No law could have prevented Vegas shooting, Feinstein says

[DonViejo]

Source: The Washington Post




By Tory Newmyer October 8 at 12:07 PM

No law could have thwarted last week’s massacre in Las Vegas, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate of stricter gun laws and author of the 1993 ban on assault weapons, said the shooter, Stephen Paddock, legally acquired the arsenal he used to carry out the attack. Asked by CBS's “Face the Nation” host John Dickerson whether any law could have stopped him, Feinstein said, “No. He passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions.” But Feinstein is pressing for a ban on “bump stocks,” devices that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire nearly as rapidly as a fully automatic weapon. She said she has 38 co-sponsors, all Democrats, though the idea has attracted “Republican interest.”

Feinstein said she appreciates the National Rifle Association's call for a regulatory review of bump stocks but said such a move would be insufficient. “Regulations aren’t going to do it. We need a law,” she said. “It can’t be changed by another president. Right now we’re seeing one president change actions of a president that came before him. And that would happen in this area. And I would hope that Americans will step up and say ‘Enough is enough. Congress, do something.’ ”

For gun rights advocates nervous that her bill will lead to a ban on semiautomatic weapons, Feinstein said, “That’s just plain wrong. This is written in clean English. You can take a look at it. It’s a two-page bill. I’ll send a copy of it to anyone who calls our office and you can look at it yourself. It does not take anyone’s gun.”

###

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/08/no-law-could-have-prevented-vegas-shooting-feinstein-says

[Snackshack]

1. Shes right.

No current law could have prevented it.

[trof]

2. Alas, she did not make that distinction.

[lapucelle]

50. Yes she did.

"Asked by CBS's “Face the Nation” host John Dickerson whether any law could have stopped him, Feinstein said, 'No. He passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions.”

Regulations aren’t going to do it. We need a law,' she said. “It can’t be changed by another president. Right now we’re seeing one president change actions of a president that came before him. And that would happen in this area. And I would hope that Americans will step up and say ‘Enough is enough. Congress, do something.’ ”

It was Dickerson who framed the question as "any law". DiFi introduced a bill last week to tighten existing laws and; is calling for new and stricter legislation and has been an advocate of stricter gun laws for her entire career. It's patently clear that she thinks stronger laws are needed, not that laws won't help to solve the problem.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-feinstein-introducing-bill-ban-bump-stocks-vegas/story?id=50276506

[Perseus]

7. Yes, 'CURRENT' is the key word here

There has to be a limit on the number of guns/rifles that one individual can own, the Vegas guy own what, 49?. The amount of ammunition. They also needs to restrict the sale of semi-automatic weapons, they are not for hunting, anyone who is interested in firing semi, and automatic weapons is welcome to join any of the wars that republicans get the USA into, there they can shoot as much as they want until they themselves get killed or wounded, but most those people who have never served are cowards and they won't join the military.

[TexasBushwhacker]

10. And most of his 49 guns were purchased in the last 12 months

The 2nd amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say:

1. That you can have any variety of weapon. Hence, private citizens cannot own rocket launchers.

2. That you may have an unlimited number of weapons.

3. That you may have an unlimited amount of ammunition.

4. That you may have any kind of ammunition including armor piercing and exploding ammo.

[FailureToCommunicate]

30. True. And many believe it REALLY says a "militia" (Nat'l Guard) has that right, not

just any old body.

[Crash2Parties]

94. If they are going to use the Constitution to justify guns

They have to choose:
Does a "well regulated militia" mean the federal armed forces
OR does it mean a bunch of individuals who happen to own guns?

Once the nation chose the former, the latter no longer equivocated to the "militia".

[BruceWane]

156. Actually.....

it does say all those things.

That's why the 2nd amendment needs to be repealed and replaced.

It says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

I don't see anything there that even remotely implies any kind of limitation.

The 2nd amendment says you and I have the right to keep - and bear - our very own thermonuclear warheads.

It is a law of it's time. The people who wrote it did not envision anything like the kinds of weapons we have today. They also weren't envisioning a large national standing armed forces - thus the need for armed civilians, able to step up and form militias if needed. Much like the forces that won the revolution.

It's a law that is now, and has been for some time, obsolete.

The judicial branch forces widely, and wildly, various interpretations upon this antique law. It needs to be replaced.

[former9thward]

15. And exactly what law would have prevented it?

[Snackshack]

28. There several answers

To your repeatedly asked question in the multiple replies to this post.

[former9thward]

32. None of them would have prevented it.

I see you are not standing by any of them.

[Hoyt]

77. The old Assault Weapon Ban, tweaked just a bit, might well have impeded him.

Of course white wing gunners and the GOP let that law expire. Gun-jumpers and manufacturers colluded to skirt the intent of the AWB. The bump stock is just another example.

[Snackshack]

121. I stand by all of them.

and go further....

Sorry... but a few bad apples have really ruined this for all. These weapons need to banned all together, no "grandfather clause" for weapon already sold. ALL OF THEM made illegal.

Pistol/Shotgun/Single shot bolt action rifle should be the only weapons allowed... and no this does not infringe upon the right to bear an arm...it was done before. If people want to play Ranger / SEAL go join a team.

[JI7]

3. So fucking misleading. No laws in place now.

[former9thward]

14. Go to a gun store and demand to get a gun right now.

You will quickly see what laws are in place now.

[Mr.Bill]

4. Laws have done a pretty good job

of keeping anyone from bringing 20 assault weapons on board an airplane, why not hotels?

[EL34x4]

9. Do you think we should start searching luggage prior to entry?

There's over 3,300 hotel rooms in the Mandalay Bay.

I have no doubt the hospitality industry in Vegas dreads this idea. This being said, the lawsuits they're about to face over Paddock will likely bring countless new inconveniences to the hotel business.

[Mr.Bill]

16. It didn't sound practical to search everyone

at every airport, either, but they are doing it and people accept it. It's an ugly situation, for sure, but something has to be done. How many outdoor venues like sports arenas are overlooked by tall buildings that the public has access to?

I don't pretend to know the solution to the problem, just throwing ideas out there.

[EL34x4]

18. I'm not criticizing it. No doubt many are suggesting exactly this.

I'm just pondering the logistics if implementing a baggage search policy and the negative effect it will have on Vegas.

[Mr.Bill]

23. That is a consideration, but mass shootings

won't be good for business, either. If I was checking to Madalay bay tomorrow and they wanted to check my bags and pass me through a metal detector I would not complain. I guess some would, though.

[LisaM]

126. What about using walking dogs through the hallways?

With the arsenal packed in there, it sounds as if a bomb-sniffing dog might have been able to alert the hotel. This seems like something a large hotel like this could just do as a regular patrol at night.

[FailureToCommunicate]

33. Kids in many schools have to walk thru metal detectors ever single day. Certainly a

hotel of this size and location could manage that little inconvenience.

I DID mention it was kids who have to be searched daily? Kids. Going to school.

What a screwed up country we live in (thanks to NRA's stranglehold on Congress, and the gun profiteers)

[Atman]

101. They'd be searching every bag.

Jewelry, hair driers, curling irons, sex toys...a metal detector will make the process of checking into a hotel worse than an airport screening line. It bad enough having to go through it before a trip, but imagine getting off a five hour flight, dealing with shuttles and taxis, then getting to your hotel and having to do the whole process all over again. No way in hell.

[EL34x4]

131. Exactly. This isn't a minor inconvenience that adds five minutes to the check-in process.

I've been to the Mandalay Bay. It is a mammoth facility with throngs of people coming and going everywhere.

Vegas is loath to implement any policy that takes away time from the gaming tables. Every minute spent not gambling is viewed as a financial loss.

Unlike airlines where people typically have to fly, nobody has to vacation in Vegas. Putting in place policies that might add hours to the check in process isn't going to go over very well.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

75. What about a law limiting the amount of ammo transported or stored?

For example, large quantities of ammo have no business being kept in a hotel. That is a huge fire and explosive hazard to the public. One could keep enough to load one gun for protection, but much more than that is not reasonable in a public area or building.

[Mr.Bill]

88. Good idea.

That much explosives doesn't belong in a residential neighborhood, either. City/County ordinances could be passed against that.

[NutmegYankee]

106. It's a myth that ammo is highly explosive or dangerous at distances

A bullet only has the gunpowder behind it to make it accelerate down a confined tube to high velocity. If it's outside of that tube, it just pops like a Chinese firecracker and the brass casing throws pieces for about 5 feet max. The lead bullet flops to the ground. It's actually a standard part of volunteer firefighting to ask if any guns are loaded. If the guns are not, you just need a few feet of clearance and you are out of any danger.

[Mr.Bill]

115. I think you misunderstand.

I am talking about people who have 50,000 rounds stored in their garage. And trust ne, those people exist. They think the damn stuff is an investment.

[hack89]

92. If someone is willing to commit mass murder

Don't you think they will be willing to break the law regarding how much ammo he has?

[KY_EnviroGuy]

100. Absolutely.

But, it would add extra sting for people who get caught with it, such as the guy last week stopped with a trunk full of guns and ammo.

From my personal viewpoint, the public shouldn't be allowed to buy and own large quantities of ammo. It qualifies as a hazardous material. Sufficient quantities to protect yourself from robbers and go hunting typically would not be considered a danger when properly stored.

That's my view, although highly controversial.

[hack89]

105. I buy ammo in lots of tens of thousands

I shoot several thousand rounds a month. Like most things, ammo is much cheaper when bought in bulk. I usually get together with some friends to make it even cheaper - we usually only buy ammo twice a year.

My ammo is stored in a fire proof safe.

[Mr.Bill]

116. You are being responsible if you store it properly.

Many aren't.

[EX500rider]

128. Anybody willing to commit mass murder won't let a few ammo storage/transport regs get in the way

[Garion_55]

5. My law could have saved most of the victims.

accepting 'have the right to bear arms' in the constitution I would ask 'does the constitution spell out how many arms you can have?' i would also ask 'does the constitution spell out WHICH arms one can bear?'

from what I understand the answers are no and no.

that said I would allow people to own 2 guns. 'bear arms' is plural so allowing only one gun seems unconstitutional. so everyone can have up to 2. I would also only allow people to own 2 handguns. something small and light and easy enough for an 80 year old woman to use. for people who go hunting i would allow one handgun and one hunting rifle.

the guns have to be what you'd find in the wild west. 6 shooters hand loaded. bolt action rifles.

semis are gone. huge magazines gone.

so put that shooter up on the 32 floor with a hand gun and a hunting rifle. lets see how many of those people would have survived that attack then.


right wingers keep wanting to see a law that would have prevented or cut down massive amounts of gun violence, there it is. are they ready to accept it?

[Mr.Bill]

26. Aree, but

what do you do about the hundreds of millions of guns (many unregistered and untrackable) that are out there already?

[zipplewrath]

129. Buy 'em

You can do what Australia did and buy them. More importantly, you can make it impossible to resell them, at least within the US. That alone would cut deeply into their existence.

[Mr.Bill]

136. That will get rid of some,

but I think not many. Remember, we are talking about millions and millions of guns. And people who say you will have to pry them from their cold, dead fingers. They're not going to just hand them over for some cash. What will they do when the Zombie Apocolypse comes?

[zipplewrath]

146. You might be surprised

The "cold dead hands" crowd is smaller than you might think. And over time, as their weapons age and fall into disuse, not to mention impossible to sell, their numbers will shrink.

[Man_Bear_Pig]

148. Many people's collections aren't for sale.

No thanks.

[zipplewrath]

158. Yet

Nothing lasts forever.

[Marengo]

154. What was the compliance rate for the 1996 buy-back?

[zipplewrath]

159. It's not about compliance

It's about market forces. They can keep them for a good long time, but they can't sell them, except to the government. Strangely, the longer they wait, they might actually get more money because the value increases as the availability decreases. At some point it becomes a huge temptation to sell.

[Marengo]

160. That only comes into play with the assumption that additional amnesties and buy-backs will be

Offered in the future. I think a subset of the non-compliant population may be thinking along these lines, but I doubt it's a majority considering the risk. For whatever it's worth, reading on the subject I found an estimate of around 20% compliance with the '96 amnesty/buy-back.

[zipplewrath]

161. Buy back is a marginal issue

The impact on production, and the market forces currently driving the whole gun culture ends up being the point. Imagine no more guns shows. Imagine undermining all the corporate funding for the NRA. Imagine the change when the only folks purchasing guns are the minimal number of hunters and shooting competitors.

[Marengo]

162. That depends on what type of arms would be targeted (no pun intended haha). I've been

Attending gun shows for some decades now, there were a good number before assault rifles became the rage. They were better from my perspective having an interest in historical firearms, and business was brisk. The market definitely has changed, but overall it's fairly resilient to regulatory change. If we're discussing a complete prohibition on the ownership on all types, you certainly have a point, but I don't expect that to be imminent.

[zipplewrath]

163. The weapons of this subthread

I was actually talking about the allusion the person who started this subthread, which was about limiting arms and magazine sizes. There is a growing thought that semi-autos are part of the problem and that bolt action or some similar low fire rate weapons might be the only available weapons. If one actually got such a situation passed congress, it would greatly undermine the commercial "gun culture" and narrow it to hunters and the target shooting crowd. And that crowd is a SMALL subset of gun owners in this country. Once the culture changes, that the problem will change too.

[ClarendonDem]

43. So the person asleep at night

When 3 folks break in has 6 shots to defend him/her self, and then has to manually reload? I'd prefer that we give the homeowner a break, and let them defend home and hearth.

[brush]

49. So what are you saying, that the person should have a weapon with a multiple shot magazine?

Ok, but how about the person has had a background check, the gun is registered, there is insurance on the gun, he/she doesn't have 30 other similar guns — you know, sensible things for gun ownership/home protection?

[ClarendonDem]

64. I am absolutely saying

That the person defending his or her home from multiple home invaders should have access to a firearm that allows that person to protect his or her family, including a handgun with a magazine that holds 15+ rounds.

Completely agree with background checks, and willing to discuss a national registration requirement. A bit more hesitant on the other two.

Why does that individual need insurance on his/her gun? And why does it matter if that homeowner has 1 gun or 100?

[brush]

73. On the last two issues: If you need insurance to operate a car, why not to own a weapon that can...

take a life.

As for the second issue, the number of guns, I have just one word for you. Paddock.

[ClarendonDem]

78. Following up

You need insurance to drive a car so that if you are involved in a wreck there will be coverage. But not all states have the same insurance requirements (does Tennessee even require insurance?), and how does insurance work for something like Las Vegas (intentional criminal act)?

You didn’t really address my second question. I personally don’t see why anyone needs 5 or 10 or 100 firearms, but what’s the basis for imposing some sort of random limit? The fact that Paddock owned multiple guns isn’t a basis for limiting the amount you can purchase.

[spin]

141. If a law were passed requiring gun owners to have insurance ...

the NRA will glad to provide it to members at a very reasonable price. They will make a lot of money and the membership will skyrocket.

[brush]

144. Bingo. I don't know why the NRA is against it. They could be like AARP is for those over 50.

Last edited Mon Oct 9, 2017, 08:44 PM - Edit history (1)

AARP's business is really selling insurance.

[Hoyt]

79. Oh, BS, more delusional white win gunner fear.

[ClarendonDem]

81. Very persuasive reasoning

Or lack thereof. Care to provide any support?

[Hoyt]

83. Like NRA gun promoting BS is persuasive.

[ClarendonDem]

86. Which part of my post

Exactly, and please be specific, was “NRA gun promoting BS”? As a liberal Democrat who can’t stand LaPierre or that asshat Nugent I want to make sure I’m not promoting their drivel.

[LanternWaste]

123. It's clever to request a specific when our narrative is much lower hanging fruit.

It's clever to request a specific when our narrative is much lower hanging fruit.

[ClarendonDem]

124. Certainly not trying to be "clever:

Hoyt accused me of "promoting" "NRA BS" and I asked him to identify which part of my post he was referring to. Hoyt hasn't answered. FWIW, here's my post that allegedly promotes NRA BS:

So the person asleep at night when 3 folks break in has 6 shots to defend him/her self, and then has to manually reload? I'd prefer that we give the homeowner a break, and let them defend home and hearth.

Which part of that is NRA BS? And I'm fairly certain I can find posts from Hoyt himself admitting that gun ownership for self-defense is fine.

[maxsolomon]

119. what if my aunt has to manually load balls?

would she be my uncle?

hypotheticals, man. hypotheticals.

[Igel]

71. That's a bit of a problem.

Yes, it doesn't say "unlimited arms of any type."

On the other hand, it's freedom of the press. If you own a press, you're free to use it. But if you don't, well ... Notice it says "press," not billboards, Twitter, Internet. Or even laser printer. I don't have a press. And if we want to be originalist, it would have to be one that you typeset by hand and put sheets in one at a time.

And freedom of speech? Stand on a street corner, but it's not Internet, radio, tv, or anything like that. It's speech.

That's the problem with having multiple approaches to interpretation. You have to stipulate the One True Method for each amendment and clause of the Constitution. Otherwise you deviate from right thinking and your policies are not correct.


BTW, if you wanted to wrestle the Constitution into saying what we need it to say on grounds of expediency, the "right of the people to bear arms" has a reading in which the people as a group are allowed two weapons. Perhaps the ceremonial weapons could be kept in a federal armory under lock and key for their safety--after all, if 330 million people want to use two weapons they're not going to last very long. But that's being even snarkier.

[Scruffy1]

91. Banning semi-auto weapons worked well in Australia.n/t

[MichMary]

103. "...shall not be infringed."

That kind of hints at not having a limit on the number of arms and the amount of ammo.

Also, if we are going to subject one amendment to The Wild West Rule, should it also apply to the First? That way we could limit I-net, radio, TV.

[maxsolomon]

120. hints are what we make laws off now?

it also hints that the militia should be regulated well.

it's not.

[brush]

6. She gave the NRA and gun humpers just the quote they need. Maybe it's time for her to go.

Just say there is no law now, for God's sake.

Why give them that wide open door to walk through and repeat her quote over and over and over?

[diva77]

25. +1000 This! I'll be calling her office to tell her that

Last edited Sun Oct 8, 2017, 07:04 PM - Edit history (1)

There is already proof that something could have been done to prevent this:

Australia's Lessons on Gun Control

The 1996 Port Arthur massacre resulted in legislation that saw a dramatic decline in gun crimes.
Australia passed legislation tightening gun ownership rules despite strong opposition. Reuters

Krishnadev Calamur Oct 2, 2017
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/australia-gun-control/541710/

SNIP...Australia’s success in tightly restricting gun ownership after its worst mass shooting, and the concomitant reduction in gun crimes and mass shootings, is likely to be held up by proponents of gun control as an example for what the U.S. should do after its latest mass shooting on Sunday. The countries are different, of course. America has more people, more guns per capita, and, perhaps most importantly, a constitutional right to bear arms. But the debate in Australia and developments in subsequent years show how a country can successfully deal with gun violence.

My colleague Uri Friedman wrote about the impact of the Port Arthur massacre in the wake of the shooting in San Bernardino, California in 2015. He noted that, among other things, the Australian government “banned automatic and semiautomatic firearms, adopted new licensing requirements, established a national firearms registry, and instituted a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases. It also bought and destroyed more than 600,000 civilian-owned firearms, in a scheme that cost half a billion dollars and was funded by raising taxes.” The entire overhaul, Friedman pointed out, took just months to implement...SNIP

[ClarendonDem]

44. Australia had very few mass shootings before Port Arthur

And it isn't clear Australia's forced buyback (which would violate the 2d Amendment) actually made a difference.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.1bb9dc7b6317

[diva77]

51. I think it will take a combination of actions, including what Australia did to address this problem

Right now, the 2nd Amendment seems to be trampling the rest of the Constitution and that's not right.

[ClarendonDem]

66. The 2d Amendment isnt the problem

What law do you want to enact that the 2d Amendment would bar? And not being snarky - Congress could impose all sorts of restrictions that are legal, but the public doesn’t support them.

[Hoyt]

80. No, white wing gun-humpers don't support such laws.

Last edited Sun Oct 8, 2017, 11:21 PM - Edit history (2)

[ClarendonDem]

84. Instead of straw man arguments

Respond to the point of this discussion - give me a law you want to enact that we can’t because of the 2d Amendment or Heller.

[Hoyt]

98. Even Scalia said there can be restrictions. Gun-strokers don't interpret gun laws very well.

[ClarendonDem]

113. It sounds to me

Like we are in agreement, but you still haven’t answered the question.

[Paladin]

31. Agreed. She's doing favors for the other side, now.

Pretty depressing action, from the woman who once publically announced Harvey Milk's death by gun shots.

[lapucelle]

54. She's not doing favors for the other side.

Read the transcript and look at the bill she introduced last week.The WaPo headline could have just as easily read:

Feinstein: "I hope that Americans will step up and say, enough is enough. Congress, do something."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

41. NO. They've been saying that for years. It's one of their mantras.

There is not even a hint of "she's the same as the other side". There is a huge gulf between her and the RepubliCons.

[brush]

46. Repeat. She gave them a quote they can use over and over and over.

We don't need to be helping their messaging. Gotta be smarter than that.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

52. Many people have thought Feinstein is not too smart. She triumphed over them all.

[brush]

53. You think that was a smart statement?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

55. I think it was a realistic statement. But not stated (excerpt didn't say) is the follow-on:

The follow-on is "But laws would have reduced the injuries and saved lives." I haven't read a transcript so I don't know exactly what else was said.

Democrats, liberals, and progressives are people of realism. We do best when we avoid simplistic purported solutions and realize that the perfect is the enemy of the good. We can leave the binary thinking and the faith-based governance to the RepublicCons.

[brush]

56. Do you even know if she said your alleged follow on?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

58. Read my post #55 you are replying to. It answers your exact question you just asked me in #56.

[brush]

60. So she didn't say it.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

61. That's not what I wrote. My post was CLEAR.

Please read it for comprehension.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

62. What part of "excerpt did not say" do you not understand? It is in the post title.

What part of

I haven't read a transcript so I don't know exactly what else was said.

do you not understand?

[brush]

70. For clarity, just say if she said it or not.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

76. For clarity, read my post. It states that I do not know. :eyes:

What part of

I haven't read a transcript so I don't know exactly what else was said.

do you not understand?

Is it the "I don't know" part that you do not understand?

[brush]

85. Forget it. Not worth it.

[crim son]

8. And perhaps no single law but

it isn't a hopeless cause, as many like to protest.

[BigmanPigman]

11. I know this is probably naive but why can't we change the 2nd

Amend. to update it? England's system seems to work well, why can't we strive for the same? If only 3% of Americans own most of the guns it seems to me that 97% would vote for laws similar to other countries and that are successful in having much fewer gun related crimes and incidences.
http://www.bbc.com/news/10220974

[Sunlei]

17. good idea. 70% of Americans don't even own a gun.

[former9thward]

19. Everytime the gun owner statistic is used on the internet

it gets lower and lower. Now its down to 3%. Pretty soon people will say its .001% own all the guns.

[ClarendonDem]

67. 3% of Americans own something like

50% of the guns, but something like 30% of households own a gun.

[EL34x4]

24. Removing the 2nd Amendment is only the first step.

Then you'd need to enact a gun ban. And then you'd need to enforce it.

This video sums it up well. If you see flaws the logic, I'd be happy to hear them.

[ClarendonDem]

45. We can

But you need the support of 2/3 of Congress and the states, which is tough. Don't focus on repealing though, because the 2d Amendment isn't the problem. You can enact just about any gun control law you want right now without repealing the 2d Amendment, you just need to drum up the public support, and more importantly get Congress on board.

[Motownman78]

96. Because the constitution is partly

to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

[altidiots]

118. There is a problem with that in that...

Last edited Mon Oct 9, 2017, 12:52 PM - Edit history (1)

the supreme court has found several times that the second amendment, in fact the entire Bill of Rights, does not grant rights. The rights already existed. This applies to our savored 1st amendment, as well as the 2nd amendment. A couple of notable quotes from Supreme Court cases related to the 2nd amendment.

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." U.S. v. Cruikshank

"The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security." - Presser v. Illinois

[fleabiscuit]

151. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment saying anyone has the right to purchase or sell a gun. nt

[fleabiscuit]

149. That's a hard and unnecessary approach.

We don’t need to debate or change the 2nd. Change lies entirely in Congress, which has virtually unlimited power. If anything involves interstate commerce Congress can control it, and court rulings pretty much say Congress determines what interstate commerce is, even if it doesn’t have much or any logic behind it.

From there we talk about what the problems are. Perhaps we need to limit gun ammo capacity and make all magazines internal. Poke at the easy things that make mass slaughter by gun at least hard to do. Make tough gun laws uniform across all states.

Hell, maybe we can create an atmosphere where people don’t feel like they have to have a gun to be safe. One thing is crystal clear worldwide - countries that have more guns available in the population experience more gun deaths.

[Loyd]

12. Excuse me, but a law COULD have prevented the massacre

Too bad Congress doesn't have the stones to pass it!

[former9thward]

20. What exactly? What specific law?

[Loyd]

22. That's the point: Because of cowardice, there IS no such law

Yet.

[former9thward]

27. No, the actual point is no law would have prevented it.

[Plucketeer]

34. LOL!

NO LAW could have prevented this shooting??? You gotta mean no CURRENT law. Cause if the NRA wasn't so generous when it comes to their representatives, we'd have AT LEAST something akin to what Australia's got.

[former9thward]

36. No, no law.

I live in the real world. Australia never had gun ownership like the U.S. Most of the guns were owned by farmers. People in urban/suburban areas did not commonly have them. The U.S. is far different. I live in Chicago. In a mainly Hispanic, some whites working class neighborhood. I do not know anyone who does not have a gun. And if you think they would give them up under any circumstances you are either dreaming or you are an ultimate authoritarian.

[bettyellen]

39. LOL @ Chicago.

[Plucketeer]

93. Change has to start somewhere

What do YOU suggest? Maybe Australia IS different, but what can we deduce from that? Do we curb the skyrocketing numb-ber of guns or do we pass laws (an NRA wet dream) that make it a crime NOT to be packin'? The current attitude of "you can get a gun if you want to- or you can foolishly refuse to" - is just about like saying you HAVE to be armed! WTF??? Is this the face of a civilized society? If so, I'm glad I'm in my "Golden Years".

[fleabiscuit]

153. We could make it uncomfortable to keep them though.

A LARGE reward (from a trust paid for by the gun manufacturers) for rolling over people with banned/illegal civilian guns might provide incentive. Just a dystopian thought, but so is worrying about being senselessly shot.

[ClarendonDem]

47. How would that have prevented the Vegas shooting?

Australia type laws that is.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

40. Laws would have reduced the death toll. That's important when lives count & injuries last a LIFETIME

[former9thward]

42. Don't change the goalposts.

The word was "prevented" and all the posts I replied to said "gun control" could have prevented LV.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

57. "changing goalposts" charge is distraction. Binary thinking is the end of thinking. Further ...

... The perfect is the enemy of the good. There will never be a perfect law.

I'm writing to all of you. To the people who think that complete prevention or abolition is the goal or even achievable. To the people who think that laws are useless.

To simply say or simply argue that "Laws would not prevent Las Vegas massacres" is to repeat one of the NRA's biggest talking points.
It is important to say what the NRA does not want to say and what the public knows is the truth: "Laws would have reduced injuries and saved lives."

This is not about "changing" or not changing goalposts. Part of a complex discussion is putting effort to decide on realistic goals. Harm reduction laws are realistic goals.

[Sunlei]

13. I guess hotel owners & their insurance should cover all injuries from snipers in their rooms?

If they allow guns in their hotels, I want to know so I can choose another hotel.

[former9thward]

21. You will be sleeping in your car...

[Sunlei]

29. (required )event insurance just got a whole lot more expensive ;)

[former9thward]

35. No event insurance would cover the LV event so its cost will remain the same.

The wrong doer is dead. He had some money but the hospitals and their insurers will vaporize that in a few seconds to cover a tiny, tiny percentage of their costs.

[Sunlei]

48. the event location leaser & the hotel will have the shit sued out of them until state government

declares this attack a terrorist attack & makes terrorist attacks an exclusion for insurance corporations.

It will take a while to work it out in the courts but the time is coming- "Hotel/City doesn't allow guns because our insurance doesn't cover patrons entering with guns"

[procon]

37. The lack of any cogent, intellectual argument to counter unregulated and

irresponsible gun ownership is bewildering. How many years has she been at this game -- and it is a very lucrative game indeed -- to be so shockingly unprepared that her best effort was to blather out this weak, unremarkable word salad as if she thinks no one really cares about the problem.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

38. Yeah, but LAWS would have REDUCED the DEATH toll. That's important.

P.S. The call needs to be "REPUBLICAN Congress, do something."

[Cryptoad]

59. Movment for the Reasonable Regulation of Firearms,,,,,,

almost 600 causalities in 10 minutes. 59 fatal.... laws can damn sure prevent those type of numbers.........

[Sunlei]

63. City ordinance banning guns with gun sniffer dogs/machines could have prevented this domestic terro

domestic terrorist. Make it a Felony to take a gun to Vegas.

[ClarendonDem]

69. Las Vegas cant ban guns outright

Because of the 2d Amendment. And do we really want dogs randomly sniffing everyone for a firearm? Would that be ok for drugs too? Maybe a stop and frisk law?

[Sunlei]

72. why not? cities use ordinances banning all kinds of things from n'hoods/cities. places ban guns.

military bases for sure ban guns even entering their property at the Guard entrance even if you have carry permits. Air ports? , post offices?

[ClarendonDem]

74. Unconstitutional

Under Heller. The 2d Amendment protects an individual right to own a firearm in the home for self-defense. Airports, post offices and military bases have special rules. We wouldn’t support city ordinances that banned abortions, or the right to assemble.

[Hoyt]

82. I'd bet my ass, LV could have outlawed Paddock carrying 19 guns and converting them to

automatic. Who do you think you are fooling?

[ClarendonDem]

87. Which part of any post of mine

Said that Las Vegas could not have “outlawed Paddock carrying 19 guns” or “converting them to automatic”? “Converting to automatic” is already illegal. Again Hoyt, please be specific, because it feels like you are misrepresenting my posts. And what’s with the “trying to fool” question?

[AncientGeezer]

127. Converting to auto is already a federal crime. Didn't need Vegas to do that.

This freak didn't do that.

[Hoyt]

134. Not with a bump stock, Geezer. Gunners and manufacturers go out of their way to skirt the

intent of the law. The massacre in LV is proof of that.

[AncientGeezer]

137. "134. Not with a bump stock,.."....then what?

You said ".. and converting them to automatic" ..there was no automatic firearm...not as reported by any Law agency so far.
Do know something we don't?

[Hoyt]

138. Those rifles were essentially modified to emulate an automatic. Don't be obtuse

like most gunners defending their access to more guns. Bump stocks are used to skirt laws on automatic rifles, and you know it.

[AncientGeezer]

140. President Obama's ATF disagrees with you

[EX500rider]

132. How would laws have slowed him down if he is willing to break them?

And 20 guns with 2 clips each is the same as 1 gun with 40 loaded clips so the number of guns he had was irrelevant.
Actually with a little practice you can do a clip change faster then setting down one gun and picking up another.

[Hoyt]

135. If the AWB had been extended to semi-auto rifles capable of being converted with a $99 accessory

like a bump stock, he would not have been able to buy the guns he used. I get some of you so-called "law-abiding" gun owners would have been glad to sell him one or 15 for a fist full of cash.

Also, if guns were not allowed on the street, it would be easy to detect some gun-humper with a suitcase full of the dang things.

I bet you've probably spent a lot of time practicing changing magazines in urban warfare training or some such gunner junk (BTW, I surprised one of the gun-strokers who play the nomenclature game here, haven't jumped your post for not knowing the difference between clips and magazines).

Fact is, meaningful legislation on just about anything does not work 100% of the time. 20% improvement helps.

[AncientGeezer]

139. "...he would not have been able to buy the guns he used."

The AWB didn't outlaw the guns he used....just features that didn't change mechanical operation of them.

" If the AWB had been extended to semi-auto rifles capable of being converted.."
Converted to what....every semi is still a semi-auto in this freaks "collection".

" if guns were not allowed on the street, it would be easy to detect some gun-humper with a suitcase full of the dang things. "
How? If they are in a suitcase...they aren't on the street. They are in a SUITCASE.

[Hoyt]

142. Can you read? Do you know what "extended to" means?

Christ. Go act obtuse to someone who coddles gun-fanciers.

[AncientGeezer]

143. I can read .....CTA...I can read

that's YOUR problem Hoyt. My ability to read and knowing your fiction from actual fact.
I read YOU admitting to being a robber and locking doors so Cops couldn't get in.
Can't have it both ways.

[Hoyt]

150. A visitor from the Discussionist. LMAO.

[AncientGeezer]

164. You were a member of DI."LMAO"...

[Hoyt]

165. Obviously you still are. Tell all the white wingers to go screw themselves.

[AncientGeezer]

166. As a person of color....Why would I do that?

[EX500rider]

145. "if guns were not allowed on the street, it would be easy to detect some gun-humper with a...

.....suitcase full of the dang things."
By how, searching every person with a suitcase or golf bag?

I bet you've probably spent a lot of time practicing changing magazines in urban warfare training or some such gunner junk

And I bet you have a lurid imagination...lol...my rifles are bolt action 80yo old antiques so I insert a real clip in the top with 5 bullets but I don't practice it, it's not that hard.

[WinkyDink]

110. Not until decided by the Supreme Court.

[BeyondGeography]

65. Another soundbite for the opposition

She has always been quite good at that.

[Liberal Veteran]

68. No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens --- The Onion

The prescience of Cassandra is rarely rewarded.

[Mr.Bill]

89. This thread is full of ideas.

Some are better than others, some more doable than others. But together they represent more thought than Congress has given this in public in decades. And we did it in a few hours.

And all our ideas are better than "thoughts and prayers".

[Liberty Belle]

90. Law needed: People on psych meds can't buy guns -- especially more than 1.

[NutmegYankee]

108. That just continues a myth that mental illness is a factor in mass shootings.

It's not. Mass shooters know what they are doing and have made conscious decisions to punish others for some perceived wrong/slights before they commit suicide.

[WinkyDink]

111. Not mental illness; the DRUGS and their side effects.

E. g., diazepam, supposedly taken by the shooter:

Hallucinations.
Outbursts of anger.
Nightmares.
Aggressiveness/Aggression.
Delusions.
Hostility.
Rage.
Numbed emotions.

https://www.drugs.com/sfx/diazepam-side-effects.html

[NutmegYankee]

112. I don't see evidence that the drugs make people commit mass murder.

And I'm uncomfortable pushing such private information into public databases. I know people who take mental health medications - I grew up with them and they got ill in their 20s. They don't want this info public.

[WinkyDink]

114. See addendum in my post above. Your Jesuitical requirement of "mass" murder ideation is silly.

[NutmegYankee]

117. How do you enforce that without violating medical privacy?

[DBoon]

95. We don't need laws, we need a change in culture

We need a society where firearms are not a religious fetish, where it is accepted that they are deadly weapons designed to kill and as such need to be treated with cautious respect.

We have a large part of the population and some well funded lobbyists who think owning machines for mass execution is a part of their identity and culture.

[madville]

97. She's right

But the bump stock law is more about optics than anything else, they want to appear as if they are doing something. One can easily manufacture a homemade bump fire device with a regular stock, some hardware, springs and simple hand tools, there are plenty of how-tos online, it's very simple. If someone is planning a mass murder then another felony charge or two isn't going to deter them.

[roamer65]

99. Continuance and refinement of the AWB would have greatly lessened the death and injury count.

This failure lies right on the doorstep of the Rethuglican party.

[Kaleva]

107. Assault weapons and hi capacity magazines were legal to buy and own during the AWB

The guns and magazines in circulation prior to the ban going into effect were grandfathered in. This drove up the price of such but the shooter was a millionaire so I don't think he would have had any trouble getting the weapons he wanted.

[treestar]

102. No law could have prevented 911 either

but look how much they were willing to do in the name of that.

[MichMary]

104. Maybe we could

make murder illegal.

Oh, wait . . .

[WinkyDink]

109. Uh, WHAT?! I can think of PLENTY! Outright gun-ownership ban. Ban on killer's TYPE of gun. Huge tax

on bullets. Ban on gun ownership for patients on certain medications. Required shooting lessons (as with cars and driving), annual state registration (as with cars), mandatory insurance (as with cars). Eliminated "open carry."

And so on. Draconian? Never would pass? Whatever. Not what worthless Feinstein claimed.

[Dart_Thrower]

122. ... just sayin'

There are more deer hunters in Pennsylvania then any other State, it's unofficial name is the deer hunter State.
The panhandle of Florida is deer hunting gold mine.

The rural areas in both these States came out to vote in numbers way beyond anything ever seen before. After Hillary bad mouthed the NRA as no candidate ever did before.

You can't have it all. Sometimes to get people into office to change things for the better in many areas, then you have to pick your fight and let other stuff go. Or become a party in worst shape since the 1920's by losing very close elections when it could very easily have been prevented.

[MindPilot]

125. Maybe we should just make a law against killing people.

And to make sure that law is super-effective, we could make the punishment very severe, like a lifetime in prison or even executing the offender. We could even make it a crime to try to kill someone.

It is such a simple solution, I'm surprised no one has thought of it before.

[EX500rider]

133. lol...no kidding...the guy had enough money to get a semi-auto rifle no matter what laws we had.

Just look at Mexico, they have VERY strict guns laws, only one government run gun store in the entire country I believe....and yet their murder rate is over 3 times the US homicide rate.

And the number of guns he had was irrelevant to the outcome, 10 guns with 2 loaded clips each is the same as 1 gun with 20 loaded clips. although a clip change with some practice would be faster then setting down one gun and reaching for another.

[Red Mountain]

147. Might have some barrel heating issues.....

but whatever. The guy had enough money that he could have spent the time and gotten himself something fully automatic. Belt fed with changeable barrels, please. No big deal for a law abiding citizen.

Hint, hint, America. Worst case next time it won't be a lone wolf. And we might be considering thousands of dead not dozens.

What then?

How many dead will force the issue?

[Turbineguy]

130. What we do not regulate

is the programming people who commit these acts are subjected to. I think were going to find out that this guy was influenced by Fox News (possibly) RW Hate Radio, InfoWars or some other RW outlet.

Something appears to have gone wrong with the programming in his choice of victims.

But nobody will be held accountable. The gun industry has the ultimate get-out-of-jail card. People who make millions destroying America society are protected by the 1st Amendment.

Any gun control regs that come out of this will make it slightly more difficult to accumulate the kind of firepower this guy had and as such will save some lives. And that's good.

But what we really need to look at is how these mass shooters get to the point that shooting a bunch of people is a good idea and a reasonable course of action.

[democratisphere]

152. So true.

[Laffy Kat]

155. She needs to retire. She's old school. nt

[Tatiana]

157. I think she meant no **current** law on the books would have stopped him, which is true.

That doesn't mean we can't take a look at what happened and craft laws that reduce the likelihood of such an event happening again.

Which is what she is trying to do now, with the bump stock ban. It's not the solution, but it is a start.