Las Vegas...

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote:
If the guy on the street doesn't have a gun, you won't need to shoot him. You won't even need to carry. All you have to fear is an oppressive government coming to violate your rights. If only that were true, as the 2nd Amendment would have it. But it isn't. Pull your head out of the sand and look at the lives actually being lost around you. That guy on the street is shooting at you because the 2nd Amendment has been broken for so long that we may never be able to fix it.

This is misguided. Should a women who is five foot one and whose weight is one ten have to go hand to hand with a linebacker-sized guy using a bat or machete? Should she have to pray her short legs get her away faster than his long ones? Or would a gun equalize the situation? There are plenty of deadly tools that will NEVER be banned and they favor the strong. The weak are equalized via a firearm.

MadHatter wrote: Senan if we are going to talk about this then you must do so accurately. He did not make those weapons automatic. An automatic weapon is one that fires continuously as long as the trigger is held down or a burst fire weapon fires a set burst of rounds per trigger pull. He did neither of those things. A bump fire stock was what was used and all that does is take advantage of the recoil of the weapon to pull the trigger more rapidly than most people can normally. But the fact remains that it is NOT automatic as one bullet per one pull of the trigger is still what happens.

The in a civil war the US will not nuke or even likely use missiles against its own people. The collateral damage would be so great that it would turn the general populous against them losing the war. Tanks and the like CAN be defeated by ground troops. Don't believe me? Take a look at Afghanistan and its resistance to both the US and the Russian armies with nothing but what they could carry and captured weaponry. A civil war in the US would be much the same. So yes it is a relevant statement.

Okay... he murdered 58 people with a legally modified semi-automatic weapon. I'm sure that brings comfort to the victim's families knowing that it wasn't an automatic weapon that did it. I'm sure their happy to hear the bump stock is legal too. Outlawing automatic weapons doesn't really serve much purpose when you can legally make your semi-auto act like a machine gun.

The U.S. Government has proven that it will burn an encampment to the ground killing everyone inside (Waco) and shoot anybody threatening insurrection (Ruby Ridge), and that isn't even the military. That's just ATF and FBI. They don't need nukes. They have thousands of tanks, helicopters, submarines, etc. You really think you're going to fight that? If you think a civil war in the U.S. is Russians in Afghanistan, you're forgetting that we outspend the next nearest country by five times. The Russians were an invading force much like we were in Vietnam. It's very different when you are squashing a rebellion at home.

MadHatter wrote: Further owning a gun does not inherently belay or risk your right to life. Not anymore then my owning a car. It is only when you break the law with those items. Further, you site the whole low mass shootings in other nations. That is ignoring the fact that they do still have mass killings with bombs and trucks. And ya know what I can do to a shooter? Club them from behind with a rock. I can't stop a truck or bomb anywhere near as easily as a shooter. So it's the people, not the objects that need fixing. Because if they can still do regular mass killings in Europe that has the laws you want it does not matter what is passed here.

No, but it does increase my risk of encountering someone with a gun, which leads me to believe I need one too, which causes proliferation of weapons, which creates a dilemma for law enforcement who now have to outgun the general population who thinks they need an AR to defend themselves from criminals. And we also have attacks with bombs and trucks, IN ADDITION TO THE GUN VIOLENCE. Please, just do the math. More people die from gun violence in a year than have in the entire history of the United States from trucks and bombs. Could anyone club the Vegas shooter to stop him? He fired through the door of his room and hit an unarmed security guard. Yeah, that rock did a lot of good. The concert venue is also surrounded by walls and fence. Sure, you could try to drive a truck through it and you might be successful, but I still cant outrun a bullet, not to mention over a thousand of them coming from somewhere law enforcement can't get to immediately. No truck has ever run over someone from four hundred yards away.

MadHatter wrote: Finally, your right to self-defense does not end at your property line. You should not need to sit there and get beaten or hope you are faster than the attacker just because you are in a park or at Walmart.

Self defense means you are being attacked. If you are being attacked by someone with a gun, you should understand my point. They shouldn't have it, and you shouldn't have to defend yourself against it. Just like I shouldn't have to wear body armor to a concert.

MadHatter wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote:
If the guy on the street doesn't have a gun, you won't need to shoot him. You won't even need to carry. All you have to fear is an oppressive government coming to violate your rights. If only that were true, as the 2nd Amendment would have it. But it isn't. Pull your head out of the sand and look at the lives actually being lost around you. That guy on the street is shooting at you because the 2nd Amendment has been broken for so long that we may never be able to fix it.

This is misguided. Should a women who is five foot one and whose weight is one ten have to go hand to hand with a linebacker-sized guy using a bat or machete? Should she have to pray her short legs get her away faster than his long ones? Or would a gun equalize the situation? There are plenty of deadly tools that will NEVER be banned and they favor the strong. The weak are equalized via a firearm.

Show me the stats of women murdered with machetes, or knives, or bats, or all combined this year in the U.S.. I'll bet it's less than fifty eight in eleven minutes.

Trisskar wrote:

Senan wrote: By the way, I think you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that this shooter was "peacefully exercising his rights". The NRA should be screaming at the top of their lungs that this guy does not represent responsible gun owners, but the NRA is silent because they know the laws they lobbied for are the ones that let this guy get his arsenal and legally modify them to be automatic weapons with one purpose, to kill people.

Except that - That. Is not the case. Our laws has nothing to do with how the MULTIPLE shooters gained such weaponry....and FANTASTIC Tactics.

In fact.....some are suggesting the shooter in question wasn't even the shooter. That he had been shot dead hours if not days before the actual shooting. Some of the theories and stories out there are quite.....Interesting.

Im pretty sure even if we had the strictest of gun laws....people would have still died that day.

If you're not going to back up your conspiracies with credible evidence, don't disrespect dead people by trying to confuse the issue. Somebody shot a lot of people with a semi-automatic weapon. We know this. One or ten shooters doesn't matter. The GUNS allowed for the tactics, and the GUNS were effective because that's what they do. They kill people.

Senan wrote: .... you shouldn't have to.....

There are alot of things you "Shouldn't have to...." in life. No matter where you go. Luckily you and everyone else who hates the laws here in America are able to move where ever they like that better suites their own self interest.

Don't get me wrong. It would be really great if we could go back to the age of carrying swords instead of guns. I would totally rock a Ko Katana over my Taurus and Scorpian Carbine any day

Myself....Im willing to accept the way things have evolved and do what is necessary to keep my daughters and myself alive. And even then....I am currently being hindered by the law.

I am now working at our local Target store. And at 5:20am in the morning have to walk 20 minuets up the street to get to work. Shootings has increased in our town as has drugs and gang violence.....And I can honestly say I feel very unsafe and uncomfortable walking alone on the street unprotected.

But I can't go armed with protection. Even with my concealed carry permit and all of my training. I can't even go with a knife because it is a weapon that can cause violent harm. And such weapons are not at all allowed on Target property. I can't even keep it in my locker while working on the floor.

So if I get attacked at 5:30am in the morning one of these days, all I have is a crappy box cutter that can be used to choke me thanks to it's bungie line and my highly outdated Martial Arts and very small weak physical frame.

Its a scary reality that im struggling to deal with right now.........and I "Shouldn't have to...." be worried about that.

In both cases, you mentioned it was the "bad guys" that got killed NOT people that had zero to do with it which is my point. Further, you are talking military tactics and weapons to a veteran who is in a relationship with another veteran. Yes, you can fight those things with homemade and store bought weapons. Militias are populated heavily by people who are veterans and seek training from veterans. If people who do not know our military capabilities can put up a fight I think people with more training and better knowledge of our tactics can do just fine.

Most shooters do not do things from an emplaced position that would be hard to take no matter what sort of rifle they had. Further, the Texas clock tower shooter did just fine with a bolt action Remington rifle who held five rounds. The point is that you can take down a gunman a lot easier than a truck or bomb and you cant ban those things. The people that want to kill others in mass find a way so all you are doing is impacting law-abiding peoples ability to defend themselves effectively.

Just like your comment about the number of women attacked with bats or machetes, everything you are talking about is past the point I am making. The fact is that violent crime with not vanish nor will mass killings if you get rid of guns legally. What will happen instead is only criminals will have the guns OR criminals will change weapons used and the average person has the disadvantage either way.

You suggesting laws that have not changed the murder rate in other countries nor have they changed the ability to kill in mass. All it has done is change the tool used and make it harder for the average citizen to fight back.

Senan wrote: If you're not going to back up your conspiracies with credible evidence

What do you consider to be credible evidence? The News Media that says it was one guy? Or the multiple accounts of the victims that are consistently being silenced?

don't disrespect dead people by trying to confuse the issue.

The only disrespect given is when we refuse to see the whole picture rather than fixating tools used instead of trying to take down the real master mind behind the murders by viewing all sides. Not just your version of "Credible Proof."

Senan wrote: The NRA and gun owners should stop citing the word for word 2nd Amendment unless they are going to join a "well regulated state militia" and actually defend themselves from the government. If that isn't the intention, there's no need to bare arms according to the letter of the law. Defend your house with your AR-15. I'm not trying to take your guns, but you don't get to cherry pick the parts you like while ignoring the rest and then say it is still relevant.

Depending on your method of interpretation. The 2a was meant to affirm the right of the Peoples of the Several States' right to bear arms. In order for the State to secure their freedom. It's their responsibility that the militia(all able-bodied citizens) are "well regulated". Meaning well trained, logistically organized, and stocked. That was the meaning of that phrase in those times. The U.S. Constitution is a document with a fixed meaning.

You cherry-picked saying federal law grants power to the States. It's exactly the opposite. The Supremacy Clause supports that by only granting supremacy in matters "persuant" to the powers granted by the States.

Something is broken one man can kill or injure almost six hundred people. If you think this was the intention of the 2nd Amendment, to protect the right of one man to own over forty guns and use them to kill innocent people at a concert, then it isn't only the law that is broken. Nobody said the right to free speech was broken, but I still can't yell "Fire" in a theater because it is dangerous. This guy wasn't talking. He was shooting. And no, the 2nd Amendment has not "worked until now". If it did, a teenager would not have been able to murder school children in their classrooms with a weapon made specifically to kill people in a MILITARY theater. Giving people access to weapons designed solely to kill a lot of people very quickly is not "American Freedom".

You're equating the right to possess with the right of action. That's not how it works. He committed MURDER on a mass scale. It shouldn't matter with what. The crime was when he violated the right to life of 60 people.

A person could possess an entire arsenal and never really use it. How can legislators rightfully make him guilty if he does no harm?

How is it that 5 year-old kids are taught to remain calm in an emergency, but can't expect that from adults?

All you have to fear is an oppressive government coming to violate your rights. If only that were true, as the 2nd Amendment would have it. But it isn't.

The government has been oppressing rights for decades now. While giving more freedom to moneyed interests. The right to association and privacy. The right for a redress of grievances. Just because the government hasn't gone full commie doesn't mean tyranny hasn't been creeping in.

That guy on the street is shooting at you because the 2nd Amendment has been broken for so long that we may never be able to fix it.

He's shooting because he was violent. Murder is unlawful and illegal. Why be more mad at his method than his madness?

People have been arming themselves since the beginning. We started with simple spears. They ARE a part of our humanity since we're not physically armed like lions, tigers, and bears.

We started with simple spears. They ARE a part of our humanity since we're not physically armed like lions, tigers, and bears.

Yes, so one day they handed out spears to everyone.

The next morning, Barry wasn't at the the tribal breakfast, and Richard was wearing a new bracelet that looked a lot like one Barry used to own.

So, the Chief decided maybe Richard shouldn't have a spear, because he seemed to have sort of missed the point that the spears were to protect the tribe against external threats, not to acquire new bracelets - and while he was at it, he thought maybe the children shouldn't be given spears yet either until they understood what they were for.


Wouldn't it be nice if Jedi thought of everyone as being a part of their tribe, and couldn't think of a reason to carry spears, or a reason to see others as not being a part of their tribe and thus needing spears to use against them?



Or keep living thinking everyone else is your potential enemy and arming yourself against spooks and other fears rather than trying to create a world where everyone in your tribe has enough of their needs met that they don't feel the need to use spears against each other.



Ask yourself, before you decide you might need a spear - are you a child, or perhaps a Richard?

Maybe you shouldn't have spears.