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

Greta75 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 4:43:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 can you please answer my questions. Bounty, throughout this entire topic, I have list out countless solutions already of my ideas. But the point here is, I think the right needs to be the one coming up with the solution. Infact, I have said, NRA needs to be the one coming up with the solutions. Because it needs to come from gun owners. They can keep their guns, but they need a better plan than what they have now. And I was saying that, the conclusion of gun owners, even those who family got killed, are all saying this is okay, the current regulation is good enough. This couldn't be prevented in any possible way. That is not true. Take for example currently, alot of attention is looking at bump stocks now. Why is that legal? They cannot genuinely from the bottom of their heart say that the current laws are okay. It's not okay. And high chances are, I see bump stocks going illegal soon.

bounty44 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 4:44:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Only a fool takes martial arts to a gun fight. So the 95 pound woman with martial arts skills will defeat a 250 pound man with martial arts skill. Possibly. If she is better. I've seen 130lbs skinny men take down 250lbs men in martial arts. They run circles around the bigger guy and tire him out first. greta, I have some expertise in a particular combat sport. if you are seeing 130lb women defeat 250lb men in martial arts, something is not kosher. as they don't compete with each other, whatever you saw was somehow for show.

Greta75 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 4:46:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 greta, I have some expertise in a particular combat sport. if you are seeing 130lb women defeat 250lb men in martial arts, something is not kosher. as they don't compete with each other, whatever you saw was somehow for show. Over here in schools, we have open weight competitions. So I have seen it in official school competitions. In open weight competitions, a very tiny guy can be up against a very big guy. And trust me, it was not friendly at all. After the big guy lost, he got seriously pissed off and lifted the scrawny guy off notice and slam him on the mat, while the scrawny dude was celebrating his victory. Which was very sore-loser, but the big guy felt humiliated to be defeated.

bounty44 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 4:48:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 can you please answer my questions. Bounty, throughout this entire topic, I have list out countless solutions already of my ideas. But the point here is, I think the right needs to be the one coming up with the solution. Infact, I have said, NRA needs to be the one coming up with the solutions. Because it needs to come from gun owners. They can keep their guns, but they need a better plan than what they have now. And I was saying that, the conclusion of gun owners, even those who family got killed, are all saying this is okay, the current regulation is good enough. This couldn't be prevented in any possible way. That is not true. Take for example currently, alot of attention is looking at bump stocks now. Why is that legal? They cannot genuinely from the bottom of their heart say that the current laws are okay. It's not okay. And high chances are, I see bump stocks going illegal soon. okay, but im not going to go back and read through 27 pages of posts to find them. so please--are you referring to republicans in congress, and if so what would you have them do that would have prevented this event?

Greta75 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 4:51:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 okay, but im not going to go back and read through 27 pages of posts to find them. so please--are you referring to republicans in congress, and if so what would you have them do that would have prevented this event? As I said, guns are already restricted. In this very specific case, this man pass all the back ground checks and had no criminal records. So the real problem is the access of the type of guns he can have. So they will have to do a survey, which I have said, to look at what are the popular type of guns used that have protected people from crimes. And also, limit semi-automatic rifles to hunting grounds only. Fully automatic is already difficult get hold of, which is why this dude couldn't buy a fully automatic, which is good. There is alot of things they could do. That does not trespass the second amendment. I believe whatever the right comes up with, the left would be very happy to instill even any stricter gun control.

bounty44 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 4:55:14 PM)
I know there are such things as open competitions that are irrespective of weight differences but those are rare things and ive never seen/heard of one where women compete against men. skill differences matter greatly but so does weight and strength. a highly skilled person can beat a heavier, stronger, less skilled person---up until a certain point where the latter will generally win out.

Greta75 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 4:56:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 I know there are such things as open competitions that are irrespective of weight differences but those are rare things and ive never seen/heard of one where women compete against men. skill differences matter greatly but so does weight and strength. a highly skilled person can beat a heavier, stronger, less skilled person---up until a certain point where the latter will generally win out. Well, open weight competitions are popular in Asia because Asian men and women are usually tiny. And alot of tiny likes to defeat big people. I've definitely seen also women category a pint size 90lbs woman, who is just 4'11, take down a 6ft BBW. But the strategy seem to be to attack back of knees. And run around alot to tire out the big person. In terms of open gender competition, no we don't have that, as there are molestation laws which make things sticky. But I was talking about a small male versus a big male. And this male is as slim and tiny as a woman.

JVoV -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 4:59:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul Greta, do you understand what the word "infringe" means? I think that you are missing the point because of it. Infringe means to limit, to restrict. So replace the word "infringe" with "restrict". The right to beat arms shall not be restricted. The right to bear arms shall not be limited. Now do you see what they are trying to tell you? Infringed literally means, that, they should not stop people from carrying arms. That's what the "infringed" part mean to me. It doesn't say, there cannot be some restrictions. As long as the over-all philosophy of being allowed access to some arms still exist. The second amendment is not broken. And as I was saying that, IF infringed means what you think it means, the supreme court couldn't possibly actually already have some current restrictions. The only way for them to do that, is because the word "infringed" doesn't mean what you think it mean. The strongest language used in any Amendments was in the first and second. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Again, Congress shall make no law. Shall not be infringed. These are strong words in the Bill of Rights, and easily interpreted. Congress does not have the power to "reasonably" limit freedom of speech. Nor does it have the Constitutional authority to decide what's reasonable in terms of guns.

bounty44 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 5:00:59 PM)
if there "a lot of things they could do" why aren't you telling me one that is do-able? congress doesn't do "surveys" or academic research and you cannot limit rifles to "hunting grounds only." so again, what would have the republicans in congress do that would have prevented this event?

JVoV -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 5:03:46 PM)
The NRA announced today that it would support tighter restrictions on bump stocks. Happy, Greta? Now find a Republican willing and able to get a bill passed.

bounty44 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 5:05:28 PM)
athletic differences between genders are not commensurate. a top level female is on par with a top level adolescent boy--both of which are far below a grown man. one of the unfortunate things in so many of the "girl power" movies is showing women fighting with men of supposedly relatively equal skill, and holding their own. the fight scene in mr and mrs smith comes to mind, as do the ones in total recall. it wouldn't happen in real life.

bounty44 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 5:07:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Again, Congress shall make no law. Shall not be infringed. These are strong words in the Bill of Rights, and easily interpreted. Congress does not have the power to "reasonably" limit freedom of speech. Nor does it have the Constitutional authority to decide what's reasonable in terms of guns. I doubt i'll be able to find it given my internet limitations, but bill whittle, of pjtv fame, did an excellent video on that some years ago.

BamaD -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 5:07:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 can you please answer my questions. Bounty, throughout this entire topic, I have list out countless solutions already of my ideas. But the point here is, I think the right needs to be the one coming up with the solution. Infact, I have said, NRA needs to be the one coming up with the solutions. Because it needs to come from gun owners. They can keep their guns, but they need a better plan than what they have now. And I was saying that, the conclusion of gun owners, even those who family got killed, are all saying this is okay, the current regulation is good enough. This couldn't be prevented in any possible way. That is not true. Take for example currently, alot of attention is looking at bump stocks now. Why is that legal? They cannot genuinely from the bottom of their heart say that the current laws are okay. It's not okay. And high chances are, I see bump stocks going illegal soon. okay, but im not going to go back and read through 27 pages of posts to find them. so please--are you referring to republicans in congress, and if so what would you have them do that would have prevented this event? Obama and ATF said they were harmless dodads so they were not outlawed. This happened twice so you have to blame the left for their legality/

Greta75 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 5:07:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV The strongest language used in any Amendments was in the first and second. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Again, Congress shall make no law. Shall not be infringed. These are strong words in the Bill of Rights, and easily interpreted. Congress does not have the power to "reasonably" limit freedom of speech. Nor does it have the Constitutional authority to decide what's reasonable in terms of guns. You can post all these stuffs all you want but clearly there are restrictions in place somehow. And for them to be in place, it has to meet and satisfy the definition of the amendment. And it has to be implemented in a way where it cannot trespass the amendment. And thank gawd for restrictions to fully automatic weapons, or else perhaps this las vegas shooting will be worst. As it has just shown us how even modifying close to automatic speed can do so much damage by one person. In just 11 minutes. 500 people wounded. This is NOT okay. If you think it's okay, that is your prerogative. But I hope your supreme court or congress will see that this is not okay and they need a solution.

Greta75 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 5:11:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Obama and ATF said they were harmless dodads so they were not outlawed. This happened twice so you have to blame the left for their legality/ Yes IF Obama and his left team somewhat was responsible for not outlawing bump stocks, yes we should blame them for it!

bounty44 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 5:11:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 This is NOT okay. If you think it's okay, that is prerogative. But I hope your supreme court or congress will see that this is not okay and they need a solution. greta, youre getting kinda maddening---with the possible exceptions of the lefties who think its okay to kill conservatives, NO ONE thinks this is okay. not being able to "fix" things doesn't mean you are okay with them. I understand nuances in English might be a challenge for you, but youre way off base with this one.

BamaD -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 5:11:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 okay, but im not going to go back and read through 27 pages of posts to find them. so please--are you referring to republicans in congress, and if so what would you have them do that would have prevented this event? As I said, guns are already restricted. In this very specific case, this man pass all the back ground checks and had no criminal records. So the real problem is the access of the type of guns he can have. So they will have to do a survey, which I have said, to look at what are the popular type of guns used that have protected people from crimes. And also, limit semi-automatic rifles to hunting grounds only. Fully automatic is already difficult get hold of, which is why this dude couldn't buy a fully automatic, which is good. There is alot of things they could do. That does not trespass the second amendment. I believe whatever the right comes up with, the left would be very happy to instill even any stricter gun control. As I have already pointed out all kinds of weapons are used for self defense, even the much-maligned AR-15. So your plan goes down the tubes.

Greta75 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 5:13:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 not being able to "fix" things doesn't mean you are okay with them. I understand nuances in English might be a challenge for you, but youre way off base with this one. Anything can be fixed. It's whether they have the desire to fix it or not. We are not asking pigs to fly here. What happened to thinking out of the box? Why is it when it comes the gun issue, the right acts so defeated and bow down their heads to say that, they can't fix it, there is nothing they can do. Those people died, and it will happen again and again. That's what they are saying. And in defeat, there is nothing they can do to stop it. To me, the easy access to guns, means Islamic lone wolves will be inspired by this events and possibly more will come. And they will feel emboldened, because the right feels like there is nothing they can do IF someone pass all the background checks. Now they know how to do this successfully and get better at keeping clean records. It's like, by not increasing defense and keeping the same defense. Giving the Terrorists a loophole to commit their terrorist act. Because they know they can do this over and over again. And nothing will be done. Don't forget, their aim is to kill themselves at the end of it anyway and take their reward in heaven after taking alot of lives. The whole philosophy is, take alot of life by any means necessary, and then head to heaven for their reward.

jlf1961 -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 5:13:26 PM)
Let me ask everyone pro and anti gun a simple question, a very simple question: If it is not mandatory for any court, corrections or law enforcement agency to update information to NCIC (National Crime Information Center) which would then update the information on the NCIS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) by any other than Federal agencies, how in the hell is any existing or new law going to work, except for an out right ban of all firearms? Understanding of course, that information would include anyone that cannot legally purchase a firearm under the following regulations: Those who have been convicted of violent or gun-related misdemeanors. Those with a history of abusing alcohol or drugs. Those convicted of juvenile offenses. Additional people who have suffered from severe mental illness. Now for the arguments against the last prohibited class per ACLU and Dem lawmakers: The only way that individuals who have suffered from severe mental illness could get on the list, unless committed by a state judge or magistrate is if the Institution, clinic or doctor treating these individuals reported the conditions to the authorities, which is a violation of patient-doctor confidentiality. So, to put it rather bluntly, a person committed for a 72 hour observational hold either voluntarily or by order of their doctor would not show up, period, even if that person did so voluntarily because they felt they were a danger to themselves or others or the doctor felt they were a danger to themselves or others. While everyone can agree, meaning lawmakers and anti gun people, that the fourth class of prohibited persons is a good reason for them not to be allowed to have guns, to make it mandatory for any institution or doctor treating them for the condition is a violation of their rights. Which to me sounds like the following: John Batshit Crazy Doe has a mental condition that manifests itself in violent rages and out bursts, so he should not be able to buy a gun, but lets not make his doctors or where ever he is treated for this condition report it to keep him from buying a gun. But as soon as he buys a gun and shoots one or a dozen or more people start screaming about how he should not have been able to buy a gun and the only sure fire way for him not to buy a gun is to pass more fucked up unenforceable laws or ban guns completely. But there is another even greater solution, have a licensed clinical psychologist employed by retailers of firearms in every one of their locations so they can administer a psyche profile test on each and every gun purchaser and then they can make the determination if they fall into prohibited class 4. While Obama's rule was alleged to have dealt with this, the rule unfairly targeted anyone and everyone that has any kind of mental or emotional problem that might not disqualify them under rule four.

WhoreMods -> RE: Las Vegas shooting unfolding now (10/5/2017 5:14:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 If a deer is wounded, would it still be able to run so fast that you can't catch up with the deer to make the second shot? With a normal gun that doesn't load as fast? I would think it would immediately go down. And as you said, "crawl off". Which is in slow motion. No, Greta. It honestly doesn't work that way. When deer are wounded, they run to the best of their ability, meaning even up to top speed. You're talking about a scared, wounded animal that by instinct is running for it's life. You want to put the animal down, rather than let it suffer. I've hit a deer with a car going 60 MPH. The deer ran away after the impact. I have no idea if it died from it's injuries or not. I also wanted to add something about your comment about how it's not sportsmanship to use more than one bullet. That's nice and all, but you are conveniently forgetting that hunting isn't just sport for some people. There are still people in this country that hunt to eat/supplement their food budget. They depend on the meat from hunting to feed their families. If it takes two shots to put the deer down, it's better to do it. It's interesting that, other than jlfs hog hunting, the only thing talked (argued?) about has been the needs for hunting deer. There are many other game animals, and many other types of guns needed/wanted for hunting them, from a .22 for plinking at varmints and pests up to heavy guns for hunting or protection from game like bear and moose. And there is also the variations in shotgun size and ability whether you're hunting doves or geese and turkeys. An avid hunter will often hunt all of those and more, and will need/want a variety of firearms for hunting them. And don't get me started on what's needed to hunt bigfoot! (yes, that last one is said in jest) I think hunting bigfoot requires a '70s safari suit jacket (Lee Majors), a seersucker shirt (Arthur C Clarke) or a turtleneck sweater and a goatee (Leonard Nimoy) rather than a gun.

Page: << < prev 25 26 [27] 28 29 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625