Florida Mass Shooting

Post Reply New Topic

Just to touch on the media aspects of this arguement . Corporations that cater to sensationalistic
and misinformation regardless of the persons operating the media . Literally have no rights to
any civil rights as they are Corporations and,are not human beings , as such should be held responsible for the effects of these actions . Without regard to civil rights. Especially if they are wreaking havouc on our Country or Society . Possibly even considering these acts of irresponsible media outputs
as potential act of treason or terrorism . ( Just a thought Exercise Concerning Corporate freedoms.)

You know the 11 year old has provided testimony, don’t you?

Would be curious to know what her testimony was? And was it influenced by anyone ?

I don't have those details. I only know that she told her story.

To me, the story as reported adds up in a way little else could. She suffered multiple injuries but lived. She was taken to a different room. It is logical that he separated her thinking she might be the child he was supposed to rescue, then changed course after discovering she wasn't, hoping she could lead him to the location of the mythical victim. The poor child apparently was tortured by him.

Still, we have a long road before all the facts are determined and set into stone. I've learned to sit and wait.

That girl, though, what she has endured. My God.

Yep, but according to boffins the constitution protects his right to own a high powered firearm.

The Constitution grants the Right to Bear Arms, not artillery.

Lots of Americans haven't got that memo

Given private citizens were entitled to own warships (privateers) at the time of (and after) the 2nd ammendment being adopted, and these contained a number of artillery pieces, your claim would appear to be contradicted, given nothing was done to reclaim them\remove them from private ownership at that time... "Arms" is a general term and had the 2nd ammendment been intended to only include certain items, a term such as "personal arms" would have been used (common at that time to refer to the arms carried by an individual (whether pistols, muskets\rifles, or swords), rather than a blanket "arms" term (which covers all weapons).



Not passing judgement on whether this is appropriate now, merely that at the time it was written, war was relatively common in Europe (and could potentially spill over to the United States), and so having a population prepared and equipped should internal or external forces require the nation's citizens to defend their country\locality was seen as a good thing, and artillery was an important (albeit costly) component of most military thinking\planning\training at that time.

What's the verdict on nuclear arms?

Perhaps you aren't passing judgement, but you are blithely skipping past the whole "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" piece. At the time the second amendment was written, there was no standing or permanent Army, Navy or Air force. Citizens were asked to serve when needed, so the armament of the private citizenry WAS the US military. That is no longer true today, and the SCOTUS long ago established that second amendment rights are not unlimited. Congress can control what types of arms are allowed, and what rules citizens must abide by to have the right.

So, no. No private war machines. No private nuclear arms.

*sigh*

Arms and ordnance are different categories of weapons; rifles are arms, artillery is ordnance, it's not that difficult of a distinction to grasp, even as the technology evolves. There is a little gray area because of how explosives are regulated, you can get a permit for a destructive device such as a grenade launcher or small field piece, but every round of ammunition is regulated as if it were itself an individual device, which entails a background check and $200 tax stamp on top of the 6-12 month wait for the paperwork on every single shell, grenade, etc (if you can find someone to sell them to you), and the individual states have their own regulations that might be more stringent. Explosives on their own have a different system with different licenses, being handled by an FEL holder rather than an FFL/SOT in the case of firearms, and the regulatory red tape and safe storage requirements are quite formidable.

Notably, I'm unaware of any crime ever having been committed with a licensed destructive device, as they're uncommon enough that it wouldn't take much of an investigation to run down who has what in a given area, to say nothing of the high cost and amount of effort required for legal possession, and AFAIK the only murder ever committed with a legally owned fully automatic weapon happened sometime in the 70s, and the murderer turned out to be an off duty cop. Same with the other highly regulated firearms in the US, the kinds of people who go to the time and expense of going through the process to own machine guns, silencers, destructive devices, exotic concealed firearms, or short barreled rifles and shotguns tend to be extremely law abiding, as the process involves an FBI background check, a full set of fingerprints, and a recent photo, along with the $200 per item and lengthy wait.

There's an implied 'because' in there that makes the whole thing much more clear; because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I feel like no one would have a hard time understanding this structure if the First Amendment had been written with a similar format, 'a free press and open discourse being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to be free in their speech shall not be infringed', no one would be arguing that it only protects the press and certain formal forms of discourse.

The court has been negligent fleshing out what the started with Heller, but we've got another case coming up soon against New York's permitting process, and with any luck they'll demand what is called strict scrutiny in future Second Amendment cases, which will signal the end of the most onerous gun laws nationwide, as they can't survive that legal hurdle, being not narrowly tailored, not shown to work, and not minimally burdensome to an enumerated right.

Why did I know you would have a comment? I like that some things don't change that drastically.

I do know there is a on-going debate on how the parts of the sentence connect.

But in the context just of Brictoria's post, I felt I could make my point without having to deal with that linguistic tangle.

Well, you can't lay out bait that juicy and expect me to pass it up, being so precisely in my wheelhouse and all. I do think it's a tired argument, the phrase "the right of the people" is unambiguous, and nowhere else in the Constitution is it taken to mean what liberal types claim it means in the context of the 2nd Amendment, i.e. a narrow and regulated privilege vs a fully enumerated right. Given their almost preternatural foresight in other areas, I do wish the Founders had skipped the preamble on that one, it causes much more confusion than a more straightforward statement would have.

The surviving eleven year old girl has gone through four surgeries so far.

She has shots to her hand, leg, thigh, and abdomen.

She has at least seven bullet holes which may represent seven distinct shots, or the holes may include some exit wounds.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd setup a donation page for her on the Polk Country sheriff website.

There is also a GO FUND ME page setup.

One good piece of information is that her mom is alive, and is caring for her (her step-mom was killed).

(pictured here with her brother who was killed)

Where did you get that information? I went back to check and didn't see a link, and Google is still showing stories reporting the crime as random, that the shooter was hearing voices, nothing about a social media hoax.