Las Vegas shooting

[ifrtbttrflys]

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

A factually concise comparison of cold-blooded murders obviously translates differently in whatever language Lalaland speaks.

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."

You ate a lot of beans for dinner last night, eh? Can you open the window now?

 

[Ghostee]

[Discussions promoting and/or accusations involving pedophilia and/or child sex abuse prohibited per our forum guidelines.]

 

[butters]

One question for all to think on, no emotions just a clear question.................
Where were the muzzle flashes from the killers gun,rifle,weapon(s)?

Yes people all those videos and never once is a muzzle flash seen and without a muzzle flash how do the police know where to go as the echos ruin any chance of using sound!

All weapons, firearms have muzzle flashes , machine guns will light up the shooter like a flare in the dark but none of that is seen here.........just another cheap dirty anti gunner moment to get rid of a birth right freedom the government can't control!

No muzzle flash no weapon being shot......just more mind games from the government and the anti gunners so you don't see the democrats under arrest for stealing money, screwing children and being corrupt.

A distraction and so many of you people fell for it, facts over feelings and fiction before you have no freedoms left.

oh my word. alex jones, much? guess you believe sandy hook was a hoax, too....

*ignore, can't deal with this level of willful stupidity*

 

[Aglaopheme]

One question for all to think on, no emotions just a clear question.................
Where were the muzzle flashes from the killers gun,rifle,weapon(s)?

Yes people all those videos and never once is a muzzle flash seen and without a muzzle flash how do the police know where to go as the echos ruin any chance of using sound!

All weapons, firearms have muzzle flashes , machine guns will light up the shooter like a flare in the dark but none of that is seen here.........just another cheap dirty anti gunner moment to get rid of a birth right freedom the government can't control!

No muzzle flash no weapon being shot......just more mind games from the government and the anti gunners so you don't see the democrats under arrest for stealing money, screwing children and being corrupt.

A distraction and so many of you people fell for it, facts over feelings and fiction before you have no freedoms left.

Reported for pizzagate

 

[milehighcityman]

One question for all to think on, no emotions just a clear question.................
Where were the muzzle flashes from the killers gun,rifle,weapon(s)?

Yes people all those videos and never once is a muzzle flash seen and without a muzzle flash how do the police know where to go as the echos ruin any chance of using sound!

All weapons, firearms have muzzle flashes , machine guns will light up the shooter like a flare in the dark but none of that is seen here.........just another cheap dirty anti gunner moment to get rid of a birth right freedom the government can't control!

No muzzle flash no weapon being shot......just more mind games from the government and the anti gunners so you don't see the democrats under arrest for stealing money, screwing children and being corrupt.

A distraction and so many of you people fell for it, facts over feelings and fiction before you have no freedoms left.

Look, I'm pretty much a pro-gun guy, but this is just nonsense. There were plenty of reports of muzzle flashes. Some of the radio traffic you can hear officers saying they believe there are gun flashes coming from high on the Mandalay. Just because the shaky phone video didn't catch them doesn't mean they weren't there. Toward the end of the shooting, police and others on the ground were starting to figure out where the shots were coming from. However, the shooter was ultimately located because the smoke alarm in his suite went off. A security guard nearby then could hear the shots coming from that room and report that.

 

[richard_daily]

(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.

No one needs a house with more than one room. No one needs a swimming pool. No one needs a car that drives over the speed limit.

If you want to prevent people from having those things, that's your prerogative, but I believe that people should be free to own legal items, regardless of some portion of the public's perception of them. No guns are not "made for killing", no they are not "tools of destruction", nor are they "weapons of war".

I own guns. Out of all the guns that I own, do you know how many have ever killed a single thing?

0%.

 

[phrodeau]

No one needs a house with more than one room. No one needs a swimming pool. No one needs a car that drives over the speed limit.

If you want to prevent people from having those things, that's your prerogative, but I believe that people should be free to own legal items, regardless of some portion of the public's perception of them. No guns are not "made for killing", no they are not "tools of destruction", nor are they "weapons of war".

I own guns. Out of all the guns that I own, do you know how many have ever killed a single thing?

0%.

So far.

 

[richard_daily]

So far.

Here's the issue with statements like that. You assume that I'm going to commit a crime simply due to means (and in honesty, I'd argue that it's not even a "complete" means, since you'd need other steps to cause any sort of carnage like we witnessed in las vegas).

There are 2 other steps when committing of a crime, and those aren't addressed at all with this gun control drivel.

Motive and opportunity are far and away more important than means. Everyone has the means, or can create the means to commit a crime.

If YOU personally, are so unsure about yourself owning guns, that you don't feel you could control yourself, that's fine. Own that. But don't put that personal feeling onto others, because I don't have any doubt that unless there is some sort of societal disaster on a large scale, or I have to defend myself against a crime, none of my guns will ever be used to kill anything.

 

[phrodeau]

Here's the issue with statements like that. You assume that I'm going to commit a crime simply due to means (and in honesty, I'd argue that it's not even a "complete" means, since you'd need other steps to cause any sort of carnage like we witnessed in las vegas).

There are 2 other steps when committing of a crime, and those aren't addressed at all with this gun control drivel.

Motive and opportunity are far and away more important than means. Everyone has the means, or can create the means to commit a crime.

If YOU personally, are so unsure about yourself owning guns, that you don't feel you could control yourself, that's fine. Own that. But don't put that personal feeling onto others, because I don't have any doubt that unless there is some sort of societal disaster on a large scale, or I have to defend myself against a crime, none of my guns will ever be used to kill anything.

And if that ever happens, you'll be ready at the drop of a hat, no further action needed; the merest impulse could send you out to mow down your community at the spur of the moment.

 

[richard_daily]

And if that ever happens, you'll be ready at the drop of a hat, no further action needed; the merest impulse could send you out to mow down your community at the spur of the moment.

I'm trained in resource management, and to help people. I am a first responder, although not by vocation.

My first rule for first responders in an emergency or disaster is to secure your safety and the safety of your family. Otherwise, you're of no use to anyone.

I can guarantee you, with 100% certainty, that I will never be out "mowing down my community". If that is how you see yourself, again, own those thoughts and feelings, but that's not me, in any way, shape or form. My ownership of guns, along with competition shooting and target practice doesn't change that at all.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'm trained in resource management, and to help people. I am a first responder, although not by vocation.

My first rule for first responders in an emergency or disaster is to secure your safety and the safety of your family. Otherwise, you're of no use to anyone.

I can guarantee you, with 100% certainty, that I will never be out "mowing down my community". If that is how you see yourself, again, own those thoughts and feelings, but that's not me, in any way, shape or form. My ownership of guns, along with competition shooting and target practice doesn't change that at all.

His insecurity stems from a lack of equality.

The only answer is to get the government to forcefully confiscate all privately owned guns and strictly control their distribution to state agents only.

It's the egalitarian thing to do

 

[Hypoxia]

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".

A volunteer militia being preferable to a standing army (which tends to get bothersome in peacetime), the right to bear arms in defense of the nation as part of a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed due to a man's social standing. That's the original intent.

Personal firearms are no match against any well-regulated pro (para)military. And since just WHICH bearable arms aren't specified, carrying many weapons IS infringed by law. We don't get to to defend our "life, liberty, and property" with brass knuckles, spring stilettos, claymore mines, RPGs. That's no fun.

..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.

Pre-partum, a fetus is part of a person's body and is not itself "a person born." Do not infringe upon that person, who happens to be a woman. She is not your property, your slave, your incubator. And anti-choicers seem not to much care about post-partum life. How many abandoned infants have you adopted? How many infant healthcare programs have you funded?

Biomedicine is at the stage where a human can be cloned from almost any body tissue. Therefore every surgery disposes of tissues that could form a new person. So does every shit or snot-wipe. You commit mass murder daily. Every sperm is sacred, right?
_____

What has this to do with an asshole raining steel-jacketed death down upon a crowd, any crowd, with fucking dozens of fucking legally-obtained firearms? Yes, he could have killed more people without firearms, like by crashing his explosive-filled plane into the crowd, but that's the route he chose.

He acted under an umbrella of approval from the "gun lobby" and all NRA members and gunpowder addicts. They own his crime. (*) Firearms are ubiquitous, ain't going away, and we'll see more like this. Gonna reap just what you sew...

(*) Don't give me the "all drivers aren't to blame if one terrorist crashes into a crowd, so all pistoleros ain't guilty if one shoots a few hundred victims" crap. Firearms have one purpose: inflicting violence. You're not born with a Ruger in your fist; you convert to that religion.

Yes, firearms can defend against raging wildlife, but ain't many pumas and bears in (sub)urban settings. (I don't mess with my local bears.) If you're a (sub)urban gun-owner, you empower the mass shooters; just as if you convert to Scientology, you own the insanity. You're there of your own volition. You bought it, you own it. Check your conscience at the door.

 

[richard_daily]

Personal firearms are no match against any well-regulated pro (para)military. And since just WHICH bearable arms aren't specified, carrying many weapons IS infringed by law. We don't get to to defend our "life, liberty, and property" with brass knuckles, spring stilettos, claymore mines, RPGs. That's no fun.

Wrong. There are dozens of examples in modern history that prove you're incorrect. There are a half dozen examples which prove this that are occurring right now.

 

[richard_daily]

His insecurity stems from a lack of equality.

The only answer is to get the government to forcefully confiscate all privately owned guns and strictly control their distribution to state agents only.

It's the egalitarian thing to do

I would argue that insecurities stem from a lack of equality, and a lack of opportunity for a good life for yourself. Disenfranchisement is the root cause, and kills more people than guns ever have or will.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I would argue that insecurities stem from a lack of equality, and a lack of opportunity for a good life for yourself.

True, that's why it's best to make your own opportunities.

Disenfranchisement is the root cause, and kills more people than guns ever have or will.

Maybe....but if it were then equal rights and even opportunity would result in equal results (what 'egalitarians' are actually after), but they don't, so we resort to socialism and social justice to get those equal results.

I think it's lack of foresight, experience and education of the individual in most cases.

I'm not talking about 2+2=4 education either, I'm talking about real education. Macro scale education, the kind of shit a parent who cares should be teaching their kids. Important life skills like how be/keep it professional, how to make money and manage it effectively, achieve goals not because they are fun or you have a desire to but because they will make your life better.....how to embrace the suck of life and make the best of it.

Instead we have a bunch parents who give their kids gold stars for taking a shit and then lie to them telling them they can do anything they want only to grow up and find out nobody will pay them 400,000 bucks a year to take shits every day.

That's the real disenfranchisement, not having parents that cared enough to tell you that you were all ate up and needed to un-fuck yourself before life tore you a new one.

LMFAO.....

 

[richard_daily]

True, that's why it's best to make your own opportunities.

And if you start out in a rich family, like DJT did, you can fail multiple times, and still be president of the US some day.

If you start out in poverty, not so much.

Maybe....I think it's lack of foresight, experience and education in most cases.

That IS lack of opportunity. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[BotanyBoy]

And if you start out in a rich family, like DJT did, you can fail multiple times, and still be president of the US some day.

That's not just for rich folks, especially with regard to the numerous failures and still succeeding after them.

If you start out in poverty, not so much.

Been more than a couple high level (including POTUS) leaders, CEO's and others who started out in poverty.

That IS lack of opportunity. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

No, those things are personal traits and the sheer luck of having parents that give a shit.

Opportunity is just a set of circumstances that allow the individual or group a chance at doing something.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

A volunteer militia being preferable to a standing army (which tends to get bothersome in peacetime), the right to bear arms in defense of the nation as part of a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed due to a man's social standing. That's the original intent.

Well, yes and no. The 2nd Amendment CLEARLY recognizes AND protects from infringement a PRE-EXISTING RIGHT, long recognized in English common law and universally practiced in the American colonies irrespective of membership in any organized militia.

Secondly, in the eyes of the founding fathers, the preference of a citizens militia over a standing army had far more substance and concern than the mere fact that it gets "bothersome in peacetime":

The second way to cope with the peril to liberty of a standing army is to counter its existence with an armed citizen’s militia which stands outside of the control of the government. That was the constant theme of the Whig pamphleteers from the 1690s on, as they sought to check the power of government. Indeed, one of the important grievances that produced the Glorious Revolution had been the King’s attempt to disarm the Protestants; the subsequent English Bill of Rights, forced on King William, had specifically guaranteed their right to arms. And, as Bernard Bailyn has shown in The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, those Whig pamphleteers, such as John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, were among the foremost intellectual influences on the Americans. The latter writers, particularly in their Cato’s Letters, a series widely reprinted in the colonies, argued that the defense of the realm was best entrusted to the armed body of the citizenry, rather than a standing army. They argued both that this was a superior form of national defense and that it was the best means of protecting the people’s liberties against the state’s usurpation:

“[W]hen a Tyrant’s Army is beaten, his Country is conquered: He has no Resource; his Subjects having neither Arms...nor Reason to fight for him.”

“[A]nd therefore it is fit that Mankind should know...that his Majesty can be defended against them...without Standing Armies; which would make him formidable only to his People....”

“When the People are easy and satisfied, the whole Kingdom is [the King’s] Army.”

In his Commentaries, William Blackstone listed the right of bearing arms as one of those rights—along with the right of petition, the right to apply to the courts, and the limitations on the King’s prerogative—which protected the three great primary common-law rights of personal security, personal liberty, and private property.

So deep was this “prudent jealousy entertained by the people of standing armies” that the major debate over the plan of national defense contained in the Constitution stemmed from the demands of many that a peacetime army should be forbidden entirely. To answer this, the authors of the Federalist argued not only for the utility of a small, permanent army but, further, that the militia would always be great enough to overcome a usurpation of the people’s liberties by the national government. Madison, in No. 46, for example, argues that the standing army which the nation could support would not exceed twentyfive or thirty thousand men and could never conquer the militia, “near half a million citizens with arms in their hands . . . fighting for their common liberties. . . . ” Among the numerous advantages of the militias Madison refers to “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1495

Quite clearly, the INTENT of the 2nd Amendment is not merely to provide for the defense OF the nation but to provide for the DEFENSE OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY FROM "usurption...by the government." The fact that lawful personal weapons today are no match for the modern American military in no way validates an argument for disarming Americans. In fact, it conveniently ignores an arguable violation of clear 2nd Amendment intent that has occurred already -- the relative disarming of American citizens vis-a-vis a COMPARABLE strength to that of the American standing army. In short, if we embrace YOUR argument, it is high time citizen militias re-arm on a scale equal to if not greater than the American military. The 2nd Amendment intends nothing less.

But, finally, all this militia talk ignores a fundamental legalism. The Constitution has been viewed all too often through the prism of the Bill of Rights -- an addendum whose necessity and advisability for inclusion in the document was itself hotly debated. The main body of the Constitution consists of seven articles whose main function, is not to define what people can or cannot do, but rather how the government is constructed and organized with respect to the executive, legislative and judicial functions, as well as its relationship to, and between, the individual states.

Once one understands and accepts that overarching framework, it should not be surprising that the 2nd Amendment was likely designed to address the specific application of a pre-existing right most concerned with the successful operation of that new government. It was in no way meant to deny or affirm the quite obvious right of individuals to use their firearms for hunting or personal defense. That right was assumed and hardly needed clarification or affirmation when part of the INTENT of the Amendment was to ensure the armed strength of individual citizens to overthrow the federal government if they so desired. Stipulation of other protected uses of firearms could only be described as superfluous. And the idea that the Amendment protects a right and an intent to overthrow the government as members of a militia but not otherwise so-organized is beyond laughable.

Today, violent overthrow of the government is prohibited by law. And, yes, that law is unarguably Constitutional.

Disarming individual citizens on the grounds of their lack of militia membership, however, is not, short of repealing or amending the very Amendment that prohibited such government oppression.

 

[BotanyBoy]

A volunteer militia being preferable to a standing army (which tends to get bothersome in peacetime), the right to bear arms in defense of the nation as part of a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed due to a man's social standing. That's the original intent.

If that's true then why didn't they write it even remotely close to that?

Personal firearms are no match against any well-regulated pro (para)military.

The JFK Special Warfare Center and School disagree with you.

If you're a (sub)urban gun-owner, you empower the mass shooters; just as if you convert to Scientology, you own the insanity. You're there of your own volition. You bought it, you own it. Check your conscience at the door.

I've never read such an insane pile of smugness and false equivalency in my life.

Except maybe the whole free market communism bit BND brought up.

 

[chillywilly2]

And if that ever happens, you'll be ready at the drop of a hat, no further action needed; the merest impulse could send you out to mow down your community at the spur of the moment.

How do you manage to pick up a knife to cut vegetables without running out into the street and stabbing people?

 

[RobDownSouth]

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/02/report-bump-stocks-found-vegas-shooters-hotel-room/


Interesting...

You know something, Tonto, for once you and I actually agree on something. That WAS an interesting article.

I admit that, before yesterday, I had never even HEARD of the phrase "bump stock". The first time I heard it was here on Lit yesterday morning when you and Ishmael were tee-heeing back and forth and murmering "bump stock! yassss!" during your morning circle jerk.

So some ingenious inventor found a way to mimic full-automatic fire from a semi-automatic weapon, in a way that was, as you situational patriots like to say, "strictly legal"! For only $269, you can make your own "bullet hose".

These little inventions will likely be banned, and they should be.

 

[Hypoxia]

Personal firearms are no match against any well-regulated pro (para)military.

Wrong. There are dozens of examples in modern history that prove you're incorrect. There are a half dozen examples which prove this that are occurring right now.

Tell the Chechens. I guess I should have included "well-led and ruthless" too.

Insurgencies / citizen militias armed with peashooters won't stand long against well-aimed artillery, even with human shields. Pro troops DO have problems when the insurgents have military-grade weapons and support. But most home-grown insurgencies are gutted when the pros intrude. Especially when the pros have no qualms about collateral damage. Shoot at us, we'll firebomb your village and gut-shoot your family and neighbors. Insurgents tend to lose support after that.

Are USA troops stymied by Mid-East insurgents? Yeah, because 1) USA troops aren't fighting for survival of USA, 2) the insurgents possess rather more than peashooters, and 3) USA has no idea what 'victory' there looks like. A home-grown rebellion, an existential threat to USA, will be treated rather different.

 

[Rightguide]

You know something, Tonto, for once you and I actually agree on something. That WAS an interesting article.

I admit that, before yesterday, I had never even HEARD of the phrase "bump stock". The first time I heard it was here on Lit yesterday morning when you and Ishmael were tee-heeing back and forth and murmering "bump stock! yassss!" during your morning circle jerk.

So some ingenious inventor found a way to mimic full-automatic fire from a semi-automatic weapon, in a way that was, as you situational patriots like to say, "strictly legal"! For only $269, you can make your own "bullet hose".

These little inventions will likely be banned, and they should be.

The same effect called "bump firing" can be achieved with simple technique without the need of a bump stock. It can be achieved in a semi auto pistol with two fingers in the trigger guard as well.

 

[Larsen81]

The same effect called "bump firing" can be achieved with simple technique without the need of a bump stock. It can be achieved in a semi auto pistol with two fingers in the trigger guard as well.

But this one was "the first".
Terrible accident.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Insurgencies / citizen militias armed with peashooters won't stand long against well-aimed artillery, even with human shields.

The people of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the JFK Special Warfare Center and School seem to think otherwise.

Pro troops DO have problems when the insurgents have military-grade weapons and support. But most home-grown insurgencies are gutted when the pros intrude. Especially when the pros have no qualms about collateral damage. Shoot at us, we'll firebomb your village and gut-shoot your family and neighbors. Insurgents tend to lose support after that.

It's not the insurgents who lose support.....

Are USA troops stymied by Mid-East insurgents? Yeah, because 1) USA troops aren't fighting for survival of USA, 2) the insurgents possess rather more than peashooters, and 3) USA has no idea what 'victory' there looks like. A home-grown rebellion, an existential threat to USA, will be treated rather different.

1) Anything but the survival of ones team is 100% totally irrelevant to troops in combat. Nationalism goes totally out the fuckin' window when the bullets start flying.

2) Like what? IED's? Home made bobbie traps and sticks covered in pig shit?

3) How?? In what way??? It's the same fight....except this time against their own families and neighbors. Good luck with that!!