20 people killed in mass shooting in El Paso, Texas Watch

Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#41
Report 2 weeks ago
#41
Mexican citizens were amongst the dead.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...we-know-so-far

It seems to me, given Trump's inflammatory rhetoric, that the Mexican government wouldn't be out of line to view this as a paramilitary piece of US terrorism directed at Mexico, using the same sort of non-formal deniable soldiers that the Russians deploy in the Ukraine and elsewhere. Surely and undeniably, this kind of thing is what Trump wanted to happen.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#42
Report 2 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by DR.DOOM)
True, but not all conservatives, Republicans and Trump supports share their same ideologies which is what the left fail to realise as they generalise on them and blatantly call them racists. For example, Ben Shapiro who is a conservative is ironically called a racist and a Nazi despite the fact he is Jewish and receives hatred from the Alt-right. Then again, conservative law makers are shameful especially on abortion laws. But you have to agree that the left exploit these issues for social justice and offer no solution whatsoever.

I think that the American people need to realise this and protest heavily against gun law makers, as I said before, in the same manner that France and Hong Kong are doing at the moment since both protests caught the eye of the world. The march for our lives campaign accomplished nothing and was exploited further by irrelevant social justice ideas
Not all Republicans oppose gun control - but most of the lawmakers do. Republicans in the Senate in particular have systematically thwarted gun control efforts in recent decades. They have blood on their hands. These corrupt politicians literally trade support from the NRA and dollars from the gun industry for the corpses of women and children who died excruciating and terrified deaths.
0
reply
DR.DOOM
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#43
Report 2 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Not all Republicans oppose gun control - but most of the lawmakers do. Republicans in the Senate in particular have systematically thwarted gun control efforts in recent decades. They have blood on their hands. These corrupt politicians literally trade support from the NRA and dollars from the gun industry for the corpses of women and children who died excruciating and terrified deaths.
Well of course they are corrupt, even considering that American bank practises were one of the main reasons for the 2008 rescission. America has an extreme mode of capitalism where people will do anything for money and as you've said, those politicians aren't going to do anything because they continue making a profit off of their trade deals from the NRA. If a large amount of people can protest or even riot against them however, they may be forced to change laws. What's interesting is how these corrupt individuals always go unnoticed and are never mentioned in the media. This is because capitalism needs a means of keeping its crimes undercover so no one can pick them out
1
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#44
Report 2 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Not all Republicans oppose gun control - but most of the lawmakers do. Republicans in the Senate in particular have systematically thwarted gun control efforts in recent decades. They have blood on their hands. These corrupt politicians literally trade support from the NRA and dollars from the gun industry for the corpses of women and children who died excruciating and terrified deaths.
I am afraid you have a constitutional provision which is literally incapable of rational interpretation and all legislative and judicial initiatives are weighed down by that.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#45
Report 2 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by nulli tertius)
I am afraid you have a constitutional provision which is literally incapable of rational interpretation and all legislative and judicial initiatives are weighed down by that.
If there was enough will, it can be changed. Amendments can be un-amended, after all. And courts can change their mind on what's meant by a "well-regulated militia", too.

It's not impossible. It just takes political will and leadership.

That's what's missing.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#46
Report 2 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by nulli tertius)
I am afraid you have a constitutional provision which is literally incapable of rational interpretation and all legislative and judicial initiatives are weighed down by that.
It was never about the constitution. It's clear to any rational person that the historical context and the use of the term 'militia' referenced a war situation and troops, not the right of ordinary citizens to retain weapons at home capable of slaughtering large numbers of their neighbours with impunity. The idiotic interpretation of this by the supreme court and Congress is nothing but pandering to elements of the industrial and extremist Right in the US and their sleazy fellow travellers and parasitic leeches in the NRA and other corrupt fronts for that segment of US corporate activity that churns out personal assault weapons for purposes they know in advance to be criminal, deranged and inhuman.
0
reply
Smack
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#47
Report 2 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by Trotsky's Iceaxe)
I'm trying to resist the urge to sarcastically respond with "thoughts and prayers".

But we know the reaction of Americans will be a collective shrug and and a few months from now a similar massacre will happen.
I don't think Americans are quite so unanimously in favour of current gun laws as non-Americans seem to think... I think the problem is in actually enacting change.
1
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#48
Report 2 weeks ago
#48
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
It was never about the constitution. It's clear to any rational person that the historical context and the use of the term 'militia' referenced a war situation and troops, not the right of ordinary citizens to retain weapons at home capable of slaughtering large numbers of their neighbours with impunity. The idiotic interpretation of this by the supreme court and Congress is nothing but pandering to elements of the industrial and extremist Right in the US and their sleazy fellow travellers and parasitic leeches in the NRA and other corrupt fronts for that segment of US corporate activity that churns out personal assault weapons for purposes they know in advance to be criminal, deranged and inhuman.
This ignores the history of the development of the Second Amendment. The right is not a modern one subject to modern reinterpretation owing to the pressures of the NRA and gun lobbying groups who profit from sales of arms to citizens; it's ancient. Whether you agree with the right is another thing, but don't get it mistaken.

I think you have to remember that the US had just repelled the tyranny of the British with privately owned arms. It is clear, specially in the Federalist Papers, that the right to arms was there to repel oppressive government and to assert individual rights. When you look at the Second Amendment through the historical lens, the culture of gun ownership in the US makes a lot more sense.
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#49
Report 2 weeks ago
#49
(Original post by Drewski)
He'll just be a martyr then.
one martyr well-done coming right up

you want fries wid dat ?
0
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#50
Report 2 weeks ago
#50
(Original post by Catholic_)
No worries - Muslim Arab terrorists are killing many more thousands of people worldwide. Maybe you should talk about that
Please don't disrupt this thread.
This thread is for posting about a mass shooting in Texas where 20 people have been murdered by a terrorist criminal, one who apparently announced his plans on 4chan and provided his motive online.

I have a long history of posting on TSR about a variety of terrorist criminals and terror groups- of all different religious and political affiliations.
I'm catholic.
1
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#51
Report 2 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by Notoriety)
This ignores the history of the development of the Second Amendment. The right is not a modern one subject to modern reinterpretation owing to the pressures of the NRA and gun lobbying groups who profit from sales of arms to citizens; it's ancient. Whether you agree with the right is another thing, but don't get it mistaken.

I think you have to remember that the US had just repelled the tyranny of the British with privately owned arms. It is clear, specially in the Federalist Papers, that the right to arms was there to repel oppressive government and to assert individual rights. When you look at the Second Amendment through the historical lens, the culture of gun ownership in the US makes a lot more sense.
It isn't ancient in application. Before the Second World War, gun ownership in the US was largely restricted to two groups - farmers in the West and mountain areas, plus criminals. The law enforcement problem around the latter rose steadily from the 1920s with Prohibition.

Modern gun rights debates started largely in the 1970s and were initially a fear response from whites in certain southern states anxious about proposals to limit gun ownership in the wake of an upsurge in criminal use of guns. The NRA as an organisation grew significantly after the banning and criminalisation of the KKK and reflected the fears of southern whites. It spread these effectively through campaigning and corrupt money from the gun industries.

The idea that it's all down to arcane debates in the 18th century is just horse **** basically. It's well packaged manure, but it's still manure.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#52
Report 2 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
It was never about the constitution. It's clear to any rational person that the historical context and the use of the term 'militia' referenced a war situation and troops, not the right of ordinary citizens to retain weapons at home capable of slaughtering large numbers of their neighbours with impunity. The idiotic interpretation of this by the supreme court and Congress is nothing but pandering to elements of the industrial and extremist Right in the US and their sleazy fellow travellers and parasitic leeches in the NRA and other corrupt fronts for that segment of US corporate activity that churns out personal assault weapons for purposes they know in advance to be criminal, deranged and inhuman.
It isn't as simple as that.

The first issue is whether you accept "originalism". Does the meaning of the provision to an 18th century gentleman control its present meaning.

If you accept that; and many on both sides of the debate don't, then next there is the relationship with the English Bill of Rights:- "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". That is clearly an individual right for personal, not collective defence. To what extent were the colonists merely removing the restrictions in that Act?

The 2nd Amendment carefully doesn't, as a matter of grammar, link the comments about the militia and the bearing of arms. In other words the 2nd Amendment was born deliberately ambiguous. You have to read in (or not) the "therefore". The "militia right" interpretation prevailed in Arkansas in 1842; the "individual right" interpretation in Georgia in 1846.

1875 and the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd Amendment didn't affect State rights to curtail the bearing of arms. It is the development of jurisprudence on the 14th Amendment that has called that into question.

That is all before you get to what is an "Arm" on which again both sides of the militia/individual rights arguments divide, on which we are frankly guessing about what the 18th century man would have thought.

In other words it was an ambiguity from the outset and remains ambiguous to this day.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#53
Report 2 weeks ago
#53
(Original post by nulli tertius)
It isn't as simple as that.

In other words it was an ambiguity from the outset and remains ambiguous to this day.
Yes there has been contradiction and ambiguity in past rulings - this isn't the only area of the constitution where that is the case. The idea though that the Framers meant to give every householder mass killing opportunities is frankly barking. The equivalent at that time would have been to install a set of substantial cannons in every farm and back yard. I think the gentleman aristocrats who established America at that time, with their obsession with property rights and the status quo for the wealthy, would have been genuinely shocked at the suggestion that heavy weapons be distributed at low cost amongst the masses. The modern supreme court people and the Senators and Congressmen know this of course. They simply pose as not doing so in sufficient numbers to thwart all reason and service the crazed, the fearful and the cynical.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#54
Report 2 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by Notoriety)
This ignores the history of the development of the Second Amendment. The right is not a modern one subject to modern reinterpretation owing to the pressures of the NRA and gun lobbying groups who profit from sales of arms to citizens; it's ancient. Whether you agree with the right is another thing, but don't get it mistaken.

I think you have to remember that the US had just repelled the tyranny of the British with privately owned arms. It is clear, specially in the Federalist Papers, that the right to arms was there to repel oppressive government and to assert individual rights. When you look at the Second Amendment through the historical lens, the culture of gun ownership in the US makes a lot more sense.
It isn't a modern reinterpretation; it is an ancient ambiguity.

The tyranny of oppressive government is to be resisted by a militia not by individual action

"It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it."
0
reply
JustOneMoreThing
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#55
Report 2 weeks ago
#55
To the government, occasional mass shootings are an acceptable loss.
1
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#56
Report 2 weeks ago
#56
(Original post by TheNamesBond.)
To the government, occasional mass shootings are an acceptable loss.
Yes and to the cynics in the national security establishment, it's probably preferable that the citizenry murder each other in large numbers than turn on the government.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#57
Report 2 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Yes there has been contradiction and ambiguity in past rulings - this isn't the only area of the constitution where that is the case. The idea though that the Framers meant to give every householder mass killing opportunities is frankly barking. The equivalent at that time would have been to install a set of substantial cannons in every farm and back yard. I think the gentleman aristocrats who established America at that time, with their obsession with property rights and the status quo for the wealthy, would have been genuinely shocked at the suggestion that heavy weapons be distributed at low cost amongst the masses. The modern supreme court people and the Senators and Congressmen know this of course. They simply pose as not doing so in sufficient numbers to thwart all reason and service the crazed, the fearful and the cynical.
Of course citizens owned heavy weapons Every merchant ship owner in Boston or Baltimore would have had them to defend against the Barbary Pirates that were the nascent American nation's first foreign policy crisis. On land, it simply wasn't an issue. Americans were simply not wealthy enough to build castles. It isn't until after the Civil War that questions about what is an Arm become relevant as the firepower of handheld weapons increase.
1
reply
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#58
Report 2 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by Leviathan1611)
what kind of examination?
We kind of have this in the UK, whereby if you’ve committed any crime or have a history of mental illness owning firearms or shotgun isn’t an option
0
reply
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#59
Report 2 weeks ago
#59
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Right wing extremism. He wrote an immigrant-bashing tract, then drove 900 miles to a Mexican border town and ran amok with an automatic rifle in a mall. Trump then acts like it's nothing to do with the political atmosphere he whips up every day.
Lmfao "political atmosphere"


Left wingers certainly do a good job of exposing their blissfully ignorant privilege when they keep blaming racism on Trump as if it didn't exist before his presidency. :hahaha:
1
reply
Leviathan1611
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#60
Report 2 weeks ago
#60
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
We kind of have this in the UK, whereby if you’ve committed any crime or have a history of mental illness owning firearms or shotgun isn’t an option
is that the exam?
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by Leviathan1611; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

All the exam results help you need

2,861

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (164)
13.19%
Excited (108)
8.69%
Worried (229)
18.42%
Terrified (291)
23.41%
Meh (99)
7.96%
Confused (32)
2.57%
Putting on a brave face (163)
13.11%
Impatient (157)
12.63%

Watched Threads

View All