USA neo nazi shoots 200 people at open-air music festival in Las Vegas

[Hypoxia]

Can I be Betsy and make a new fag?

Good idea.

"You're a grand old fag
You're a high-flying fag
And forever with pee may you shave"​

(Yeah, you saw what I did there.)

There's this for the upper-left corner:

https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--C4CIEv95--/t_Preview/b_rgb:0f7b47,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1494364806/production/designs/1589958_1.jpg

Should be in gold thread, of course.

White.
Male.
Terrorist.

WMT could be the alt-right's new goto acronym.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

The Mandalay Hotel is gunna be sued for hundreds of millions of dollars for allowing that quantity of armaments through their security systems. The lawyers at least will make a $.

The Mandalay Bay is a hotel, not an airport. There's no hotel TSA that inspect guests luggage. The news reported that the shooter bought all that stuff to his room in multiple trips to minimize suspicion.

Reports have mentioned that the shooter had made multiple big bets. A possible theory for a motive might have to do with gambling debts.

 

[Hypoxia]

The Mandalay Bay is a hotel, not an airport. There's no hotel TSA that inspect guests luggage. The news reported that the shooter bought all that stuff to his room in multiple trips to minimize suspicion.

Mandalay Bay will be sued anyway, and will settle, and will start a wave of doorway metal-detector installations in USA hotels. Or will not settle, but close down. Doesn't matter that their management bears no fault.

 

[coachdb18]

Reports have mentioned that the shooter had made multiple big bets. A possible theory for a motive might have to do with gambling debts.

Latest news reports come from the family, who have attested to his recently having won $40,000 gambling, and he was already a multi-millionaire courtesy of successful real estate deals. He had at least a couple homes, and was a private pilot and owned his own plane... Not much of this is in keeping with the usual ... at all!

 

[MGurkus]

Dont argue with coach binky or he'll burn your house down.

 

[Emerson40]

White.
Male.
Terrorist.

According to gump, this is just not true, because the white guy did not throw anyone of a building, like all Muslims.





I listened to an interview today where a gun-loving 'Merican was attempting to downplay the injuries and death toll caused by bullets.

He was actually trying to explain how the media and opponents of firearms were trying to make this seem worse than it was, because some of the injuries were likely caused by people stampeding to escape, or pushing people down and out of the way. And some of the dead were dead because people stepped on them and killed them. The anti-gun folks were just blowing things way out of proportion...

Jesus wept. Do Americans even pinch their noses when swallowing this foul, bitter bullshit?


That CBS lawyer's comments about gun-toting Republicans was way off base, but the comment she made on her Facebook page, about how Sandy Hook could not even bring about the necessary gun controls and restrictions, was spot on.
If kindergarten children torn apart by bullets being carried out of schools in body bags doesn't cause you to reconsider your love affair with guns, nothing will.


In a short while, this news story will fall below the fold and just become another stat, a commonplace shoot-up thing that barely seems sensational or shocking anymore.
Oooooh, first time an automatic was used... Like this is somehow worse than when multiples of people are killed with just a regular AR-15.
Just another day, in the U S of A.

America sure loves her guns.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Latest news reports come from the family, who have attested to his recently having won $40,000 gambling, and he was already a multi-millionaire courtesy of successful real estate deals. He had at least a couple homes, and was a private pilot and owned his own plane... Not much of this is in keeping with the usual ... at all!

You're wrong on all counts, as usual, coach binky.

I should clarify that the few truths in that were well in his past.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Um you guys jumped on the gun rights bandwagon as if what I said had anything to do with gun rights. However if you want to go down that route, lest we forget that famous right wing legislating from the bench shtick you guys use all the time for liberal or left wing judges when you disagree with them yet manage to completely ignore the upending of centuries long interpretation of the 2nd amendment before Heller. Justice Scalia, legislating from the bench, fundamentally altered the interpretation of the 2nd amendment and now everyone takes it as enshrined constitutional reality that Scalia's interpretation is "originalist". A load of horse hockey.

Frankly what I am sick and tired of is the violence, the rationalization of violence, the acceptance of violence as an every day and even inevitable occurrence. Don't you get tired of it too? Don't you get tired of hearing of these types of events on a regular basis? Schools, movies, concerts, office buildings, parks, public events... a never ending cornucopia of targets. Let's sell more guns and cut back on any type of mental health services, and while we're at it let's make sure we make it as easy as possible to get a gun in America. Maybe that one good guy shooter will save us all. If that is they don't fire into a crowd and miss the target and hit an innocent person.

But please do keep pretending that these acts of mass violence have nothing to do with our permissive gun culture bought and paid for by the NRA. Thank you Antonin Scalia.

I have no problem with gun ownership. Reasonable gun ownership. When we have 112+ guns for every 100 hundred citizens, don't you think we've gone beyond reasonable? We're gun nuts and we put no real meaningful restraints or requirements on guns, purchasing guns or gun ownership. Any fucking yahoo can walk into any gun show in America and come out with something made for only one purpose: killing.

But I know, guns don't kill people. People kill people. They just do it with guns an awful lot. Handguns, shotguns, rifles, semi-automatics and now automatics. Woohoo... bang up job. Literally.

Apparently the right to life and liberty don't much matter at the barrel end of a gun. Hey maybe the next one will shoot up an abortion clinic and the conservatives can get all excited about how both gun rights and their misbegotten interpretation of the right to life were both well represented.

Your over-simplistic "hey it's already illegal" line doesn't cut it.

You can be a real prick sometimes.

Don't you have a video to watch so you can misinterpret its meaning and apply it an a way it isn't meant so you can continue trying to be a condescending know it all?

First off, in response to your original post asking if we (the collective 'we') could not ascertain a problem in light of the number of mass shootings, I merely extended an invitation to parse that "problem" in the context of BOTH gun control and mental healthcare delivery. It was not meant to be accusatory to anything you said. I was just thinking you might have an interesting take on the subject ESPECIALLY if you addressed them both together.

Instead, you came back with a more than frivolous invitation for me to "justify" mass shootings in the context of gun rights and offered the patently absurd suggestion that "apparently gun rights render all other rights void."

And I'm the prick?

And do I get tired of the violence? You're damn right I do. It's exhausting. It's sickening. But not just the mass shooting violence. The violence that sickens me most is what happens seemingly every fucking day in my medium sized city. Drive by shooting, black-on-black violence among people I don't know but grieve for nonetheless. But, hey, at least it's not racially motivated, right? And, NO, that's NOT me asking you the question. It's what both blacks and whites "tolerate" because it's simply not overt racism. And I'll never understand why people of color don't oppose it with the same degree of passion reserved for killings, justified or otherwise, by police officers. It's in their neighborhoods. It affects them most directly and in far greater proportion than any other type of gun violence.

And if you don't like my "[condescending] over-simplistic" of what is or isn't "already illegal" then I would caution you not to raise legal issues you don't understand or characterize cases like Heller and Justice Scalia's majority opinion in that case as "upending of centuries long interpretation of the 2nd amendment." That is a characterization that is not just grossly simplistic and condescending in itself, but fundamentally, flat ass wrong and has NOT ONE Supreme Court case precedent prior to United States v. Miller (1939) that supports the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms is merely a collective right inexorably linked to the existence of an organized, federally empowered, citizen-comprised militia.

Don't believe me? Go back and read the DISSENTING OPINIONS in Heller and see if you can find one. Because if there were any you can be certain Justices Stevens and Breyer would have bludgeoned the Scalia majority with them.

So all you (and they) have is Miller and whatever 20th century derivative precedents you could cite. Still want to hold to a multiple centuries of "upending" or are you amenable to scaling it back to the mere 69 years between it and the 2008 holding in Heller? Not to mention the fallacious reading of Miller that the Heller dissenters applied. Hopefully, you are already familiar with Scalia's critique of it:

And what is, according to Justice Stevens, the holding of Miller that demands such obeisance? That the Second Amendment “protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons.”

Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of Justice Stevens’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for … military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-barreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,” the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right.

This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”). Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen. Justice Stevens can say again and again that Miller did “not turn on the difference between muskets and sawed-off shotguns, it turned, rather, on the basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use and possession of guns,” post, at 42–43, but the words of the opinion prove otherwise. The most Justice Stevens can plausibly claim for Miller is that it declined to decide the nature of the Second Amendment right, despite the Solicitor General’s argument (made in the alternative) that the right was collective, see Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, No. 696, pp. 4–5. Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Scalia is most certainly correct, because the diametrically opposed context of...:

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-barreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument”

...is most certainly..:

"In the presence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [any firearm] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we can say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

And that opens a can of worms you don't wish to open. Because it extends Constitutional protection to the private ownership of the very military hardware good folks like you and common sense compels "pricks" like me (and even Scalia) to agree to control and prohibit.

And don't give me the claptrap about the federalization of the militia into the National Guard under the 1903 Dick Act undercutting the scope of the Second Amendment. Had that been the case, the Supreme Court would have said exactly that in Miller only 36 years later, and it did no such thing.

But, yeah, I'm a condescending prick. Because when those who don't have the slightest understanding of Constitutional law condescend to dismiss someone else's meticulously detailed citing of it without the slightest effort to respond with similar contravening detail, I get "prickly."

At least the most contentious of Supreme Court justices aren't guilty of that.






Oh, and my point, in case you missed it, was that Miller "upended" well-over 100 years of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[adrina]

First off, in response to your original post asking if we (the collective 'we') could not ascertain a problem in light of the number of mass shootings, I merely extended an invitation to parse that "problem" in the context of BOTH gun control and mental healthcare delivery. It was not meant to be accusatory to anything you said. I was just thinking you might have an interesting take on the subject ESPECIALLY if you addressed them both together.

Instead, you came back with a more than frivolous invitation for me to "justify" mass shootings in the context of gun rights and offered the patently absurd suggestion that "apparently gun rights render all other rights void."

And I'm the prick?

And do I get tired of the violence? You're damn right I do. It's exhausting. It's sickening. But not just the mass shooting violence. The violence that sickens me most is what happens seemingly every fucking day in my medium sized city. Drive by shooting, black-on-black violence among people I don't know but grieve for nonetheless. But, hey, at least it's not racially motivated, right? And, NO, that's NOT me asking you the question. It's what both blacks and whites "tolerate" because it's simply not overt racism. And I'll never understand why people of color don't oppose it with the same degree of passion reserved for killings, justified or otherwise, by police officers. It's in their neighborhoods. It affects them most directly and in far greater proportion than any other type of gun violence.

And if you don't like my "[condescending] over-simplistic" of what is or isn't "already illegal" then I would caution you not to raise legal issues you don't understand or characterize cases like Heller and Justice Scalia's majority opinion in that case as "upending of centuries long interpretation of the 2nd amendment." That is a characterization that is not just grossly simplistic and condescending in itself, but fundamentally, flat ass wrong and has NOT ONE Supreme Court case precedent prior to United States v. Miller (1939) that supports the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms is merely a collective right inexorably linked to the existence of an organized, federally empowered, citizen-comprised militia.

Don't believe me? Go back and read the DISSENTING OPINIONS in Heller and see if you can find one. Because if there were any you can be certain Justices Stevens and Breyer would have bludgeoned the Scalia majority with them.

So all you (and they) have is Miller and whatever 20th century derivative precedents you could cite. Still want to hold to a multiple centuries of "upending" or are you amenable to scaling it back to the mere 69 years between it and the 2008 holding in Heller? Not to mention the fallacious reading of Miller that the Heller dissenters applied. Hopefully, you are already familiar with Scalia's critique of it:



Scalia is most certainly correct, because the diametrically opposed context of...:



...is most certainly..:



And that opens a can of worms you don't wish to open. Because it extends Constitutional protection to the private ownership of the very military hardware good folks like you and common sense compels "pricks" like me (and even Scalia) to agree to control and prohibit.

And don't give me the claptrap about the federalization of the militia into the National Guard under the 1903 Dick Act undercut the scope of the Second Amendment. Had that been the case, the Supreme Court would have said exactly that in Miller only 36 years later, and it did no such thing.

But, yeah, I'm a condescending prick. Because when those who don't have the slightest understanding of Constitutional law condescend to dismiss someone else's meticulously detailed citing of it without the slightest effort to respond with similar contravening detail, I get "prickly."

At least the most contentious of Supreme Court justices aren't guilty of that.

No what you gave was your usual smarmy flippant bullshit. If that was a genuine and serious inquiry you need to work on your delivery. I gave you the answer that your condescending smartassery deserved.

As for the rest, I'm really not in the mood to argue. Yes you know more about the legalese world than I do but you don't know more than the legal minds that actually do think think Heller applied a new interpretation to the 2nd amendment than what had been applied prior to it.

You can take it up with them.

Nice racist touch in there too.

One post, two eye rolls.

And yes. You are a prick.

 

[coachdb18]

First off, in response to your original post asking if we (the collective 'we') could not ascertain a problem in light of the number of mass shootings, I merely extended an invitation to parse that "problem" in the context of BOTH gun control and mental healthcare delivery. It was not meant to be accusatory to anything you said. I was just thinking you might have an interesting take on the subject ESPECIALLY if you addressed them both together.

Instead, you came back with a more than frivolous invitation for me to "justify" mass shootings in the context of gun rights and offered the patently absurd suggestion that "apparently gun rights render all other rights void."

And I'm the prick?

And do I get tired of the violence? You're damn right I do. It's exhausting. It's sickening. But not just the mass shooting violence. The violence that sickens me most is what happens seemingly every fucking day in my medium sized city. Drive by shooting, black-on-black violence among people I don't know but grieve for nonetheless. But, hey, at least it's not racially motivated, right? And, NO, that's NOT me asking you the question. It's what both blacks and whites "tolerate" because it's simply not overt racism. And I'll never understand why people of color don't oppose it with the same degree of passion reserved for killings, justified or otherwise, by police officers. It's in their neighborhoods. It affects them most directly and in far greater proportion than any other type of gun violence.

And if you don't like my "[condescending] over-simplistic" of what is or isn't "already illegal" then I would caution you not to raise legal issues you don't understand or characterize cases like Heller and Justice Scalia's majority opinion in that case as "upending of centuries long interpretation of the 2nd amendment." That is a characterization that is not just grossly simplistic and condescending in itself, but fundamentally, flat ass wrong and has NOT ONE Supreme Court case precedent prior to United States v. Miller (1939) that supports the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms is merely a collective right inexorably linked to the existence of an organized, federally empowered, citizen-comprised militia.

Don't believe me? Go back and read the DISSENTING OPINIONS in Heller and see if you can find one. Because if there were any you can be certain Justices Stevens and Breyer would have bludgeoned the Scalia majority with them.

So all you (and they) have is Miller and whatever 20th century derivative precedents you could cite. Still want to hold to a multiple centuries of "upending" or are you amenable to scaling it back to the mere 69 years between it and the 2008 holding in Heller? Not to mention the fallacious reading of Miller that the Heller dissenters applied. Hopefully, you are already familiar with Scalia's critique of it:



Scalia is most certainly correct, because the diametrically opposed context of...:



...is most certainly..:



And that opens a can of worms you don't wish to open. Because it extends Constitutional protection to the private ownership of the very military hardware good folks like you and common sense compels "pricks" like me (and even Scalia) to agree to control and prohibit.

And don't give me the claptrap about the federalization of the militia into the National Guard under the 1903 Dick Act undercutting the scope of the Second Amendment. Had that been the case, the Supreme Court would have said exactly that in Miller only 36 years later, and it did no such thing.

But, yeah, I'm a condescending prick. Because when those who don't have the slightest understanding of Constitutional law condescend to dismiss someone else's meticulously detailed citing of it without the slightest effort to respond with similar contravening detail, I get "prickly."

At least the most contentious of Supreme Court justices aren't guilty of that.






Oh, and my point, in case you missed it, was that Miller "upended" well-over 100 years of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence.

You just HAD to go and hurt her little feelings, didn't cha?

 

[adrina]

You just HAD to go and hurt her little feelings, didn't cha?

You RWCJ men are really quite charming and lovely. Especially when you don't talk politics. Perhaps you'll grace us next with not talking religion.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Somewhere in the deepest bowels of Hell, in the VIP suite of the Hitler Hotel, Supreme Court "Justice" Antonin "Nino" Scalia is chuckling.

An "Army Of One" indeed........

 

[jaF0]

Somewhere in the deepest...

Somewhere in America
The news is about to break
Nothing can prepare you for
The toll it's gonna take.
Nothing ever changes
But the dates and the places.

Somewhere in America
The news is about to break

-The Alternate Routes

 

[irksomesauce]

Perhaps...

Or "perhaps", instead of a being a total fake, you should man-up and drop your...

And do I get tired of the violence? You're damn right I do. It's exhausting. It's sickening.

...spiel as you continue to champion the "right" of murderous moms to VIOLENTLY, TORTUOUSLY and INTENTIONALLY kill their own innocent babies simply for convenience.

 

[adrina]

http://amarudontv.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/broken-record-765056.jpg

 

[butters]

23 guns found in the hotel room, a further 19 in his house

 

[irksomesauce]

And do I get tired of the violence? You're damn right I do. It's exhausting. It's sickening.

C'mon, baby killer: keep pseudo-righteously self-pimping how much "violence" makes you sick...

[Material prohibited per our forum guidelines.] - Last Warning

 

[phrodeau]

Reported.

 

[irksomesauce]

[Material prohibited per our forum guidelines.] - Last Warning

 

[lickitandstickit]

https://youtu.be/4gjjkcVIoys

 

[adrina]

No it's much better to tear people apart when they can fully feel it and have lives and families and everything to lose. It's much better to rend them limb from limb on a battle field for a war with an invented cause by bureaucrats and capitalists to exploit another country for their resources. It's much better to starve them into submission.

Spare me your holier than thou platitudes just because you can't deal with the realities of abortion. Repetitive coward.

 

[Fala]

How many more than >2,500 a day...

http://www.abortionno.org/wp-content/gallery/abortion-pictures/09w10w03_medium.jpg
Dismembered body parts from intentionally and tortuously killed 9 and 10 week old human lives

...do you have to champion until you realize you have a baby killing problem?

Why are you posting these grotesque images on this board rather than spending this time handing out condoms on your towns red-light district corners?

You are no more than a do-nothing activist. Sitting on your fat ass posting on a message board and believing that you are changing the world.

When I don't see you for several days at a time....I might start believing in you.

 

[adrina]

Why are you posting these grotesque images on this board rather than spending this time handing out condoms on your towns red-light district corners?

You are no more than a do-nothing activist. Sitting on your fat ass posting on a message board and believing that you are changing the world.

When I don't see you for several days at a time....I might start believing in you.

Going for shock value. That's all the anti-choice people have. We know they aren't pro-life.

 

[ToucheAmore]

she's just making me hungry for bbq ribs

 

[Ishmael]

No it's much better to tear people apart when they can fully feel it and have lives and families and everything to lose. It's much better to rend them limb from limb on a battle field for a war with an invented cause by bureaucrats and capitalists to exploit another country for their resources. It's much better to starve them into submission.

Spare me your holier than thou platitudes just because you can't deal with the realities of abortion. Repetitive coward.

It's truly difficult for me to think of anyone so filled with beliefs and so devoid of thought such as yourself.

Ishmael