Las Vegas

ProdigalHorn said:
As opposed to mass shootings, which according to leftists is easy to solve by passing legislation impacting things that had nothing to do with the shooting they're trying to prevent?
Click to expand...

That's a very tired strawman argument. Gun control with other measures (ie. mental health funding) all contribute to inhibiting mass shootings. Paddock legally bought 33 guns (most of the assault variety) over the course of "several days" per the LV Sheriff. Had we had the system in place to tie the totality of the gun purchases to a single non-dealer buyer we may have been able to react or at least investigate. I'm railing on a purposeful paper-based background system. It's purposeful to prevent law enforcement from putting all the dots together and interceding in Paddock's plans. Why is it impossible to limit the carnage? In 10 minutes Paddock took out more Americans than the Taliban did on any single day. Keep in mind, what Paddock did was completely legal up until he fired the first shot at the security guard.

Bill O'Reilly was right. Letting a crazy dude purchase 30 assault rifles, thousands of rounds of ammunition and mow down 59 people and wound another 500 is the "price of freedom". I'll say it only once. That is ****** up! We are the only industrialized nation that guarantees the right to maximum carnage over an irrational hyperbolic fear that the government is going to "take my guns". Weapons designed for war should not be in the hands of citizens. When I was in the Army I had to check out/in my M16A4 and count the shells to prevent a weapon of war from walking off the base. The NRA in this instance is insane.

I have no problem with pistols, hunting rifles or other associated weapons generally used for sport. Next year, when someone surpasses 59 kills in a single mass shooting I'll be ready for the same ******* excuses. That's all they are. Excuses because the gun control crowd has no other solution on the table but to accept more mass casualties by a single deranged assailant. Your price of freedom just left hundreds of families damaged.
 
mb227 said:
Explain to me again how limiting my ability to by a Z40 without safety would prevent an event like Las Vegas occurring? Or how limiting my ability to purchase ammunition for that firearm and to carry it on my person would prevent an event like Las Vegas.
Click to expand...

Who has made the argument that you shouldn't be allowed to purchase a Colt pistol? If the answer is "no one" then I'd kindly ask that you put the repeated strawman argument away. Let's talk reality. Paddock purchased 33 guns within "several days", most of which were assault weapons. He purchased 12 bump stocks. Who knows how many thousands of rounds he also bought during that same period. Your single Colt pistol and what Paddock purchased weren't just mountains apart in difference but WORLDS apart. Surely you can the difference of arming a small platoon with attack weapons vs. arming onself for self protection. Rational people should be able to tell the difference and recognize that some limits could be beneficial. Heck, the NRA would have been the first to lobby for limits until the current crowd took over the organization in the 70's and convinced you all that there was a boogeyman intent on taking away your pistol.
 
Seattle Husker said:
irrational hyperbolic fear that the government is going to "take my guns".
Click to expand...

It's not an irrational fear. Not even close. Do you remember when a well known conservative judge that was laughed at by libs when he said that the removal of sodomy laws would eventually lead to gay marriage? The extreme left keeps pushing the envelope year after year. Remember today when you didn't believe the stories coming out of California about HIV and transgenders because it sounded like something out of The Onion. You're a liberal and even you thought that was crazy. Ten years ago there's no chance that something that insane would have been passed. Do you really think that the the next generation of libs, who will be so far left that you'll look like a conservative compared to them, won't go after the 2nd Amendment?
 
Last edited:
I think he was more along the lines of limiting the ability to amass 30-something weapons, not the irrational fear of taking all weapons away.
 
Horns11 said:
I think he was more along the lines of limiting the ability to amass 30-something weapons, not the irrational fear of taking all weapons away.
Click to expand...

perhaps, but the quote clearly shows that's NOT what SH said.

@Seattle Husker: Your argument is based in emotional plea. There have been exponentially greater sacrifices for the cause of freedom, sir. That's not to diminish the pain through which these victims must pass ... in fact, it actually honors them.

You've heard it before but it's evident you need it presented again ... those who'd sacrifice freedom for perceived security deserve neither ... and are only made secure by the efforts of men greater than themselves.

That's a bit of a paraphrase as I don't have the verbatim quote off the top of me noggin ... wanna take a stab (so to speak) at who said this?
 
Joe Fan said:
The shooter's home in Reno was broken into
This occurred after the event
The police had already been there, but for some unknown reason did not have the house secured
And so they have absolutely no idea who did it or what was taken

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/crime...no-home-broken-into-fbi-revisiting/750725001/
Click to expand...
If the house had been gone through and inventoried in the initial search, then there would have been no reason to keep staff there any longer. My guess is souvenir hunters broke in knowing that some sick individuals would pay money for anything that was 'from the house,' no matter how seemingly insignificant...

As to not knowing what was taken, if anything...makes sense if they were not the last ones to do an inventory. As the FBI was the last agency in there, it would stand to reason that the scene was turned back over to them.

I see this one as much ado about nothing. Although I am equally sure the conspiracy theorists will jump all over it...
 
This case gets stranger and stranger. I wonder why Paddock would have warned Schuck to take cover?

I hear they've put travel restrictions on the girlfriend. Must think she's a flight risk.
 
Clean said:
This case gets stranger and stranger. I wonder why Paddock would have warned Schuck to take cover? I hear they've put travel restrictions on the girlfriend. Must think she's a flight risk.
Click to expand...

It looks like the written article part of that article was wrong
I watched the actual interview and I think he is saying the security guard, who had already been shot in the leg, is the one who told him to take cover.
Which makes more sense
 
mb227 said:
If the house had been gone through and inventoried in the initial search, then there would have been no reason to keep staff there any longer. My guess is souvenir hunters broke in .....
Click to expand...

Could be. But what if something was hidden in a wall or buried in the back yard?
No matter the answer, the structure should have been secured.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Who has made the argument that you shouldn't be allowed to purchase a Colt pistol? If the answer is "no one" then I'd kindly ask that you put the repeated strawman argument away. Let's talk reality. Paddock purchased 33 guns within "several days", most of which were assault weapons. He purchased 12 bump stocks. Who knows how many thousands of rounds he also bought during that same period. Your single Colt pistol and what Paddock purchased weren't just mountains apart in difference but WORLDS apart. Surely you can the difference of arming a small platoon with attack weapons vs. arming onself for self protection. Rational people should be able to tell the difference and recognize that some limits could be beneficial. Heck, the NRA would have been the first to lobby for limits until the current crowd took over the organization in the 70's and convinced you all that there was a boogeyman intent on taking away your pistol.
Click to expand...
I don't think you are wrong that there can be measures taken, but the argument that it is a slippery slope has some merit as well. If there was a way to ensure that it is not a slippery slope I think more people would get on board with restrictions but since many in the democratic leadership advocate total control where are the assurances that as soon as they give an inch, they won't take a mile.

I can think of multiple examples of recent decades where exactly that has happened.

transgendered military...I guarantee that if the 1980's group that opted in for "Don't Ask, Don't tell" had seen this coming, they wouldn't have allowed that first step.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
I don't think you are wrong that there can be measures taken, but the argument that it is a slippery slope has some merit as well. If there was a way to ensure that it is not a slippery slope I think more people would get on board with restrictions but since many in the democratic leadership advocate total control where are the assurances that as soon as they give an inch, they won't take a mile.

I can think of multiple examples of recent decades where exactly that has happened.

transgendered military...I guarantee that if the 1980's group that opted in for "Don't Ask, Don't tell" had seen this coming, they wouldn't have allowed that first step.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from but that can reasoning can be used for virtually anything. It's not lost on my that the ONLY laws that get changed after these mass shootings are that they get less restrictive, particularly in red states.

If you're looking for some guarantee of no slippery slope nobody would be able to give that to you. Of course, when our founders wrote the 2nd amendment into the constitution I doubt they envisioned that any single person would be able to amass enough firepower over the course of "several days" to kill 59 people and injure 500+ in 10 minutes. At some point in time we need to take a step back and take and accept the risk of a slippery slope or at least find another hill to fight on.
 
Seattle Husker said:
If you're looking for some guarantee of no slippery slope nobody would be able to give that to you. Of course, when our founders wrote the 2nd amendment into the constitution I doubt they envisioned that any single person would be able to amass enough firepower over the course of "several days" to kill 59 people and injure 500+ in 10 minutes. At some point in time we need to take a step back and take and accept the risk of a slippery slope or at least find another hill to fight on.
Click to expand...

And just HOW much of that total amassed was actually utilized? Answer: VERY LITTLE. But hey, continue the libtard chasing down rabbit holes of 'ohmigawd...guns...he bought so many.'
 
mb227 said:
But hey, continue the libtard chasing down rabbit holes of 'ohmigawd...guns...he bought so many.'
Click to expand...
You win. What kind of stupid thinking would cause a person to be worried when a single person amasses more weaponry than was used in Operation Zero Dark 30. Obviously some kind of tard because smart people know there are hundreds of good reasons to have dozens of assault-style weapons and a few thousand rounds of high velocity ammo ... for recreation, personal protection in case the Nazis start some concentration camps, nearby meth rings or drug cartels... the list is endless.
 
Crockett said:
You win. What kind of stupid thinking would cause a person to be worried when a single person amasses more weaponry than was used in Operation Zero Dark 30. Obviously some kind of tard because smart people know there are hundreds of good reasons to have dozens of assault-style weapons and a few thousand rounds of high velocity ammo ... for recreation, personal protection in case the Nazis start some concentration camps, nearby meth rings or drug cartels... the list is endless.
Click to expand...
You left off my personal favorite, Jade Helm.
 
OUBubba said:
You left off my personal favorite, Jade Helm.
Click to expand...
Thank God we had a governor here in Texas perceptive enough to nip that takeover in the bud through adroit use of the Texas State Guard. Not every politicians is at the beck and call of Alex Jones.
 
Crockett said:
Thank God we had a governor here in Texas perceptive enough to nip that takeover in the bud through adroit use of the Texas State Guard. Not every politicians is at the beck and call of Alex Jones.
Click to expand...

The best thing about having Rick Perry in Trump's cabinet is not having him in the Governor's Mansion. Abbott may be almost as sleazy, but he's not as embarrassing.
 
Mr. Deez said:
The best thing about having Rick Perry in Trump's cabinet is not having him in the Governor's Mansion. Abbott may be almost as sleazy, but he's not as embarrassing.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty low bar though, isn't it? Abbott's statements of putting the National Guard on alert during the Jade Helm crap had to be equal some of Rick Perry's more embarrassing moments.
 
I have to come to terms with the fact that somebody who sees eye to eye with me on politics won't be elected governor or Texas. Governor Abbott was in the national spotlight with hurricane issues and came across as engaged, caring, dignified and in control. I'm pretty sure dang near every person mortified over the prospect of Jade Helm is a Republican Primary voter.
 
Crockett said:
I have to come to terms with the fact that somebody who sees eye to eye with me on politics won't be elected governor or Texas.
Click to expand...

The Texas Democrats really don't have much of a moderate wing anymore. They've largely gone national and are building themselves around an Obama-style coalition of ethnic minorites and urban, white liberals in Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio.

Texas Republicans actually do have a moderate wing. It's big enough to elect a few state legislators (including the Speaker of the House), but it's nowhere near big enough to elect a governor or any high profile statewide officer.
 
I can't believe the amount of black helicopter type of **** that is appearing on my Facebook feed over this Vegas case.
 
Garmel said:
I can't believe the amount of black helicopter type of **** that is appearing on my Facebook feed over this Vegas case.
Click to expand...
I'm fighting my conspiracy theory nature on this one. I "think" it's pretty cut and dry and I can't imagine that there's not video of everything leading up to the thing. I can respect that an individual citizen like me doesn't need to see everything. I trust those cops in Vegas.
 
Crockett said:
You win. What kind of stupid thinking would cause a person to be worried when a single person amasses more weaponry than was used in Operation Zero Dark 30. Obviously some kind of tard because smart people know there are hundreds of good reasons to have dozens of assault-style weapons and a few thousand rounds of high velocity ammo ... for recreation, personal protection in case the Nazis start some concentration camps, nearby meth rings or drug cartels... the list is endless.
Click to expand...
You, and especially the government, should be worried. That's the purpose.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I understand where you're coming from but that can reasoning can be used for virtually anything. It's not lost on my that the ONLY laws that get changed after these mass shootings are that they get less restrictive, particularly in red states.

If you're looking for some guarantee of no slippery slope nobody would be able to give that to you. Of course, when our founders wrote the 2nd amendment into the constitution I doubt they envisioned that any single person would be able to amass enough firepower over the course of "several days" to kill 59 people and injure 500+ in 10 minutes. At some point in time we need to take a step back and take and accept the risk of a slippery slope or at least find another hill to fight on.
Click to expand...

The red states obviously value freedom more than the blue states, but that is old news.

The founders probably never imagined airplanes flying into buildings or trucks killing a hundred at a time either. The founders dealt with ideas and reality, and the primary motivating force behind the founding of our country was stopping government overreach. That is why checks and balances were built into the system. Ambition was set against ambition, and power against power.

No, we don't need to accept the risk of a slippery slope. We need to avoid the slope all together.
 
In a country where we have freedom of expression, the right to vote, checks and balances I see the "right" to advanced weaponry more as a threat to what I consider freedom than a preserver of it. If it comes down to civilians killing police/elected officials/vulnerable high value targets/military, the most plausible scenario is a country being ruled by those with the greatest facility with using weapons/least compunction about killing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top