Las Vegas

[Brad Austin]

I order room service like that in Vegas all the time. Actually more backup food/drinks than that. Most of my receipts would easily appear as 2-3 people.

It's a pain to go down and get a late snack or drink in a very busy Vegas hotel. Sometimes the drink vending machines aren't working, etc. so you have to go to always busy gift shop (just as expensive) and the elevators have traffic at all hours. Incognito is a task in Vegas.

I often order double food and excess drinks (pitchers of tea, water, extra soda) to always have something available. And yes, they often ask "is this for two guests?" and I just say yes instead of having to correct their assumption.

The guy wanted the least exposure possible and probably spent most of his time in the room. Why would he order room service multiple times in a day when he could just get what he needed on one delivery?

Honestly, that receipt proves nothing but a guy ordering for more than one meal. The 2 guests thing is just as irrelevant to who was actually there. If there were 3 guests eating and they asked that, most people would say yes to 2.

Always wondered why they even ask the guest count. Each item comes with its own appropriate utensils and condiments. You could say 1 or 4 and still get the same setup.

 

[mb227]

2 drinks as well

I've been known to order multiple drinks even when it was just me in the room...there are times where I really am too lazy to find a store that stocked what I wanted (and sometimes room service has options not available in the vending machine). Just sayin' ya know...

 

[ShAArk92]

What have I stated that is UNConstititutional?

You’ve promoted infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms.

It’s worthy of its own that’s why it’s its own restriction to government.

Even I capitulate to the purist view ... I endorse restrictions upon convicted felons and the mentally disabled. Not that I think these laws themselves prevent these people from keeping/bearing, but the restriction is proper.

After that ... it is infringement.

And the idea that the restriction is codified in the law results in the desired result is

FANTASY.

 

[OUBubba]

You’ve promoted infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms.

It’s worthy of its own that’s why it’s its own restriction to government.

Even I capitulate to the purist view ... I endorse restrictions upon convicted felons and the mentally disabled. Not that I think these laws themselves prevent these people from keeping/bearing, but the restriction is proper.

After that ... it is infringement.

And the idea that the restriction is codified in the law results in the desired result is

FANTASY.

Curious how a silencer plays into your gun views. Seriously. Can you elaborate as I'm not a gun guy? Dad was a small town attorney so we had loaded firearms in various places in the house and I'm not anti-gun.

 

[Seattle Husker]

You’ve promoted infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms.

It’s worthy of its own that’s why it’s its own restriction to government.

Even I capitulate to the purist view ... I endorse restrictions upon convicted felons and the mentally disabled. Not that I think these laws themselves prevent these people from keeping/bearing, but the restriction is proper.

After that ... it is infringement.

And the idea that the restriction is codified in the law results in the desired result is

FANTASY.

I've proposed limitations which are in place for any number of constitutional rights, most notably free speech. Any changes I'd propose would have to go through Congress then most assuredly affirmed by the courts. You do realize that this absolutist view of the "right to bear arms" is a recent phenomenon, right? Only after the NRA began advancing this view in the 70's did suddenly the 2nd amendment become more important than all others.

 

[Crockett]

Right. Actually only the 18 he was using to fire into the crowd have much consequence.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Right. Actually only the 18 he was using to fire into the crowd have much consequence.

So can we start by saying 18 is too many then?

 

[ShAArk92]

So can we start by saying 18 is too many then?

You already have. And relegated yourself relevant only in your own mind.

The Constitution is very clear. To “interpret” it means ... change it.

I have no doubt it will eventually come to that if the Lord Tarries long enough.

Again ... your premise is false. Installing limitations by law doesn’t effect the change sought. This has been demonstrated over and over.

The fact folks on the left refuse to acknowledge this relationship serves to prove one of two things ... intent is superior to results (in this way of (not) thinking)

Or ... there is simply an inability to intellectually grasp the concept.

 

[OUBubba]

Only after the NRA began advancing this view in the 70's did suddenly the 2nd amendment become more important than all others.

I'd wager you can track the growth of the NRA and the growth of firearms manufacturers. My noob thought is that the move for silencers is so that a whole market of people will be pushed these devices to be ready for when they come to get the guns. Remember, Obama was coming for them in 2008 and Jade Helm was an exercise to get ready for that as well. LOL

 

[Seattle Husker]

You already have. And relegated yourself relevant only in your own mind.

The Constitution is very clear. To “interpret” it means ... change it.

I have no doubt it will eventually come to that if the Lord Tarries long enough.

Again ... your premise is false. Installing limitations by law doesn’t effect the change sought. This has been demonstrated over and over.

The fact folks on the left refuse to acknowledge this relationship serves to prove one of two things ... intent is superior to results (in this way of (not) thinking)

Or ... there is simply an inability to intellectually grasp the concept.

Oh how I long to live in your black and white world. If the constitution wasn't in need of interpreting then our founding fathers wouldn't have had a need for the Supreme Court. I'll put you down in the group that thinks there should be no limits on free speech or practicing of religion too. Common sense seems to depart when guns is the topic for what are typically rational people. For this reason I think those people should be excluded from the outcome of this debate.

In truth, volume of guns isn't really my issue although I can comprehend why even a collector would need so many. My real issues on the gun topic are many fold:

1. Gun shows: A mack-truck sized loophole for gun buyers to acquire weapons and avoid many of the safety mechanisms for gun store purchases.
2. Selling guns designed for military use to civilians. Sure they are no longer "automatic" but can be easily converted to automatic simply by watching some Youtube videos.
3. Universal background checks. The NRA has assured the current process is essentially worthless by putting in legislation that forbids states and law enforcement agencies from sharing information. The process has to be paper-base rather thanks to the NRA. They've literally neutered the background check process at a significant cost to the American taxpayer and a process that can't begin to return a reduction in risk.

It's being reported that this shooter bought 33 guns from 5 different states within the last year. He didn't have a gun dealer permit so that should have been a warning sign to anyone looking at the data. Except, the feds are explicitly forbidden from making these records electronic so nobody had the ability to at least question what was going on. Thank you NRA. Your "the only way to stop a person with a gun is with more people having guns" mantra stinks.

 

[mb227]

It DOES NOT MATTER that he bought 33 guns in the past year. Doing so IS NOT illegal nor should it be. There is no law against owning most weapons. If I want to go to a gun shop every day of the week and make a purchase, I can do that. The licensed dealer has paperwork required for the multiple sale, but it is not incumbent upon me as the purchaser to ensure they fill out the required paperwork for the government.

I find it peculiar that you STILL choose to also ignore the Tony Buzbee tank (you know, those things you asserted common persons cannot purchase or own legally)...it is still (to my knowledge) parked in front of his house in River Oaks. I think he bought it just to piss off the HOA, so despite him being aggy, I have to give him props on that point...

Every single day, MILLIONS of legally owned guns are NOT used in the commission of ANY crime, felony OR misdemeanor.

Some people like guns. Personally, I enjoy vehicles. At one point, I had basically a vehicle for every day of the week. Some view that as excessive. I don't. Some don't understand why I like acquiring vehicles if I am only going to put a hundred miles or so on them in a given year. Not my problem. Same thing with guns...

 

[OUBubba]

It DOES NOT MATTER

Maybe we've passed the critical mass where it should matter. The Constitution is a living document. Interpretations change.

 

[Seattle Husker]

It DOES NOT MATTER that he bought 33 guns in the past year. Doing so IS NOT illegal nor should it be. There is no law against owning most weapons. If I want to go to a gun shop every day of the week and make a purchase, I can do that. The licensed dealer has paperwork required for the multiple sale, but it is not incumbent upon me as the purchaser to ensure they fill out the required paperwork for the government.

I haven't claimed that anything pertaining to the purchase of these guns was illegal. Law enforcement authorities will need to figure out who made these previously semi-automatic weapons automatic. I haven't stated that the gun dealers did anything illegal. All I've said is that purchasing 33 guns from 5 different states for personal use in a year could be a flag. At the very least, someone should have followed up to ensure he wasn't running an illegal gun store. Of course, all that paperwork is required to remain in paper form making it impossible for anyone to tie these data elements together. That's the point I was making.

I find it peculiar that you STILL choose to also ignore the Tony Buzbee tank (you know, those things you asserted common persons cannot purchase or own legally)...it is still (to my knowledge) parked in front of his house in River Oaks. I think he bought it just to piss off the HOA, so despite him being aggy, I have to give him props on that point...

I'm going to assume this is a reference to someone else as I'd never heard of Tony Buzbee or his tank until looking it up. Not sure how that applies here.

Every single day, MILLIONS of legally owned guns are NOT used in the commission of ANY crime, felony OR misdemeanor.

We also have the highest rate of gun violence in the world by a significant margin. Correlation?

Some people like guns. Personally, I enjoy vehicles. At one point, I had basically a vehicle for every day of the week. Some view that as excessive. I don't. Some don't understand why I like acquiring vehicles if I am only going to put a hundred miles or so on them in a given year. Not my problem. Same thing with guns...

You registered each of those cars, right? The authorities knew you had those cars so that if they were used in an accident they could track them back to you, right? Why shouldn't guns have the same requirement?

 

[Seattle Husker]

In short, THIS WILL HAPPEN AGAIN!!! 59 murders will not be the record for long. Some depressed/depraved yahoo is going to take the lives of more people rather than just his own. 600 peoples lives were directly impacted and thousands more indirectly. When do we as a society step back and say "we have a problem here"? When this happens in other countries you're talking single digits because you can't injure/kill 560 people with a blade. The easy access to military grade weapons is crazy.

I'm not anti-gun. I still enjoy going back to Nebraska and pulling out the .22 Rifle and a Shotgun for target practice with my boys. Most CCP state rules are completely acceptable to me.

 

[ShAArk92]

Only after the NRA began advancing this view in the 70's did suddenly the 2nd amendment become more important than all others.

The 2A has always held its proper place. The degree to which it has been necessary to defend it is what brought your referenced time period lobby by the NRA ... and if the 2A weren’t supported by citizens, the NRA would not have the ability to be as strong as it is (not strong enough IMHBAO)

 

[mb227]

I haven't claimed that anything pertaining to the purchase of these guns was illegal. Law enforcement authorities will need to figure out who made these previously semi-automatic weapons automatic. I haven't stated that the gun dealers did anything illegal. All I've said is that purchasing 33 guns from 5 different states for personal use in a year could be a flag. At the very least, someone should have followed up to ensure he wasn't running an illegal gun store. Of course, all that paperwork is required to remain in paper form making it impossible for anyone to tie these data elements together. That's the point I was making.

Keep moving those goal posts...in your previous post, you claimed it SHOULD have been a red flag. To which I reply that no, it should not have been. Legal purchases of ANY item should not be flags of any type for persons who believe in the Constitution.

I'm going to assume this is a reference to someone else as I'd never heard of Tony Buzbee or his tank until looking it up. Not sure how that applies here.

How can ANYONE on HornFans claim with a straight face they never heard of Buzbee...does not even matter if you never ventured into sports sub-forums or not, given the political content he has been good for through the years.

You asserted that tanks were not something that could be owned (you also claimed drones). Once again, you were shown to be FOS and now that you were so shown, want to claim you don't understand how it applies. The SIMPLE point is that you don't appear to know of what you speak and instead cling ever so desperately to the left's talking points that continue to show an appalling level of ignorance on what people can and cannot legally possess.

We also have the highest rate of gun violence in the world by a significant margin. Correlation?

So, do tell how restrictions on semi-automatic weapons is going to impact those crime stats out of places like Chicago and, for that matter, the country as a whole given that MOST gun violence is handgun-related.

You registered each of those cars, right? The authorities knew you had those cars so that if they were used in an accident they could track them back to you, right? Why shouldn't guns have the same requirement?

The paperwork was completed on my weapons when I bought them. So yes, the government knows where I was living when I bought them. But like my vehicles, any sort of annual registration of guns would simply lead them to my post office box (the same place the trail on my vehicles and pilot certificate lead). But guess what...if my gun is used somewhere and I didn't report the conduct, the government having an address does not a single thing towards identifying my gun in any manner.

 

[ShAArk92]

think those people should be excluded from th

You repeat this.

Does that make your opinion of greater value?

Bubba opines the Constitution is “living”

There’s only one Living Word. As miraculous as our Constitution was and is ... words mean things.

Someone else already mentioned it but the lefts effort sells more guns/ammo than anyone else. That should be instructive

But that would require humility and such is often lacking when considering the big govt philosophy outlook.

 

[mb227]

Maybe we've passed the critical mass where it should matter. The Constitution is a living document. Interpretations change.

You want to start down a slippery slope...and then you will act all surprised when normal everyday people start stockpiling a few thousand (or more) rounds of ammunition in their homes.

Someone pointed out an interesting tidbit earlier today...we don't have a gun problem. We have a male violence problem. Have you noticed that, despite the fact that females like our guns as well, we don't see these sorts of events occurring with women behind the trigger (or at least nobody that was born into the class of female, since I am sure some SJW would come along and claim that one of the shooters might have 'identified' as having delicate laydee fee-fees).

 

[ShAArk92]

Curious how a silencer plays into your gun views. Seriously. Can you elaborate as I'm not a gun guy? Dad was a small town attorney so we had loaded firearms in various places in the house and I'm not anti-gun.

Sorry Bubba. Didn’t intentionally diss this one.

I find it curious folks feel the need to state a condition which is clearly opposite to the rest of their discourse.

That’s instructive too.

To answer your directed question, setup or sincere: silencers are tools. Tactically sound (so to speak) in many applications.

The fact they are classified as “special” only substantiates the agenda sees intent being greater than effect ... or even compliance.

We don’t have “class 3” vehicle. Only GVWR limitations on a class c license. But ... I just fed the beast of irrelevant comparison.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Keep moving those goal posts...in your previous post, you claimed it SHOULD have been a red flag. To which I reply that no, it should not have been. Legal purchases of ANY item should not be flags of any type for persons who believe in the Constitution.

Yes, it should have been a red flag but was not illegal. You might want to brush up on "moving the goal posts" metaphors. We have plenty of legally purchased items that raise a red flag with law enforcement. Try to buy some Sudafed w/Ephedrin in the State of Washington. Every single purchase at any store is tracked and reported. Constitutional violation?

How can ANYONE on HornFans claim with a straight face they never heard of Buzbee...does not even matter if you never ventured into sports sub-forums or not, given the political content he has been good for through the years.

If the "Seattle" wasn't enough clue maybe the "Husker" should have been. Should I apologize for not being up to speed on Texas topics?

You asserted that tanks were not something that could be owned (you also claimed drones). Once again, you were shown to be FOS and now that you were so shown, want to claim you don't understand how it applies. The SIMPLE point is that you don't appear to know of what you speak and instead cling ever so desperately to the left's talking points that continue to show an appalling level of ignorance on what people can and cannot legally possess.

I don't remember asserting that. OUBubba maybe? One can own tanks in the US but they are heavily regulated requiring a Class 2 Weapons license and the barrel/firing mechanism must be decommissioned. I'd be OK with handling assault weapons (semi-automatic) similarly.

So, do tell how restrictions on semi-automatic weapons is going to impact those crime stats out of places like Chicago and, for that matter, the country as a whole given that MOST gun violence is handgun-related.

Please put away that strawman. There is no single solution for every problem. I've never stated as much. For the MASS shootings (20+ deaths) the methods are clear, bombs and assault rifles. Can we at least try to limit the carnage or is carnage a 2nd amendment right too?

The paperwork was completed on my weapons when I bought them. So yes, the government knows where I was living when I bought them. But like my vehicles, any sort of annual registration of guns would simply lead them to my post office box (the same place the trail on my vehicles and pilot certificate lead). But guess what...if my gun is used somewhere and I didn't report the conduct, the government having an address does not a single thing towards identifying my gun in any manner.

And if you sell the car (private sale) you file a transfer of title to avoid liability for the vehicle afterwards. The state shares that data with the other 49 states. Why don't we do as much for guns?

 

[Seattle Husker]

You repeat this.

Does that make your opinion of greater value?

Bubba opines the Constitution is “living”

There’s only one Living Word. As miraculous as our Constitution was and is ... words mean things.

Someone else already mentioned it but the lefts effort sells more guns/ammo than anyone else. That should be instructive

But that would require humility and such is often lacking when considering the big govt philosophy outlook.

My opinions of no greater value but rather it's impossible to negotiate an amenable common sense solution with an intractable group at the table. That's why I've said to remove the intractable groups from negotiation. Absolutism will never work. Those groups on both side of the issue will never be happy.

As far as the "lefts efforts sells more guns/ammo" says more about your crowd than it does the liberals. The "take my guns away" paranoia is significant.

 

[OUBubba]

Sorry Bubba. Didn’t intentionally diss this one.

I find it curious folks feel the need to state a condition which is clearly opposite to the rest of their discourse.

That’s instructive too.

To answer your directed question, setup or sincere: silencers are tools. Tactically sound (so to speak) in many applications.

The fact they are classified as “special” only substantiates the agenda sees intent being greater than effect ... or even compliance.

We don’t have “class 3” vehicle. Only GVWR limitations on a class c license. But ... I just fed the beast of irrelevant comparison.

What are you getting at? I'm really curious why a gun advocate would use a silencer? I'm looking for a justification that makes sense. I mean they were outlawed for a good reason, right?

 

[OUBubba]

Funny looking back on it. http://joeforamerica.com/2015/05/ja...control-martial-law-via-federalized-policing/

 

[mb227]

Yes, it should have been a red flag but was not illegal. You might want to brush up on "moving the goal posts" metaphors. We have plenty of legally purchased items that raise a red flag with law enforcement. Try to buy some Sudafed w/Ephedrin in the State of Washington. Every single purchase at any store is tracked and reported. Constitutional violation?

Actually it does not have ephedrine in it, but does contain pseudoephedrine. But for the sake of your discussion, I do not agree with the statutes requiring either the tracking or limits on purchase. It is hell for those of us with allergies, although I did recently have a pharmacist tell me that if my doctor were to write the prescription, I can buy all of the OTC antihistamine I want...

If the "Seattle" wasn't enough clue maybe the "Husker" should have been. Should I apologize for not being up to speed on Texas topics?

You spend enough time here that it may reasonably be presumed that you either 1) are a troll or 2) had legitimate interests in ALL things Texas. It would seem I made an error in presuming Option 2 might actually have applied...thank you for correcting me.

Please put away that strawman. There is no single solution for every problem. I've never stated as much. For the MASS shootings (20+ deaths) the methods are clear, bombs and assault rifles. Can we at least try to limit the carnage or is carnage a 2nd amendment right too?

Except you want to cite large numbers of fatalities on an annual basis that have NOTHING to do with the firearms you want to start down the slippery slope with. Firearms in "mass shootings" are a pimple on a gnat's *** in the grand scheme of things.

And if you sell the car (private sale) you file a transfer of title to avoid liability for the vehicle afterwards. The state shares that data with the other 49 states. Why don't we do as much for guns?

I think I did that the last time I actually sold one...that was more than a decade ago. I don't often sell my cars, choosing instead to keep them as long as possible since they were either unique or have options that manufacturers no longer offer. Some are not even renewed annually...and before you get in a twist, there are provisions in the law that allow for that...

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

Maybe we've passed the critical mass where it should matter. The Constitution is a living document. Interpretations change.

I'm not opposed to the idea that maybe the founding fathers could not have anticipated all the challenges of modern life and therefore laws and even the constitution need to change. HOWEVER, I am vehemently opposed to changing the constitution when it is done through 9 people in black robes (and new "interpretations") and not through elected representatives. If there is enough support for gun control then pass a law, if there isn't...they shouldn't try to back door it through the courts....as so much has been done lately.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Actually it does not have ephedrine in it, but does contain pseudoephedrine. But for the sake of your discussion, I do not agree with the statutes requiring either the tracking or limits on purchase. It is hell for those of us with allergies, although I did recently have a pharmacist tell me that if my doctor were to write the prescription, I can buy all of the OTC antihistamine I want...

Shame on me for getting the name of the drug incorrect. Why are those laws in place? To inhibit the production of meth and thus it's distribution. They are there to protect the average citizen.

You spend enough time here that it may reasonably be presumed that you either 1) are a troll or 2) had legitimate interests in ALL things Texas. It would seem I made an error in presuming Option 2 might actually have applied...thank you for correcting me.

I've been here since 1999. I'll leave the namecalling to others.

Except you want to cite large numbers of fatalities on an annual basis that have NOTHING to do with the firearms you want to start down the slippery slope with. Firearms in "mass shootings" are a pimple on a gnat's *** in the grand scheme of things.

Again with the silver bullet. I've already stated that there isn't a single solution. You have to start somewhere and clearly we have an issue with mass killings. I'd suggest starting another thread about fatalities not related to gun deaths because this one is about the incident in Las Vegas. Unless he drove a bus through the concert crowd than any discussion about anything other than the 16 guns he had in his hotel room is a purposeful distraction.

I think I did that the last time I actually sold one...that was more than a decade ago. I don't often sell my cars, choosing instead to keep them as long as possible since they were either unique or have options that manufacturers no longer offer. Some are not even renewed annually...and before you get in a twist, there are provisions in the law that allow for that...

I have a classic car too. It's a 1950 Ford Tudor that was my great great grandfathers' initially. It's still registered and were I to sell it I'd have to inform the government who'd put the information in an electronic database which brings me back to my initial point. Guns seem to be a place where all common sense departs when looking for rational solutions to limiting their negative impacts on society.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

We also have the highest rate of gun violence in the world by a significant margin. Correlation?

And when you take out urban violence in about five major cities, that gap basically disappears. The vast majority either comes from suicide or gang-related violence.

The "take my guns away" paranoia is significant.

It's because people keep saying "we need to take everyone's guns away." Granted, no one who's trying to get elected is saying it.

 

[mchammer]

 

[OUBubba]

And when you take out urban violence in about five major cities, that gap basically disappears. The vast majority either comes from suicide or gang-related violence.



It's because people keep saying "we need to take everyone's guns away." Granted, no one who's trying to get elected is saying it.

All I see is people saying “we need to make sure that people who shouldn’t have guns don’t get them and we should discuss some of the firearms that are accessible by people”. I’ve not seen anyone credible suggesting that guns be taken from anyone.

 

[Joe Fan]

I order room service like that in Vegas all the time. Actually more backup food/drinks than that. Most of my receipts would easily appear as 2-3 people......

It's arguably two meals as well.
Although admittedly hard to say with any certainty
If it is one meal, then its alot to eat for a guy who was supposed to be skinny/losing weight