General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBREAKING: Shooting at Pathmark in Old Bridge, NJ
Several people reported dead. Shooter said to be in body armor.
DetailS sketchy. (tweet)
xchrom
(108,903 posts)malaise
(267,800 posts)to buy his weapons.
I'm sick of this
TheCruces
(224 posts)Just an FYI.
Lunatics will find a way.
lapfog_1
(29,166 posts)other states.
I don't care about this issue, but please stop telling everyone that gun control laws at some locality or other makes any difference.
The only gun control laws that would make a difference are national gun control laws... which would have to be enforced at every border crossing and airport that has international flights.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)firearm dragnet.....
lapfog_1
(29,166 posts)how many mass shootings are there in Japan, for example.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)lapfog_1
(29,166 posts)with national gun control (ban all multi-shot long guns and all handguns, for example).
And your argument is that we can't keep drugs out of the country...
I am pointing out with direct examples that other countries seem to be able to enforce their gun control laws.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)and win the thread - but I do not live in Switzerland either. I live in the USA. Japan, like Switzerland, is an entirely different culture.
RandiFan1290
(6,206 posts)but I doubt you will
Edweird
(8,570 posts)To which "that" are you referring?
Pacafishmate
(249 posts)So it helps to be a little bit more specific than "that".
RandiFan1290
(6,206 posts)Welcome back
lapfog_1
(29,166 posts)or I suppose that we are an entirely different culture than England too.
BTW, my point was that some one always comes along when there is a shooting incident like this and points out that the locale where the shooting happens "has some of the strictest gun control laws" as if to say that "see, gun control laws don't work because New Jersey has gun control laws and yet this gunman was able to just open fire"... and they never ever talk about how easy it is to go to the next state, a few hours drive away, attend a gun show and buy whatever the hell they want, usually without a background check.
Make your case for or against gun control, but please keep the absurd NRA talking points about local gun control laws out of any reasonable conversations about the effectiveness or lack thereof of gun control. We have NEVER tried gun control in this country so we can't say anything about how it might work or might not.
All we can do is look at NATIONS with gun control laws and see how they stack up when compared to us.
But you don't want to go there, do you...
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)about gun control, in the aftermath of the "Batman" premier mass shootings.
We don't need no stinkin' gun controls!
lapfog_1
(29,166 posts)and no one has committed a mass murder in recent times with a fully automatic machine gun.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)which are so far from reality they don't deserve discussion. Why, after one of these incidents are there all of these ideas put forward which are completely impossible without constitutional amendment?
Edweird
(8,570 posts)Additionally, I made no comment about the local gun laws. I did, however, point out that our porous borders that make drug and illegal immigrant interdiction nearly impossible will have the same effect on firearms with a nationwide gun ban. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see it, but you do need to be in willful denial to dispute it.
lapfog_1
(29,166 posts)And you make these claims that our borders are so porous that we can't possibly stop the flow of guns into the US (when, in fact, the illegal arms trade right now goes the other way). You have NO EVIDENCE of that, just your opinion.
So I do dispute it.
and I have provided counter examples of OTHER COUNTRIES with gun control (national) that do not have the level of mass murder of random people by "lunatics".
Again, please quit using the tired NRA talking point that when a shooting happens in a state or district or city with strict gun control in the US, that somehow this shows how ineffective gun control laws are.
TheCruces
(224 posts)And seriously, dude? Rocket scientist? LMFAO.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)the first thing you will have to do to make your fantasy even possible is to amend the Bill of Rights....good luck, let us know when that is accomplished, then we can actually consider your suggestion...
lapfog_1
(29,166 posts)to have all of the muzzle loading "firearms" they want..
Because when the bill of rights to you elude to was written and adopted, that was what was available... so that was what they were talking about.
Or can we all go out and buy grenade launchers (or tanks, or nuclear weapons) because they are ALSO "arms"?
How is a semi-automatic rifle with a 100 round magazine (like in Aurora) protected by the 2nd amendment and a fully automatic sub machine gun NOT protected?
And if I should be able to buy a sub machine gun, why not a grenade launcher? Why not field artillery... most modern semi-automatic rifles have accuracy and more effectiveness that revolutionary war era cannon.
How was it determined what is protected under the Bill of Rights and what isn't? Arms is all it says... so I'm happy to let all "arms" that existed in the late 1700s be protected, up to and including cannon.
But if you allow SOME restrictions on technologically advanced "arms" (fully automatic machine guns), then I think you have already given up on your precious "Bill of Rights" argument.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)technology that existed at the time.
lapfog_1
(29,166 posts)how is it I can't buy one of these as an ordinary citizen?
Again, once you allow ANY restrictions on the definition of ARMS in the 2nd amendment, your entire reliance on that amendment for owning any arms is out the window.
So your position is that there should be no restrictions on any type of weapon.
Pacafishmate
(249 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)I want my speech to be protected.
lapfog_1
(29,166 posts)this would also be illegal today
and your right to free speech is still protected.
You can't have it both ways, either the right to arms is protected by the amendment to the constitution or it isn't. and that means you either live with the idea that the framers of the bill of rights knew what they wanted (someone walking around with a muzzle loading pistol or long gun) OR they figured that whatever came along would be covered as well... and taken to the conclusion, that means everything that our military uses today is also OK for me to own as a private citizen because, well, it's in the amendment that you keep pointing to.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)You like pretending that all of the enumerated rights don't have minimal limitations is silly and contrary to reality..what don't you understand about "settled law"?
lapfog_1
(29,166 posts)lets talk about the threat to abortion (also settled law) that will come about it Romney is elected.
If a Supreme Court can interpret the law one way or another, a different one can change it.
Settled law (and the constitution) says that Negros only count as 3/5ths of a person when doing the census.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
which wasn't fixed until 100 years later.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)case in either of our lifetimes. How about we get creative and find answers that might actually help the problem which are not impossible pipe dreams, eh? Even if you started today it would take literally decades to move an inch. How about we start by making mental health services and addiction services available to anyone who needs them? No constitutional hurtles and a very liberal, Liberal, Democratic goal I'd say..
hack89
(39,171 posts)as well as women and blacks voting, abortion or marriage equality?
You can't have both ways either.
America decided in 1934 where to draw the line on what guns the public can own - it has worked fine. No one is trying to expand that definition so your concern about military hardware is a strawman.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)It is a general rule with minor exception. Discriminate weapons are those that are carried and used by individual soldiers and are aimed at individuals. Indiscriminate weapons are usually crew served and are aimed at areas or at vehicles and buildings. So artillery is an indiscriminate weapon, while a rifle is a discriminate one.
I can use a rifle or handgun for hunting or self-protection, but that is rather hard to do with an artillery piece. BTW - You can own indiscriminate weapons and live shells, but they have to be registered and are very expensive.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)and the only form of media was a printing press...
Just because you know nothing about precedent and decisions which have defined the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean that those precedents and decisions don't exist.
Just to humor you, the standard set through the SCOTUS is, "in common use for lawful purposes". Millions upon millions of semiautomatic firearms are just that, "in common use for lawful purposes". Fully automatic weapons are completely legal in most states. Again, the second amendment has already been defined through case law...it's there for the reading...pretending it isn't, or ignorance of it's existence doesn't mean it isn't done..
Thank goodness that the threshold for constitutionality isn't the lapfog standard.
Missycim
(950 posts)You can only use a manual printing press and the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the internet,radio or TV. Ok?
Pacafishmate
(249 posts)As for your technology at the time of founding argument, let's see what else that logic can be extended to. There should be no freedom of speech apart from documents written with a quill pen and actual spoken words. The freedom of speech does not apply to the internet because the founders could never have envisioned such a subversive technology!!! That's what you are saying right?
KansDem
(28,498 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)KansDem
(28,498 posts)"...rational drug laws..."
Selatius
(20,441 posts)TheCruces
(224 posts)I'm well-familiar with gun laws in both states, and idiotic Border Patrol checkpoints.
Most gun control laws exist just to make people who are scared of guns feel better.
liberallibral
(272 posts)Lunatics and criminals WILL find a way... I'd rather give ordinary citizens a chance to defend themselves, than disarm them.....
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)This country is getting out of control.
a la izquierda
(11,784 posts)ten minutes from where I grew up.
How horrifying.
ananda
(28,782 posts)Police in New Jersey have reportedly shot and killed a man suspected of being involved in a shootout inside a shopping plaza this morning that left several people dead.
Police responded to shots fired inside the Pathmark supermarket on Route 9 in Old Bridge, N.J., just before 4 a.m. There was a confrontation with the gunman, according to WABC-TV.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)Why do people have to lie about this stuff?
http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2012/08/old_bridge_police_investigatin.html
lapfog_1
(29,166 posts)that this doesn't even deserve a headline someplace.
CNN, HuffingtonPost, cable news...
Not even a mention on the cable news channel, a b-roll mention at Huffpo and CNN.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)ananda
(28,782 posts)At least three people have died in a shooting at a New Jersey supermarket early Friday, a law enforcement official said.
The person believed to be the shooter is among the dead, a law enforcement official briefed on the shooting told The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the shooting took place in a different jurisdiction.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)lapfog_1
(29,166 posts)http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_jersey&id=8793473&hpt=hp_t3
All I was pointing out is that this hasn't bumped the Rmoney blowjob happening on almost every cable channel right now.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)It was an employee that killed two co-workers and then killed himself at 4:30am - the store was closed.
lapfog_1
(29,166 posts)Since you have determined that killing 2 people isn't enough.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)Tell you what. If it was one person, especially one I loved, it would be a mass shooting.
I will check the Eff Bee of Eye dictionary before I dare post anything else. Maybe I'll check the Bible and Koran along with other sources to cover all angles.
It is so gratifying to see that the Nit Picking Police are patrolling.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)I also said details sketchy because they are. As with a lot of stories, there are clarifications as more info comes in. I checked what I could when it was reported.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)The 'body armor' thing tho.... I know that you were just relaying the information you had at the time, but there is a lot more info out now....
http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2012/08/old_bridge_police_investigatin.html
lapfog_1
(29,166 posts)From the ABC article:
There was a confrontation with the gunman, who was reportedly in body armor, and the suspect was killed. He was tentatively identified as a man in his 20s who is a current or former employee.
Related Content
PHOTOS: Shooting inside Pathmark in Old Bridge
MORE: Follow us @EyewitnessNYC
MORE: Contact the WABC-TV New Jersey Bureau
It is unknown how many others were shot before police responded
Missycim
(950 posts)has strict gun laws, why would this happen?
JustAnotherGen
(31,681 posts)I don't care about the gun control laws - or policy right now. I care about those people dead a few miles down the road.
Missycim
(950 posts)now and used to live in Mt Laurel NJ, so ya I agree with you.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"why would this happen?
To allow people a very tall soapbox to better make implications regarding their dogmatic positions on gun ownership.
I imagine that's one reason why this would happen...
sadbear
(4,340 posts)What's it been since the last shooting, 3 weeks? These things have been happening every two weeks lately. This is progress.