Las Vegas Shooter's Criminal Past---Buh, Buh, BUh, He's Got RIGHTS!

[daws101]

So much better to have them on the street. All we have to do is make sure they can't get guns and everything will be fine!

right! better prisons make better criminals !

Um...no...criminals in jail don't commit crimes. And the view you can keep sharp and pointy objects from criminals on the street so they aren't a threat to anyone is clueless beyond belief. Par for your course.

could you get any more ignorant...
we have most all of the top gang leaders in prison right now and they still manage to do what they do..
also criminals do as much crime in jail as out of it...
too many Disney movies as a child?

 

[daws101]

duhs is one of the brilliant ones who thinks that if a person isn't a democrat, then that person is a tea partier.

I think they think tea party = everybody who isn't an extremist leftist.

and as always you'd be absolutely wrong...

 

[guno]

90% of American polled in 2012 wanted background checks, but the NRA got it's way and the infantile, stupid righties support this.


"""A CRIMINAL PAST

Jerad Dwain Miller had a lengthy criminal history dating back at least to 2000 that saw him in and out of jail on felony and misdemeanor charges in both Washington state and in his home state of Indiana.

In 2010 and 2007 he was convicted of drug dealing and possession charges related to marijuana.

Jerad Miller was arrested by Tippecanoe County, Ind., police on a battery charge in 2009 but later found not guilty.

In February 2011, he was arrested on a strangulation battery charge in Dearborn County, Ind., though the result of that case is unclear.

He married Amanda Woodruff in September 2012, according to court records in Lafayette, Ind.

Jerad Miller also was no stranger to police in Benton County, Wash. District Court records there show he was convicted of obstructing a public officer and DUI in August 2002.

In April of that year he was found guilty of assault with intent to cause injury, and also had earlier convictions for third-degree malicious mischief, third-degree theft, harassment and taking a motor vehicle without permission."""""

Shooters carried arsenal, supplies into Sunday rampage | Las Vegas Review-Journal

90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn?t this a political slam dunk?

"The Lafayette Journal & Courier interviewed a woman who lived across from the Millers prior to their move to Las Vegas in January.

Connie Kennedy said the first time she met Jerad Miller, he ranted about pollution and America turning communist."

Sounds like some of the slack jawed rightwing mutants on this board

 

[daws101]

90% of American polled in 2012 wanted background checks, but the NRA got it's way and the infantile, stupid righties support this.


"""A CRIMINAL PAST

Jerad Dwain Miller had a lengthy criminal history dating back at least to 2000 that saw him in and out of jail on felony and misdemeanor charges in both Washington state and in his home state of Indiana.

In 2010 and 2007 he was convicted of drug dealing and possession charges related to marijuana.

Jerad Miller was arrested by Tippecanoe County, Ind., police on a battery charge in 2009 but later found not guilty.

In February 2011, he was arrested on a strangulation battery charge in Dearborn County, Ind., though the result of that case is unclear.

He married Amanda Woodruff in September 2012, according to court records in Lafayette, Ind.

Jerad Miller also was no stranger to police in Benton County, Wash. District Court records there show he was convicted of obstructing a public officer and DUI in August 2002.

In April of that year he was found guilty of assault with intent to cause injury, and also had earlier convictions for third-degree malicious mischief, third-degree theft, harassment and taking a motor vehicle without permission."""""

Shooters carried arsenal, supplies into Sunday rampage | Las Vegas Review-Journal

90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn?t this a political slam dunk?

"The Lafayette Journal & Courier interviewed a woman who lived across from the Millers prior to their move to Las Vegas in January.

Connie Kennedy said the first time she met Jerad Miller, he ranted about pollution and America turning communist."

Sounds like some of the slack jawed rightwing mutants on this board

that would be most of them!

 

[Star]

So much better to have them on the street. All we have to do is make sure they can't get guns and everything will be fine!

As usual, a Republican makes a sweeping statement - in this case using the word "them" without defining who "them" is but-----but even better than putting "them" in prison would be solving a crime's root problem(s).
.

"They" were defined inside your quote, dumb-ass. And what "sweeping statement" are you talking about? How is what I said any more "sweeping" than anyone else is saying in the discussion?

Also, I'm a libertarian, not a "Republican." Yet another simpleton Democrat who sees the world as black and white, us and them, Democrat and Republican. People are one or the other, that's all you grasp.

I define the all encompassing term "domestic criminals" as sweeping, so-----so to be precise - what/which "domestic criminals" are you talking about?

Since we're talking about guns here... when you say "keep our domestic criminals in jail" do you mean forever? and-----and if you do let domestic criminals out of jail should domestic criminals ever be allowed to buy gun? which ones? and-----and since about 40% of gun sales do not require a background check, how do you suggest we keep domestic criminals from buying guns?
.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As usual, a Republican makes a sweeping statement - in this case using the word "them" without defining who "them" is but-----but even better than putting "them" in prison would be solving a crime's root problem(s).
.

"They" were defined inside your quote, dumb-ass. And what "sweeping statement" are you talking about? How is what I said any more "sweeping" than anyone else is saying in the discussion?

Also, I'm a libertarian, not a "Republican." Yet another simpleton Democrat who sees the world as black and white, us and them, Democrat and Republican. People are one or the other, that's all you grasp.

I define the all encompassing term "domestic criminals" as sweeping, so-----so to be precise - what/which "domestic criminals" are you talking about?

Since we're talking about guns here... when you say "keep our domestic criminals in jail" do you mean forever? and-----and if you do let domestic criminals out of jail should domestic criminals ever be allowed to buy gun? which ones? and-----and since about 40% of gun sales do not require a background check, how do you suggest we keep domestic criminals from buying guns?
.

See, there's your problem.
You think you can enact a law that will prevent people from breaking the law.

 

[daws101]

"They" were defined inside your quote, dumb-ass. And what "sweeping statement" are you talking about? How is what I said any more "sweeping" than anyone else is saying in the discussion?

Also, I'm a libertarian, not a "Republican." Yet another simpleton Democrat who sees the world as black and white, us and them, Democrat and Republican. People are one or the other, that's all you grasp.

I define the all encompassing term "domestic criminals" as sweeping, so-----so to be precise - what/which "domestic criminals" are you talking about?

Since we're talking about guns here... when you say "keep our domestic criminals in jail" do you mean forever? and-----and if you do let domestic criminals out of jail should domestic criminals ever be allowed to buy gun? which ones? and-----and since about 40% of gun sales do not require a background check, how do you suggest we keep domestic criminals from buying guns?
.

See, there's your problem.
You think you can enact a law that will prevent people from breaking the law.

false you enact laws to regulate (manage) behavior.
a law will prevent a large proportion of people from doing crime.
there is and always will be some who will say fuck it to the law...

 

[M14 Shooter]

I define the all encompassing term "domestic criminals" as sweeping, so-----so to be precise - what/which "domestic criminals" are you talking about?

Since we're talking about guns here... when you say "keep our domestic criminals in jail" do you mean forever? and-----and if you do let domestic criminals out of jail should domestic criminals ever be allowed to buy gun? which ones? and-----and since about 40% of gun sales do not require a background check, how do you suggest we keep domestic criminals from buying guns?
.

See, there's your problem.
You think you can enact a law that will prevent people from breaking the law.

false you enact laws to regulate (manage) behavior.
a law will prevent a large proportion of people from doing crime.

Again, your problem, illustrated.
Laws cannot prevent anyone form doing anything

 

[Star]

"They" were defined inside your quote, dumb-ass. And what "sweeping statement" are you talking about? How is what I said any more "sweeping" than anyone else is saying in the discussion?

Also, I'm a libertarian, not a "Republican." Yet another simpleton Democrat who sees the world as black and white, us and them, Democrat and Republican. People are one or the other, that's all you grasp.

I define the all encompassing term "domestic criminals" as sweeping, so-----so to be precise - what/which "domestic criminals" are you talking about?

Since we're talking about guns here... when you say "keep our domestic criminals in jail" do you mean forever? and-----and if you do let domestic criminals out of jail should domestic criminals ever be allowed to buy gun? which ones? and-----and since about 40% of gun sales do not require a background check, how do you suggest we keep domestic criminals from buying guns?
.

See, there's your problem.
You think you can enact a law that will prevent people from breaking the law.

You were right-----right to have never claimed to have good reading skills.
.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I define the all encompassing term "domestic criminals" as sweeping, so-----so to be precise - what/which "domestic criminals" are you talking about?

Since we're talking about guns here... when you say "keep our domestic criminals in jail" do you mean forever? and-----and if you do let domestic criminals out of jail should domestic criminals ever be allowed to buy gun? which ones? and-----and since about 40% of gun sales do not require a background check, how do you suggest we keep domestic criminals from buying guns?
.

See, there's your problem.
You think you can enact a law that will prevent people from breaking the law.

You were right-----right to have never claimed to have good reading skills.
.

You were right-----right to have never claimed to have good reading skills...?

Oh, the irony.
Now that you've embarrassed yourself, how about telling me how I am wrong.

 

[daws101]

See, there's your problem.
You think you can enact a law that will prevent people from breaking the law.

false you enact laws to regulate (manage) behavior.
a law will prevent a large proportion of people from doing crime.

Again, your problem, illustrated.
Laws cannot prevent anyone form doing anything

false laws do prevent a large proportion of the populous from doing crime.
you are totally over dramatizing the few who do most of the crime.

 

[M14 Shooter]

false you enact laws to regulate (manage) behavior.
a law will prevent a large proportion of people from doing crime.

Again, your problem, illustrated.
Laws cannot prevent anyone form doing anything

false laws do prevent a large proportion of the populous from doing crime.

Really.
Explain, in detail, how the laws against murder prevent me (or anyone else) from shooting the guy in the office down the hall.
This should be good.

 

[Star]

Another lie.
Disagree?
Please cite the post and the text found therein where you:
- illustrated the original intent of the 2nd
- described how 2A jurisprudence corrupts it.

We both know you will, again, fail to do so.

In my gun club's coffee shop a fellow member said, we should have the same open carry laws they have in Israel -- cuz they don't have much gun violence in Israel.
Knowing absolutely nothing about Israel's gun violence or gun laws, I looked up Israel's gun laws. If Wikipedia's info is correct, it looks to me like (with a tweak here and there) Israel's gun laws are lot like the SCOTUS' 1903 interpretation of it's own 1792 interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. How does SCOTUS' interpretation(s) match up with your interpretation of "original intent"

Your link to the "1903 interpretation" is hilarious, especially when it argues that Heller allows gun control advocates to connect further gun control to service in the militia when the decision excplicity states that the right and the protects afforded to it are not connected to the militia in any way.

The right of the people is protected by the constitution. Whatever reasons there might be for this, the people - not the state, not the militia - have the right.

Some want to argue that the right to arms so protected is fully connected to the service in the militia, and there exists no other right to arms, protected or otherwise, outside that service - that is, the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd fully intended to protect the collective right to the full exclusion of the individual. For that, there is absolutely no historical support in that there exists no primary source material describing any such sentiment

As it is impossible to prove the existence of that original intent, it is impossible to show that current jurisprudence "corrupts" said original intent.

Its that simple.

If you don't like the link I provided, debunk it. If you can't debunk the interpretation provided in/by the link I provided, I'll presume you concede the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment the link provides is spot-on.
.

 

[daws101]

Again, your problem, illustrated.
Laws cannot prevent anyone form doing anything

false laws do prevent a large proportion of the populous from doing crime.

Really.
Explain, in detail, how the laws against murder prevent me (or anyone else) from shooting the guy in the office down the hall.
This should be good.

are you planning to shoot the guy down the hall?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

90% of American polled in 2012 wanted background checks, but the NRA got it's way and the infantile, stupid righties support this.


"""A CRIMINAL PAST

Jerad Dwain Miller had a lengthy criminal history dating back at least to 2000 that saw him in and out of jail on felony and misdemeanor charges in both Washington state and in his home state of Indiana.

In 2010 and 2007 he was convicted of drug dealing and possession charges related to marijuana.

Jerad Miller was arrested by Tippecanoe County, Ind., police on a battery charge in 2009 but later found not guilty.

In February 2011, he was arrested on a strangulation battery charge in Dearborn County, Ind., though the result of that case is unclear.

He married Amanda Woodruff in September 2012, according to court records in Lafayette, Ind.

Jerad Miller also was no stranger to police in Benton County, Wash. District Court records there show he was convicted of obstructing a public officer and DUI in August 2002.

In April of that year he was found guilty of assault with intent to cause injury, and also had earlier convictions for third-degree malicious mischief, third-degree theft, harassment and tasking a motor vehicle without permission."""""

Shooters carried arsenal, supplies into Sunday rampage | Las Vegas Review-Journal

90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn?t this a political slam dunk?

So did the shooter procure his weapons illegally? Sorry, I'm trying to understand the point of the thread. I still haven't seen anywhere anything was illegally done or procured. So I was assuming you thought it was, yet no evidence of such.

Huh? Background checks, it's about background checks. Who the hell is talking about procurement?

One thing I see consistently on this board by the illiterate righties, they can't comprehend more than two short sentences or a single headline. That's it.

The other thing I see is a failure to corroborate or validate their claims and comments. Links are usually to blogs, not Reuters, AP, or any other valid news agency.

Lazy or just simply not very bright?

And you seriously believe that background checks would have stopped people this evil and crazy from proccuring firearms ?

I mean come on dude, you're not that stupid.
Think for a second, these two were so filled with lunacy and hatred they were was willing to commit suicide for their cause. These two were no different than suicide bombers, and they would have not let something like background checks to keep them from creating an arsenal.

Keep in mind, there was no rush, they had all the time in the world to come up with whatever firearms they felt they needed. No background check would have stopped someone who is this over the top and filled with rage.

 

[daws101]

So did the shooter procure his weapons illegally? Sorry, I'm trying to understand the point of the thread. I still haven't seen anywhere anything was illegally done or procured. So I was assuming you thought it was, yet no evidence of such.

Huh? Background checks, it's about background checks. Who the hell is talking about procurement?

One thing I see consistently on this board by the illiterate righties, they can't comprehend more than two short sentences or a single headline. That's it.

The other thing I see is a failure to corroborate or validate their claims and comments. Links are usually to blogs, not Reuters, AP, or any other valid news agency.

Lazy or just simply not very bright?

And you seriously believe that background checks would have stopped people this evil and crazy from proccuring firearms ?

I mean come on dude, you're not that stupid.
Think for a second, these two were so filled with lunacy and hatred they were was willing to commit suicide for their cause. These two were no different than suicide bombers, and they would have not let something like background checks to keep them from creating an arsenal.

Keep in mind, there was no rush, they had all the time in the world to come up with whatever firearms they felt they needed. No background check would have stopped someone who is this over the top and filled with rage.

but the good citizens of east Jesus and their shootin' irons could?

 

[jc456]

false you enact laws to regulate (manage) behavior.
a law will prevent a large proportion of people from doing crime.

Again, your problem, illustrated.
Laws cannot prevent anyone form doing anything

false laws do prevent a large proportion of the populous from doing crime.
you are totally over dramatizing the few who do most of the crime.

What was he false on? He agreed with you. His comment is accurate. You nor law enforcement can know who will do what ahead of the act. Unless of course you have the computer from Person of Interest. Which, I doubt you or they have. So just because there is a law does not mean they will always be obeyed.

It's against the law to text and drive in Illinois, in fact, having just the handset in your hand. There are still ~60-70% of drivers using their handhelds while they drive today. Some people just don't care. And you making a law thinking you can control them is very unreasonable. And BTW, a vehicle is a weapon.

 

[Andylusion]

90% of American polled in 2012 wanted background checks, but the NRA got it's way and the infantile, stupid righties support this.


"""A CRIMINAL PAST

Jerad Dwain Miller had a lengthy criminal history dating back at least to 2000 that saw him in and out of jail on felony and misdemeanor charges in both Washington state and in his home state of Indiana.

In 2010 and 2007 he was convicted of drug dealing and possession charges related to marijuana.

Jerad Miller was arrested by Tippecanoe County, Ind., police on a battery charge in 2009 but later found not guilty.

In February 2011, he was arrested on a strangulation battery charge in Dearborn County, Ind., though the result of that case is unclear.

He married Amanda Woodruff in September 2012, according to court records in Lafayette, Ind.

Jerad Miller also was no stranger to police in Benton County, Wash. District Court records there show he was convicted of obstructing a public officer and DUI in August 2002.

In April of that year he was found guilty of assault with intent to cause injury, and also had earlier convictions for third-degree malicious mischief, third-degree theft, harassment and taking a motor vehicle without permission."""""

Shooters carried arsenal, supplies into Sunday rampage | Las Vegas Review-Journal

90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn?t this a political slam dunk? - The Washington Post

You know I find this right here, very ironic.

Here we have a leftist, complaining that other people have rights.

Criminals have rights... can't be beaten, can't be tazed, can't be pepper sprayed, can't be shot, can't be confined, can't be put to death for murder, or rape, or anything else. Can't hardly do anything to a criminal.

Every time the police do hardly anything, the leftist come out of the wood work. Can't tap their phone. Can't walk on their property. Can't search their car. Can't search their house. Can't do anything anywhere to anyone.

But now suddenly... magically... when it happens to be a leftist cause... suddenly CRIMINALS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS! HOW DARE THEY!

You leftists are the biggest hypocrites on the face of the Earth. I give a crap what you think about anything. You have zero credibility, so I have zero care.

 

[daws101]

Again, your problem, illustrated.
Laws cannot prevent anyone form doing anything

false laws do prevent a large proportion of the populous from doing crime.
you are totally over dramatizing the few who do most of the crime.

What was he false on? He agreed with you. His comment is accurate. You nor law enforcement can know who will do what ahead of the act. Unless of course you have the computer from Person of Interest. Which, I doubt you or they have. So just because there is a law does not mean they will always be obeyed.

It's against the law to text and drive in Illinois, in fact, having just the handset in your hand. There are still ~60-70% of drivers using their handhelds while they drive today. Some people just don't care. And you making a law thinking you can control them is very unreasonable. And BTW, a vehicle is a weapon.

do you have a point or are you just masturbating?

 

[jc456]

Huh? Background checks, it's about background checks. Who the hell is talking about procurement?

One thing I see consistently on this board by the illiterate righties, they can't comprehend more than two short sentences or a single headline. That's it.

The other thing I see is a failure to corroborate or validate their claims and comments. Links are usually to blogs, not Reuters, AP, or any other valid news agency.

Lazy or just simply not very bright?

And you seriously believe that background checks would have stopped people this evil and crazy from proccuring firearms ?

I mean come on dude, you're not that stupid.
Think for a second, these two were so filled with lunacy and hatred they were was willing to commit suicide for their cause. These two were no different than suicide bombers, and they would have not let something like background checks to keep them from creating an arsenal.

Keep in mind, there was no rush, they had all the time in the world to come up with whatever firearms they felt they needed. No background check would have stopped someone who is this over the top and filled with rage.

but the good citizens of east Jesus and their shootin' irons could?

huh?