/dev/null Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 It's not a class action. It would have to be individual lawsuits, although they could have multiple/consolidated plaintiffs. So basically a class action lawsuit
Coach Tuesday Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 When you answer questions like this, it's important to do so without bringing emotion into it. Freedom, from the perspective of human history, is very new and very rare; and it is also, in my opinion, the optimal circumstance under which people can live. Freedom is what has finally advanced the human species out of the mud and into outer space, pulled us out of the autocratic Rule of Kings, and gave us the rights of man. Freedom is the single lynch pin on which all other human moral arguments are predicated. Without freedom there is no moral priori for racial equality, religious tolerance, or sexual preference. There is no fair trial, or legal protections, or political autonomy. Without freedom there is only a power structure making use of a might makes right philosophy, and a people silently praying for it's benevolence and favor. Freedom, for all it's warts, it the greatest thing we've ever had. So yes, in that light, it's a good thing. Your political views are cracked, dude. Freedom didn't pull the human species out of the mud. Collective contract enforcement did, actually (commerce with the state having the monopoly of force). And freedom wasn't "given" to us by the state - it is the natural state of things. The Framers' view was that freedom should be the default state of play, and the purpose of the Constitution is to set limits on what the state can do to impinge on our natural freedoms. So basically a class action lawsuit No, basically not.
DC Tom Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 Should there be ANY limits on private weaponry ownership? Should your neighbor have the right, if he wants to, to string claymore mines around the perimeter of his yard, and mount an anti-aircraft gun on his roof? No. But I should. Freedom didn't pull the human species out of the mud. Collective contract enforcement did, actually It's true. Don't see many Neanderthals practicing contract law, do you?
B-Man Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 It's true. Don't see many Neanderthals practicing contract law, do you? Required response.............
/dev/null Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 I would mount an AA gun on my roof or park a howitzer in my yard if I could. Just so I could piss off those neighbors with the over the top Christmas and Halloween decorations. My Fourth of July / 1812 Overature would be a blast Literally
Coach Tuesday Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 (edited) No. But I should. It's true. Don't see many Neanderthals practicing contract law, do you? It's not about practicing contract law (whatever that means - it sounds like practicing safe non-sex), it's about the state enforcing private agreements so that commerce can happen and people can accumulate property without having to worry that someone with a bigger gun is going to come along and take it from them. As to the car accident analogy - it would make sense if there were an amendment that said, "Congress shall make no law restricting the speed of vehicles." So then we'd have "car enthusiasts" driving 200 mph wherever and whenever they wanted, routinely running over small children but the response would be "Hey, that's just the price of freedom! We need to protect the right of drivers to drive however fast they want, even though it leads to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths each year, because FREEDOM. Stop POLITICIZING the TRAGEDY!" Edited October 3, 2017 by Coach Tuesday
LeviF Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 It's actually not. And you really believe that AUTOMATIC weapons (which aren't even legal now) in the hands of ordinary citizens help foster a free and stable society? Minor quibble - automatic weapons are legal in a sense, on the federal level. They're expensive - almost prohibitively so - and you need a tax stamp that can take 2+ years to get. But private citizens can own them.
DC Tom Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 It's not about practicing contract law (whatever that means - it sounds like practicing safe non-sex), it's about the state enforcing private agreements so that commerce can happen and people can accumulate property without having to worry that someone with a bigger gun is going to come along and take it from them. We were WELL out of the mud when that developed. Hell, "the state" didn't even exist until the 16th century. But you keep plugging away at the dialectic, comarade. I'm sure it'll be true someday...
Coach Tuesday Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 (edited) http://www.theonion.com/article/nra-says-mass-shootings-just-unfortunate-price-pro-57094 We were WELL out of the mud when that developed. Hell, "the state" didn't even exist until the 16th century. But you keep plugging away at the dialectic, comarade. I'm sure it'll be true someday... What are you babbling about? Private contract enforcement has existed for far longer than that. You don't think contract-enforcing democracies existed before the 16th century? Edited October 3, 2017 by Coach Tuesday
DC Tom Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 http://www.theonion.com/article/nra-says-mass-shootings-just-unfortunate-price-pro-57094 What are you babbling about? Private contract enforcement has existed for far longer than that. What? You're the one that just said it's not about private contract enforcement, it's about THE STATE enforcing private agreements. Shut the !@#$ up, fool.
GoBills808 Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 Has the Vegas shooting been covered in depth here yet? I have some questions for the more knowledgeable gun owners here.
LeviF Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 Has the Vegas shooting been covered in depth here yet? I have some questions for the more knowledgeable gun owners here. I'm not an expert or anything but I know a bit. For really good knowledge there are some gun forums out there that I'm sure have covered it in depth, now that we're getting some details on his equipment.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 You see how they operate Coach Tues. They bark you down when getting cornered. Keep up the good fight. Essayons!
Tiberius Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 Politically speaking, gun massacres help Republicans. The base feels threatened and get energized
DC Tom Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 You see how they operate Coach Tues. They bark you down when getting cornered. Keep up the good fight. Essayons! Yes. Listen to the guy who makes more sense when he drunk-posts.
LeviF Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 Yes. Listen to the guy who makes more sense when he drunk-posts. EII is Booster & John Wawrow?
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 EII is Booster & John Wawrow? Hell no. Journalism is dead.
DC Tom Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 Hell no. Journalism is dead. Is it dead-dead, or Tom Petty dead?
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 Is it dead-dead, or Tom Petty dead? You got me there... I guess Tom Petty dead. No brain activity at all. Can you spare $2.99/mo. to keep it alive?
GoBills808 Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 I'm not an expert or anything but I know a bit. For really good knowledge there are some gun forums out there that I'm sure have covered it in depth, now that we're getting some details on his equipment. I want to know how difficult an expert would say killing 59 people from 400+ yards with a shot you've never taken before, with the equipment he had and the training he apparently didn't, within the span of about 16 minutes would be.
Recommended Posts