Las Vegas

[Mr. Deez]

The founders probably never imagined airplanes flying into buildings or trucks killing a hundred at a time either.

Frankly, I'm not a fan of "the founders didn't imagine" arguments on any issue. First, it's almost always raised as a justification for not enforcing part of the Constitution or at least blunting its enforcement. Whether that's stated expressly or impliedly, that's the argument.

Second, that kind of argument is almost always applied selectively. How many people who raise this argument about machine guns or assault rifles bring up the fact that the founders likely didn't anticipate internet porn and gay marriage when they authored the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Pretty much none. Hell, did the founders anticipate that we'd be having serious arguments over issues like "what is a family?" or "what is a man/woman?"

Third, in the case of the Second Amendment, it's not a very strong point anyway. Did the founders foresee machine guns? Probably not, but did they foresee that weapons get stronger and more efficient with technology? Undoubtedly. Muskets look primitive today. They were advanced weapons in the 18th century - much moreso than the slings and bows and arrows that were used by previous generations. The founders were smart guys. They probably could see the pattern.

Finally, the founders were smart enough to know that they couldn't anticipate the issues of the future, which is why they developed an amendment process. If we want to weaken gun rights or any constitutional rights, then let's follow that process rather than depart from the rule of written law that so many advocate.

 

[iatrogenic]

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.

History refers to that scenario as the American Revolution.

 

[iatrogenic]

Finally, the founders were smart enough to know that they couldn't anticipate the issues of the future, which is why they developed an amendment process. If we want to weaken gun rights or any constitutional rights, then let's follow that process rather than depart from the rule of written law that so many advocate.

Correct, Sir!

 

[iatrogenic]

First, it's almost always raised as a justification for not enforcing part of the Constitution or at least blunting its enforcement. Whether that's stated expressly or impliedly, that's the argument.

This hits the nail. The Constitution is an obstacle in the way of liberals, who for the most part are social justice warriors. This is most notable in the politically oriented judicial branch. Liberal politicians always try to discredit existing social processes, and the process oriented Constitution, to try and further their goal oriented, empathetic, emotional, non-objective, social salvation. They always have the answer, and they are more than happy to substitute their ideas for the collective decision making of the citizens.

Before the Revolution, the founders were men "of affairs" and substance that were personally responsible for economic outcomes and meeting payrolls. Their knowledge was gained from personal and historical experience, not from speculation and rhetorical B.S. They were not the type of intellectuals that we find in many political offices today- the type that are only concerned with style and rhetoric, and exude moral superiority (ex: Obama). The founders knew the weaknesses of these types of men and their destructive nature, and that is why checks and balances exist.

 

[OUBubba]

This hits the nail. The Constitution is an obstacle in the way of liberals, who for the most part are social justice warriors. This is most notable in the politically oriented judicial branch. Liberal politicians always try to discredit existing social processes, and the process oriented Constitution, to try and further their goal oriented, empathetic, emotional, non-objective, social salvation. They always have the answer, and they are more than happy to substitute their ideas for the collective decision making of the citizens.

Before the Revolution, the founders were men "of affairs" and substance that were personally responsible for economic outcomes and meeting payrolls. Their knowledge was gained from personal and historical experience, not from speculation and rhetorical B.S. They were not the type of intellectuals that we find in many political offices today- the type that are only concerned with style and rhetoric, and exude moral superiority (ex: Obama). The founders knew the weaknesses of these types of men and their destructive nature, and that is why checks and balances exist.

Two things.

1. The Constitution, much like Jesus, is bipartisan.
2. I think the founders worst case scenario is in office now.

 

[iatrogenic]

Actually, the last President is a perfect example to refer to when looking for the worst case scenario in the founders’ minds. He neither held a meaningful job nor had military experience. I believe he had his policies overturned by SCOTUS more times than any other President. A perfect example of checks and balances working as envisioned by the Founders.

 

[nashhorn]

1. The Constitution, much like Jesus, is bipartisan.

Ummm, I think more nonpartisan.

 

[OUBubba]

Ummm, I think more nonpartisan.

Good point.

 

[Mr. Deez]

2. I think the founders worst case scenario is in office now.

I don't think that's true. I think the founders would consider the worst case scenario presidents to be those who most departed from the founders' basic principles. This may be politically incorrect to say, but I think they'd judge Lincoln and the post-Civil War presidents more harshly than Trump, because the changes they made were much more profound than anything Trump has suggested doing, even if we set aside the slavery issue.

 

[mchammer]

Two things.

1. The Constitution, much like Jesus, is bipartisan.
2. I think the founders worst case scenario is in office now.

Trump in my view is following the constitution more faithfully than since I have been paying attention to presidential politics. Even when he says that NBC should have its license revoked he said it ought to be done by the certification board (vs edict). Just because you don't like his opinions or policies doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

 

[mchammer]

Two things.

1. The Constitution, much like Jesus, is bipartisan.
2. I think the founders worst case scenario is in office now.

According to leftists, using the power of government to reign in said government is "unconstitutional". In other words, anything that doesn't expand he scope of government must be unconstitutional.

 

[OUBubba]

Trump in my view is following the constitution more faithfully than since I have been paying attention to presidential politics. Even when he says that NBC should have its license revoked he said it ought to be done by the certification board (vs edict). Just because you don't like his opinions or policies doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

Emoluments, yo!

 

[Joe Fan]

Another oddity
This is the security guard

So the security guard (Campos) either pulled himself or was pulled from interviews with any news outlets. He was only allowed to talk to "Ellen."
Why Ellen?
She has a contractual/financial relationship with Vegas casinos
The Mandalay Bay owner supposedly would only let Campos go on with a "friendly" interviewer "fearing his answers to timeline questions could result in massive lawsuits from victims."
Also, his union was heavily involved with everything he did or said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...us-Campos-appear-Ellen-fearing-lawsuites.html

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

So the security guard, Campos, left for Mexico within two days of the shooting, in a rented car.
He returned a week later

 

[Brad Austin]

I don't know how much of the security guard's dodgy behavior signals anything suspicious on his part.

The casinos are powerful as all get out. Pretty sure they put a muzzle on the guy and he had no choice but to comply.

Not hard to assume they told him to stfu and go enjoy an unlimited expenses paid vacation in Mexico visiting relatives.

Everything he may have said publicly could be used against them in lawsuits from victims and families.

He turned back up to do Ellen from my understanding. Didn't see it but it's likely he was coached ad nauseam to tow the casino line by then.

I haven't followed it closely enough to form a responsible opinion though so I may be off the mark.

 

[Joe Fan]

I don't know how much of the security guard's dodgy behavior signals anything suspicious on his part....

His behavior is not just dodgy but also controlled. It is possible he is here illegally. Which would explain why he had no weapon, as that license requires background checks. If so, then it explains the casino/hotel's severe control of his appearances. He was allowed one, the ridiculously scripted interview by Ellen above, and no others. They have liability concerns. Their potential exposure has scared the crap out of them. It would also explain the behavior and prominence of his Union in this.

 

[Seattle Husker]

His behavior is not just dodgy but also controlled. It is possible he is here illegally. Which would explain why he had no weapon, as that license requires background checks. If so, then it explains the casino/hotel's severe control of his appearances. He was allowed one, the ridiculously scripted interview by Ellen above, and no others. They have liability concerns. Their potential exposure has scared the crap out of them. It would also explain the behavior and prominence of his Union in this.

That's Infowars level conspiracy. Well done! I visit LV often and rarely is hotel security carrying weapons. The only ones clearly packing are those guards surrounding the movement of money/chips.

 

[I35]

That's Infowars level conspiracy.

Questioning the strange, weird, mysterious behavior by the casino, security guard, the LV law enforcement in Vegas can be viewed as a conspiracy theory. Do you disagree that it appears they are hiding something? Are you thinking the info Joe is giving us about all the strange things occurring are normal or typical?

"It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning." - Sen. Bob Corker, TN = SWAMP!

 

[Seattle Husker]

Questioning the strange, weird, mysterious behavior by the casino, security guard, the LV law enforcement in Vegas can be viewed as a conspiracy theory. Do you disagree that it appears they are hiding something? Are you thinking the info Joe is giving us about all the strange things occurring are normal or typical?

"It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning." - Sen. Bob Corker, TN = SWAMP!

Did he simply question the behavior or take some information and infer a story out of it (i.e. Campos is an illegal immigrant because he didn't have a gun). The left has their own loons but Infowars is the king at taking grains of truth and concocting elaborate conspiracy stories as if they are the political rights' version of the National Enquirer.

To answer your question directly, what's normal is for the Casino and the Union to try to control the message. Look no further to the Casino publicly countering the LV Sheriff's timeline. How much the guard goes along with their plans is up to him. All the rest is conspiracy laden nonsense.

 

[Joe Fan]

Questioning the strange, weird, mysterious behavior by the casino, security guard, the LV law enforcement in Vegas can be viewed as a conspiracy theory. ...

I have pointed out a couple of oddities in this matter. The behavior of the security guard was one (I also offered an explanation for that). Another is that the killer's father was a convicted bank robber while a brother has been arrested for kiddie porn. Is this not odd?

Here is one more oddity -- the hard driver on the shooter's laptop was missing.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/las-vegas-shooters-laptop-missing-hard-drive/story?id=50709285

 

[Joe Fan]

Still suspects being investigated

Even though it has been three months since Stephen Paddock opened fire into a crowd at the Route 91 Harvest Festival, the public still knows very little about what happened. Las Vegas Metro police have not released what kind of guns Paddock used or videos of Paddock inside Mandalay Bay and the investigation thus far has not yielded a motive for the massacre.

Inside a district courtroom on Jan. 16, a lawyer for multiple media outlets argued why information pertaining to 1 October is crucial to helping Las Vegas heal, but the lawyer for Metro Police said they can't release any information because there are still suspects being investigated​

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/37279598/metro-lawyers-there-are-additional-suspects-in-1-october

 

[Joe Fan]

So perhaps the shooter knew he was about to be taken down for kiddie porn because his brother was already arrested for it? Chose to go out a different way