Thoughts and Prayers: A Discussion

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Rootbeer said:

 

I didn't dig too much on the Vegas shooter's history, did he have any red flags at all? What little I know of the guy is that he was somewhat wealthy and the only thing that raises a ! is the fact that his dad was on the FBI's most wanted list, and just being the kid of a criminal isn't a crime in itself. Just based on that relatively clean history of his, I don't see how he could've failed any sanity test thrown at him nor would I expect any examiners to have treated him differently from anyone else applying for a gun.

 

I think looking for ideas to make it harder for the mentally ill to obtain weapons is great but idk if a test is a viable one. After getting a "No" to "Do you think it's okay to shoot people", there's really not much more you can ask. In a similar vein, and mabey meds are just lax but I thought it'd be super difficult to obtain stimulants for my ADHD, with stims being a very closely monitored drug. The big questions that were asked were simply:

1. Do you have thoughts of hurting others or yourself?

2. Are you seeing or hearing things you shouldn't be?
3. Are you feeling depressed at all?

and one or two more but they were all very generic and yes/no questions. Say no 4-5 times whether you're lying or not (I only lied to #1, I often have thoughts to violently harm Narwhals everytime I hear his voice) and bam, you're legally mentally fit. Honestly, place a harder test than the one here and I'm pretty sure a large portion of the population will be considered mentally ill -- even the ones who aren't.

Test as in be required to take classes from a instructor to be allowed to legally buy a gun. Have them work under the same rules as a car. The instructor can also double as someone to give the gov a red flag if something is off about them. You should be able to prove you know how to use a gun safely before buying one i believe.

[Rootbeer 1293]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

Test as in be required to take classes from a instructor to be allowed to legally buy a gun. Have them work under the same rules as a car. The instructor can also double as someone to give the gov a red flag if something is off about them. You should be able to prove you know how to use a gun safely before buying one i believe.

 

Would that have stopped this last guy though? He brought in multiple guns and obviously knew how to use them all with the huge amount of people wounded.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Rootbeer said:

 

Would that have stopped this last guy though? He brought in multiple guns and obviously knew how to use them all with the huge amount of people wounded.

If an instructor had an extended period of time with him it might have allowed for a red flag to go up. Who knows. Plenty of shootings would be prevented im sure. 

[Dr Pepper 1491]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

He makes so many bad points in this video so I'll just point out the very first one which I've heard from so many gun nuts. When people say "planes didn't cause 9/11 bad people did" or something about trucks being dangerous to I point out that you can't fly without a license and certification and many other checks and balances. You don't even have the right to be a passenger without heavy security checks. 

he also says that bad people will do what they need to do to get the tools they need to commit the crimes they have set out to do, and i believe that to the fullest. its not hard to get guns illegally or legally in the US as the market is over saturated.so yes, i would rather most people have a firearm rather than just the criminals and police officers. 

 

i am also a firm believer in that you cannot blame an inanimate object for the actions of sentient beings. i can bake a cake but it was not the oven that did it, it was me. if you want to blame something blame the motherfucker who committed the crimes. any other logic is just plain backwards thinking.

 

i dont understand how you can say national defence and tyranny is BS. WWII was not as long ago as you might think, and there are still plenty of tyrannies/dictatorships in the world.

should the gov't fail at any point it WILL be an armed society that fills the power vacuum,and i would hope its the common citizens.

 

[Rootbeer 1293]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

If an instructor had an extended period of time with him it might have allowed for a red flag to go up. Who knows. Plenty of shootings would be prevented im sure. 

If anything, it would just teach the incompetent would-be shooters to be competent. Like, here's how you speed reload after gunning down a few guys -- really stretch that kill count before you die. The only thing the mandatory training session has going for it is some time to be vetted out by the trainer, which like I said with docs above is probs gonna get a lot of false positive for rejects. Why implement a new system that you know is intrinsically gonna be unfair to some? I'd rather just push for an all out ban rather than that.

 

Just now, Dr Pepper said:

should the gov't fail at any point it WILL be an armed society that fills the power vacuum,and i would hope its the common citizens.

Do you honestly believe this would happen, trolling aside? If the entire US military decided to go rogue and sweep the nation as a new regime, would the common man with rifles really help to stop that? I don't see any argument for rifles vs the evil corrupt government story tbh. No militia is going to stop the US military if it decided as a whole to take over and reform the government. We're talkin' drones, tanks, trained infantrymen, s t e a l t h  b o m b e r s and precision air strikes. IDK what kind of fiction anyone who believes we need protection rifles to combat the evil government is reading but it is highly unlikely that some ragtag militia of your average American is ever going to defeat our troops.

[Dr Pepper 1491]

Just now, Rootbeer said:

Do you honestly believe this would happen, trolling aside? If the entire US military decided to go rogue and sweep the nation as a new regime, would the common man with rifles really help to stop that? I don't see any argument for rifles vs the evil corrupt government story tbh. No militia is going to stop the US military if it decided as a whole to take over and reform the government. We're talkin' drones, tanks, trained infantrymen, s t e a l t h  b o m b e r s and precision air strikes. IDK what kind of fiction anyone who believes we need protection rifles to combat the evil government is reading but it is highly unlikely that some ragtag militia of your average American is ever going to defeat our troops.

its not about what i think,its about what HAS happened in the past and what is still going on to this day. indeed the situation is highly unlikely, and this was much more of an issue a couple hundred years ago. at this point US gov't might be too big to fail but the possibility is still there. i thank our forefathers for having the hindsight to give us this ability, though i hope it will never come into use.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Dr Pepper said:

 

 

i dont understand how you can say national defence and tyranny is BS. WWII was not as long ago as you might think, and there are still plenty of tyrannies/dictatorships in the world.

should the gov't fail at any point it WILL be an armed society that fills the power vacuum,and i would hope its the common citizens.

 

No society has ever turned to dictatorship after a long period of healthy democracy. Also like beer said. No militia can fight a government with military weapons. If every gun owner had a full auto ak but a couple million guys in the military decided to kill them all the military could win ez. Its just pointless. We have an oversaturation  of guns that would be dealt with by theoretical gun buybacks like Australia had. Also like i said above the founders wrote "Well regulated militia" in the second amendment. They meant for citizens to have these guns  under the supervision of local and state government led militias

[Dr Pepper 1491]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

No society has ever turned to dictatorship after a long period of healthy democracy. Also like beer said. No militia can fight a government with military weapons. If every gun owner had a full auto ak but a couple million guys in the military decided to kill them all the military could win ez. Its just pointless. We have an oversaturation  of guns that would be dealt with by theoretical gun buybacks like Australia had. 

i do not consider US democracy healthy with our current president.  

 

i highly doubt the military could stand up to every civilian after the government has collapsed. they are not self sufficient and rely on the private sector quite a lot.

 

oh and lets not forget, you cant kill all the civilians or you wont have anyone to tax. 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Dr Pepper said:

i do not consider US democracy healthy with our current president.  

 

i highly doubt the military could stand up to every civilian after the government has collapsed. they are not self sufficient and rely on the private sector quite a lot.

The government can't collapse there's so many precautions it it falls it basically means human kind is extinct already. Also tell me what 10000 militia nuts with aks can do to 10 apaches  with rockets. Also Trumps incomoetmecy aside we'll never see a turn to tyranny in the country thanks to all the checks and balances. 

[Dr Pepper 1491]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

The government can't collapse there's so many precautions it it falls it basically means human kind is extinct already. Also tell me what 10000 militia nuts with aks can do to 10 apaches  with rockets. Also Trumps incomoetmecy aside we'll never see a turn to tyranny in the country thanks to all the checks and balances. 

notice how ive been saying citizens, not militias. 230+ million of us with a fraction being the military. this country has been live free or die from the begining, nobody is going to take that away without a nation wide uprising. 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Dr Pepper said:

notice how ive been saying citizens, not militias. 230+ million of us with a fraction being the military. this country has been live free or die from the begining, nobody is going to take that away without a nation wide uprising. 

You still really don't understand my point. The government won't collapse because of precautions they have taken. The government won't go tyrannical because the structure is designed to prevent it and no government has ever gone tyrannical after a  long period of democracy. If the government decided to go tyrannical the military wouldn't follow but the nightmare situation people have where the military does then guess what it wins . Gun owners in America can't fight fucking stealth bombers.  Even if all the industry in america shuts down for a time the military has enough stockpiled to obliterate any uprising a million times over 

[Dr Pepper 1491]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

You still really don't understand my point. The government won't collapse because of precautions they have taken. The government won't go tyrannical becausethe structure is designed to prevent it and no government has ever gone tyrannical after a  long period of democracy. If the government decided to go tyrannical the military wouldn't follow but the nightmare situation people have where the military dles then guess what it wins . Gun owners in America can't fight fucking stealth bombers.  Even if all the industry in america shuts down for a time the mikitary has wnough stockpiled to obliterate any uprising a million times over 

i understand i just dont agree with everything you are saying. 

 

anyways i have diverted this thread enough, i got all caught up in people talking about gun control i forgot to say that those who say thoughts and prays doesn't bother me. atleast they are showing that they actually care enough to do something, anything.

[centran 4457]

1 hour ago, Rootbeer said:

 

I didn't dig too much on the Vegas shooter's history, did he have any red flags at all? What little I know of the guy is that he was somewhat wealthy and the only thing that raises a ! is the fact that his dad was on the FBI's most wanted list, and just being the kid of a criminal isn't a crime in itself. Just based on that relatively clean history of his, I don't see how he could've failed any sanity test thrown at him nor would I expect any examiners to have treated him differently from anyone else applying for a gun.

 

Yep, if there were any tests and more thorough background tests he would have had no problems. Right now there was no indication he was planning this attack. The only thing is he might have booked several different hotels to different festivals but you can book a room under any name you want. The other thing is sending his girlfriend to the Philippines and transferring a lot of money. She claims she thought it was how he wanted to break up with her but we will see if her investigation leads anywhere. So the only suspicious thing he did was transfer a large sum of money and that was done long after he bought his arsenal. Also the transfer was recent so if that tripped any warnings it was too late(but you'd be surprised how much financial stuff you can do without question).

 

This guy came out of nowhere. Maybe as they investigate more there will be a motive and signs someone should have noticed. IDK. Don't be surprised if people start throwing conspiracy theories that it was a false flag attack. If there was even a remote chance it was then what you will see happen is no significant change to gun law but there will be laws regulating hotels stating they must verify the identification of guests and maybe bag checks at large hotels or metal detectors set at a low sensitivity(so you need a big piece of metal to set it off and yes you can do that with the detectors). If the metal detectors do go in then you might want to follow the money.

 

[Dakota 4722]

The US military would easily overpower the people if it came down to it. The point is that it would be significantly harder when the people have ways go protect themselves. 

6 minutes ago, Ordinarygamer96 said:

You still really don't understand my point. The government won't collapse because of precautions they have taken. The government won't go tyrannical because the structure is designed to prevent it and no government has ever gone tyrannical after a  long period of democracy. If the government decided to go tyrannical the military wouldn't follow but the nightmare situation people have where the military does then guess what it wins . Gun owners in America can't fight fucking stealth bombers.  Even if all the industry in america shuts down for a time the military has enough stockpiled to obliterate any uprising a million times over 

No team had ever won the NBA finals when they are down 1-3, yet LeBron got his ring. Your argument that it has never happened means nothing. 

[water.exe 725]

19 hours ago, Ordinarygamer96 said:

Friendly reminder that you can legally get a gun without passing a background check if it takes longer than 3 days to get it done 

The only loophole to buying a gun without a background check is at a gun show others wise you are are wrong

4 hours ago, Ordinarygamer96 said:

See the thing is people misinterpret the viewpoint of the founding fathers. The reason the second amendment includes the sentence "a well regulated militia" is because it was actually saying the federal govenrment would not take away the rights of state and local governments to maintain their own militias which is what was common in those days. Local government's would stockpile guns to be distributed if the need arose. This was guaranteed for two reasons 1. Appease state governments that were a little worried the federal gov would reduce their power. And 2. Because the threat of a British reinvasion still was there and we didn't have the money to pay for a real military. Basically both reasons are now moot because we see states can still maintain influence without their own militias and also because we now have an incredibly overpowered military that wouldn't let an enemy land let alone conquer us. There's really no evidence any founding father gave a shit about some random farmer's right to own a rifle. I'm not saying ban guns. But the case people make for why we can't "infringe on gun rights at all" comes from people nkt bothering to even read the full amendment and consider why the militia part was added 

You give little credit to the founding fathers because they wrote the constitution with such precision that the grammar and language seem to say otherwise but I'll let Pen and Teller explain that

 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, water.exe said:

The only loophole to buying a gun without a background check is at a gun show others wise you are are wrong

You give little credit to the founding fathers because they wrote the constitution with such precision that the grammar and language seem to say otherwise but I'll let Pen and Teller explain that

 

No actually under current law if a background check takes longer than 3 days the sale can continue. Dylan roof was able to get his gun that way despite having a criminal record. Thanks to the background check taking too long he was able to shoot up a church. Source http://graphics.wsj.com/gun-check-explainer/

 

Also as someone who has had to read the original correspondence and opinions of the founding fathers during the time the constitution was being written I think I understand their meaning more than you do. Explain to me why they included the words "a well regulated militia" if I'm wrong.

[Sean 3760]

Just now, water.exe said:

The only loophole to buying a gun without a background check is at a gun show others wise you are are wrong

You give little credit to the founding fathers because they wrote the constitution with such precision that the grammar and language seem to say otherwise but I'll let Pen and Teller explain that

 

Did you seriously just link a youtube video of magicians explaining US History?

[trav 6834]

Is there a need to own 40+ guns for one person? Couldn't that have been a red flag if all weapons need to be registered?

[water.exe 725]

Just now, Sean said:

Did you seriously just link a youtube video of magicians explaining US History?

They might be magicians but they can be serious when its required.

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

No actually under current law if a background check takes longer than 3 days the sale can continue. Dylan roof was able to get his gun that way despite having a criminal record. Thanks to the background check taking too long he was able to shoot up a church. Source http://graphics.wsj.com/gun-check-explainer/

 

Also as someone who has had to read the original correspondence and opinions of the founding fathers during the time the constitution was being written I think I understand their meaning more than you do. Explain to me why they included the words "a well regulated militia" if I'm wrong.

Since you really love leaving words out here we go and I'll break it into bullet points this time.

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

The 2nd Amendment as read has 2 main parts to it the 1st A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

This is pretty self explanatory the founding fathers wanted to maintain a trained Militia at all times to keep what we spent 2 years fighting for our freedom.

 

The 2nd part is the absolute key to this amendment in how it was worded ,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now this part is because the founding fathers didn't want a Britain 2: Electric Bugaloo to happen were the government is the only one with the guns and what they say goes.

Now recap time

• Well relegated Militia(US Armed Forces)
• The people having the right to keep and bear arms

Now if you still don't understand or want to leave out words I can find a completely serious diagram of why you are an absolute tool and complete moron

[Sean 3760]

You're also forgetting that the second amendment was written in regards to what happened years ago.

 

Since you're referencing entertainers. Like Jimmy Kimmel said: "The Second Amendment, I guess, our forefathers wanted us to have AK-47s is the argument, I assume. Orlando, Newtown, Aurora, San Bernardino, every one of these shootings the murderer used automatic or semiautomatic rifles, which are not weapons you use for self-defense. They’re weapons designed to kill,"

[water.exe 725]

Just now, Sean said:

You're also forgetting that the second amendment was written in regards to what happened years ago.

 

Since you're referencing entertainers. Like Jimmy Kimmel said: "The Second Amendment, I guess, our forefathers wanted us to have AK-47s is the argument, I assume. Orlando, Newtown, Aurora, San Bernardino, every one of these shootings the murderer used automatic or semiautomatic rifles, which are not weapons you use for self-defense. They’re weapons designed to kill,"

 

[Sean 3760]

Classic Trump supporter linking a Ben Shapiro video. It doesn't matter what Ben Shapiro says. What Jimmy said is clear common sense.

[water.exe 725]

Ben Shapiro didn't even vote Trump.....

[Sean 3760]

Just now, water.exe said:

Ben Shapiro didn't even vote Trump.....

Did I ever say he did? You're still missing the point. There were no powerful military weapons around in the 1800s compared to what we have now, and how EASILY ACCESSIBLE and CHEAP they are to acquire. How do you not find it to be fucked up that your argument is based off something that was written hundreds of years ago, where people didnt shoot crowds of hundreds thousands of people.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, water.exe said:

 

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

The 2nd Amendment as read has 2 main parts to it the 1st A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

This is pretty self explanatory the founding fathers wanted to maintain a trained Militia at all times to keep what we spent 2 years fighting for our freedom.

 

The 2nd part is the absolute key to this amendment in how it was worded ,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

• Well relegated Militia(US Armed Forces)
• The people having the right to keep and bear arms

Now if you still don't understand or want to leave out words I can find a completely serious diagram of why you are an absolute tool and complete moron

For starters a military is not a militia. Militia in those days meant the militias state and local governments organized. You can literally read the original founders discussing their opinions on militias if you bothered to read a real book or historical document. Also it's not two separate parts. The , implies its part of the same sentence and therefore thought. They're connected because theyre referencing that they can't take away the right for Well regulate militias to have guns.  Most Americans at the time didn't even own guns and most who did owned it communally and stored them in a central location for the militia to access. The 1st United States constitution known as the articles of confederation didn't even reference the people it basically just said that state and local governments were responsible for keeping militias. Dude I literally study this and intend to go in a field. You can't defend your case without linking YouTube videos .