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

[M14 Shooter]

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.
.

I said:

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 explicitly states that the right and the protects afforded to it are not connected to the militia in any way.

There you go. The entire article is proven unsound.

 

[daws101]

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?

did I stutter?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 do the hall?

Oops. Fail. Please try again.

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

 

[jc456]

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?

So your great plan is to let the leaders out because it doesn't matter eh? nice!!!!

 

[tanfojam0]

Constitutionally, I don't know if we have the right to restrict guns that much.

However, I do know that almost every other developed nation that has stricter gun control policies also has less gun violence.

Coincidence? I think no. You can always get around the law, but that is not a reason to not have laws.

 

[daws101]

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 do the hall?

Oops. Fail. Please try again.

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

nope no fail my question stands
the answers you want has already been given

 

[daws101]

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?

So your great plan is to let the leaders out because it doesn't matter eh? nice!!!!

ARE YOU REALLY IS DENSE?
OR CAN YOU NOT READ?
I DID NOT SAY, INFER OR HINT at anything close to that.
our prison system is broken.
your abject fear that "they" want to take your guns away clouds your judgment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

are you planning to shoot the guy do the hall?

Oops. Fail. Please try again.

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

nope no fail my question stands

What's the matter? Cant you explain, in detail, how the laws against murder prevent me (or anyone else) from shooting the guy in the office down the hall?

 

[martybegan]

Constitutionally, I don't know if we have the right to restrict guns that much.

However, I do know that almost every other developed nation that has stricter gun control policies also has less gun violence.

Coincidence? I think no. You can always get around the law, but that is not a reason to not have laws.

Why should I be made a criminal soley for owning a firearm as a law abiding citizen?

Those countries have ALWAYS had those policies. With all our guns our murder rate still is going down. How do you explain that?

 

[hboats]

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

This here is the problem. Why did he keep going the "out" part of the in and out of jail?

Why exactly do you think honest citizens want/need to be armed?

Here's a dollar, buy a clue.

I don't need your dollar or your clue.

The majority of people in prison are there because of personal drug use, mostly marijuana. These are not people committing violent crimes.
New York City arrested 50,000 people last year on marijuana charges. Ridiculous. These people take up a lot of room. They shouldn't even be in there in the first place. Overcrowding county jails and state prisons mean more people are released and certainly some of them who should be in longer, like Miller, for instance.

First of all, I'm calling B.S. on your claim that the "majority of people in prison are there because of personal drug use...." got a link to back that up?

Second, so what you're telling us is that we should enforce the laws for background checks and waiting periods, but not enforce the laws that make it illegal to smoke pot?

Third, you expect the people that are doing these illegal things to just stop doing them and obey the laws that are already on the books? The laws are already there to prevent people from getting guns who shouldn't have them. Guess what the criminals do..... they go around the laws and get the guns illegally. That is after all the definition of a criminal.

Wake up and realize that what you're proposing is not going to do a damn thing to stop the problem.

Rick (hboats)

 

[M14 Shooter]

Constitutionally, I don't know if we have the right to restrict guns that much.

You're confused.
You meant to say that you don't know if the government has the power to restrict guns that much.
The government has power to do so, so long as those restrictions do not infringe on the right to arms.

However, I do know that almost every other developed nation that has stricter gun control policies also has less gun violence.
Coincidence? I think no. You can always get around the law, but that is not a reason to not have laws.

Google "correlation" and "causation".
Compare and contrast the two terms.

 

[Star]

It would be easier and less expensive - in every context - to get rid of the nutjobs and criminals.

you get no disagreement from me....
the rub is how.

Keep our domestic criminals in jail, keep foreign criminals from walking across our border and put criminals who have guns illegally or get caught trying to buy them in jail and keep them there. The liberal plan that we keep putting criminals on the street and just prevent them from getting guns so they won't commit crimes is moronic.

my guess is the tea party minions would go for the shower and ovens option...

Yes, that's your guess because you're an idiot.

Then what? You say "Keep our domestic criminals in jail" - then what, please explain.
Are you going to "keep them there" forever-----forever if the criminal is for example, a candy bar thief how about an unarmed bank robber or an armed bank robber...? and-----and who do we tax and how much do we tax to "keep them there"?

How will you know if someone has a gun illegally and-----and how will you know if a criminal is trying to buy a gun and-----and how will you catch them? What do you suggest we do to implement your plan?
.

 

[jc456]

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.

QUOTE]

Sorry junior, I didn't know you were busy. I thought perhaps you could answer a question. Stay focused on the prize though, seems you have it on your mind. Maybe you could respond to my question when you're finished.

 

[jc456]

you get no disagreement from me....
the rub is how.

Keep our domestic criminals in jail, keep foreign criminals from walking across our border and put criminals who have guns illegally or get caught trying to buy them in jail and keep them there. The liberal plan that we keep putting criminals on the street and just prevent them from getting guns so they won't commit crimes is moronic.

my guess is the tea party minions would go for the shower and ovens option...

Yes, that's your guess because you're an idiot.

Then what? You say "Keep our domestic criminals in jail" - then what, please explain.
Are you going to "keep them there" forever-----forever if the criminal is for example, a candy bar thief how about an unarmed bank robber or an armed bank robber...? and-----and who do we tax and how much do we tax to "keep them there"?

How will you know if someone has a gun illegally and-----and how will you know if a criminal is trying to buy a gun and-----and how will you catch them? What do you suggest we do to implement your plan?
.

What have you got? Let's hear how you keep someone from getting a gun.

 

[kaz]

you get no disagreement from me....
the rub is how.

Keep our domestic criminals in jail, keep foreign criminals from walking across our border and put criminals who have guns illegally or get caught trying to buy them in jail and keep them there. The liberal plan that we keep putting criminals on the street and just prevent them from getting guns so they won't commit crimes is moronic.

my guess is the tea party minions would go for the shower and ovens option...

Yes, that's your guess because you're an idiot.

Then what? You say "Keep our domestic criminals in jail" - then what, please explain.
Are you going to "keep them there" forever-----forever if the criminal is for example, a candy bar thief how about an unarmed bank robber or an armed bank robber...? and-----and who do we tax and how much do we tax to "keep them there"?

How will you know if someone has a gun illegally and-----and how will you know if a criminal is trying to buy a gun and-----and how will you catch them? What do you suggest we do to implement your plan?
.

Obviously I'm referring to violent criminals, don't be a dumb ass. They should not get chance after chance like they do now to go back on the street, they should be kept locked up longer and fewer chances.

As for my plan, when they are convicted felons, the cops should check them and their crib and their car out every so often and if they possess a gun send them away for a long stretch. That way, it doesn't matter how they got the gun. Your way, you're only checking if they try to buy a gun legally.

 

[Star]

Keep our domestic criminals in jail, keep foreign criminals from walking across our border and put criminals who have guns illegally or get caught trying to buy them in jail and keep them there. The liberal plan that we keep putting criminals on the street and just prevent them from getting guns so they won't commit crimes is moronic.



Yes, that's your guess because you're an idiot.

Then what? You say "Keep our domestic criminals in jail" - then what, please explain.
Are you going to "keep them there" forever-----forever if the criminal is for example, a candy bar thief how about an unarmed bank robber or an armed bank robber...? and-----and who do we tax and how much do we tax to "keep them there"?

How will you know if someone has a gun illegally and-----and how will you know if a criminal is trying to buy a gun and-----and how will you catch them? What do you suggest we do to implement your plan?
.

Obviously I'm referring to violent criminals, don't be a dumb ass. They should not get chance after chance like they do now to go back on the street, they should be kept locked up longer and fewer chances.

As for my plan, when they are convicted felons, the cops should check them and their crib and their car out every so often and if they possess a gun send them away for a long stretch. That way, it doesn't matter how they got the gun. Your way, you're only checking if they try to buy a gun legally.

It's a little late to start adding caveats to what you already posted.
Now would be a good time to add more caveats to your poorly thought out "plan", before you make yourself look even sillier. What you posted and what you are now claiming to be obvious are two different things. When you mean one thing but say something else it's deceitful and sophomoric.

There are a number of strategic problems with your "plan" to get guns out of the hands of criminals but-----but let's start with sending cops out to infringe on the peoples 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and-----and since there are more guns in rural communities, where do you expect to get the money it's going to take to hire enough cops to search house to house but-----but is it your intent to ignore precedent and interpret the Fourth Amendment any ol' way that suits your ideology?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[kaz]

It's a little late to start adding caveats to what you already posted.

When I said criminals should not get chance after chance, I meant people who steal a stick of gum should be in jail the rest of their lives. Got it.

Actually, I assumed you weren't butt stupid. I stand corrected.

 

[Star]

It's a little late to start adding caveats to what you already posted.

When I said criminals should not get chance after chance, I meant people who steal a stick of gum should be in jail the rest of their lives. Got it.

Actually, I assumed you weren't butt stupid. I stand corrected.

IOWs you just realized your so-called "plan" is idiotic so-----so you decided that rather than address keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, you choose to name call - I don't think that "plan" will work either and-----and I only have your words to go on but-----but I'm guessing you're being facetious when you say "I meant people who steal a stick of gum should be in jail the rest of their lives." and if-----and if you are being facetious where do you draw the line-----where do you draw the line for locking people/criminals up so they can't get guns and-----and how do you propose to pay for policing your ehem "plan"?

Your sweeping statements leave a lot of questions unanswered but-----but I'm not surprised, it's how Republitarians roll.
.

 

[kaz]

don't think that "Your sweeping statements leave a lot of questions unanswered but-----but I'm not surprised, it's how Republitarians roll.
.

Maybe they do moron, but I'm a libertarian not a Republican.

I'm guessing you're being facetious when you say "I meant people who steal a stick of gum should be in jail the rest of their lives."

I would call you the master of the obvious, but we've already established the obvious is beyond your grasp.

if you are being facetious where do you draw the line-----where do you draw the line for locking people/criminals up so they can't get guns and-----and how do you propose to pay for policing your ehem "plan"?[/COLOR]

People who commit violent crimes with weapons. The subject we are discussing. What is wrong with you?

 

[September]

None of their previous crimes were even that extreme. Those crimes were hardly worth recognizing as a "criminal past".

But killing those cops was was some decent criminal shit. Too bad that glory was so short lived.

Look at this picture of them!

That's fucking awesome! The Joker and Harley Quinn! (Except Harley and Mistahr J were way better looking but hey its the thought that counts!) And they actually went out and wasted two cops! What a romantic final date! If only they'd been in costume during the shooting, how badass would that have been?