Las Vegas shooting

[butters]

Why do we try to limit countries with nukes? If guns don't kill people then neither do nukes.

Do you think a person with a knife would be able to murder 59 people and wound over 500?

Ffs, stop being obtuse.

exactly

 

[richard_daily]

exactly

Ask Tim McVeigh. He used something a lot more deadly than a gun, and we're unfortunate that Mcveigh didn't choose to use the more ineffective method of killing that the guy in Las Vegas did.

 

[richard_daily]

What about smart phones? They oppose those. They have fought bitterly for years against any legislation or regulation on guns.

What about their despicable rhetoric? They spent 8 years saying that Obama was going to come for members guns despite that not being the case and now is using hyperbole to defend themselves from liberal violence?

Personally, I think your reaction is the knee-jerk one.

As I said, I don't like the NRA. You specifically mentioned their stance on responsible gun ownership, and on that point about the NRA, I think you're completely and fully incorrect.

The NRA has engaged in practices that I find questionable, going all the way back to the 1960s, when they supported gun control. For those reasons, I can't in good conscious support them. But I do believe that they engage in efforts for responsible gun ownership.

 

[zipman]

As I said, I don't like the NRA. You specifically mentioned their stance on responsible gun ownership, and on that point about the NRA, I think you're completely and fully incorrect.

The NRA has engaged in practices that I find questionable, going all the way back to the 1960s, when they supported gun control. For those reasons, I can't in good conscious support them. But I do believe that they engage in efforts for responsible gun ownership.

Please quote me where I said that about responsible gun ownership.

 

[richard_daily]

Please quote me where I said that about responsible gun ownership.

Sure thing:

I don't agree with her assertion, but I do think that the NRA has significantly contributed to the gun problem in this country through their rhetoric and financial lobbying to promote mass ownership without consequences for its members.

 

[zipman]

Sure thing:

That is absolutely not the same thing.

WTF is wrong with you?

 

[ifrtbttrflys]

It's not a human right. Definitions have meaning. Human rights don't involve the right to own a gun. That's called a constitutional right. Please stop arguing when you don't even understand basic definitions.

Amendment II is not "a constitutional right".

Amendment II is a COMMANDMENT to the ONLY law making body of federal govt - Congress - that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Constitution (not a friggin' "road map", but THE LAW OF THE LAND, under which ALL American citizens are subject, no matter their station in American society) cements that "right" as where it naturally abides in a free society: COMPLETELY above the purview of Congress/federal government - therefore AUTOMATICALLY making that elite entity JUST AS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE LAND as every individual citizen of the US is.

That is what's known as EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW.

Instead of holding any constitutional power over it, Congress/federal government is specifically ORDERED to not infringe upon it at all, it's only LEGAL duty regarding it to GUARANTEE that natural right to every law-abiding American citizen.

Congress/federal government legally posses absolutely no constitutional authority to do anything but what the Constitution COMMANDS it, which just as absolutely means Congress/federal government itself CANNOT legally affect Amendment II AT ALL.

Amendment II can only be affected, any different than it stands now enshrined in the Law of the Land, under which ALL are subject EQUALLY, by a new Amendment which alters it, and only then if/after 38 states ratify that new Amendment...

Thus the Constitution commands, thus the only LEGAL way it can be done.

As the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America gloriously recited: any law made by Congress repugnant to the Constitution is - IN FACT - legally "void".


Fun facts:

Amendment II as we know it today actually began life as Article the fourth among the total of 12 Articles passed out of the 1st Congress on September 25, 1789, and on to the states for ratification...

...of which 10 of them eventually garnered the Constitution's ratification majority dictate of 38 states on December 15, 1791.

Article the first, aka the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, still lies waiting ratification these 228 years later...

...while Article the second waited 203 years for constitutional ratification: it became the Constitution's latest Amendment - XXVII - on May 7, 1992.

 

[richard_daily]

That is absolutely not the same thing.

WTF is wrong with you?

I was reading what you wrote. You stated that you believe the NRA promoted gun ownership with no consequences. I told you that the NRA promotes responsible gun ownership. You refuse to agree with my position, and hold a contrary position, regardless of the facts.

That's not a problem with me.

 

[phrodeau]

Ask Tim McVeigh. He used something a lot more deadly than a gun, and we're unfortunate that Mcveigh didn't choose to use the more ineffective method of killing that the guy in Las Vegas did.

McVeigh was planning and working for weeks on his attack. This nut might have figured that a truck bomb was too much trouble, or beyond his ability, and decided to go the easy route, or acted on the spur of the moment.

 

[richard_daily]

McVeigh was planning and working for weeks on his attack. This nut might have figured that a truck bomb was too much trouble, or beyond his ability, and decided to go the easy route, or acted on the spur of the moment.

Nothing about this attack indicates "spur of the moment".

 

[butters]

Ask Tim McVeigh. He used something a lot more deadly than a gun, and we're unfortunate that Mcveigh didn't choose to use the more ineffective method of killing that the guy in Las Vegas did.

Nothing about this attack indicates "spur of the moment".

we can only be thankful this wasn't another tim mcveigh, though they have found bomb-making ingredients(?) in a vehicle linked to him. the fact of the matter, though, is the TMV route is harder to achieve than the many gun-related mass murders. even van bombs won't achieve the kinds of death-toll this murderer managed.

clearly pre-planned, though we have no way of knowing how long before the act.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I don't agree with her assertion, but I do think that the NRA has significantly contributed to the gun problem in this country through their rhetoric and financial lobbying to promote mass ownership without consequences for its members.

Agreed. The the culture of permissible violence is stoked by the hyperbole and rhetoric of the gun culture.

 

[zipman]

I was reading what you wrote. You stated that you believe the NRA promoted gun ownership with no consequences. I told you that the NRA promotes responsible gun ownership. You refuse to agree with my position, and hold a contrary position, regardless of the facts.

That's not a problem with me.

The best is their support for stand your ground laws which allow a person to use deadly force if they only feel threatened, even when they have an opportunity to safely get away from the situation. Basically, that allows someone to commit murder without consequences.

Another example (although not as good) would be the NRA offering Carry Guard Insurance to pay for potential crimes and or damages committed by members with it.

That is what I meant by consequences. I ever suggested that they don't promote responsible ownership as that is what the group was about when it was founded, gun safety. Then it turned into a fucking disgraceful organization that has contributed to the gun epidemic that is literally killing thousands each year.

 

[zipman]

Agreed. The the culture of permissible violence is stoked by the hyperbole and rhetoric of the gun culture.

FOX had a psychologist on today that was blaming the Las Vegas attack on CNN.

No shit.

 

[silver gurl]

FOX had a psychologist on today that was blaming the Las Vegas attack on CNN.

No shit.

Hah.

Let's make America great again, isn't quite working.

I no longer see it as the greatest country in the world.

 

[zipman]

Hah.

Let's make America great again, isn't quite working.

I no longer see it as the greatest country in the world.

The US is #1:

in gun deaths

in obesity

in military expenditures

 

[BoyNextDoor]

FOX had a psychologist on today that was blaming the Las Vegas attack on CNN.

No shit.

I am sure that is only the beginning. Once the false flag talking points really start to circulate Hillary and Obama will be financial sponsors of the ISIS hit team that framed Paddock, shot him and put his body there for the SWAT team to find as a justification to come and take your gunz away from you, so buy more.

 

[milehighcityman]

McVeigh was planning and working for weeks on his attack. This nut might have figured that a truck bomb was too much trouble, or beyond his ability, and decided to go the easy route, or acted on the spur of the moment.

I had heard that some ammonium nitrate was found in his car, but I didn't any further details. Like, how much and in what form it was. AN is found in a lot of products so it could have been unrelated to the attacks. It will be interesting to hear more about this. Maybe he considered a bomb but decided it was just too much work.

 

[milehighcityman]

we can only be thankful this wasn't another tim mcveigh, though they have found bomb-making ingredients(?) in a vehicle linked to him. the fact of the matter, though, is the TMV route is harder to achieve than the many gun-related mass murders. even van bombs won't achieve the kinds of death-toll this murderer managed.

clearly pre-planned, though we have no way of knowing how long before the act.

Actually, I think if this guy had parked Tim McVeigh's Ryder truck bomb next to that concert and detonated it he would have killed thousands.

 

[richard_daily]

The best is their support for stand your ground laws which allow a person to use deadly force if they only feel threatened, even when they have an opportunity to safely get away from the situation. Basically, that allows someone to commit murder without consequences.

Another example (although not as good) would be the NRA offering Carry Guard Insurance to pay for potential crimes and or damages committed by members with it.

That is what I meant by consequences. I ever suggested that they don't promote responsible ownership as that is what the group was about when it was founded, gun safety. Then it turned into a fucking disgraceful organization that has contributed to the gun epidemic that is literally killing thousands each year.

I think we're talking past each other a little bit here, and let me address what you're saying...

Stand Your Ground laws are in opposition to "force to flee" laws that some states have, that require you to run, try to bar a door, and retreat before using deadly force. I think that Stand Your Ground laws and Castle Doctrine laws are good overall. I do also think that there is room for abuse with them. A perfect example of that abuse is the George Zimmerman case. George Zimmerman acted as an aggressor, and not in self-defense in my personal opinion. He should have been tried and convicted for murder. That's not an issue with the law, however. I don't see how that's promoting anything irresponsible.

Insurance for CCL related incidents is good common sense. If you have to use your handgun due to a DGU, then the legal fees could run into the hundreds of thousands if the family of the perp decides to take you to civil court. I don't see how that's promoting anything irresponsible.

So far, your argument is 0/3. I'm happy to debate any legitimate qualms you have with the NRA, but so far, I haven't seen you provide one.

If you want to talk about their racist past, their inflammatory rhetoric, or their hard-leaning tendencies towards the Republican party in the last 10 years, I'm happy to debate those points and talk about that, but simply saying "they're bad", and "they're a strong lobby" doesn't really prove anything, and it's simply a tired talking point.

 

[richard_daily]

Actually, I think if this guy had parked Tim McVeigh's Ryder truck bomb next to that concert and detonated it he would have killed thousands.

Very likely it would have been at least 1000 dead.

 

[thør]

I had heard that some ammonium nitrate was found in his car, but I didn't any further details. Like, how much and in what form it was. AN is found in a lot of products so it could have been unrelated to the attacks. It will be interesting to hear more about this. Maybe he considered a bomb but decided it was just too much work.

Somewhere he told people he was a prospector. Prospectors often need a little ANFO.

 

[about_average]

Another example (although not as good) would be the NRA offering Carry Guard Insurance to pay for potential crimes and or damages committed by members with it.

Actually that's more to do with how sue happy people are, especially when a gun is involved.
If some punk breaks in to my house and I shoot him while his taking an ax to my bedroom door I have no doubt that he or his family would file a lawsuit against me, find a lawyer who'd take it and a court to hear it.
Just because I was fully justified in shooting the guy, and I won the suit, doesn't mean it wouldn't cost me tens of thousands of dollars.

 

[phrodeau]

Nothing about this attack indicates "spur of the moment".

He was in that hotel room for four days. Why would he check in Thursday if his goal was to attack on Sunday?

Sure, he had all his toys with him, and he was setting up cameras all over. He played nice and non-violently in his hotel room for four days. Maybe it's just something he did on weekends. Maybe the music set him off when it started, and he had just got done cleaning his favorite toy.

 

[ToucheAmore]

You can't predict this sort of thing.

Also, this happens all of the time.