Massacre in Santa Monica, CA

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by DesertEagle, Jun 8, 2013.

  1. DesertEagle macrumors 6502a

    DesertEagle

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Location:
    /home @ 127.0.0.1
    #1

    Attached Files:

  2. Josh125 macrumors 6502

    Josh125

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    Location:
    Katy, TX
    #2
    Your username is rather ironic, no? Your question is vapid and been kicked around and debated over and over. No one is changing their minds because you asked again.
     
  3. SilentPanda Moderator emeritus

    SilentPanda

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Bamboo Forest
    #3
    I don't know that it was a "massacre". In total 4 people were killed, 2 of which were in the same house and were possibly known to the assailant. It sounds like the fire and resultant random bullet spray after was a desire for suicide by cop more than anything. If he had had a handgun instead of an AR-15 he very well would have killed the first 2 people still. The other 2 were accidental and may or may not have happened. I only mean accidental in the sense that it sounds more like he was just spraying bullets at random things looking for attention, not to create a body count.

    Not to take away from what happened or side with "free guns for all". But I find your thread title and inference that if he didn't have an AR-15 this wouldn't have happened. Unless you mean that if he had no gun at all this wouldn't have happened in which case, well yes. Although the 2 initial deaths probably still would have happened by some means.
     
  4. citizenzen Suspended

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #4
    We really need a forum sticky, "Another Shooting in the U.S."

    Save the trouble of starting all these new threads.
     
  5. DesertEagle thread starter macrumors 6502a

    DesertEagle

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Location:
    /home @ 127.0.0.1
    #5
    Sounds like a good idea. Have you made a suggestion to the mods about it?
     
  6. aerok macrumors 65816

    aerok

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    #6
    I love using my desert eagle... in Counterstrike. I would never own one in real life, even if it were free.
     
  7. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #7
    Because it is my constitutional right to own one.

    The firearm in your post in its current form is already ILLEGAL to buy in California since 1989. Someone in CA would need to chime in and tell us what the grandfather laws are for pre-89 guns already in the state.
     
  8. citizenzen Suspended

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #8
    Constitutional right (as currently interpreted by SCOTUS) is to own a firearm ... not a specific type of firearm.
     
  9. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #9
    If you want to argue semantics be my guest.

    He asked a question and I answered.

    Because it is my constitutional right.
     
  10. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #10
    Actually you didn't. He asked why someone would NEED it. Not why they would be allowed to own one. Big difference.
     
  11. citizenzen Suspended

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #11
    Words and their meaning are fundamental to these discussions.

    Do you not agree?
     
  12. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #12
    I can only answer for myself.

    In my case, because of 2A it isn't anyone's business "why" I need to own one.
     
  13. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #13
    You are implying that you would use your weapons against someone ASKING you why you need them?!?
     
  14. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #14
    I am not "implying" anything.
     
  15. citizenzen Suspended

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #15
    2A clearly states the why: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ...

    The current SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, but they've also ruled that corporations are people.

    The current SCOTUS seems a little "off" on both those counts IMO.
     
  16. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #16
    How about you post the whole 2A...

    "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."

    Edit: Yes I know all about the Heller and McDonald rulings.
     
  17. citizenzen Suspended

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #17
    The two parts of the sentence are connected.

    "The people" mentioned in the second part is defined by the first part.

    That is the conclusion of four of the dissenting Supreme Court Justices.

    One more vote, and that's the reality you'd be living under.
     
  18. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #18
    I look forward to reading about your trial someday.
     
  19. duneriderltr450 macrumors 6502

    duneriderltr450

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2012
    Location:
    Oregon
    #19
    It's the bill of rights. Not the bill of needs.
     
  20. citizenzen Suspended

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #20
    And every right comes with limitations ... something that gun advocates seem loathe to acknowledge.
     
  21. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #21
    Yeah but this isn't a court of law or anything official. It's just a discussion group. People have asked gun owners often why they need a certain type of weapon. It would be nice to hear a real response for once.
     
  22. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #22
    I don't know many pro-gun people that are not 100% in favor of enforcing the current laws we already have on the books.

    I take issue with people claiming we need more laws when city, state and federal courts won't enforce the laws they already have.
     
  23. citizenzen Suspended

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #23
    I think they fear that if the real reason slips out, then the cat will be out of the bag.

    It makes them feel powerful.

    And they desperately crave power.
     
  24. CaptHenryMorgan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Location:
    The District
    #24
    You're missing the "Well regulated militia" part. Individuals do not constitute a "well regulated militia". Your point is invalid.

    That, and the 4th Amendment has been infringed upon consistently and systematically over the last 20 years through illegal surveillance, so why not infringe on the 2nd Amendment? They're both equal under the Constitution.
     
  25. duneriderltr450 macrumors 6502

    duneriderltr450

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2012
    Location:
    Oregon
    #25
    Because I like to have one. It's a hobby. Same reason you would buy rc cars and accessories if you were into that hobby.
     

Share This Page