Las Vegas shooting

Full auto is not optimal near sniper distances. One can fire semi-auto rather quickly and waste fewer rounds. Just be glad he hadn't an RPG launcher.

Yes, it's time for the firearms debate. No, it won't settle anything. USA is saturated with personal weapons and they're not going away. 3D printer can churn out unregulated guns and pistols. Newer uncontrollable lethal technologies are coming. We're fucked.

I was going to poo-poo your dire prediction and then wondered what might happen if enrichment of uranium or plutonium should become a desk-top application. Hmmmm. Maybe not.
 
Full auto is not optimal near sniper distances. One can fire semi-auto rather quickly and waste fewer rounds. Just be glad he hadn't an RPG launcher.

Yes, it's time for the firearms debate. No, it won't settle anything. USA is saturated with personal weapons and they're not going away. 3D printer can churn out unregulated guns and pistols. Newer uncontrollable lethal technologies are coming. We're fucked.

If America didn't give a fuck about twenty six year old kids being massacred, they won''t give a fuck about anything.
 
I mentioned before, Jefferson among other people, thought the constitution should be rewritten every so often ( time table debatable ) because what was necessary for politics and society for one generation may not apply for the next.

Americans often point out the constitution, but some of the key contributors of it implied that in time it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.

:D

So what's stopping anyone from rewritting it?

All today's socialists/progressives/Democrats have to do is DEMAND the Constitution be "rewritten" to suit their modern political ideology, and what better justification to begin rewriting it than to add all the current socialist "gun control" hysteria and make the obviously totally-unnecessary-in-this-day-and-age Amendment II moot?

I understand Dems once sketched God out of their Party platform (and then plastically reinserted Him once they started feeling the backlash), just as I understand the overwhelming majority of socialists favor the intentional killing of innocent human life (all the way to the baby's birthday, and some even well after that, yet don't yet dare to honestly spring that inhumanity on the American people at large)...

...so, why not take total emotional/hysterical advantage of last night's killspree and base the Democratic Party's main thrust to politically retake America next year on getting rid of Amendment II first, which could also greatly serve as a prelude to totally rewriting the Constitution to democratic ideals (instead of its current republican form of government mandate), thus surely sealing Democrats' retaking the White House in 2020?

What's wrong with that? Isn't that how "democracy" is supposed to work? Why don't socialists/progressives/Democrats simply try being honest with the American people about how they insist the Constitution be "rewritten"...

...huh?
 
I bet a large percentage of those mowed down were gun owning gun rights freaks.

Mah 2nd Amendment Rahts!!!

Which apparently you and yours are all excited about.

Full auto is not optimal near sniper distances.

Depends on what your objective is, numerous conditions make it superior.

One can fire semi-auto rather quickly and waste fewer rounds. Just be glad he hadn't an RPG launcher.

And place them more accurately, which means fuck all if you don't have a specific target.

And RPG launchers don't do much without RPG's.
 
Let's blow your head off, or paralyze you with a bullet in the spine or get your dick shot off and see if you feel the same way.

Feelings are irrelevant.

giphy.gif
 
Everyone knows the Constitution was written at a time when that made sense. It still doesn't make it a human right.

And surely if that was the case, he would have done the thing that killed more people. I love in a country where guns are pretty much illegal. Trust me, we don't have a high incidence of nutjobs poisoning water supplies. That argument might seem logical in theory, but it's not backed up by fact.

It makes sense now.

I don't agree with eeyore or anyone calling you names, just so you know. They don't represent my viewpoint in any way, shape, or form.

That said, the 2nd amendment is the ultimate check on government intrusion and violation of civil liberties, and ideally it means we SHOULD be able to reduce the defense budget considerably (in a perfect world). The problem is that the government defense budget is bloated, and we don't stand up to those that benefit from that bloated budget.

If you live in a country with no terrorist attacks, and no violent extremists, you should feel lucky. If you trust your government, you should feel lucky. If you don't feel that you need to defend yourself against crime and criminals, you should feel lucky.
 
I don't know why this has turned into a gun control debate.

I don't know why people with heads screwed-on properly on shoulders are replying to gun control BS.


When one wants to send a message, they'll find a way. A homemade bomb would have taken thousands instead of 58...


I find the facts disturbing here, and do not add up.


I would like law enforcement to obtain access to this person's medical file, and see if he was dying of some ilness.

I also want his relationship investigated.

I want the cameras carefully scrutinized into who went in and out of that floor, staircase doors, etc.


Something does not add up here.
 
If America didn't give a fuck about twenty six year old kids being massacred, they won''t give a fuck about anything.

Unfortunately you are correct. And it we get to the point we do care, the NRA and their bought and paid for politicians will just throw out a red meat diversion to make it go away.
 
America cares more than any other society on this planet.

And as such, America will keep it's guns.


If snowflake retards aren't able to click on why, it is not the rest of us's problem.
 
This has certainly gotten fewer posts than numerous other crime-y threads I can recall. I wonder why, he asked knowing the answer.
 
Denny

This has certainly gotten fewer posts than numerous other crime-y threads I can recall. I wonder why, he asked knowing the answer.
It's not the quantity of posts it's the quality.

Sadly, like most threads, it's just another bitchfest about the why's and whynots of owning guns.
 
I have. And I was carrying a sub machine gun at the time. Strangely, it didn't dissuade the fucker.

I'm sure you instantly threw the dangerous thing away as soon as you started taking fire right?

Because guns are dangerous and you would never want one to shoot back with if you were being shot at right? :confused:

Fuckin' moron....
 
Yea.. If we believe his story: He got shot at, and all while holding one himself too, which didn't deter, so: Ban guns!

C'mon Botany Boy that's so logical & enlightened.


And he's lying, btw.
 
It's not the quantity of posts it's the quality.

Sadly, like most threads, it's just another bitchfest about the why's and whynots of owning guns.


Imagine that. Reminds me of the Ebola epidemic and all the ensuing threads about contagious disease.
 
Do you live in a country with an unarmed police force? If not, I wonder why they choose to be armed?

Pretty much. They routinely carry pepper spray and tasers (and that's only recent, after a fair bit of debate). Some vehicles have a gun in a lock box.
 
Lets take the Constitution out of the argument for a moment. What makes you think it is not a human right to own a firearm that is used for all legal uses?

I think you misunderstand the concept of human rights. Something isn't a human right just because it's legal. The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights is pretty much the go-to document in this respect.
 
How would you have told this woman to prevent violence against her and her kids if she didn't own a firearm when confronted by a man who broke in to her house with a crowbar?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/georgia-mom-shoots-home-intruder-face-article-1.1234400

Somewhere between 77 and 141 minors were killed by accidental gun shots in 2015. (Sorry, too hard to link to citation on phone but figure isn't hard to Google.)
I'm sure you can see my point.
 
I think you misunderstand the concept of human rights. Something isn't a human right just because it's legal. The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights is pretty much the go-to document in this respect.

The UN is pretty much full of shit.

Ishmael
 
...the 2nd amendment is the ultimate check on government intrusion and violation of civil liberties...
Personal firearms vs military weaponry and organization -- who wins?

Um, y'know the gov't has a large inventory of deadly resources, right?

Moral of the story: Don't bring a knife to an artillery saturation volley.

Put it another way: Pissant personal weapons won't do much to slow down a military intent on neutralizing insurgents. And a bothersome insurgency finds its its territory devastated, its women and children abducted, abused, and killed. Ask the Chechens and Sioux and Boers. (Study why the Brits invented concentration camps.)

'Patriots' gonna bring down a shitstorm. And the counter-insurgency won't be delicate. 'Patriot' fires at troops. Airstrikes obliterate patriot's family and town. That's what 2nd-Amendment fetishists can look forward to.
 
I think you misunderstand the concept of human rights. Something isn't a human right just because it's legal. The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights is pretty much the go-to document in this respect.

I think you misunderstand US Constitutional rights and the Constitution totally not giving a single fuck about the U.N. or it's bullshit that has no authority of any kind to do much of shit.
 
Back
Top