Do I Have a Constitutional Right

[T.G.G. Moogly]

to not be killed in a Paddock style massacre?

If I do, then something needs to be done. If I don't then everything is fine.

It seems I have a right to this not happening, and that steps can be taken to lessen the chances that this will occur. Certainly the chances that this will occur again are as great as ever.

So are my constitutional rights being violated by doing nothing?

 

[dismal]

Do I Have a Constitutional Right to not be killed in a Paddock style massacre?

Generally the Constitution sets limits on the government, not your fellow citizens.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

According to the NRA, Bill O'Reilly, and people like Loren Pechtel, massacres are just a price we have to pay so that a small portion of the population can get its rocks off with guns. Also, gun control won't stop gun related massacres because....

Sure, often, the people that pay the price for such, often never actually benefit in one way from the terribly wide-open new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but as long as the Gun Lobby (which started hijacking the NRA in the 60's) is happy, that appears to be all that matters.

All you are constitutionally protected for is equal protection under the law, meaning that the shooter will have to be held equally liable for your death as they would for the other people they killed.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If he had been alive he would have been charged with 58 counts of murder and 22,000 counts of attempted murder and that's what protects you. You don't have a constitutional right to have everything as you want it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If he had been alive he would have been charged with 58 counts of murder and 22,000 counts of attempted murder and that's what protects you. You don't have a constitutional right to have everything as you want it.

*points up*

See! They think that your desire to not be killed in a gun related massacre is an 'entitlement'.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

to not be killed in a Paddock style massacre?

If I do, then something needs to be done. If I don't then everything is fine.

It seems I have a right to this not happening, and that steps can be taken to lessen the chances that this will occur. Certainly the chances that this will occur again are as great as ever.

So are my constitutional rights being violated by doing nothing?

I think question might be better framed as natural right as opposed to Constitutional.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If he had been alive he would have been charged with 58 counts of murder and 22,000 counts of attempted murder and that's what protects you. You don't have a constitutional right to have everything as you want it.

*points up*

See! They think that your desire to not be killed in a gun related massacre is an 'entitlement'.

But actually shooting someone is against the law. So there is protection about being shot.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

to not be killed in a Paddock style massacre?

If I do, then something needs to be done. If I don't then everything is fine.

It seems I have a right to this not happening, and that steps can be taken to lessen the chances that this will occur. Certainly the chances that this will occur again are as great as ever.

So are my constitutional rights being violated by doing nothing?

The constitution is a charter listing both the powers and the restrictions on the government. The various interpretations of the bill of rights range from "rights pre-exist and this is a partial list of them" to "these are the rights granted by the government." Your question lacks premise.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

to not be killed in a Paddock style massacre?

If I do, then something needs to be done. If I don't then everything is fine.

It seems I have a right to this not happening, and that steps can be taken to lessen the chances that this will occur. Certainly the chances that this will occur again are as great as ever.

So are my constitutional rights being violated by doing nothing?

The constitution is a charter listing both the powers and the restrictions on the government. The various interpretations of the bill of rights range from "rights pre-exist and this is a partial list of them" to "these are the rights granted by the government." Your question lacks premise.

That's okay, SCOTUS diverged from 80 years of Constitutional law precedence with their 2012ish ruling on the 2nd Amendment and how it applies to individuals. I think it is interesting that the NRA started as a marksmen organization to help promote better shooting as it applied to wartime and living outdoors. In the 60's, it would eventually begin to be hijacked by people that would turn the NRA into the rabid Gun Lobby it is today which helped lead to the bullshit SCOTUS decision.

*points up*

See! They think that your desire to not be killed in a gun related massacre is an 'entitlement'.

But actually shooting someone is against the law. So there is protection about being shot.

As I already noted in my original post in this thread.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

*points up*

See! They think that your desire to not be killed in a gun related massacre is an 'entitlement'.

But actually shooting someone is against the law. So there is protection about being shot.

Yes, but the point is that there are other types of potential protections available as well, such as not letting people buy these types of guns in the first place. Your response is like saying that there's no need for locks on doors because there are already laws against theft.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The constitution is a charter listing both the powers and the restrictions on the government. The various interpretations of the bill of rights range from "rights pre-exist and this is a partial list of them" to "these are the rights granted by the government." Your question lacks premise.

That's okay, SCOTUS diverged from 80 years of Constitutional law precedence with their 2012ish ruling on the 2nd Amendment and how it applies to individuals. I think it is interesting that the NRA started as a marksmen organization to help promote better shooting as it applied to wartime and living outdoors. In the 60's, it would eventually begin to be hijacked by people that would turn the NRA into the rabid Gun Lobby it is today which helped lead to the bullshit SCOTUS decision.

*points up*

See! They think that your desire to not be killed in a gun related massacre is an 'entitlement'.

But actually shooting someone is against the law. So there is protection about being shot.

As I already noted in my original post in this thread.

in 1939 they ruled a sawed off shotgun wasn't a military weapon so it could be banned. But if you are going to go based on that reading then the weapons used by this guy would be military weapons since they are used by pretty much every military in the world. The laws later said that even with the second amendment, you also have a right to self defense so you can buy something that could be used that way.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

to not be killed in a Paddock style massacre?

If I do, then something needs to be done. If I don't then everything is fine.

It seems I have a right to this not happening, and that steps can be taken to lessen the chances that this will occur. Certainly the chances that this will occur again are as great as ever.

So are my constitutional rights being violated by doing nothing?

I think question might be better framed as natural right as opposed to Constitutional.

So would I have a civil case?

 

[coloradoatheist]

I think question might be better framed as natural right as opposed to Constitutional.

So would I have a civil case?

Against whom? People at the concert would have a civil case but since he is dead they don't have any easy cases.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So would I have a civil case?

Against whom? People at the concert would have a civil case but since he is dead they don't have any easy cases.

Well, he was a millionaire, so he has an estate.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I agree. The people at the concert will have a case, but with that many I am not sure what the division would be.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I agree. The people at the concert will have a case, but with that many I am not sure what the division would be.

Well, assuming for the sake of argument that the guy had $5 million, I believe it would be $4.99 million for the lawyers handling the civil suit and all the injured victims and their families would each get a 2-for-1 coupon at a local Denny's.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree. The people at the concert will have a case, but with that many I am not sure what the division would be.

Well, assuming for the sake of argument that the guy had $5 million, I believe it would be $4.99 million for the lawyers handling the civil suit and all the injured victims and their families would each get a 2-for-1 coupon at a local Denny's.

*Stands up with hand over heart... and saluting the flag*

God Bless America!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, assuming for the sake of argument that the guy had $5 million, I believe it would be $4.99 million for the lawyers handling the civil suit and all the injured victims and their families would each get a 2-for-1 coupon at a local Denny's.

*Stands up with hand over heart... and saluting the flag*

God Bless America!

Ya, I'm kneeling for that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

*Stands up with hand over heart... and saluting the flag*

God Bless America!

Ya, I'm kneeling for that.

Damn Tories!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

According to the NRA, Bill O'Reilly, and people like Loren Pechtel, massacres are just a price we have to pay so that a small portion of the population can get its rocks off with guns. Also, gun control won't stop gun related massacres because....

Sure, often, the people that pay the price for such, often never actually benefit in one way from the terribly wide-open new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but as long as the Gun Lobby (which started hijacking the NRA in the 60's) is happy, that appears to be all that matters.

All you are constitutionally protected for is equal protection under the law, meaning that the shooter will have to be held equally liable for your death as they would for the other people they killed.

Quit misrepresenting my position!

Lets look at some data. From the Mother Jones database we have 758 mass shooting fatalities in the last 35 years. That's 21.7 per year. This is less than 10% of what even an anti-gun group says is the number of times someone was shot in legitimate self defense.

By removing guns you thus increase the innocent death toll at least 10x. In practice it will be even more as eliminating the guns doesn't preclude other methods (the MGM shooter would have likely have gotten a higher body count with a truck) and it increases the other attacks because they the deterrence is less.

Thus I see banning guns as both ineffective and throwing the baby out with the bathwater if it were effective.