Las Vegas shooting, automatic weapon used at outdoor concert

And yet, you seek more gun control laws that only affects the rights of the law abiding.
Thus, you just lied to yourself.

 

As a thinking, reasoned person, I am immune to the fallacious arguments presented by people such as yourself -- so, you're right.

The fact you must rely on the support of unthinking, unseasoned people to advance your agenda speaks volumes.

 

Me and Mrs America turn me all in and Pelosi hoping “it” never ends.
It’s a difficult lie to swallow but some liberals seem to have large throats.

 

Fallacy: Appeal to emotion.
Only unthinking, unreasoning people will be swayed by this.

'Assault weapons' are 'bearable arms' and this protected by the constitution. Thus, you cannot restrict access to them by the law abiding w/o violating the Constitution.
Why do you hate the constitution?

 

The fact you must lie to yourself, and the others, to make a point has me in stitches.

 

Most of them don't understand they are being used.
The remainder pat their useful idiots on the head and tell them they have done good work.

 

Really?!!! MA is passing a law with a 3-20 as in twenty year penalty for posessing a bump stock. Actual murderers here in Ma get less than 20. Can you explain how that law is not designed to grab law abiding citizens rights? again because I know lefties will miss the point, the penalty for a person in posession of a bump is more than an actual murderer. Its insane and why leftists must be removed from office. <<MOD EDIT - Removed Group Insult >> Lee S

 

Is it possible for you to express your "opinion" without spewing Group Insults?

The 2nd Amendment is one of the biggest flaws in The Constitution. Period.

 

Youre the exact type of person that the forefathers had in mind when they wrote the second. And ill call leftists traitors in our govt out all I want and you will sit there and be able to do absolutely nothing about it. They also wrote the 1st with you in mind.

 

Holy crap!!! Since when have you been adverse to group insults? It’s your only forte.
As for flaws I suggest some deep introspection.

 

Look at your own post history just the last say month! Or even better since Trump was elected. It's 9/10 of group blanketing insults, generalities and the remaining 10% is off topic, ramble, deflection, or utterly devoid of any content.

Look at that post count.. Whistles.. All of it quite rubbish opinion of one lining attacks against alternative views of thought. IE anything not leftist or socialist gets attacked.

 

Say the people it was designed to protect the rights of law abiding from.
Working as intended.

 

Of course.

 

I agree. Isn't that what I've been saying? I never advocated limiting technology. I said limit certain individuals (not everyone) who've been identified as potential threats to society from having access to technology that can slaughter hundreds of innocent bystanders by simply pulling a trigger. And yes, I've advocated restricting automatic weapons from public access, not because I wish to limit advanced technology (it has its place), but the reality is that in the society that you so accurately describe, there's increased risk of mass murder incidents happening if that technology continues being available to everyone. We have to take into account the type of society we live in and you're right, it's dangerous. You wouldn't give a 2-year old plastic bags to play with. Why should we give automatic weapons to individuals in our "sick" society who are mentally ill? The 2nd Amendment will stand in any case, and we'll be improving our society by reducing the threat of mass murders on a regular basis--or at least the size of such incidents. I can't help but see that as a step in the right direction.

 

Wrong. Keeping automatic weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill, or criminals isn't affecting YOUR rights to have guns. You will still have that right. You might have to qualify for a license--which is no big deal. But it will help make our society safer, and reduce the stresses Americans live with every day when they go to public events.

 

XploreR said: Less than two weeks ago, in the latest of a long and continuing series of mass murders, 58 innocent Americans had their lives ended by a single mental deviant with a carload of weapons that functioned on an automatic level. Almost 500 additional Americans enjoying an evening with their loved ones were wounded. All this horror took place in less than 15 minutes.

If you're trying to come across as heartless and cold-hearted, you're succeeding.

 

I don't live in MA, so I can't speak for or against them, but there are unfair and non-sensible laws in every state, and on every conceivable topic. I guarantee they were NOT all written or passed by liberals.

 

"Automatic weapons"? I love the ignorance of the anti-gun left.
Law that restrict my rights restrict my rights, and so, in wanting laws that restrict my rights, you want to restrict my rights. Not sure how you think you can argue otherwise.

Requiring a license to exercise a right at the most basic level is a restriction on the right. Thus you want to restrict my rights - just as I said.
Never mind the fact that the state cannot require a license for the basic exercise of a right w/o violating the Constitution; a license to own a gun violates the constitution in exactly the same way as a license to have an abortion, go to chuch, or post on your blog.

Las Vegas proves otherwise.

 

If you're trying to come across as silly enough to believe thinking, reasoned people are swayed by fallacious arguments, you're succeeding.

 

These laws have been in place for almost 50 years. Try to keep up, son.

Automatic weapons have been tightly regulated for over 80 years. Try to keep up, son.

Over the last 35 years, per yer, on average, about 4 people per year have been murdered in a mass shooting with an 'assault weapon'.
Wow. A veritable holocaust.

Fallacy: Loaded question
When did you stop beating your dog?

Fortunately the 2nd Amendment stands - in your way.

 

How many shots is she allowed and how fast should she be restricted to shoot in that scenario?

 

This one is currently being written by liberals and will be approved by our rino governor.

 

For the subject of discussion, let us switch from the niche category of firearms capable of fully-automatic operation, and instead focus on firearms in general, with regard to the aspect of qualification for a license standard. If such a standard regarded as acceptable? If so, for what reason? Those that cannot legally possess a firearm will do so regardless. Will a convicted felon be prosecuted for unlawful possession of a firearm, as well as possession of an unlicensed firearm, when they legally cannot qualify for a license in the first place? What would the purpose of such be, when the courts are unwilling to pursue felon in possession charges as it is?

What would be the underlying motivation for courts to pursue charges against those who can legally possess a firearm, but simply do not have a license for such? How would such benefit society as opposed to pursuing charges against known prohibited individuals?

The notion of having to qualify for a license in order to legally exercise a right, not simply in specific circumstances but rather in general, is not supported by the constitution of the united states. The argument could, at least theoretically, be made regarded fully-automatic firearms, but certainly not firearms in general. Not after they have been available for so long, and now that there are between three hundred and five hundred million already in circulation, with an estimated forty one thousand more being added daily.

 

GREAT MOMENTS IN PUBLIC RELATIONS: Mandalay Bay Owners Sue Vegas Shooting Victims to Avoid Liability.

As Iowahawk tweeted, “Might have considered running this one by the marketing department first.”

 

I bet they weighed the costs. This aggressive defensive legal maneouver, coupled with the drop in business, a convenient bankruptcy and rebranding costs in total might just be less than settling a massive class action suit with an inconvenient bankruptcy. After all, with no class action, most of those 1,000 people will not try to fight it out and the "settlement" would be much less. The class action sharks would up the potential payouts by a couple of orders of magnitude.