Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Obama should hold comments till after the fact. If he's thinking the same old dynamics in previous mass shooting (nutjob + weapon) compare to (I hope to God its not) Muslim going workplace violence then we as a country have a major issue now.

Police reports from the area are currently BOLO 3 white males.

Name mention so far going over net is Masuk Sa-id (SP)

Farooq Saeed is the name I've been hearing, which was already debunked as not-even-slightly-a-suspect.

Apparently 2 suspects now down (suspected KIA but can't confirm) 1 possibly outstanding.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Can we get ships with huge cannons on them with enough firepower to destroy other ships and bombard coastal cities and fortifications? The founding fathers obviously had those in mind as well, seeing as there were many ships with those capabilities in private hands at the time, and the Constitution even has guidelines for issuing Letters of Marque, allowing American civilian-owned ships with those capabilities to attack, capture, or destroy enemy ships.

Many of the cannons used in the revolutionary war were privately owned and merchants could lawfully arm their ships with cannon.

Cannons are definitely cool but they'd be awfully expensive to fire and a real pain to get to range if you didn't have enough private land to fire it on. There's already plenty of stuff you can own and build that can arguably have the same level of firepower as 18th century cannon.

Heck, it was common practice for actual military units in the standing army to actually be owned by the unit's commander and the services of the regiment were simply rented by the government(IE: they'd pay you X amount in a set period for each soldier you had ready to fight. The regiment itself was your private property and the soldiers in it your employees. It also was common for these officers to have a few fake soldiers in the regiment so they could pocket some extra cash)

 Psienesis wrote:
The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.

Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.

Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.

Which is why they gave us the ability to amend the Constitution, which permits us to strip the 2nd Amendment away completely. Is that what you want?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The way the Constitution is worded, one could do much without actually rescinding the 2nd Amendment.

1) Seize all weapons
2) Replace them with smoothbore muzzle-loaders, the firearms the Founding Fathers had in mind.
3) Bomb those who resist from orbit with high-yield nuclear weapons. We've spent trillions on the damned things, might as well get some use out of them.

So only the precise things that existed when the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written are protected?

Some folks like to use that arguement, in which case freedom of the press does not extend to radio, tv, internet or modern printing techniques, meaning that these things are fair game for government control in their opinion.

Worrying, isn't it?

We don't have a free press, and it's delusional to believe that we do.

 Psienesis wrote:
Which is why they gave us the ability to amend the Constitution, which permits us to strip the 2nd Amendment away completely. Is that what you want?

What exactly are you trying to say?

 Breotan wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.

Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.

Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.

right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.

Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.

Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.

right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.

No, its just fine as it is.

Its one of the amendments that is, and should be, timeless. It is a safeguard against tyrrany. Now you might say its unnecessary in our current system, but you cannot say that its always going to be that way. Plus it has no downsides to being around so there is literally no reason to remove or alter it.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.

Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.

Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.

right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.

No it isn't.

Unless you mean "repeal the existing infringements upon it" in which case yes, absolutely.

 Grey Templar wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.

Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.

Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.

right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.

No, its just fine as it is.

Its one of the amendments that is, and should be, timeless. It is a safeguard against tyrrany. Now you might say its unnecessary in our current system, but you cannot say that its always going to be that way. Plus it has no downsides to being around so there is literally no reason to remove or alter it.

so 355 mass shootings this year alone isn't a down side?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.

Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.

Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.

right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.

No, its just fine as it is.

Its one of the amendments that is, and should be, timeless. It is a safeguard against tyrrany. Now you might say its unnecessary in our current system, but you cannot say that its always going to be that way. Plus it has no downsides to being around so there is literally no reason to remove or alter it.

so 355 mass shootings this year alone isn't a down side?

Given that there is no evidence that they are caused by the 2nd amendment, nor would eliminating it do anything to prevent more, I would say no.

 Psienesis wrote:
Which is why they gave us the ability to amend the Constitution, which permits us to strip the 2nd Amendment away completely. Is that what you want?

Actually yes, that is what I want. I want those who think it can happen and should happen to go that route rather than the gakky methods they try now. If you are so fething right, do it the right way.

 Psienesis wrote:
Which is why they gave us the ability to amend the Constitution, which permits us to strip the 2nd Amendment away completely. Is that what you want?

Won't be happening anytime soon.

Wow, some people are for limiting the 2nd Amendment, and more aren't. Who'd have thunk it? But I will say being very Left-leaning myself, I am embarrassed by some, if not most anti-gunners.

Any updates on suspect names? Could be a giveaway.

Still the attack venue is just so weird. Islamic nutbags would go for something, I dunno, more spectacular? They tried to hit a soccer game in Paris, and the parking lot of any NFL game is a shooting range full of inebriated, unarmed fans. Throw some steel plate inside a cube van and you're untouchable for an hour or more at least.

This just seems so odd, unless there's more to the target we don't know about yet.

 Grey Templar wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.

Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.

Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.

right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.

No, its just fine as it is.

Its one of the amendments that is, and should be, timeless. It is a safeguard against tyrrany. Now you might say its unnecessary in our current system, but you cannot say that its always going to be that way. Plus it has no downsides to being around so there is literally no reason to remove or alter it.

We are witnessing one of the downsides to having it be around right now, as we did yesterday, and over the last weekend.

The 2nd Amendment is in no way, shape, or form a safeguard against tyranny, because it doesn't permit you to own firearms that are in any way competitive with an actual military. All of the privately-held firearms in the country aren't worth the steel they're made from against, say, a tank. Or a stealth bomber. Or, hell, drones. Once upon a time? Sure, maybe, but that hasn't been the case for a century or more. The idea of a popular uprising from the American populace to overthrow a tyrannical government is the fodder of RPGs, dystopian fiction, and right-wing conspiracy theories. It will never happen in practice (even the Revolution required the assistance of an actual foreign military power to succeed).

If there is going to be an uprising? Better pray the actual military rises up with you, but history generally indicates that doesn't happen.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.

Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.

Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.

right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.

Certainly a valid position to hold. All you need is 2/3 Congress to propose and vote "yea" on it and 3/4 State Legislatures to ratify it.

True enough. If this was to cause deaths and not a specific target then there are lots of better targets, and last friday might have been a better time too.

All around it seems odd.

The specific event seems to say workplace violence.

Method seems to indicate a larger terrorist attack.

Location sort of fits the bill for an attack of opportunity, though there were almost certainly better targets.

The gear of attackers suggests a high level of organization, which contradicts the idea of it being workplace violence.

ABC News saying two suspects dead.

 Grey Templar wrote:
True enough. If this was to cause deaths and not a specific target then there are lots of better targets, and last friday might have been a better time too.

All around it seems odd.

The specific event seems to say workplace violence.

Method seems to indicate a larger terrorist attack.

Location sort of fits the bill for an attack of opportunity, though there were almost certainly better targets.

The gear of attackers suggests a high level of organization, which contradicts the idea of it being workplace violence.

the methods and gear really just suggest gamers who's played to much call of duty.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
True enough. If this was to cause deaths and not a specific target then there are lots of better targets, and last friday might have been a better time too.

All around it seems odd.

The specific event seems to say workplace violence.

Method seems to indicate a larger terrorist attack.

Location sort of fits the bill for an attack of opportunity, though there were almost certainly better targets.

The gear of attackers suggests a high level of organization, which contradicts the idea of it being workplace violence.

the methods and gear really just suggest gamers who's played to much call of duty.

Video games will be the next inanimate object blamed if that's the case.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.

Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.

Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.

right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.

No, its just fine as it is.

Its one of the amendments that is, and should be, timeless. It is a safeguard against tyrrany. Now you might say its unnecessary in our current system, but you cannot say that its always going to be that way. Plus it has no downsides to being around so there is literally no reason to remove or alter it.

We are witnessing one of the downsides to having it be around right now, as we did yesterday, and over the last weekend.

The 2nd Amendment is in no way, shape, or form a safeguard against tyranny, because it doesn't permit you to own firearms that are in any way competitive with an actual military. All of the privately-held firearms in the country aren't worth the steel they're made from against, say, a tank. Or a stealth bomber. Or, hell, drones. Once upon a time? Sure, maybe, but that hasn't been the case for a century or more. The idea of a popular uprising from the American populace to overthrow a tyrannical government is the fodder of RPGs, dystopian fiction, and right-wing conspiracy theories. It will never happen in practice (even the Revolution required the assistance of an actual foreign military power to succeed).

If there is going to be an uprising? Better pray the actual military rises up with you, but history generally indicates that doesn't happen.

Given that right now there are people holding off our military with nothing more than AKs, IEDs, and maybe the occasional Moletov Cocktail I'd say you are very wrong. Advanced military technology tends to have diminishing effectiveness when you aren't fighting a conventional war against another conventional military.

If you think those Jihadis are clever, I'd shudder to think what some truly pissed off Americans would be able to whip up if they needed to take on a hostile occupying military. It would not be pretty for anyone attempting to do this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
True enough. If this was to cause deaths and not a specific target then there are lots of better targets, and last friday might have been a better time too.

All around it seems odd.

The specific event seems to say workplace violence.

Method seems to indicate a larger terrorist attack.

Location sort of fits the bill for an attack of opportunity, though there were almost certainly better targets.

The gear of attackers suggests a high level of organization, which contradicts the idea of it being workplace violence.

the methods and gear really just suggest gamers who's played to much call of duty.

Doubt it. You'd need a bit of money to get this level of gear. Why buy an assault rifle and body armor to shoot some place up when you could spend $60 and get Fallout 4? Much more cathartic.

 Breotan wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The concept of an autoloading firearm did not (and would not) exist for nearly another century. It is by this same logic that we have banned civilian ownership of things like M-60 machine guns and missile launchers.

Know what else didn't occur to them? Airplanes. Digital Signatures. Gay Marriage. Lethal injection. Television. Voting via computers instead of a paper ballot.

Do you know what DID occur to them? The fact that things would and did change over time. So no, Psienesis, your thesis is not valid anywhere outside Democrat party talking points.

right things have changed, and it's time the second amendment changed to fit the times.

Certainly a valid position to hold. All you need is 2/3 Congress to propose and vote "yea" on it and 3/4 State Legislatures to ratify it.

Even if the 2A was repealed, and that's not happening anytime soon if ever, you still have the majority of state constitutions that guarantee a right to own firearms not to mention all of the other laws, federal, state and local. It's not as if the 2A is the only thing that allows us to own firearms.

 motyak wrote:
Enough with the 2nd amendment stuff. It's just going to get us locked because arguing about whether or not ships with cannon were intended or not is in no way on topic.

Did we miss this?

 d-usa wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Enough with the 2nd amendment stuff. It's just going to get us locked because arguing about whether or not ships with cannon were intended or not is in no way on topic.

Did we miss this?

Yep. Returning to topic now.

No word on a third shooter.

 d-usa wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Enough with the 2nd amendment stuff. It's just going to get us locked because arguing about whether or not ships with cannon were intended or not is in no way on topic.

Did we miss this?

I did. It was at the end of a page on a hot thread.

I'll cease discussion on the matter henceforth.

 Alex C wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Enough with the 2nd amendment stuff. It's just going to get us locked because arguing about whether or not ships with cannon were intended or not is in no way on topic.

Did we miss this?

I did. It was at the end of a page on a hot thread.

I'll cease discussion on the matter henceforth.

It did turn over to a new page pretty quickly after it was posted.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Given that right now there are people holding off our military with nothing more than AKs, IEDs, and maybe the occasional Moletov Cocktail I'd say you are very wrong. Advanced military technology tends to have diminishing effectiveness when you aren't fighting a conventional war against another conventional military.

Look at you saying our military is useless when fighting groups like ISIS.

but against the american people the pro gun crowd is already at a disadvantage. In the back of their minds they've said it a dozen times, point a gun at a cop and you deserve to die. hence they never will.

Maybe this attack is the start of the revolution, let's grab the guns and go help them!!!! anyone? bueler? bueler?

sorry the revolution will never happen, so the 2nd is not needed as it's irrelevant.

DutchWinsAll wrote:


Any updates on suspect names? Could be a giveaway.

I would expect the cops to hold out giving any identifying info for as long as they can, especially if they are worried the shooters/driver may have had others involved. Any info leaked warns the support effort...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:


sorry the revolution will never happen, so the 2nd is not needed as it's irrelevant.

So use the constitutionally provided method to repeal it.

 CptJake wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:


Any updates on suspect names? Could be a giveaway.

I would expect the cops to hold out giving any identifying info for as long as they can, especially if they are worried the shooters/driver may have had others involved. Any info leaked warns the support effort...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:


sorry the revolution will never happen, so the 2nd is not needed as it's irrelevant.

So use the constitutionally provided method to repeal it.

Any additional info released regarding what part of the local govt was renting the space? That might help discern the motive.