ExiledInIllinois Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) See... If everybody was packing, they could have turned the heat onto the high-ground @ the Mandalay! Oorah! Take that hill civilian! The technological curve with everything, including guns, means things just get smaller, lighter and more deadly. This. Would our Founding Father's have agreed to the 2nd knowing this? Edited October 2, 2017 by ExiledInIllinois
BringBackOrton Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 See... If everybody was packing, they could have turned the heat onto the high-ground @ the Mandalay! Oorah! Take that hill civilian! This. Would our Founding Father's have agreed to the 2nd knowing this? Yes.
MiltonWaddams Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 Thank God she did not win..................stupidest woman on the planet. That's a genius statement right there. So, you're saying that she's wrong? How the hell is her statement incorrect? If no one heard it happening, it would have gone far worse. This is a national tragedy and will, justifiably, be used by the anti-gun crowd to push for tougher legislation. Why the hell should anyone have a silencer though? Are we now supposed to be secret agents when defending ourselves? Sneak up on our attackers and take them off one by one in a cloak of darkness?
BringBackOrton Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) That's a genius statement right there. So, you're saying that she's wrong? How the hell is her statement incorrect? If no one heard it happening, it would have gone far worse. This is a national tragedy and will, justifiably, be used by the anti-gun crowd to push for tougher legislation. Why the hell should anyone have a silencer though? Are we now supposed to be secret agents when defending ourselves? Sneak up on our attackers and take them off one by one in a cloak of darkness? How quiet are silencers? James Bond movies aren't real life. Edited October 2, 2017 by jmc12290
MiltonWaddams Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 See... If everybody was packing, they could have turned the heat onto the high-ground @ the Mandalay! Oorah! Take that hill civilian! This. Would our Founding Father's have agreed to the 2nd knowing this? I pray not. The right to bear arms was imposed under a very particular context. It is widely abused and offered as an explanation to allow for all types of guns and personal defense arms. I am not against guns, just the ability for people to acquire them so easily and in such powerful quality and quantity.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) Honestly, how would you stop an attack like this? Didn't read mechanics of this story. Were those opening windows or did he blow through them? Non-opening bulletproof glass on hotels that overlook large gatherings. Yeah... That would stop an attacker... ??? Edited October 2, 2017 by ExiledInIllinois
MiltonWaddams Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 How quiet are silencers? James Bond movies aren't real life. I've been present for their use, but not in semi-automatic or automatic weapons. Based on my observations, it would have offered a greatly muffled sound from the level of the shooting, giving the shooter more time prior to being discovered. That may be seconds, but in a situation like this that would have been sufficient to have ended many more human lives. If I am wrong, I accept that, but I do not sense that I am based on what I have read and witnessed.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 I pray not. The right to bear arms was imposed under a very particular context. It is widely abused and offered as an explanation to allow for all types of guns and personal defense arms. I am not against guns, just the ability for people to acquire them so easily and in such powerful quality and quantity. Yeah, same here. How do you stop the technological arms race? I got no prob with many guns. I got time to rush an active shooter with a muzzle loader, flint lock pistol. ;-) To walk into a hotel room and rain heat on a crowd... Gee just a bit stepping over the 2nd argument.
LeviF Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 I've been present for their use, but not in semi-automatic or automatic weapons. Based on my observations, it would have offered a greatly muffled sound from the level of the shooting, giving the shooter more time prior to being discovered. That may be seconds, but in a situation like this that would have been sufficient to have ended many more human lives. If I am wrong, I accept that, but I do not sense that I am based on what I have read and witnessed. A suppressor likely would have melted at the rate of fire he was shooting at. What really would have made it more awful would have been something to hide the muzzle flash. But then that's not even the point. You still can't just walk into a gun store and swipe a card and get a suppressor. Easing the restrictions on them wouldn't allow that still. There are several practical reasons to have one. I pray not. The right to bear arms was imposed under a very particular context. It is widely abused and offered as an explanation to allow for all types of guns and personal defense arms. I am not against guns, just the ability for people to acquire them so easily and in such powerful quality and quantity. The USSC has said that personal defense is the primary driver behind the 2nd Amendment. The idea that the founders "had no idea how far firearms would come" is a canard and a bad one at that.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 So, let me get this straight from the Right. Just say a pray, move on, life as usual. Nothing to see here. Nothing can be done. When will you Lefties get this! Ding! Hotpocket ready!
/dev/null Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 Would our Founding Father's have agreed to the 2nd knowing this? If the Founding Father's could have seen this far into the future, they wouldn't have wasted their time with the Revolution.
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 Honestly, how would you stop an attack like this? Didn't read mechanics of this story. Were those opening windows or did he blow through them? Non-opening bulletproof glass on hotels that overlook large gatherings. Yeah... That would stop an attacker... ??? I'm surprised it's taken this long for such an attack to happen. Honestly...the only reliable way I know to stop it is a massive security presence. Of the "snipers and spotters on every roof" sort they put in place on the National Mall during large events.
Tiberius Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 If the Founding Father's could have seen this far into the future, they wouldn't have wasted their time with the Revolution. Black people citizens? Ummm...can we get our king back? The USSC has said that personal defense is the primary driver behind the 2nd Amendment. The idea that the founders "had no idea how far firearms would come" is a canard and a bad one at that. Well if the court said that they are wrong. The 2nd amendment is about militias and common people bearing arms because in many non-Republicans countries (should be small r) only the rich could have weapons. Says nothing about self defense
row_33 Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 It is my understanding that he used automatic weapons in Vegas, that's a different matter than current gun restriction discussions....
LeviF Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 Well if the court said that they are wrong. The 2nd amendment is about militias and common people bearing arms because in many non-Republicans countries (should be small r) only the rich could have weapons. Says nothing about self defense "A well regulated Militia, 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 abundantly clear that the 2nd amendment wasn't written to authorize a militia to arm its members. There's no reason for that since Congress has all the authority to raise an army and arm it. The Bill of Rights was constructed to spell out the people's rights, not the government's or an army's. https://archive.org/details/debatesandproce00peirgoog "And that the said Constitution never be constructed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press, or the rights of the conscience; or prevent of people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceful and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions." It is my understanding that he used automatic weapons in Vegas, that's a different matter than current gun restriction discussions.... Yeah but twits like Schumer and Feinstein have another pile of bodies they can stand on, so they'll use it.
frostbitmic Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) Are there any people that are surprised by this ? ... The next time will probably be worse and there will be a next time .... many next times. Edited October 2, 2017 by frostbitmic
aristocrat Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 When things like this happen you step back and realize that the murder rate in the country has steadily gone down over the past two decades. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
B-Man Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler alerted Clinton to a certain reality: Glenn Kessler ✔@GlennKesslerWP Actually, even with "a silencer," it's pretty loud. An AR-15 rifle would have a noise equivalent to a jack hammer. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/20/are-firearms-with-a-silencer-quiet/?utm_term=.bebd614037ca …https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/914853465926639618 … Liberals immediately started attacking him. Even though this discussion is based on an erroneous tweet from Hillary Clinton that was called out by Wash Post fact checker yet here are MSNBC and CNN running with it anyway CNN + Peacock Mafia and others could end this "silencer" debate........... They don't.............. Ask yourself why. "Silencers" is the new "no fly list" shiny object with this shooting that had nothing to do with the actual shooting. Absurd theater.
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 "A well regulated Militia, 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 abundantly clear that the 2nd amendment wasn't written to authorize a militia to arm its members. There's no reason for that since Congress has all the authority to raise an army and arm it. The Bill of Rights was constructed to spell out the people's rights, not the government's or an army's. https://archive.org/details/debatesandproce00peirgoog Yeah but twits like Schumer and Feinstein have another pile of bodies they can stand on, so they'll use it. It's also abundantly clear that "well-regulated" applies to militias, not guns. So...go regulate the militia.
B-Man Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 As a mark of respect for the victims of the senseless act of violence in Las Vegas, @POTUS has ordered flags to be flown at half-staff.
Recommended Posts