Las Vegas shooting

[4est_4est_Gump]

Paddock's ISIS-antifa masters told him, "No, no truck bomb! And don't fill your private plane with explosives and crash into the redneck crowd; you might miss and crash into a casino before our people have completed looting it. No, you can't have a grenade launcher! We're not into explosives this year. Bullets, boy, many many bullets. Here you go!"

Deep State operatives shuttled weapons, ammo, and gear to the hotel room. Paddock settled in with his fleshlight and jugs of meth-laced 151 rum. "Room service" regularly brought him opium-butter cookies and fresh pr0n. He awaited the chosen moment.

Something like that, right?

He's not allowed to fly because he didn't keep up his medical clearance...


Facts are complete strangers to you.

 

[KimGordon67]

A human right does not rely on the ability of someone else to provide it which is pretty much why they are regulated to life, liberty and property.

Why did you avoid my question about self-defense and whether or not you would disarm me and leave with a knife to fight off bears, wolves and coyotes?

Hell, the dogs are out there raising holy hell with something in the forest even as I am typing this.

(1) Do you have some research to support the actual danger to people from bears, wolves, and coyotes?
(2) Someone needs to own forty eight guns to protect themselves from roving wildlife? We've obviously been given a very false impression about what most of the US is like.

 

[KimGordon67]

A human right does not rely on the ability of someone else to provide it which is pretty much why they are regulated to life, liberty and property.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this point. If a state is a signatory to the UN Declaration, there's a pretty clear expectation that the state will either provide the rights enshrined therein, or protect it's citizens in respect of them. Many of them aren't very successful in this endeavour, but they are things with states should hold as ideals, at the least.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Why did you avoid my question about self-defense and whether or not you would disarm me and leave with a knife to fight off bears, wolves and coyotes?

You act like it's OUR responsibility that YOU chose to live in an area at risk from "bears, wolves and coyotes".

Most humans opt to live far away from perceived predators. You do not. Perhaps you feel some sort of kinship with them?

And btw, coyotes ain't shit. I've seen exactly two living here in Texas for six years now, and both times those varmints tucked tail and ran away like they was Vietnam-era Marines.

 

[KimGordon67]

You act like it's OUR responsibility that YOU chose to live in an area at risk from "bears, wolves and coyotes".

Most humans opt to live far away from perceived predators. You do not. Perhaps you feel some sort of kinship with them?

And btw, coyotes ain't shit. I've seen exactly two living here in Texas for six years now, and both times those varmints tucked tail and ran away like they was Vietnam-era Marines.

I had a quick look (because, you know, evidence) - bear attacks seems amazingly rare. So rare that it seems unlikely one needs 48 guns just in case.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

(1) Do you have some research to support the actual danger to people from bears, wolves, and coyotes?
(2) Someone needs to own forty eight guns to protect themselves from roving wildlife? We've obviously been given a very false impression about what most of the US is like.

The number doesn't matter.


Have you ever been eyeball-to-eyeball with a pair of mountain lions?

They started stalking me and the dog until I let loose a few rounds of my nine...



Most people, about 90%, in the US live within five miles of an interstate. Even a place like New Jersey where as a Marine I was sent in as part of the effort to fight a forest fire. We are very sparsely populated and have conservation efforts designed to keep predators alive and active in order to keep other animal populations healthy. Whether I have one or 100 guns is not the issue. For example, I don't hunt doves with an AK47. I use a .410 shotgun. When going out into the forest, I carry a sidearm, not that I am afraid of the "classic" predators, but because of the feral dog population which runs in packs and are not the least bit intimidated by humans. Plus, it's a good idea to scare skunks off because, for all the obvious reasons, they pretty much don't intimidate either.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this point. If a state is a signatory to the UN Declaration, there's a pretty clear expectation that the state will either provide the rights enshrined therein, or protect it's citizens in respect of them. Many of them aren't very successful in this endeavour, but they are things with states should hold as ideals, at the least.

Fuck the UN.

Over half of the UN violate even basic human rights.

It's a vacuous debating society punctuated by cocktail hour, parties and galas where its participants spend their time assuring each other of how important a role they play in the world.

All three basic (natural) rights stem from the right to self-defense. Anything past life, liberty and property is a government-granted privilege.

Also go not get hung up on how many guns this successful multi-millionaire owned. He also owned two planes...



No matter how many guns he owned, at this point we only know that he used just the one until proven otherwise. I'm fairly well off and I (and the wife and daughter) own a dozen guns. I have yet been tempted to use one on a person, but the Jehovah's Witnesses have brought me close to the edge on a couple of occasions.

 

[KimGordon67]

The number doesn't matter.


Have you ever been eyeball-to-eyeball with a pair of mountain lions?

They started stalking me and the dog until I let loose a few rounds of my nine...



Most people, about 90%, in the US live within five miles of an interstate. Even a place like New Jersey where as a Marine I was sent in as part of the effort to fight a forest fire. We are very sparsely populated and have conservation efforts designed to keep predators alive and active in order to keep other animal populations healthy. Whether I have one or 100 guns is not the issue. For example, I don't hunt doves with an AK47. I use a .410 shotgun. When going out into the forest, I carry a sidearm, not that I am afraid of the "classic" predators, but because of the feral dog population which runs in packs and are not the least bit intimidated by humans. Plus, it's a good idea to scare skunks off because, for all the obvious reasons, they pretty much don't intimidate either.

The number does matter - your argument only makes sense if the risk of being attacked by a wild animal is greater than the risks inherent in widespread gun ownership.

And even if gun ownership was necessary in these sparsely populated areas to protect people from roving animals, that doesn't explain why some guy needs the right to own 48 guns. Again, the number is relevant - that's just insane.

 

[KimGordon67]

Fuck the UN.

Over half of the UN violate even basic human rights.

It's a vacuous debating society punctuated by cocktail hour, parties and galas where its participants spend their time assuring each other of how important a role they play in the world.

All three basic (natural) rights stem from the right to self-defense. Anything past life, liberty and property is a government-granted privilege.

Also go not get hung up on how many guns this successful multi-millionaire owned. He also owned two planes...



No matter how many guns he owned, at this point we only know that he used just the one until proven otherwise. I'm fairly well off and I (and the wife and daughter) own a dozen guns. I have yet been tempted to use one on a person, but the Jehovah's Witnesses have brought me close to the edge on a couple of occasions.

I've pretty much made the points I want to make in this respect. Clearly you feel your individual life is enough evidence to prove gun ownership is a right, even given the endless deaths that it cause at a national level.
Have fun with the guns and all.

 

[EternalFantasies]

One person can seriously buy 49 guns and it's both legal and doesn't raise alarm bells? I'm really sorry, but no matter how supportive you are of the right to arm bears, surely no one thinks that's OK? Or did someone just assume he was altruistically intending to arm the local militia single-handedly?

I sympathize, but that'll never happen.

There will be fears that people will steal their arms while they hibernate.

with the honey stocks and all, It's all too messy.

 

[KimGordon67]

I sympathize, but that'll never happen.

There will be fears that people will steal their arms while they hibernate.

with the honey stocks and all, It's all too messy.

I'm sad that you're the only person who noticed that.

https://img00.deviantart.net/0cc6/i/2008/053/b/d/right_to_arm_bears_by_jack_fremont.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The number does matter - your argument only makes sense if the risk of being attacked by a wild animal is greater than the risks inherent in widespread gun ownership.

And even if gun ownership was necessary in these sparsely populated areas to protect people from roving animals, that doesn't explain why some guy needs the right to own 48 guns. Again, the number is relevant - that's just insane.

So because you find it infrequent, then there is no real need for "a" firearm much less 48? Another question: Do you have rabies in NZ? Throw in rabies attacks...

Since cars have become a favorite weapon of terrorists, would you find Jay Leno crazy because he owns 50 cars at least?

Who needs more than one? Better yet, why don't civilized people just use public transportation?

Seeing that machetes are the favorite weapon of MS13 (because death by shooting is too quick and they want to terrorize through brutality) would it be crazy to have more than one meat cleaver? And box cutters! Box cutters were used to murder over 3,000 people? Am a crazy because I buy replacement blades by the hundred count?

Is it crazy for me to own half a dozen samurai swords along with over 20 other assorted martial arts weapons? I just wonder who are you to decide what is right for me?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I've pretty much made the points I want to make in this respect. Clearly you feel your individual life is enough evidence to prove gun ownership is a right, even given the endless deaths that it cause at a national level.
Have fun with the guns and all.

Have you ever studied the statistics on how many lives they save on an annual basis?


If you concede that I have the right to self-defense, then you must cede to me the right to choose the manner in which I exercise that. If you find that you, through government, have the "right" to outline the terms and circumstances to my natural right to self defense, then you have just declared that I do not actually have a right to self-defense, that it is a privilege granted to me by government on a limited basis. This means that I do not own me and if I cannot own me, then society owns me and any and all property is thus community property and I may possess it or not based upon the dictates of government (i.e., the naked use of force).

Now what model of governance best applies to to that latter idea...

 

[EternalFantasies]

I'm sad that you're the only person who noticed that.

https://img00.deviantart.net/0cc6/i/2008/053/b/d/right_to_arm_bears_by_jack_fremont.jpg

Me too.

 

[Ghostee]

By Meg Wagner and Veronica Rocha, CNN
Updated 7:53 AM ET, Mon October 2, 2017

What we know right now:
What happened: At least 50 people were killed and more than 200 injured in a shooting on the Las Vegas Strip during a country music festival Sunday night. It is the deadliest mass shooting in US history.
The suspect: The gunman, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock, was killed by police.
The victims: Off-duty police officers are among the dead, according to police.


Police said the gunman, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock, fired from the 32nd floor of the nearby Mandalay Bay hotel. (The music festival was across the street from the Las Vegas strip hotel.)

Police used an explosive breech to break down the door to his hotel room, and Paddock was eventually killed.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/thumb/msid-60910362,width-400,resizemode-4/60910362.jpg?imglength=97384

An old white guy had a ton of guns and was all alone, no muzzle flash seen , come on people it's another Sandy Hook false flag op!

 

[Ghostee]

I've pretty much made the points I want to make in this respect. Clearly you feel your individual life is enough evidence to prove gun ownership is a right, even given the endless deaths that it cause at a national level.
Have fun with the guns and all.

If your worried about human life try shutting down Planned Parent hood or count the daily deaths that happen in gun free zones,cities or nations before you let emotions end you freedoms, facts over fiction please .

 

[coati]

I've pretty much made the points I want to make in this respect. Clearly you feel your individual life is enough evidence to prove gun ownership is a right, even given the endless deaths that it cause at a national level.
Have fun with the guns and all.

Yup, arguing with a paranoid American gun nut is a waste of time.

 

[Rightguide]

Not at all.

Because freedom, I could try to explain but you'd have to not be a socialist tyrant to understand it.

Nothing like a battle of wits with the unarmed, especially the futility of arguing with foreigners who are not free, do not have our personal liberty, our Constitution, our rights to bear arms, or our American DNA.

 

[ToucheAmore]

An old white guy had a ton of guns and was all alone, no muzzle flash seen , come on people it's another Sandy Hook false flag op!

alex jones is a member here?

 

[Rightguide]

An old white guy had a ton of guns and was all alone, no muzzle flash seen , come on people it's another Sandy Hook false flag op!

Muzzle flashes were seen and pointed out to police. The Sherrif reported at least a couple of rounds were fired by officers with long rifles at muzzle flashes coming from the windows.

 

[ifrtbttrflys]

... and you don't find that even a tiny bit worrisome? Honestly, I can kind of get gun ownership per se (well, not really, but nearly), but forty nine? How can that be considered a sensible 'constitutional right'?

Amendment II COMMANDS Congress that every law-abiding American's natural right to keep and bear arms to defend her/his life, liberty, and property "shall not be infringed".

Whether you - simply a foreign observer/commentator at most - deem that "sensible" or not is totally irrelevant because, again, at most, you're simply a foreign observer/commentator. That means you have absolutely no practical say in the matter whatsoever.

Alas, like a buttwipes who smoked just half a crack pipe, you seem to greatly enjoy endlessly yapping your jowls fantasizing your irrelevant critique on this matter adds any more practical significance to it than you just farting.

Listen, I get it: whatever podunk place you live in isn't interesting enough for you to have something actually practical to share about anything going on there, and America is an endlessly interesting enough place that you can't help but crave to join in discussing things about it.

But America is quite obviously far, far above your simple global socialist citizenship status level of civic comprehension. What strikes you, other socialist foreigners like you and, quite frankly, the weakest of Americans (the socialists among us) as hysterically horrifying is really just another day at the proverbial office to actual patriotic Americans.

Socialists whine about a law-abiding American owning 49 weapons, who then becomes an EXCEPTION to the RULE and cold-bloodedly murders 59 innocent human lives...

...while socialists insist they have the "right" as a RULE to cold-bloodedly murder >2,500 innocent human lives EVERY SINGLE DAY/>900,000 EVERY SINGLE YEAR in America.

Who needs guns when socialist hate murders so, so much more?

 

[coati]

Socialists whine about a law-abiding American owning 49 weapons, who then becomes an EXCEPTION to the RULE and cold-bloodedly murders 59 innocent human lives...

...while socialists insist they have the "right" as a RULE to cold-bloodedly murder >2,500 innocent human lives EVERY SINGLE DAY/>900,000 EVERY SINGLE YEAR in America.

Who needs guns when socialist hate murders so, so much more?

...using abortion as a defense for a paranoid obsession with guns.

This faux piety about being so concerned about human life is similar to those who only want us to pray after each slaughter by a gun nut, as in, "Now is not the appropriate time to talk about gun control. We must pray for the victims, erect memorials with teddy bears. run stories about the heroism of our first responders, praise our country as the greatest on Earth, sell a lot of advertising in our media outlets, and then forget the whole incident until another gun nut pops his cork."

 

[about_average]

I'm sad that you're the only person who noticed that.

In 4 minutes? You're as bad as BB.
Not everyone makes a post then hits F5 constantly in hopes someone has made another post.

 

[about_average]

.This faux piety about being so concerned about human life is similar to those who only want us to pray after each slaughter by a gun nut, as in, "Now is not the appropriate time to talk about gun control. We must pray for the victims, erect memorials with teddy bears. run stories about the heroism of our first responders, praise our country as the greatest on Earth, sell a lot of advertising in our media outlets, and then forget the whole incident until another gun nut pops his cork."

I don't really get this.
After the San Bernardino attacks bodies were still warm when people went to "Ban all Muslims!"

Is there a list published somewhere identifying which tragedies are ok to politicize and which aren't?

 

[ryan8558]

So because you find it infrequent, then there is no real need for "a" firearm much less 48? Another question: Do you have rabies in NZ? Throw in rabies attacks...

Since cars have become a favorite weapon of terrorists, would you find Jay Leno crazy because he owns 50 cars at least?

Who needs more than one? Better yet, why don't civilized people just use public transportation?

Seeing that machetes are the favorite weapon of MS13 (because death by shooting is too quick and they want to terrorize through brutality) would it be crazy to have more than one meat cleaver? And box cutters! Box cutters were used to murder over 3,000 people? Am a crazy because I buy replacement blades by the hundred count?

Is it crazy for me to own half a dozen samurai swords along with over 20 other assorted martial arts weapons? I just wonder who are you to decide what is right for me?

That depends. How many fucking boxes do you open?