OT: Las Vegas Active Shooter
- Thread starter raulduke_007
- Start date
Can you come up with a single reason that you need an AK-47? You know there isn't a good one.
Just circling back on this. He LEGALLY modified his semi-automatic weapons with bump stocks. He purchased bump stocks for his legally purchased weapons that skirt the automatic rules. It allows the guns to fire 400-800 bullets a minute.
Again, another thing that absolutely shouldn't be legal.
Agreed. Cheap and legal and exist for the sole reason to circumvent the Federal law.
I agree about the bump stick.
To answer your question in regards to my AK-47 I am a Firearms enthusiast. Whether you think that is a good reason or not means very little to me because I do not go through life wondering what you find acceptable or not
Our Constitution and the Supreme Court allows me to do this legally. The act of a few Mad Men should not jeopardize my rights.
One man injured or killed about 600 people in 10 minutes, You can tell a gun nut by his lament that this is not the time to discuss gun control. In a way they are right. The right time has been on going since the ban on assault weapons was allowed to lapse under Bush/Cheney. It is always the right time. Thanks Bush/Cheney. Along with 9/11, the Iraq/Afghan war, and the start of the worse economic crisis in 60 years, those are the legacies that you guys left us.
Guns killed and injured 600 people in Las Vegas. Over 20 guns in one guys room and no one noticed. The RW PC slogan that guns don't kill people, people kill people is shallow. The killer didn't use his fingernails and fancy kung fu.
Gun owners need to buy insurance. Car owners do. Assault weapon ban needs to be restored.
Guns killed and injured 600 people in Las Vegas. Over 20 guns in one guys room and no one noticed. The RW PC slogan that guns don't kill people, people kill people is shallow. The killer didn't use his fingernails and fancy kung fu.
Gun owners need to buy insurance. Car owners do. Assault weapon ban needs to be restored.
And this is a perfect example. We just had a fellow gun enthusiast who snapped at 64 years old.
There's no reason for regular citizens to have access to these type of guns. "I really like guns" isn't a good reason.
I personally don't remember seeing you post anything about the hundreds killed in Chicago every year very curious indeed
This becomes an extremely emotionally charged topic, but it doesn't have to.
It's this simple... If Americans want civilians to have access to any guns that have purposes other than hunting, you are going to have to live with the fact that people are going to get killed with those guns. It seems that most Americans still seem to support the legality of guns outside of hunting rifles and shotguns in the hands of civilians.
The result is and will continue to be tens of thousands of gun related deaths and injuries in America each year.
You get what you emphasize. All the BS rhetoric about crazy People, background checks, education, etc, etc, is not the problem. Guns are the problem. That is of course if you think civilians being shot to death by fellow civilians is actually a problem... It's evident that some people don't.
If guns are not the problem, then why are Americans killing each other will guns 51X more than their Canadian neighbours?... Are we to believe that Americans are 51X more likely to be evil, psychotic, mentally deranged, madmen, compared to their direct neighbours who they are nearly identical to in terms of culture and values?
This isn't a debate. It's a decision. Either you are in favour of laws (and the strict enforcement of those laws) that make the people of your country safer, or you are not. If you are not, that is your right, but don't act at all shocked or surpised when people abuse the situation and people die.
It's this simple... If Americans want civilians to have access to any guns that have purposes other than hunting, you are going to have to live with the fact that people are going to get killed with those guns. It seems that most Americans still seem to support the legality of guns outside of hunting rifles and shotguns in the hands of civilians.
The result is and will continue to be tens of thousands of gun related deaths and injuries in America each year.
You get what you emphasize. All the BS rhetoric about crazy People, background checks, education, etc, etc, is not the problem. Guns are the problem. That is of course if you think civilians being shot to death by fellow civilians is actually a problem... It's evident that some people don't.
If guns are not the problem, then why are Americans killing each other will guns 51X more than their Canadian neighbours?... Are we to believe that Americans are 51X more likely to be evil, psychotic, mentally deranged, madmen, compared to their direct neighbours who they are nearly identical to in terms of culture and values?
This isn't a debate. It's a decision. Either you are in favour of laws (and the strict enforcement of those laws) that make the people of your country safer, or you are not. If you are not, that is your right, but don't act at all shocked or surpised when people abuse the situation and people die.
Listen brother it is clear we are not going to see eye-to-eye at this point but if you find yourself in either Nebraska or Texas when I am there I will take you to one of our hunting leases and show you we're not the boogeyman you might believe we are to be
We'll shoot a few rounds get an understanding of our view ot the Second Amendment if you aren't already and find we might actually have more things in common than what it looks
Last edited:
"..........being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
It's pretty cut-and-dry
Nobody is arguing legality, DIP. At least I'm not. We're talking priority. Is it more important that school children can go to school, safely. Theatre goers can go to movies, safely. College students can go to class, safely. Nightclub goers can go and dance, safely... Or that Americans can defend themselves from the hypothetical tyranny, of a hypothetical government invasion, in a hypothetical situation, governed by hypothetical metrics.
You have an amendment process for a reason... If you would rather choose to side with hypothetical situations over reality, all the power to you. I'm not going to criticise you, because God knows I'm nowhere near perfect... I'm simply in favour of reality and practicality. If Americans don't think shooting deaths in their country at 50-100X the rate of their industrialized allies is a substantial issue, that entirely your business.... Except that somewhere along the lines of 90% of the illegal guns that come into Canada come across the 49th Parallel.
What you are talking about is an end around the Constitution that keeps the government in check.
What happens next which amendment get stripped after that?
As far as the illegal guns entering Canada sounds like you guys need to start watching that border a little better.
Illegal Firearms does not do anybody any good except bad guys
No more than the Supreme Court forgot about it
I'm afraid your interpretation does not meet the criteria of the Second Amendment ruling
I have no problem with the 2nd amendment. I have no problem with people owning guns. I have a problem with civilians owning guns that are meant to murder people in a short amount of time.
Again, the hypothetical argument vs reality. The Government needs to be kept theoretically in check in case they decide to come kill your kids and rape your wives. And while that highly unlikely, theoretical, situation is prepared for, the hourly reality in the United States that people are needlessly shot and killed by their fellow civilians, continues to be ignored.
Again... Ancient legality vs current reality.
First of all if you are going to try to become a citizen of this country wanting to circumventing certain constitutional rights is not a way to go about it.
Do you believe most people that are murdered are by legally owned firearms?
Do you believe the rich and Powerful should be the only ones to have armed guards?
I take it you believe the Constitution is outdated and more rights to be taken away from the population and give it to government
Maybe you might want to rethink becoming an American citizen?
The second amendment does not keep the "government in check". You have been watching your "Red Dawn" VHS tape too often.
The founders granted upon the individual the right to keep and bear arms as similar to any standing army, but as the technology increased the ability of the citizen to own ever-increasing technological weapons increases
Absolutely Clueless
Absolutely Clueless
No interest in becoming an America citizen. There is no benefit in doing so, otherwise I would consider it.
I believe that the majority of people that are killed by guns are killed by illegal guns. However, the vast majority of those guns were likely once legally issued to, or sold to someone, and found their way into the perpetrators hands, or slipped through border security.
I fundamentally believe in police and military, the two institutions who serve as the armed guards of citizens at the state and federal level. You know, the people who are paid by civilian tax money to uphold the safety of the community. Do I believe in some form of vigilante justice? No... All that said, my family are proud gun owners. We must have close to two dozen in the extended family. All legally issued hunting rifles and shotguns, stored according to law... I also carry a Colt C7 assault rifle at work. I'm certainly not an "anti gun" person. I've also heard maybe only one scenario in my entire life in which one of my .30 caliber rifles would not adequately protect myself and my family from an intruder.
Do I believe that there are elements of the Constitution that ought to be routinely amended to reflect the needs and issues of an ever evolving society? Yep.
I don't live rooted in the past, nor do I live obsessed with the hypotheticals of the future. I try stay grounded in current reality, drawing lessons from the past and with an eye to the future.
I answered all 4 of your questions. I'll gladly answer in greater detail if you want me to expand.
I have two questions for you...
1. Is your right to ownership of handguns and assault rifles, for hypothetical defensive reasons, when a hunting rifle would suffice in almost all instances, more important to you than the deaths of thousands of your countrymen and women annually? Are you rooted in hypethticals or reality?
2. If you, unfortunately, had cancer (God forbid) and every other one of your first world industrial allies used a drug that had a 50-100x greater success rate in curing cancer, but happened to be illegal in America, would you A) gamble on the American FDA regulated drug that was 50-100x less likely to cure your cancer, or would you B) travel to another reputable country and save your life with the better, far more successful drug?
Every day people get in the car. They drive to their local watering hole, get shitfaced, and then kill someone. Maybe we should try prohibition? I'm not advocating one way or another. But i'm not sure if continually writing gun laws is the answer. Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. They are a hot mess in regard to gun violence.
1) Me giving up my firearms will not prevent any of this. Bad guys do bad things just the way it is.
Now if you find a hunting rifle to be all you'll need in self-defense more power to you. But my interest in firearms and the legal right to have these is my interest. Firearms have always been a big part of my life.
I've committed no Mass murderers, shot citizens or even pointed a firearm at an American.
You can't legislate homicidal maniacs.
For those Americans who want to turn the page on the Second Amendment you are going to be in for a very very disappointing outcome.
For the foreigners who believe our Constitution is outdated all I can say is why is this country the place that most tries to get to?
Firearms are a part of Americana.
Be responsible
2) has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation we are having.
1. We don't need prohibition. We have laws against drinking and driving that scare the living hell out of people. The current ones work about as well as gun laws. What you need is strict and swift enforcement of laws and terrifyingly harsh penalties that are enforceable BEFORE you kill somebody. Get caught drinking and driving, have your vehichle impounded permantly, pay a $10,000 fine and be subject to a conspiracy to commit murder charge, and guess how many drinking and driving fatalities you would have? Very few compared to now.
2. It doesn't matter how strict Chicago is on guns. It's not a gated community. If the surrounding cities, counties and states and equally harsh on guns both in terms of written and executed law the guns will continue to fall into the hands of the people who want them.
The countries that have successfully deterred gun violence not only have federal bans on many types of guns, holding everybody accountable to the same laws, but they also have near draconian laws regarding the illegal use or storage of the guns that people are legally allowed to own. Because of that, you don't see guns in public and if you do, there is little question of their legality. If It's a cop with a gun in public. It's legal. If it's anyone else, It's likely illegal. There isn't a lot grey area or convoluted laws with regards to who can carry a gun, what type of gun, in what public place and how it can or cannot be concealed.
I think getting the death penalty for murdering someone with a gun is pretty scary for most. That response is really obfuscous
In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. Of the 1, 1,132 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2015, 209 (16%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.
Sorry so short brother I stopped at a truck stop to take on some fuel on my way into Cedar Rapids
I should have just kept it short as just stating I'm a constitutional conservative
You're missing the point. In countries that have deterred gun violence, having the gun in the first place comes with a far harsher penalty. It doesn't get to the point of murder, because the tool to commit the crime is removed from your hands before you commit.
See here is the problem.... Hundreds of millions of Americans are good people, who have no malicious intent. The same is true of the populous of every nation on the planet. We basically all start at the same place. But here is the difference... In the countries where they have very little gun violence smart people have said...
"For those few percent of people that do have malicious intent, are psychotic or are in need of mental health treatment, what is the easiest way for them to inflict mass harm on the public? Guns. They're the simplest practical killing tool on the planet. Therefore, to save thousands of lives, we're going to ban guns for everyone and make them extremely hard to get. Therefore, it becomes much more difficult for an evil, mentally ill or deranged person to gets his or hands on one and inflict mass causality".
Nobody is talking about curing the gun problem. Unless we melt every gun in the world down into molten liquid, that isn't happening. We're talking about being practical and taking the best, most proven effective preventatitive measures to reduce the risk of gun violence... Current American gun laws aren't preventative in nature at all. They reactionary in nature. Unfortunately, when You're talking about guns, reaction is too late.
Last edited:
I don't think you read what I wrote. The person who just killed 58 people and injured 500 others was a law-abiding citizen. There's no reason for any citizen to own guns that are meant for war and mass murder.
Chicago does NOT have the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Do you just regurgitate what Trump tweets? If he tweets something, you can assume it's wrong.
Chicago was already covered in this thread. 40% of their guns come from outside the state. And their laws are similar to any major city. The punishment for breaking the gun laws are minimal. That's the entire issue.
Not a problem my man. Your points are clear and well respected on this end. We disagree, but I appreciate you getting back to me.
Interestingly, I'd also categorize myself as a constitutional conservative. But I'm also a pragmatist who has been lucky enough to travel the world and in doing so, I've cemented my belief in two things.
1. The United States and Canada are undoubtedly the two best countries to live in if you look at the full scope of things. Although countries like Australia and Sweden are right up there as well.
2. No matter how good we have it here, and I'm well aware that we have it better than most, we could do things better. There are absolutely some laws, traditions and values in other parts of the world that I've seen, in practice, work better than some of ours.
I'm all for the principles that we were built on, but I don't want to pretend for a second that the people who wrote all of our laws, hundreds of years ago, weren't a product of their time and the issues their society was facing at the time. With the exponential growth of technology and the increasingly global world that we are a part of (that they could never have imagined) I the people of the time need to be responsible for the laws that govern them, always grounded in the traditions and principles that got us here.
Never forget the consequences of the past. Never be blind to the possibilities of the future... But always govern by the realities of the day.
So one nut goes on a killing spree and I lose my constitutional rights
sorry not in this lifetime not in this country
From what I understand this was a multi-millionaire so if you didn't have a gun I'm sure you had enough money to buy whatever kind of bomb he wanted to make to inflict it just as much damage you cannot legislate homicidal maniacs
Punish criminals..... I'm all for that.
Let's all hope each state can prevent illegal gun getting into criminal hands
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
Recruiting Four-star WR Brayden Robinson sets three official visits
- Latest: Fighting Irish
-
CFL NEWS: Jarious Jackson Just Named Interim HC of Edmonton Elks
- Latest: Fighting Irish
-
Recruiting First Rivals250 for 2027 class shows work to do for Notre Dame
- Latest: Fighting Irish
