Las Vegas

What if we required a GPS-like thing on guns that would prevent their use in highly populated areas? Exceptions of course for law enforcement, military, carry permits, etc. Thinking out loud, be gentle with my modest proposal.
 
MudHorn said:
What if we required a GPS-like thing on guns that would prevent their use in highly populated areas? Exceptions of course for law enforcement, military, carry permits, etc. Thinking out loud, be gentle with my modest proposal.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of safety locks coded to an individuals fingerprint. I get the logistical nightmare that would cause in the secondary gun market (particularly gunshows) but then everyone would be accountable. We need to consider the arsenal that someone can compile too. 42 guns? Thousands of rounds? At some point you go well beyond target practice/hunting and have essentially prepared for the apocalypse. If you think the apocalypse is coming that should be a disqualifier for owning a weapon. ;)
 
OUBubba said:
We made it more difficult to get fertilizer after 4/19. We made it more challenging to fly after 9/11. Maybe seriously penalize anyone who creates an automatic weapon?
Click to expand...

That sounds great ... then you encounter the buzz saw of Constitutionality.

There's no Constitutional right to a green yard (fert) ...

Ditto flying ... although one might be led to believe we've been working with a "less than complete canon" and there's actually 11 amendments to the Bill of Rights; "The right of the people to purchase and redeem cheap airfare shall not be infringed" ... but I digress.

We've already stomped all over the 2A with infringements out the wazoo. Fact of the matter is this ... in a FREE COUNTRY ... there is risk associated with it. Risk someone says something with which you disagree, and DOES something that actually IS unlawful.

The law itself doesn't prevent the behavior ... look no farther than illegal immigration. Respect for the law ... if it's "good law" ... does. IOW, that law has to be based in reason; with the freedom of the citizen as the first and only priority. We have rightful laws against murder.

Approaching this incident with the purpose of prevention results in ONLY transgression upon the freedom of the citizen ... yes, the citizen who committed the crime ... but more importantly the citizen who attended that event from their own choosing. There'll be less choosing with this approach.

Reducing bad acts must come from a changed heart ... and that alone. Govt cannot legislate morality ... seems like a certain segment of the discussioners repeatedly said this during the Moral Majority years. (they weren't wrong, but let's be intellectually honest and understand that means more gun control laws will not stop this sort of thing, either, from a MORAL motivation)
 
Seattle Husker said:
If you think the apocalypse is coming that should be a disqualifier for owning a weapon.
Click to expand...

Ha ... fortunately for you ... what you think isn't unlawful ... yet.

That this criminal had 42 firearms is of little consequence. So what. I'd wager you have some excesses which are unreasonable, too. Welcome to America.

He ... this person ... took criminal action. His tool was a small subset of his firearm collection.
 
ShAArk92 said:
That sounds great ... then you encounter the buzz saw of Constitutionality.

There's no Constitutional right to a green yard (fert) ...

Ditto flying ... although one might be led to believe we've been working with a "less than complete canon" and there's actually 11 amendments to the Bill of Rights; "The right of the people to purchase and redeem cheap airfare shall not be infringed" ... but I digress.

We've already stomped all over the 2A with infringements out the wazoo. Fact of the matter is this ... in a FREE COUNTRY ... there is risk associated with it. Risk someone says something with which you disagree, and DOES something that actually IS unlawful.

The law itself doesn't prevent the behavior ... look no farther than illegal immigration. Respect for the law ... if it's "good law" ... does. IOW, that law has to be based in reason; with the freedom of the citizen as the first and only priority. We have rightful laws against murder.

Approaching this incident with the purpose of prevention results in ONLY transgression upon the freedom of the citizen ... yes, the citizen who committed the crime ... but more importantly the citizen who attended that event from their own choosing. There'll be less choosing with this approach.

Reducing bad acts must come from a changed heart ... and that alone. Govt cannot legislate morality ... seems like a certain segment of the discussioners repeatedly said this during the Moral Majority years. (they weren't wrong, but let's be intellectually honest and understand that means more gun control laws will not stop this sort of thing, either, from a MORAL motivation)
Click to expand...

There is no constitutional right to having an arsenal of guns either. We should be able to agree on sensible gun regulation but if either side is starting with "no regulations" or "no guns allowed" then we'll never get started. Personally, I think both of those perspectives need to be excluded from the negotiation.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Personally, I think both of those perspectives need to be excluded from the negotiation.
Click to expand...

Like I said ... it's a good thing what you think isn't yet against the law.

One is Constitutionally sound ... the other isn't.

Has it occurred to ya that the difference, WRT public safety, in having 42 firearms or 442 firearms is effectively nil? You can't shoot but one at a time ...

And AFA being a threat to the public ... there's a limit to the number of rounds one can logistically bring, too ... this even happens to A-10 drivers ... planning is required to maintain a force of munitions ... how much more then to a guy who is sneaking around to be in a hotel room above the public at large?

Do ya love freedom, or do ya just talk about it?
 
ShAArk92 said:
Like I said ... it's a good thing what you think isn't yet against the law.

One is Constitutionally sound ... the other isn't.

Has it occurred to ya that the difference, WRT public safety, in having 42 firearms or 442 firearms is effectively nil? You can't shoot but one at a time ...

And AFA being a threat to the public ... there's a limit to the number of rounds one can logistically bring, too ... this even happens to A-10 drivers ... planning is required to maintain a force of munitions ... how much more then to a guy who is sneaking around to be in a hotel room above the public at large?

Do ya love freedom, or do ya just talk about it?
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s a bad thing that his idea isn’t in line with the interpretation of the constitution.

People love to forget about the well regulated militia. We do use some background checks. There are some limits on weapons. That means we could limit those more if we could stand up to the NRA. They are more concerned about gun sales than anything else.
 
OUBubba said:
People love to forget about the well regulated militia.
Click to expand...

Not forgotten at all ... those are different concepts in the same sentence, Bubba. It's pretty common throughout the Bill of Rights. Things only went sideways in 1913. But anyway.

the bottom line remains the bottom line; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I recognize we have those infringements you list ... that we haven 'em doesn't make it Constitutional ... it just means they are, and that they are part of a Big(ger) Fed ... than was designed. We bought it, we own it. 20 Trilion/counting.

At least you recognize SH's stance is unConstitutional. Hat Tip.
 
OUBubba said:
Maybe it’s a bad thing that his idea isn’t in line with the interpretation of the constitution.

People love to forget about the well regulated militia. We do use some background checks. There are some limits on weapons. That means we could limit those more if we could stand up to the NRA. They are more concerned about gun sales than anything else.
Click to expand...
LOL. I interpret your "interpretation of the constitution" as "let me parse, twist and manipulate these words until I make them say what I want them to say".
Who's trying to forget about the well regulated militia? Or maybe you're attempting to submit that regulated actually means restricted? If so, see my previous comment about your "interpretation of the constitution". Yes, background checks and weapon limitations have been instituted as "common sense" gun control measures. A fundamental constitutionalist might argue that those measures in and of themselves are forms of infringement on 2A.
Leftist politicians have done more for gun sales in America than the NRA could ever dream of doing.
 
OrangeShogun said:
LOL. I interpret your "interpretation of the constitution" as "let me parse, twist and manipulate these words until I make them say what I want them to say".
Who's trying to forget about the well regulated militia? Or maybe you're attempting to submit that regulated actually means restricted? If so, see my previous comment about your "interpretation of the constitution". Yes, background checks and weapon limitations have been instituted as "common sense" gun control measures. A fundamental constitutionalist might argue that those measures in and of themselves are forms of infringement on 2A.
Leftist politicians have done more for gun sales in America than the NRA could ever dream of doing.
Click to expand...
A well regulated militia being necessary to a Free state.

I read that to refer to the Oklahoma and Texas national guard. But, that’s just me and I don’t have a seat on the Court.

If the purpose of the amendment is to keep the government in check then you and I should be able to own drones and tanks. That’s not happening. I know a lot of people with guns. I only know one fool who I think is going to hurt someone.
 
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
A militia is comprised of civilians and not directly organized, overseen or controlled by the government. The National Guard is a reserve component of the U.S. Armed Forces, directly overseen by the U.S. government.
Again, you can try and manipulate the definition of militia, or the meaning of "well regulated", but the true message of 2A is very simply and directly stated, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Your comment about private ownership of drones and tanks is typical gun control hyperbole and a transparent attempt at justification of further infringement.
Personal liberty and security are inversely proportional. Evidently you would prefer, at least to some extent, to relinquish liberty for what you believe to be more security. There are lots of countries that believe as you do, fortunately for me, the U.S.A. is not one of them and the folks that founded this country placed more emphasis on personal liberty than perceived security.
One last thing, if you truly "know one fool who I think is going to hurt someone", I suggest you A.) notify the authorities and B.) arm yourself. Not necessarily in that order.
 
Going back to the shooter, it occurred to me that the model for this guy is the crazy, near retirement white guy in Austin who crashed his plane into an IRS building.
 
OUBubba said:
If the purpose of the amendment is to keep the government in check then you and I should be able to own drones and tanks. That’s not happening. I know a lot of people with guns. I only know one fool who I think is going to hurt someone.
Click to expand...
Tony Buzbee is holding for you on Line 1 with respect to the tank issue...
 
Paddock reportedly wired $100,000 to the Philippines. He knew all his assets would be frozen after his killing spree. I guess he wanted his girlfriend to stay in the P. I. and live on the money.

Her sister said she didn't want to leave the U.S. Paddock put her on the plane. She must have known something was about to happen, maybe she didn't know the details, but she had to suspect he was up to something.
 
It's becoming increasingly easy to advance a theory on this guy's motivations. The violent hatred which has been launched at suspected Deplorables for the last 18 months has finally came to a bloody climax.

This goes all the way back to the primaries, when lefties (usually Bernie Bros at that time), began trying to crash Trump's rallies (rmbr how a Chicago rally had to be shut down due to them?). Around this same time, candidate Clinton came out with the term "deplorables" to describe Trump supporters. Soon after, open abuse of suspected deplorables (and their property) began. And while the damage they caused was often noted, they were never actually condemned or called out or told to stop.

The largest groups then were Antifa, BLM and BAMN (By Any Means Necessary). There were others. Some were even paid, and shipped in (rmbr the line of buses for Chicago?). They used a range of weapons (pepper/bear spray, Molotov cocktails, bats, pipes, clubs, flagpoles, stones, bottles and bags of feces /urine. They loved those bags). They attacked Trump supporters who they soon began calling "Nazis" and "Fascists." Police were even told to stand down by their Dem mayors/police chiefs (rmbr San Jose?). "Stand down" meant just let the anti-Trump violence proceed without intervention or arrests. They were not called out for this.

Instead of attempts to prevent further violence, you had mainstream folks voice support for these groups who were at that time collectively operating under the umbrella phrase of "The Resistance." Congressional Dems even pledged allegiance to The Resistance. Hillary Clinton did. So did Loretta ("blood in the streets") Lynch.

The idea that anyone who the disagreed with the Left/Progressives on any issue was a Nazi or Fascist was allowed to become mainstream. Soon it became permissible and even legal to "Punch a Nazi in the face." Not a single self-described "Progressive" or "Liberal" made any serious public attempt to stop this.

Naturally, more serious violence soon followed. In Portland in May, a zealous Bernie Bro (Jeremy Christian) stabbed three men on a train, killing two. Shortly thereafter, another Bernie Bro and avid MSNBC viewer (James Hodgkinson) targeted and shot several R-Congresspersons and staff who were practicing softball.

That gets us to where we are now. One of the few things we can be certain about with the Vegas shooter is that he picked his audience. He shot up a country concert. He did not shoot up a hiphop/rap festival. If he had shot up a rap concert, the media would have leapt to his motivation, with or without any actual proof. So, it is interesting that the media wont jump to conclusion with Paddock.

But, as time ticks by, doesnt it seem ever more likely that this shooter, just like Hodgkinson (who was in the same age demographic as Padock), was a Trump-hating zealot? Doesnt it seem ever more likely that these two killers shared the same animosity toward the same objects? Doesnt it seems ever more likely that these two murderers were both driven by the same homicidal hatred of the same things?

I say none of this is surprising given the state that our culture has been allowed to descend. Hillary/Obama/Lynch, the media and the rest of the Political Left have allowed violence against anyone suspected of liking Trump to be normalized. Even if I turn out to be wrong about Paddock, this underlying idea is wrong and it needs to be called what it is.
 
Last edited:
OrangeShogun said:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
A militia is comprised of civilians and not directly organized, overseen or controlled by the government. The National Guard is a reserve component of the U.S. Armed Forces, directly overseen by the U.S. government.
Again, you can try and manipulate the definition of militia, or the meaning of "well regulated", but the true message of 2A is very simply and directly stated, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Your comment about private ownership of drones and tanks is typical gun control hyperbole and a transparent attempt at justification of further infringement.
Personal liberty and security are inversely proportional. Evidently you would prefer, at least to some extent, to relinquish liberty for what you believe to be more security. There are lots of countries that believe as you do, fortunately for me, the U.S.A. is not one of them and the folks that founded this country placed more emphasis on personal liberty than perceived security.
One last thing, if you truly "know one fool who I think is going to hurt someone", I suggest you A.) notify the authorities and B.) arm yourself. Not necessarily in that order.
Click to expand...
You make sense. That said, to say that what we have now is "well regulated" would be foolish.

I have no problem with people owning AR-15's and whatever they need to protect themselves and their families. I don't see the need for silencers and for .50 cal guns and for grandfathered machine guns.

Have you seen the story where the NRA is fighting things like smart guns? I mean why? They don't even want it to be an option on the market for people to purchase.
 
Joe Fan said:
It's becoming increasingly easy to advance a theory on this guy's motivations. The violent hatred which has been launched at suspected Deplorables for the last 18 months has finally came to a bloody climax.

This goes all the way back to the primaries, when lefties (usually Bernie Bros at that time), began trying to crash Trump's rallies (rmbr how a Chicago rally had to be shut down due to them?). Around this same time, candidate Clinton came out with the term "deplorables" to describe Trump supporters. Soon after, open abuse of suspected deplorables (and their property) began. And while the damage they caused was often noted, they were never actually condemned or called out or told to stop.

The largest groups then were Antifa, BLM and BAMN (By Any Means Necessary). There were others. Some were even paid, and shipped in (rmbr the line of buses for Chicago?). They used a range of weapons (pepper/bear spray, Molotov cocktails, bats, pipes, clubs, flagpoles, stones, bottles and bags of feces /urine. They loved those bags). They attacked Trump supporters who they soon began calling "Nazis" and "Fascists." Police were even told to stand down by their Dem mayors/police chiefs (rmbr San Jose?). "Stand down" meant just let the anti-Trump violence proceed without intervention or arrests. They were not called out for this.

Instead of attempts to prevent further violence, you had mainstream folks voice support for these groups who were at that time collectively operating under the umbrella phrase of "The Resistance." Congressional Dems even pledged allegiance to The Resistance. Hillary Clinton did. So did Loretta ("blood in the streets") Lynch.

The idea that anyone who the disagreed with the Left/Progressives on any issue was a Nazi or Fascist was allowed to become mainstream. Soon it became permissible and even legal to "Punch a Nazi in the face." Not a single self-described "Progressive" or "Liberal" made any serious public attempt to stop this.

Naturally, more serious violence soon followed. In Portland in May, a zealous Bernie Bro and Trump-hater (Jeremy Christian) stabbed three men on a train, killing two. Shortly thereafter, another Bernie Bro and avid MSNBC viewer (James Hodgkinson) targeted and shot several R-Congresspersons and staff who were practicing softball.

That gets us to where we are now. One of the few things we can be certain about with the Vegas shooter is that he picked his audience. He shot up a country concert. He did not shoot up a hiphop/rap festival. If he had shot up a rap concert, the media would have leapt to his motivation, with or without any actual proof. So, it is interesting that the media wont jump to conclusion with Paddock.

But, as time ticks by, doesnt it seem ever more likely that this shooter, just like Hodgkinson (who was in the same age demographic as Padock), was a Trump-hating zealot? Doesnt it seem ever more likely that these two killers shared the same animosity toward the same objects? Doesnt it seems ever more likely that these two murderers were both driven by the same homicidal hatred of the same things?

I say none of this is surprising given the state that our culture has been allowed to descend. Hillary/Obama/Lynch, the media and the rest of the Political Left have allowed violence against anyone suspected of liking Trump to be normalized. Even if I turn out to be wrong about Paddock, this underlying idea is wrong and it needs to be called what it is.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the shooting on the anniversary of some suit that he had with Mandalay Bay? If that's the case he'd be shooting up whatever concert they had going on out there.

Jeremy Christian is a lib? That's funny.
 
OUBubba said:
...
Jeremy Christian is a lib? That's funny.
Click to expand...

I wrote that he was a Bernie Bro, which he was

"Bernie Sanders was the President I wanted. He voiced my heart and mind. The one who spoke about the way America should gone. ....."​

"I've had it!!! I gonna kill everybody who voted for Trump or Hillary!!!" It's all your fault!!! You're what's wrong with this country!!! Reveal yourselves immediately and face your DOOM!!!"
​


The gap is the FB link. Not sure why its just a big gap.
Anyway, the main point is still valid on the timeline and the lack any attempt to reign in the violent rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
I wrote that he was a Bernie Bro, which he was

"Bernie Sanders was the President I wanted. He voiced my heart and mind. The one who spoke about the way America should gone. ....."​

"I've had it!!! I gonna kill everybody who voted for Trump or Hillary!!!" It's all your fault!!! You're what's wrong with this country!!! Reveal yourselves immediately and face your DOOM!!!"
​


The gap is the FB link. Not sure why its just a big gap.
Anyway, the main point is still valid on the timeline and the lack any attempt to reign in the violent rhetoric.
Click to expand...

You're a smart guy and your writing is sharp but your partisan slip shows when you take the bridge too far and it taints all of your thoughts as that of a partisan hack.
 
ShAArk92 said:
Not forgotten at all ... those are different concepts in the same sentence, Bubba. It's pretty common throughout the Bill of Rights. Things only went sideways in 1913. But anyway.

the bottom line remains the bottom line; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I recognize we have those infringements you list ... that we haven 'em doesn't make it Constitutional ... it just means they are, and that they are part of a Big(ger) Fed ... than was designed. We bought it, we own it. 20 Trilion/counting.

At least you recognize SH's stance is unConstitutional. Hat Tip.
Click to expand...

What have I stated that is UNConstititutional? We've put limits on free speech. For example, it's illegal to incite violence, yell fire in a crowded theater. It's the absolutism above all common sense that doesn't deserve a seat at the table for negotiation, IMHO.
 
Joe Fan said:
I say none of this is surprising given the state that our culture has been allowed to descend. Hillary/Obama/Lynch, the media and the rest of the Political Left have allowed violence against anyone suspected of liking Trump to be normalized. Even if I turn out to be wrong about Paddock, this underlying idea is wrong and it needs to be called what it is.
Click to expand...

Project much?
 
OUBubba said:
You're a smart guy and your writing is sharp but your partisan slip shows when you take the bridge too far and it taints all of your thoughts as that of a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

That Portland guy may have been crazy but it is undeniable that he was also a Bernie Bro. Which sort of fits the stereotype

In any event, the true nature of the Portland guy has little to do with the overall point of the post
 
Last edited:
Room service receipt from 4 days prior
Says he had a guest in the room

receipt.jpg
 
Not sure I would put stock in a room service receipt just because it claims two guests...hell, the MGM default when looking to book a room is two persons. Would not surprise me in the least if that was a default on the room service system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top