in the right to bear arms, is to defend yourself from a tyrannical government.

So you need high capacity rifles to defend yourself from the government military forces.

 

Might as well just remove the second amendment.

Good luck collecting the guns you don't want people to have, it would be 'Wako' every day for a year or more.

Better start recruiting more agents in the ATF, they will need plenty of replacements.

Sorry, defense from a tyrannical government could not have been the "whole point". There was still the possibility of attack by Britain or some other foreign power as occurred in the war of 1812 and with the Mexican-American war and the lead up to it in (what was to be) Texas in the early 1800s. But even more importantly, as even the framers of the Constitution must have understood, that firearms were required to be owned by individuals for personal defense from hostile indians and for hunting for food - important, practical uses.

 

I'm not an expert on the history and formulation of US Constitution, but it appears as though the wording was purposely kept succinct so reference to a "militia" was made even though, in my thinking, they must have known how important firearms were to pioneers and settlers (and to the farsighted those that were going to be to settling the Appalachians and beyond). This was borne out in the Indian Wars of the 1860s and 1870s in the West when personal firearms necessary for survival.

Edited August 8, 2019 by MaxYakov

[MaxYakov]

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I think "trump" is the only president in U.S. history where we really do need to worry about that happening. That's why it's important to beat him SOUNDLY. A thin win would be very risky as we already know based on his past behavior that he will make up stories about millions of illegal votes. Rigged! We also know for a fact if he isn't reelected he is open to indictment, conviction, and prison. So to say he is very motivated to win no matter what is an understatement. 

Well then, "trump" (as you so nicely put it) will simply have to collude with the Russians again, won't he? And this time insist on a "thick win" from Putin! 

Edited August 8, 2019 by MaxYakov

[Sujo]

The 2nd amendment was not initially made for the purpose of a persons right to bear arms. It was actually done for the purpose of the govt to allow or order a person to bear arms in a militia to fight.

 

the right of an individual to bear arms is a supreme court interpretation of that.

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, mogandave said:

I'm not trying to nit-pick, I just see that the capacity limits would have a very high cost and very little benefit. 

 

California already requires background checks to buy ammo, every time you buy it. "Expanding" background checks sounds great, and I am not against it, but I think restructuring it makes much more sense. Why should a background check be done for every firearm, much less ever piece of ammo? Would it not be a much better use of recourses and make more sense to check, qualify and (as you have recommended) license individuals and then let them buy what they want? Then you can make it illegal for anyone to sell guns or ammo to anyone without a license.

 

I'm not real familiar with the bill the house passed, but I believe about all it does is compel non licensed sellers (generally individuals) to do background checks. It probably includes a bunch of enforcement pork as well. I would much prefer something be done to improve the checks, not just made more frequent. Does It not seem like most of these nut-sacks buy their weapons legally, after having passed background checks?

 

Back to high capacity clips. I am not particularly opposed to this, but again, I see very little benefit. I agree that in some mass shooting situations the victim count would be reduced, but I don't see how it would reduce overall gun crime. I am not trying to be argumentative, I just do not see it. I believe virtually all gun crimes are robberies that involve hand guns. If I'm robbing a liquor store, does it make a lot of difference to the clerk if my 45 has a five round clip or a ten round clip?

 

 

A background check looks into past behavior.  A person who had no criminal record five years ago may have a criminal record now.  That's why a background check should be made with every purchase.

 

What is the high cost of limiting capacity?  It was done before and I don't recall it driving up the federal deficit or driving the nation into recession.  High capacity weapons are unnecessary for civilians.  If it makes no difference to a victim if the gun used to rob him had five rounds rather than ten, then it makes no difference to the robber.  Though I'm not overly concerned about the feelings of the criminals, I'm more interested in limiting the carnage during mass shootings.

Edited August 8, 2019 by heybruce

[Scott]

Off-topic post and reply removed.  

 

[kingdong]

On 8/7/2019 at 7:17 AM, watcharacters said:

 

Gun nuts are committed to their agenda.

 

like having the means to defend their selves and their families?

[Longcut]

On 8/4/2019 at 6:38 AM, sunnyboy2018 said:

Acesss to guns might give you a hint.

From Pew Research Center:[1]

A majority of gun owners (61%) are Republicans or lean to the Republican Party, but NRA members skew even more heavily to the political right than other gun owners. Roughly three-quarters (77%) of gun owners who say they belong to the NRA are Republicans or lean Republican, while only 20% are Democrats or lean Democratic. Among gun owners who do not belong to the NRA, by contrast, 58% are Republicans and 39% are Democrats. And among Republican gun owners, NRA members are much more likely than nonmembers to describe their political views as very conservative (29% vs. 18%).

So, out of 5 million NRA members[2](and there may be closer to 6 or 7 million), 1 million are Democrats.

I live in Texas, so factor that in, but what I’ve found is that many Democrats are “pro gun.” You can’t assume a Democrat is “anti-gun.” They may have more guns than your Republican friends.

[jvs]

10 hours ago, Sujo said:

A knife isnt made for the express purpose to kill.

 

a gun on the other hand....

No use trying to convince an extremist,they will use the same old worn out arguments every time.

Never any new realistic arguments always blah blah blah.

Mean while more people will die today in the US because of lack of reason,i feel sorry for the innocent victims.

 

[mogandave]

40 minutes ago, jvs said:

No use trying to convince an extremist,they will use the same old worn out arguments every time.

Never any new realistic arguments always blah blah blah.

Mean while more people will die today in the US because of lack of reason,i feel sorry for the innocent victims.

 

The same old arguments are used because they are never addressed.

 

I'm sure your feeling sorry for them will go along way toward furthering your agenda, even if it does nothing to help them make their lives whole again. 

[mogandave]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

A background check looks into past behavior.  A person who had no criminal record five years ago may have a criminal record now.  That's why a background check should be made with every purchase.

 

What is the high cost of limiting capacity?  It was done before and I don't recall it driving up the federal deficit or driving the nation into recession.  High capacity weapons are unnecessary for civilians.  If it makes no difference to a victim if the gun used to rob him had five rounds rather than ten, then it makes no difference to the robber.  Though I'm not overly concerned about the feelings of the criminals, I'm more interested in limiting the carnage during mass shootings.

My recommendation was to have a more rigorous background check in conjunction with a license and training  similar to a driver license. You would have to renew it at suitable intervals, and if you accumulate points against it you lose your privilege. You'd have to show your license to buy guns, ammo and accessories. Right now, or even after the current bill is passed, a guy can buy a weapon (or ten) and he has them for life without any review, regardless of what he does.

 

There is the cost of the legislation, the cost of enforcement, the cost of lost sales and the manufacturer's cost of retooling and of course the animosity it generates. It's not that the monetary cost is so high, it's that there will be so little benefit. Now of course we can say something like: "if it saves one child's life it will have been worth it.", but statements like that are just political posturing. 

 

Do you really want to discuss this or do you just want to play the ig? I mentioned the clerk not caring whether the robber's gun had five shots or fifty was to make a point out that it will have virtually no affect on the majority of violent gun crimes, and you pretend it is out of my concern for the criminals. Typical.

 

 

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, kingdong said:

like having the means to defend their selves and their families?

Do you need an assault rifle to defend yourself?

[mogandave]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Do you need an assault rifle to defend yourself?

Generally, the same people pushing for restrictions on "assault rifles" would confiscate all guns if it were within their power. Just need to get a toe in the door first.

 

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

My recommendation was to have a more rigorous background check in conjunction with a license and training  similar to a driver license. You would have to renew it at suitable intervals, and if you accumulate points against it you lose your privilege. You'd have to show your license to buy guns, ammo and accessories. Right now, or even after the current bill is passed, a guy can buy a weapon (or ten) and he has them for life without any review, regardless of what he does.

 

There is the cost of the legislation, the cost of enforcement, the cost of lost sales and the manufacturer's cost of retooling and of course the animosity it generates. It's not that the monetary cost is so high, it's that there will be so little benefit. Now of course we can say something like: "if it saves one child's life it will have been worth it.", but statements like that are just political posturing. 

 

Do you really want to discuss this or do you just want to play the ig? I mentioned the clerk not caring whether the robber's gun had five shots or fifty was to make a point out that it will have virtually no affect on the majority of violent gun crimes, and you pretend it is out of my concern for the criminals. Typical.

 

 

I'm fine with your first paragraph.  There's room for discussion and compromise on the best approach to licensing and background checks.

 

The costs you refer to are trivial, including the "animosity" cost.  The restriction on magazine size implemented in the 1990's didn't result in any economic hardship that I recall.  The benefit in lives would be much more than one child.  The Dayton shooter would not have killed nearly as many people in under one minute if he had had to switch magazines every ten or less shots.  The same would have been true for the Las Vegas shooter. 

 

The licenses, registration and background checks would not have an immediate effect on overall violent crime, but it would have the long term effect of reducing guns in the wrong hands.  Unlicensed people searched for some offense who are found to have a gun would lose that gun.  Licensed people found with an unregistered gun would lose that gun and possibly their license.  Drunk drivers found to have a loaded weapon in their car would also lose their gun and license.  And so on.  Licenses and registration would make it easier to take guns from people who shouldn't have them.  The benefit would not be immediate but it would eventually be substantial.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Generally, the same people pushing for restrictions on "assault rifles" would confiscate all guns if it were within their power. Just need to get a toe in the door first.

That's the NRA talking point.  Do you have any proof of this?

 

I'm a gun owner and I don't want guns confiscated, except from those people who clearly should not have them.  I just want other gun owners to be properly trained and to understand that there are harsh penalties for using their weapon in a reckless or careless manner.

[mogandave]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

That's the NRA talking point.  Do you have any proof of this?

 

I'm a gun owner and I don't want guns confiscated, except from those people who clearly should not have them.  I just want other gun owners to be properly trained and to understand that there are harsh penalties for using their weapon in a reckless or careless manner.

Seriously? Have you not been following this thread or any like it?

 

I understand you don't, and perhaps generally was too strong a modifier, but clearly a significant percentage would.

 

 

[mogandave]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I'm fine with your first paragraph.  There's room for discussion and compromise on the best approach to licensing and background checks.

 

The costs you refer to are trivial, including the "animosity" cost.  The restriction on magazine size implemented in the 1990's didn't result in any economic hardship that I recall.  The benefit in lives would be much more than one child.  The Dayton shooter would not have killed nearly as many people in under one minute if he had had to switch magazines every ten or less shots.  The same would have been true for the Las Vegas shooter. 

 

The licenses, registration and background checks would not have an immediate effect on overall violent crime, but it would have the long term effect of reducing guns in the wrong hands.  Unlicensed people searched for some offense who are found to have a gun would lose that gun.  Licensed people found with an unregistered gun would lose that gun and possibly their license.  Drunk drivers found to have a loaded weapon in their car would also lose their gun and license.  And so on.  Licenses and registration would make it easier to take guns from people who shouldn't have them.  The benefit would not be immediate but it would eventually be substantial.

 

Why would you call it a compromise? It is much more comprehensive than anything being proposed in congress.

 

The costs are trivial to you, I think the cost of the wall is trivial. Again, I am not really against a limit on the very large magazine sizes, but five rounds seems strong. I think anything in current production aside from oversized banana or rotary type clips should be okay. The benefit could well be more than one life, or it could be none. And again, it would have virtually no effect on violent gun crime. The mass shooting issue is (I think) much more serious than magazine size. 

 

I wholeheartedly agree in the long term benefit of licensing, that is why I support it. My position is that if you have robust licensing that includes background checks, individual checks on each sale become redundant and a significant drain on resources.

 

 

[CNXexpat]

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I didn't have a question, I was answering your question. Please try to follow along. 

 

Not going on Jeopardy any time soon are you...

 

10 minutes ago, mogandave said:

What's your point?

The question mark at the end means for me, it´s a question.

 

You replied to a question I asked somebody else.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and the off topic replies have been removed. 

[sunnyboy2018]

On 8/4/2019 at 12:11 AM, Tug said:

It’s coming out he is an anti immigrant white nationalist the cops need to be given the tools to take guns away from the nut jobs

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/08/06/el-paso-was-a-vile-act-of-eco-terrorism/

He was a green/eco nut job too!

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, mogandave said:

Seriously? Have you not been following this thread or any like it?

 

I understand you don't, and perhaps generally was too strong a modifier, but clearly a significant percentage would.

Yes, seriously.  I don't consider this forum as representative of overall US opinion, and I recall only a few posters here indicating that they think all guns should be confiscated.

 

Can you cite a credible poll indicating that the majority, or even a large minority, of US citizens want all guns confiscated?

[mogandave]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Yes, seriously.  I don't consider this forum as representative of overall US opinion, and I recall only a few posters here indicating that they think all guns should be confiscated.

 

Can you cite a credible poll indicating that the majority, or even a large minority, of US citizens want all guns confiscated?

 

I think what I said was: "Generally, the same people pushing for restrictions on "assault rifles" would confiscate all guns if it were within their power."

 

In my next post I said generally was too strong a word, and said a significant percentage.

 

How do you get from a significant percentage of the people pushing for restrictions on assault rifles to a "...majority, or even a large minority, of US citizens..."? 

 

I don't imagine there is much of an interest in studies that show what percentage of citizens support confiscation. Who would fund it? I probably would trust anyone that funded it anyway. I'm guessing all the recent polls are asking people if they support "common sense gun laws", which of course 80% will say yes, 10% will say no, and 10% won't understand the question. 

 

I would guess of the population:

--10% support confiscation

--80% support some gun control

--10% support no gun control

 

But what are we doing? The left is calling for emergency gun control legislation to push through a bill that will only expand the existing POC background check system that does not seem to work for the people they are already checking. It reminds me of the idiotic bump-stock ban.

 

I have some respect for politicians pushing confiscation, I don't support their position, but at least are taking a position that could actually have an impact.

 

[Scott]

15 hours ago, Longcut said:

From Pew Research Center:[1]

A majority of gun owners (61%) are Republicans or lean to the Republican Party, but NRA members skew even more heavily to the political right than other gun owners. Roughly three-quarters (77%) of gun owners who say they belong to the NRA are Republicans or lean Republican, while only 20% are Democrats or lean Democratic. Among gun owners who do not belong to the NRA, by contrast, 58% are Republicans and 39% are Democrats. And among Republican gun owners, NRA members are much more likely than nonmembers to describe their political views as very conservative (29% vs. 18%).

So, out of 5 million NRA members[2](and there may be closer to 6 or 7 million), 1 million are Democrats.

I live in Texas, so factor that in, but what I’ve found is that many Democrats are “pro gun.” You can’t assume a Democrat is “anti-gun.” They may have more guns than your Republican friends.

You are most certainly correct.   There are many, many Democrats that are pro-gun.   Many have guns for personal protection, hunting and collectors.   I think you'll find more Democrats that are willing to open the debate on what guns should be allowed in the public domain, but a good % are still gun owners who would be very reluctant to give up their guns.  

I think that when the politicians start talking about gun control, it starts getting like the Brexit debate -- lots of people on both sides, but some want no deal, some a deal, etc., etc..

[mogandave]

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

I think that when the politicians start talking about gun control, it starts getting like the Brexit debate -- lots of people on both sides, but some want no deal, some a deal, etc., etc..

 

But they all want votes, so they'll go on pretending that they're doing something. 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I think what I said was: "Generally, the same people pushing for restrictions on "assault rifles" would confiscate all guns if it were within their power."

 

In my next post I said generally was too strong a word, and said a significant percentage.

 

How do you get from a significant percentage of the people pushing for restrictions on assault rifles to a "...majority, or even a large minority, of US citizens..."? 

 

I don't imagine there is much of an interest in studies that show what percentage of citizens support confiscation. Who would fund it? I probably would trust anyone that funded it anyway. I'm guessing all the recent polls are asking people if they support "common sense gun laws", which of course 80% will say yes, 10% will say no, and 10% won't understand the question. 

 

I would guess of the population:

--10% support confiscation

--80% support some gun control

--10% support no gun control

 

But what are we doing? The left is calling for emergency gun control legislation to push through a bill that will only expand the existing POC background check system that does not seem to work for the people they are already checking. It reminds me of the idiotic bump-stock ban.

 

I have some respect for politicians pushing confiscation, I don't support their position, but at least are taking a position that could actually have an impact.

 

"I don't imagine there is much of an interest in studies that show what percentage of citizens support confiscation. Who would fund it?" 

 

Did you look?  https://news.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx

 

It's from 2012, so the numbers have probably changed.  However with only 24% favoring a ban on handguns, I think it's safe to assume that the majority still don't want an outright ban.  However the majority (58% in 2012) probably still want more sane gun control laws.

 

[mogandave]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

"I don't imagine there is much of an interest in studies that show what percentage of citizens support confiscation. Who would fund it?" 

 

Did you look?  https://news.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx

 

It's from 2012, so the numbers have probably changed.  However with only 24% favoring a ban on handguns, I think it's safe to assume that the majority still don't want an outright ban.  However the majority (58% in 2012) probably still want more sane gun control laws.

 

 

You seem to have it in your head that I claimed a "majority want an outright ban". How do you get from 10% to a majority?

 

I went on to state: "I don't imagine there is much of an interest in studies that show what percentage of citizens support confiscation. Who would fund it?"

 

To which you responded with a link to a USA Today poll that DOES NOT show what percentage of citizens support confiscation. Do you not think the next logical question after handgun ban be full ban?

 

While I think the poll is generally useless, I love the title of the article and the questions. What I think is interesting is that up until at least 2014, the percentage of people that want to ban handguns has been declining. I have to guess this is a result of the focus on "assault rifles". The big push for gun control when I was a kid was handguns, and it looks like from 1959-2015 support for a handgun ban declined from 60% to 24%.