Apparent mass shooting on Las Vegas Strip

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by n david

Semantics. I didn't mean to suggest they are actually a full auto. But they act like a full auto with use of the bump stock. It is not the same as a semi auto and it is not rapid fire semi auto.

It may be semantics, but semantics can be important. As I posted previously, I don't disagree with you that it is similar behavior to fully automatic. The comment about "rapid fire semi auto" (or however I worded it) was more to do with the technical implementation of it than the usage.

Having said that, I don't believe these should be illegal or regulated. All that does is prevent law abiding people from possessing them. There has never been a law in existence that stopped a criminal from doing bad things. Even in the beginning when there was only one law (do not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil), it still got violated.

[Evang.Benincasa]

The right to bear arms only means ONE THING.

To protect yourself from a government gone nuts.

Bump stock, full or semi auto, high capacity magazines should be owned by anyone who wishes to own them. Background checks are fine and needful. Yet, people don't arm themselves to defend against someone breaking into their home. The right to bear arms is to protect against a government who is afraid of their people. Fear to such a degree that it will govern through force and persecution. Doors being kicked in isn't a new idea, it has happened in the past.

Ruby Ridge was a prime example of the entrapment before the knock on the door. Branch Davidian Compound is what happens when government force forgets its own strength. Then ends up with an objective to end the situation by any means available. The knock on the door was a via on bullet through the front door. Do I side with David Koresh? No, the guy was a religious screwball. But he didn't use his guns and rifles as a part of his crazy ecclesiastical self importance.

He used the guns and rifles to defend against agents of the government when they chose to use unnecessary force against a compound filled with women and children.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The right to bear arms only means ONE THING.

To protect yourself from a government gone nuts.

Yep, that's the entire point of the 2nd amendment and the very reason we shouldn't accept ANY restrictions on gun ownership, except in cases where the individual has proven to be a menace to society (and then they should simply be locked up).

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Yep, that's the entire point of the 2nd amendment and the very reason we shouldn't accept ANY restrictions on gun ownership, except in cases where the individual has proven to be a menace to society (and then they should simply be locked up).

Locked up was once called "penitentiary" late Middle English (as a term in ecclesiastical law): from medieval Latin paenitentiarius, from Latin paenitentia ‘repentance.’ Sense 1 dates from the early 19th century. Sadly, it no longer serves that purpose, yet prison is just a holding tank for the unwanted problems of broken system. Hence, public execution will eventually become reinstated as our society collapses further. You cannot keep incarcerating your population without a light at the end of the tunnel. Sooner or later the center no longer holds, and you end up with a post apocalyptic scenario which your children will have to solve. Ministers cannot sit in a pew waiting for the lost to walk through the door. You have to pray that the Lord Jesus Christ, the ONE and ONLY living God brings them to your path. You must be out finding them and give them the only tool which can bring rehabilitation, the Apostolic message of Jesus Christ. If this generation in the United States fails to present the message of One God Jesus name to this people. Then it will be pandemonium on a scale undreamed.

It won't be the end of the world, but the end of our world.

While revival may be in another part of the world.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The right to bear arms only means ONE THING.

To protect yourself from a government gone nuts.

Bump stock, full or semi auto, high capacity magazines should be owned by anyone who wishes to own them. Background checks are fine and needful. Yet, people don't arm themselves to defend against someone breaking into their home. The right to bear arms is to protect against a government who is afraid of their people. Fear to such a degree that it will govern through force and persecution. Doors being kicked in isn't a new idea, it has happened in the past.

Ruby Ridge was a prime example of the entrapment before the knock on the door. Branch Davidian Compound is what happens when government force forgets its own strength. Then ends up with an objective to end the situation by any means available. The knock on the door was a via on bullet through the front door. Do I side with David Koresh? No, the guy was a religious screwball. But he didn't use his guns and rifles as a part of his crazy ecclesiastical self importance.

He used the guns and rifles to defend against agents of the government when they chose to use unnecessary force against a compound filled with women and children.

amen

Kent State

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

amen

Kent State

Yes, peasant uprisings happen from time to time when a government fails its people. The people rise up to post objections to the powers that be, when the people rise up, the ruling capos do the fastest and simplest thing. They kill the revolters. Usually the leaders, the big mouths (Journalists, bloggers, activists) make examples. Rome's best method was the crucified man. It made a strong message that anyone opposing the government would not only be silenced, but made a public example. The tradition weaved its way through societies, as beheading, hangings, stonings, burning at the stake, firing squads, electrocutions, lethal injections, all employed to strike fear into the hearts of the "good" citizen. To keep them good citizens. Those who rise up do it out of great need, and therefore count the cost of revelation. It is a cycle that will always play itself out, and those who put down one corrupt government will produce sadly corrupt descendants. Who will only start the process again.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Fully automatic weapons are already banned.

As stated previously, I would be for either banning or regulating bump stocks and trigger cranks.

I would support background checks for purchases, including private sales. I do NOT support using the No-Fly list, as it is arbitrary and unconstitutional. I believe current background checks include watch lists, though I may be wrong.

Unfortunately, NONE of what has been discussed previously or currently would have saved the 59 who died last week.

All good points.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

The right to keep and bear arms (without reservation, 'arms' is listed in the most general sense) shall not be infringed.

There is nothing in the word arms that would imply it was only inferring a specific type of weapon. And the "shall not be infringed" completely negates ANY attempts to undermine it, despite what the Regressives attempt to foist upon us.

There is not one gun law that is legal per the 2nd amendment. We abide by the existing ones because we have little choice in the matter, short of a full blown revolution. And they are not yet onerous enough to justify that extreme of a position. The day may (will?) come when that is no longer true, but I pray that it doesn't happen in my lifetime.

Hopefully it will never come to that.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The right to bear arms only means ONE THING.

To protect yourself from a government gone nuts.

Bump stock, full or semi auto, high capacity magazines should be owned by anyone who wishes to own them. Background checks are fine and needful. Yet, people don't arm themselves to defend against someone breaking into their home. The right to bear arms is to protect against a government who is afraid of their people. Fear to such a degree that it will govern through force and persecution. Doors being kicked in isn't a new idea, it has happened in the past.

Ruby Ridge was a prime example of the entrapment before the knock on the door. Branch Davidian Compound is what happens when government force forgets its own strength. Then ends up with an objective to end the situation by any means available. The knock on the door was a via on bullet through the front door. Do I side with David Koresh? No, the guy was a religious screwball. But he didn't use his guns and rifles as a part of his crazy ecclesiastical self importance.

He used the guns and rifles to defend against agents of the government when they chose to use unnecessary force against a compound filled with women and children.

I've heard, read, and essentially believed what you're saying all of my life. And I haven't really delved into it deeply because guns aren't a big hobby of mine personally.

But does the Constitution expressly state this? For example, I've heard that the 2nd Amendment was necessary because the United States didn't originally have a standing army. National defense was essentially the responsibility of the "citizen soldier", citizens who were at the ready to defend from invaders. The, "Minutemen". These were armed citizens that were privately organized and trained in what we might call private militias. According to this logic the 2nd Amendment was necessary to maintain a well regulated militia, which is what it explicitly states:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So, the argument from the other side of the isle would be that since we have a standing military now, well regulated militias are unnecessary. And so the right to bear arms can be regulated.

I'm just sharing what I've heard.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The right to bear arms only means ONE THING.

To protect yourself from a government gone nuts.

Bump stock, full or semi auto, high capacity magazines should be owned by anyone who wishes to own them. Background checks are fine and needful. Yet, people don't arm themselves to defend against someone breaking into their home. The right to bear arms is to protect against a government who is afraid of their people. Fear to such a degree that it will govern through force and persecution. Doors being kicked in isn't a new idea, it has happened in the past.

Ruby Ridge was a prime example of the entrapment before the knock on the door. Branch Davidian Compound is what happens when government force forgets its own strength. Then ends up with an objective to end the situation by any means available. The knock on the door was a via on bullet through the front door. Do I side with David Koresh? No, the guy was a religious screwball. But he didn't use his guns and rifles as a part of his crazy ecclesiastical self importance.

He used the guns and rifles to defend against agents of the government when they chose to use unnecessary force against a compound filled with women and children.

The government has tanks, bombers, artillery, and nukes.

Wouldn't we need the same if we were to honestly be armed to defend ourselves from the government?

I think some would use the extreme of this logic to say that we should be able to purchase and own tactical nukes. Do we draw a line? Where do we draw that line?