RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now

RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MercTech -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/3/2017 11:41:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GabrielLogos From listening to the many cell videos recorded, the fire rate sure sounds like an AK-47. It has a slower fire rate than most other fully-automatic weapons. The world market is absolutely flooded with those that are fully automatic and obtainable in most countries pretty cheap. In the US many gun owners have semi-automatic versions that are quite legal. It's possible to purchase fully-automatic versions if you get the Federal permit. It's also possible to purchase parts for a semi-automatic AK-47 to convert it back to fully-automatic. Most gun shops will not do the mod for you, but if you are the slightest bit mechanically handy it's a pretty simple parts swap. I'd guess that at least 70% of US gun owners could do the mod at home in less than an hour. The mod is illegal if you don't have the permits for fully-automatic, but I that's not much of an issue for those planning mass murder. The news reported that the shooter was using 30 round magazines, and that the fire lasted 4-1/2 minutes total. They also reported that the shooter had multiple weapons. Not familiar with the AK-47? Look at photos of Charlottesville, they were the rifles being carried by many Antifa. Rate of fire... AK-47 fires a 7.62x39 mm ammunition at 500-600 rounds per minute. A M16 fires 700-900 rounds per minute of 5.56 mm ammunition. The M-14 fires 7.62x51 mm at 700-750 rounds per minute and is hard to control in full automatic. The Avtomat Kalashnikova (Automatic Kalashnikov) is a Russian design assault rifle that has been adopted as the "go to" inexpensive design for much of the world's military. The U.S. assault rifle of an equivalent caliber is the M-14. A conversion from a semi automatic rifle to fully automatic is a bit more involved than a couple of hours. The civilian versions are intentionally designed not to be easily converted to the military model. Sporterized (formerly military weapon) rifles often have parts drilled out and pieces tack welded in to prevent returning to full auto capability. You have a bit of meticulous machining and need some parts that just are not available to people who aren't military armorers or a permitted police force. Oh, it can be done, but not in a few hours but a few days for a skilled machinist with a bit of gunsmithing experience. Converting an AR-15 to an M-16 requires a totally different lower receiver with a few small, meticulous fitting, parts. Converting a M1A to a M-14 requires rebuilding the bolt traveler and adding a group of small parts that you can't even get drawings for after you have re-machined the stock to accommodate them. Hard to actually make an assault rifle out of a civilian rifle. Along with the "could be done but takes time" I looked for what it takes to make an AK automatic. I've not been in the guts of an AK, but a quick search found this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiSsNrIp9bWAhWHeCYKHdVUAg8QFgguMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcnqzu.com%2Flibrary%2FGuerrilla%2520Warfare%2FEltink%2C%2520Royi-AK47%2520Full%2520Auto%2520Conversion%2520for%2520Dummies-ACADEMIC%2520USE%2520ONLY.pdf&usg=AOvVaw02k0RwQWb3T1lIA5AFwBsz If the shooter was using automatic weapons as the recordings seem to infer; they were probably purchased black market and not a garage conversion. The market for military weapons among the drug cartels and the porous border with Mexico makes the Southwestern States a place you find military grade weapons more than most of the country. Automatic weapons seem to follow the drugs a bit. https://www.wired.com/2012/11/cartel-weapons/ As to who the armed men were in Charlottesville; is this the picture you were thinking of? https://qz.com/1053604/who-were-the-armed-camouflaged-men-in-charlottesville-who-have-nothing-to-do-with-the-military/ An old friend in Charlottesville said the Oathkeeprs were out as part of the Free Speech demonstration. That might be who was armed BDUs. The Oathkeepers first really hit national public attention when one reporter actually asked the armed men on rooftops guarding buildings during the Ferguson Riots who they were. The call went out and Oathkeeper groups from many states went to Texas to help patrol against looters. The concept is "My oath to protect and defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic has no expiration date." Some call them dangerous nut jobs and some call them patriots I just know some fellow veterans that consider it community service. https://www.oathkeepers.org/

Greta75 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 12:08:45 AM)
I read that he bought a legal modification item for just 99USD to attach to the gun, dirt cheap and easily available to convert all his semi to fully auto. It simply helps a semi reach close to an automatic speed. Maybe this "legal modification item" needs to be banned. It's called "bump stocks".

LadyPact -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 12:12:25 AM)
Going to give this my best shot. (Didn't mean for that to be a bad pun.) quote: ORIGINAL: LadyDemura Not entirely, at this point, I'm a bit curious about the 2nd Amendment supporter mindset. Clearly, banning all guns would prevent at least some innocent people from dying, but I do think the framers of the Constitution did put a lot of thought into it, though I don't understand why the well regulated militia part of the 2nd Amendment is totally ignored by the right. My thought on this is that we must consider that the Amendments were not only about the limitations of government power, but also a reinforcement of rights of individuals. Both must be considered. While it is inescapable to ignore the statement of "banning all guns would prevent at least some innocent people from dying," it also ignores the concept of "banning all guns would also allow some innocent people to die." quote: It seems like his number of guns would have set off some red flags his CO might have had to address. I don't mean you any personal offense. If you are using the term 'CO' to imply such a relationship as someone's Commanding Officer, I'm having difficulty grasping how you really think that works. Unless registration for firearms would be reported to a person's military association, (a frightening thing when considering an individual's privacy all on it's own) how do you propose this would work? Would you be suggesting that military personnel should have fewer individual rights than those not serving in the military? This might seem frivilous coming from somebody who is just a military wife, and I'll apologize for being blunt, but this isn't how this works. You'd be flipping amazed at how little CO's know about the people under their command. quote: Why does anyone need more than two? I can get needing a backup in case of jam or something, or even preferring a few different types, but this was not this guys situation. Old joke. A bear, a rabbit, and a human. No matter which two you consider, you'll end up obliterating the rabbit, p^ssing off the bear, or not being able to deal with the critical thinker. This doesn't even consider areas like collector's pieces, historical, target shooting enthusiasts, etc. Granted, this was not this guy's situation. How do you propose that we regulate people who DO fit that criteria vrs those that don't? quote: Someone that owns guns needs to have a CO, that can refer them to a psych hospital, if necessary, period. Again, this isn't how this works. Put it in perspective. Do you see this as a great plan that is working in any other area when it comes to military personnel? Is it working for traffic tickets, DV situations, people with PTSD, drug use, (that didn't pop on the whiz quiz) delinquent library books, or anything else. quote: Why is it they don't allow me to drive without proper training, and licensing, insurance, and registration? Just so you know, this isn't an iron clad argument. Unless I've missed something, all of the weapons used in the incident are being reported as legally purchased. I haven't seen anything yet that says otherwise. "Training" an individual in proper firearm use doesn't stop the person from misusing the weapon any more than the method you are extolling prevents people from driving drunk. We don't prevent all people from driving, even though we know there are going to be a certain number of DUI arrests each year. quote: I tend to think if cars had been invented in the 1700's, driving would have been a constitutional "right" instead of the "privilege" it is now, but most people want to restrict this to people that are responsible. Why is it that restricting gun ownership to those that are responsible is such more of an issue? There are two categories for this. Those having conditions that preempt their ability to drive and those who have proven they should not be trusted because they have been irresponsible about driving. How do you propose we handle the latter? How can any solution a person can come up with not penalize those who shouldn't be restricted?

Awareness -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 5:40:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR I've just picked this up. I have, of course, no idea how accurate it is. Maybe one or more of the gunsters here might have an opinion? "The narrative has been that fully automatic guns have been illegal since 1986 and so gun law changes wouldn't have changed this (I've heard this 20 times today already). If these turn out to be illegal modifications, fine, I get the point. However, if these are Bump Stock or Side Fire or Trigger Crank modifications - all of which are perfectly legal because you still have to pull the trigger (but can pull it 300-700 times a minute because the modification helps you pull the trigger)... I hope we can stop calling these automatic weapons, and stop pretending these have been illegal since 1986. It is legal today to buy a AR style .223 or .308 (confirmed as used in this tragedy) and it is legal to attach a bump stock shown in the video below. Legally, an AR style .223 or .308 with a bump stock is considered a semi automatic rifle. So let's quit acting like this wacko had to be using an illegal automatic weapon. He was more likely using the weapons shown and described below. We are stupid to allow these devices (bump stocks, side fire and trigger cranks). " The specifics aren't important. What is important is this: (I suggest the easily disturbed avoid watching it.) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI0TvX0eDRs Does anybody seriously believe that it is okay for a regulatory environment to exist which allows anyone to get their hands on weapons capable of firing at that speed? Because if you do, then you're the fucking problem. I've written before about the fundamental reality that the desire for gun ownership correlates with a lack of manhood. The bigger the collection of guns, the bigger the pussy who owns them - and this motherfucker was such a coward he killed himself rather than face the music. It's no coincidence he had dozens of weapons. Until this society starts to realise that allowing weak men to collect guns to jack up their lack of manhood IS the problem - this kind of thing will continue. And the firearm manufacturers laugh all the way to the bank.

jlf1961 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 7:08:48 AM)
So I guess the fact that some have guns to actually hunt, deal with various predators and pest species that inhabit the rural region they live in, OR have an interest in their historic value never crossed your fucking mind? Seriously, wild hog eradication is a booming business around here. Yes, I do own two weapons that require special permits from the ATF, but my primary interest is their historic significance (that and they never caught the giant Armadillo that was attacking lone star beer trucks, distributors back in the seventies, and I figure the critter will eventually develop a taste for better alcoholic refreshments.)

tweakabelle -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 8:54:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 So I guess the fact that some have guns to actually hunt, deal with various predators and pest species that inhabit the rural region they live in, OR have an interest in their historic value never crossed your fucking mind? Seriously, wild hog eradication is a booming business around here. Yes, I do own two weapons that require special permits from the ATF, but my primary interest is their historic significance (that and they never caught the giant Armadillo that was attacking lone star beer trucks, distributors back in the seventies, and I figure the critter will eventually develop a taste for better alcoholic refreshments.) Of course there are plenty of perfectly reasonable legitimate reasons why someone might own firearms. For instance, farmers need firearms to control various pests, collecting weapons is a perfectly respectable hobby, hunting is a popular pastime. As far as I know, no one advocates a blanket ban on all weapons for all people. According to The Guardian: "3%: Proportion of people who own half of the country’s guns, according to an unpublished Harvard/Northeastern University survey result summary. Anchoring this group are America’s gun super-owners – an estimated 7.7 million Americans who own between eight and 140 guns." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/us-gun-control-ownership-violence-statistics Collectors aside ( and please remember that collectors don't need their collections to be in full working order, it might be an idea to consider having the firing pins removed from most of the collection), I cannot think of a single reason why a person needs to own up to 140 fully functional firearms. News reports indicate that the Las Vegas murderer is part of this demographic. It seems to me that an awful lot of people are dying to protect and preserve the rights of that 3%.

Nnanji -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 9:04:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyDemura quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech quote: ORIGINAL: LadyDemura Why again are people allowed to own guns like this? Or any guns at all? This shooter was not in the military, if only the well regulated militia clause was enforced, this horrible shooting would not have occurred. There are a few reasons. 1. An armed populace is a last resort against tyranny. 2. Police have no obligation to protect the individual unless a "special relationship" exists. 3. The U.S. is so huge that a police response can be hours away in case of trouble. 4. The Constitution of the U.S. was written by people that not only allowed citizens to keep arms but in that day even required it. Assault rifles are not completely banned but required to be licensed and permitted. The background check for an automatic firearm is as extensive as one for getting a Secret clearance. And a $1200 fee for each and every transfer combined with a 4-10 month wait for permission to transfer makes Class III firearm ownership something only serious collectors do. But, there is a black market for illegal firearms and you can get an illegal machine gun (according to my policeman neighbor) cheaper than you can legally get one. In the big picture, U.S. Citizens who have not had rights curtailed by conviction of a Felony nor been adjudicated by a court as mentally unfit, have a right to keep and bear arms. Note the "citizens", "conviction" and "adjudicated by a court". This is an issue of "due process" and certain states confiscating private arms based on someone swearing out a bond (accusation but no conviction of domestic abuse, etc.) is being tested in courts. The type of arms a private citizen may keep have some limitations and you have to get specific permission and pay a tax for the permit to keep a "NFA Firearm". If it isn't a single shot weapon, auto-loading is fine, of the appropriate barrel length and configuration, it is an NFA firearm and requires specific permission and permitting. Furthermore, no permission or permitting will be forthcoming if there are state or local laws prohibiting the person applying from owning the firearm. On the "bear" portion of the second amendment. There are local laws that specify, for the public safety, where the right to bear arms may be safely invoked. Schools, courts, government buildings are usual places where individual arms are forbidden. In my local jurisdiction, if a business posts a sign at the entrance saying "no firearms" or an ideograph to that effect (circle slash over a handgun is common) it is now a crime to carry a firearm on their premises. I'm probably wasting my efforts illustrating how the U.S. is not the unregulated wild west that totalitarian touting media wants you to believe. But those in foreign countries, California, Chicago, and New York haven't been exposed to the reality of private firearm ownership that the bulk of the U.S. has been. Not entirely, at this point, I'm a bit curious about the 2nd Amendment supporter mindset. Clearly, banning all guns would prevent at least some innocent people from dying, but I do think the framers of the Constitution did put a lot of thought into it, though I don't understand why the well regulated militia part of the 2nd Amendment is totally ignored by the right. It seems like his number of guns would have set off some red flags his CO might have had to address. Why does anyone need more than two? I can get needing a backup in case of jam or something, or even preferring a few different types, but this was not this guys situation. Someone that owns guns needs to have a CO, that can refer them to a psych hospital, if necessary, period. Why is it they don't allow me to drive without proper training, and licensing, insurance, and registration? I tend to think if cars had been invented in the 1700's, driving would have been a constitutional "right" instead of the "privilege" it is now, but most people want to restrict this to people that are responsible. Why is it that restricting gun ownership to those that are responsible is such more of an issue? Gun ownership is restricted. Every gun sold includes a background check on the buyer. Why do women want/need more than two pairs of shoes? Keep in mind that shooter broke a lot of laws. How would more laws mitigate what happened. The Supreme Court commented on the Militia thing, you might be interested in their perspective. As we see in other places, banning guns just moves the bad guys to trucks. I dare say that plowing a large high speed truck through the event, even packed with a fertilizer bomb perhaps, would have done a similar amount of damage.

Nnanji -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 9:07:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 NRA just needs to come out with a brand new policy of how do they make sure guns don't get into the hands of killers like this Las Vegas Dude. They seriously need a solution. Why? The ACLU is an organization the protects 1st Amendment Rights. The NRA is an organization that protects 2nd Amendment rights. Do you think the ACLU should police what people are going to say?

Nnanji -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 9:17:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 So I guess the fact that some have guns to actually hunt, deal with various predators and pest species that inhabit the rural region they live in, OR have an interest in their historic value never crossed your fucking mind? Seriously, wild hog eradication is a booming business around here. Yes, I do own two weapons that require special permits from the ATF, but my primary interest is their historic significance (that and they never caught the giant Armadillo that was attacking lone star beer trucks, distributors back in the seventies, and I figure the critter will eventually develop a taste for better alcoholic refreshments.) Of course there are plenty of perfectly reasonable legitimate reasons why someone might own firearms. For instance, farmers need firearms to control various pests, collecting weapons is a perfectly respectable hobby, hunting is a popular pastime. As far as I know, no one advocates a blanket ban on all weapons for all people. According to The Guardian: "3%: Proportion of people who own half of the country’s guns, according to an unpublished Harvard/Northeastern University survey result summary. Anchoring this group are America’s gun super-owners – an estimated 7.7 million Americans who own between eight and 140 guns." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/us-gun-control-ownership-violence-statistics Collectors aside ( and please remember that collectors don't need their collections to be in full working order, it might be an idea to consider having the firing pins removed from most of the collection), I cannot think of a single reason why a person needs to own up to 140 fully functional firearms. News reports indicate that the Las Vegas murderer is part of this demographic. It seems to me that an awful lot of people are dying to protect and preserve the rights of that 3%. I'm pleased that you believe how many guns I own is important to anyone. May I now come and inventory your stuff and decide what I think you should own?

Greta75 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 9:18:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji Why? The ACLU is an organization the protects 1st Amendment Rights. The NRA is an organization that protects 2nd Amendment rights. Do you think the ACLU should police what people are going to say? Because the second amendment that they are protecting is the cause of this massacre. So they should take some responsibility on making some recommendations on how such things can be prevented since their job is to make sure everyone coexist with guns happily. And also, how is US suppose to protect themselves from Islamic Lone Wolves who is gonna stock pile weapons and plot to kill alot of people when more and more Lone Wolves like this dude is gonna have clean records and be very good at covering their tracks? "The Right to Bear Arms" doesn't specifically say "The Right to Bear any kind or any amount of Arms" right? There could be more control. Maybe even semi-automatic should be ban. PS: You know the situation with Terrorist using Trucks? You know what our country is doing in response? Despite not having our first terrorist car or truck ramming yet. We are putting bollards everywhere now on any potential vehicle ramming area. The point is, something has to be done to prevent the next one!

Nnanji -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 9:23:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji Why? The ACLU is an organization the protects 1st Amendment Rights. The NRA is an organization that protects 2nd Amendment rights. Do you think the ACLU should police what people are going to say? Because the second amendment that they are protecting is the cause of this massacre. So they should take some responsibility on making some recommendations on how such things can be prevented since their job is to make sure everyone coexist with guns happily. And also, how is US suppose to protect themselves from Islamic Lone Wolves who is gonna stock pile weapons and plot to kill alot of people when more and more Lone Wolves like this dude is gonna have clean records and be very good at covering their tracks? "The Right to Bear Arms" doesn't specifically say "The Right to Bear any kind or any amount of Arms" right? There could be more control. Maybe even semi-automatic should be ban. Well, start with the fact that a crazy evil person was the cause of the massacre and not the 2nd Amendment and your arguments fall apart from there. I just saw an article, not going to go find it and link, that Britain is going to start to ban the selling of acid because of all of the acid attacks there. So, why don't we get the big government together and decide what we are entitled to own and let them just control us. Then we'd all be safe wouldn't we. There would never need to be another discussion of rights vs security. And Singapore could even include chewing gum in the list banned from us all. It would be a perfect world.

Greta75 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 9:32:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji that Britain is going to start to ban the selling of acid because of all of the acid attacks there. This is a damn good idea! PS: The chewing gum ban is actually one of the best things our country had the balls to ban as ridiculous as it sounds. This way, public transportation and the streets don't get polluted by people spitting their gum inconsiderately everywhere. It's extremely hard to clean off. And we are obsess with keeping our country clean. And banning gum hurts nobody. Those 50 lives matter alot more than, feeling the need to have like 73 guns like Mr Jov here. Like come on gun owners! Sacrifice a little! Not saying zero guns, but let's stop sale of very powerful guns that could possibly injured 500 people. 1 person. 500 people. And 50 deaths. That is crazy! So far, no bombs even killed that many. It's out of control. Why do people need semi-automatic and plus that stock thingy to make it even more powerful into nearly an automatic? In what practical circumstances does an average American actually need that kind of fire power?

jlf1961 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 9:34:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 So I guess the fact that some have guns to actually hunt, deal with various predators and pest species that inhabit the rural region they live in, OR have an interest in their historic value never crossed your fucking mind? Seriously, wild hog eradication is a booming business around here. Yes, I do own two weapons that require special permits from the ATF, but my primary interest is their historic significance (that and they never caught the giant Armadillo that was attacking lone star beer trucks, distributors back in the seventies, and I figure the critter will eventually develop a taste for better alcoholic refreshments.) Of course there are plenty of perfectly reasonable legitimate reasons why someone might own firearms. For instance, farmers need firearms to control various pests, collecting weapons is a perfectly respectable hobby, hunting is a popular pastime. As far as I know, no one advocates a blanket ban on all weapons for all people. According to The Guardian: "3%: Proportion of people who own half of the country’s guns, according to an unpublished Harvard/Northeastern University survey result summary. Anchoring this group are America’s gun super-owners – an estimated 7.7 million Americans who own between eight and 140 guns." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/us-gun-control-ownership-violence-statistics Collectors aside ( and please remember that collectors don't need their collections to be in full working order, it might be an idea to consider having the firing pins removed from most of the collection), I cannot think of a single reason why a person needs to own up to 140 fully functional firearms. News reports indicate that the Las Vegas murderer is part of this demographic. It seems to me that an awful lot of people are dying to protect and preserve the rights of that 3%. Actually, firearms that are collected for historic value or significance must be in full working order to maintain value. For example, taking the firing pin out of a trapdoor Springfield carbine as used by the 7th cav at little bighorn could cut the value by as much as 50%. Those who collect firearms for historic value often collect other items as well, in order to give the weapon some context. Again using the trap door carbine as an example, along with the rifle, the collector might have an authentic cavalry saber, regimental guide on, pennant, and a flag from the era. A fellow collector in town had display cases constructed out of laminated 2x6 boards with 3/4 inch thick ballistic resistant acrylic panels to allow the guns to be seen but not touched. The cabinet locks require a laser cut key and cost just under 2 grand. However, from reading about this gentleman, he was not a collector in the sense you are using, this guy was hoarding firearms for some personal agenda. As far as one poster who made the statement he was a pussy to take his own life rather than face the music for his crime, considering the cost of keeping an inmate on death row, he saved the tax payers a shit load. Statements about his treatment of his girlfriend indicate a very controlling personality, if not outright emotionally and verbally abusive. He basically seems to have been a power freak, and in some respects, much like his father.

Greta75 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 9:47:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Statements about his treatment of his girlfriend indicate a very controlling personality, if not outright emotionally and verbally abusive. Huh? I have not read anything about his bad treatment of his GF. He gave her 100k to make sure she will be financially okay before he did this massacre. Sent her to Philippines for her safety. And according to the GF Family and the Killer's brother. They all say the same thing that he dotes on his GF ALOT. And really loves her and treats her well.

heavyblinker -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 9:50:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji Why? The ACLU is an organization the protects 1st Amendment Rights. The NRA is an organization that protects 2nd Amendment rights. Do you think the ACLU should police what people are going to say? Because the second amendment that they are protecting is the cause of this massacre. So they should take some responsibility on making some recommendations on how such things can be prevented since their job is to make sure everyone coexist with guns happily. And also, how is US suppose to protect themselves from Islamic Lone Wolves who is gonna stock pile weapons and plot to kill alot of people when more and more Lone Wolves like this dude is gonna have clean records and be very good at covering their tracks? "The Right to Bear Arms" doesn't specifically say "The Right to Bear any kind or any amount of Arms" right? There could be more control. Maybe even semi-automatic should be ban. Well, start with the fact that a crazy evil person was the cause of the massacre and not the 2nd Amendment and your arguments fall apart from there. I just saw an article, not going to go find it and link, that Britain is going to start to ban the selling of acid because of all of the acid attacks there. So, why don't we get the big government together and decide what we are entitled to own and let them just control us. Then we'd all be safe wouldn't we. There would never need to be another discussion of rights vs security. And Singapore could even include chewing gum in the list banned from us all. It would be a perfect world. I only wish we could ban stupidity. Then you wouldn't be able to post anymore.

PeonForHer -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 9:56:57 AM)
quote: As far as one poster who made the statement he was a pussy to take his own life rather than face the music for his crime, considering the cost of keeping an inmate on death row, he saved the tax payers a shit load. He must have also helped make vast wedges of cash for the news media by now, too.

PeonForHer -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 10:04:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji that Britain is going to start to ban the selling of acid because of all of the acid attacks there. This is a damn good idea! ... A ban for those under 18.

PeonForHer -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 10:06:54 AM)
quote: I'm pleased that you believe how many guns I own is important to anyone. Apparently, the fact of large numbers of guns being own by various individuals in the US has become important to quite a lot of people. What point are you making?

heavyblinker -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 10:07:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka FR: I think maybe, in some ways, this man is a physical manifestation of the intentions of the left for the right. And well all know that leftists are atheists, which means they worship Satan... so it is very plausible that Paddock was being manipulated by Marxist Socialist demon telepathy.

Nnanji -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/4/2017 10:11:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji Why? The ACLU is an organization the protects 1st Amendment Rights. The NRA is an organization that protects 2nd Amendment rights. Do you think the ACLU should police what people are going to say? Because the second amendment that they are protecting is the cause of this massacre. So they should take some responsibility on making some recommendations on how such things can be prevented since their job is to make sure everyone coexist with guns happily. And also, how is US suppose to protect themselves from Islamic Lone Wolves who is gonna stock pile weapons and plot to kill alot of people when more and more Lone Wolves like this dude is gonna have clean records and be very good at covering their tracks? "The Right to Bear Arms" doesn't specifically say "The Right to Bear any kind or any amount of Arms" right? There could be more control. Maybe even semi-automatic should be ban. Well, start with the fact that a crazy evil person was the cause of the massacre and not the 2nd Amendment and your arguments fall apart from there. I just saw an article, not going to go find it and link, that Britain is going to start to ban the selling of acid because of all of the acid attacks there. So, why don't we get the big government together and decide what we are entitled to own and let them just control us. Then we'd all be safe wouldn't we. There would never need to be another discussion of rights vs security. And Singapore could even include chewing gum in the list banned from us all. It would be a perfect world. I only wish we could ban stupidity. Then you wouldn't be able to post anymore. Yes, and you could pick and choose who to ban. Then you could show everyone just how smart you are by having all the people left allowed to post agree with you and tell you how smart and pretty you are. Mumsey would be pleased with you then wouldn't she?

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625