Simple question to gun advocates

[Zander]

How about for instance, restricting events that will have large crowds if the venue is out in the open, and it's situated next to high rise hotels, apts., businesses, etc. ?

How about restricting buildings to below the heights airplanes can fly?

I think a far better solution would be to hire designated sniper teams to provide an overwatch for large scale events like these. Additionally I would have smoke grenades for the various security guards to use so that in the event of a active shooter they could deploy them to make his task all that much harder.

That's kind of knee jerk if you ask me. This only happened one time in such a venue and likely would not happen again in the future. The idea of terrorism is to terrorize people forcing them walk on eggshells from that point on.

As bad as 911 was and the deaths that took place, the real delight for terrorists is what happened afterwards. Random searches of airport passengers, TSA agents and their body scanners, long waits at airports, shutting down of operations because somebody found a suspicious looking luggage bag, things like that.

As a truck driver I can honestly say how it greatly effected air freight deliveries and pickups although I'm not at liberty to say how. What I can tell you is that 911 made it a real pain in the ass for all of us due to overreaction and over precautions. The terrorists are still winning over fifteen years after their attack. They share delight in our paranoia.

We can't let this unfortunate incident change the way we live. We can't allow liberals to cash in on this tragedy. The worst thing we could do is disallow outdoor concerts next to tall buildings, or have a militant presence at every event. Look at us! We are discussing the use of bump stock even though it was never used before and probably never will be used again even if left legal.

There is nothing wrong with learning from this situation, but what would be wrong is for us to be expecting a similar attack in the future and taking ridiculous precautions like having snipers at each event. If a hotel (or whatever) next to an event sees something unusual, no doubt, report it to somebody. In 99% of the cases, it would probably be nothing. But allowing us to be terrorized for the rest of our lives would be a huge win for this maniac; even worse if he did have some connection to a terrorist group.

But the right ARE cashing in on this.

Let's be tough against the Muslims, it gives the US a common enemy with which to focus their power. We need more military spending, we need more troops out in the world, we need to be tough, be strong.

I'm reading a book about naval power by Robert K Massey, a great writer of history books, mostly about the Russian Royal Family.

When Germany became an empire, it had little to no navy. Then Wilhelm II and Tirpitz came along. Both wanted to have a Navy. They had not real reason to justify having a huge navy, their enemies were France and Russia, or Austria, or anyone they had to defeat on land, not at sea. So they literally made England out to be the enemy. They found reasons to pick fights with England to promote their navy building. And they succeeded.

The US does the same. It makes the enemy to justify the spending of money. It uses FEAR to get that spending. Fear of terrorists. You fear terrorists more because of the security measure and the way the media sensationalizes the attacks. Every attack by Muslims is seen as a reason to increase security. Every attack by a white American is ignored because white America isn't the enemy.

Bush went into Iraq. More for US interests to do with OPEC, but the aftermath was a complete balls up. Or so it seemed. But the reality is the post war fuck up has enhanced the right's claims against terrorism massively. It's brought NATO back to the US more and more.

It all seems so planned.

This country’s real enemy is it’s own federal government

Sadly, this is true. Leviathan is out of control.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How about restricting buildings to below the heights airplanes can fly?

I think a far better solution would be to hire designated sniper teams to provide an overwatch for large scale events like these. Additionally I would have smoke grenades for the various security guards to use so that in the event of a active shooter they could deploy them to make his task all that much harder.

That's kind of knee jerk if you ask me. This only happened one time in such a venue and likely would not happen again in the future. The idea of terrorism is to terrorize people forcing them walk on eggshells from that point on.

As bad as 911 was and the deaths that took place, the real delight for terrorists is what happened afterwards. Random searches of airport passengers, TSA agents and their body scanners, long waits at airports, shutting down of operations because somebody found a suspicious looking luggage bag, things like that.

As a truck driver I can honestly say how it greatly effected air freight deliveries and pickups although I'm not at liberty to say how. What I can tell you is that 911 made it a real pain in the ass for all of us due to overreaction and over precautions. The terrorists are still winning over fifteen years after their attack. They share delight in our paranoia.

We can't let this unfortunate incident change the way we live. We can't allow liberals to cash in on this tragedy. The worst thing we could do is disallow outdoor concerts next to tall buildings, or have a militant presence at every event. Look at us! We are discussing the use of bump stock even though it was never used before and probably never will be used again even if left legal.

There is nothing wrong with learning from this situation, but what would be wrong is for us to be expecting a similar attack in the future and taking ridiculous precautions like having snipers at each event. If a hotel (or whatever) next to an event sees something unusual, no doubt, report it to somebody. In 99% of the cases, it would probably be nothing. But allowing us to be terrorized for the rest of our lives would be a huge win for this maniac; even worse if he did have some connection to a terrorist group.

Just like lightning actually strikes the same place MORE frequently than you have been led to believe, once a bad group figures out how soft a target is, they will continue to exploit those now identified soft targets.

Like always, there may be attempted copy cats, but very few if any and certainly not at this level. But after some time, people forget and it goes away as it always does.

Fun lovers are now well aware of this possibility, but we need to leave it up to them if they refuse to bow down and allow this thing to ruin their enjoyment. If they are weary, then don't go. If they are willing to take a chance no matter how low the risk is of something like this happening again, then it's up to them.

If something like this does happen over and over again, that's a different story. Evil wins and we need to do more. But for right now, I think our best approach is not to get too carried away with all this.

I disagree with you. Criminals are by nature not creative. That's why they are criminals. This guy was waaaay different from the run of the mill mass murderer. He has laid out a very easy to copy template, and I guarantee you that others will follow in his footsteps.

Okay, so let's just create a law to stop all outdoor concerts. Let's have body searches and X-ray machines in all hotel facilities. Maybe even have a curfew in Vegas. No more walking around to casinos after dark. Casinos can only stay open for their hotel guests, and locked doors at that.

Outside of Vegas, shut down all professional sports arenas that are near any kind of high rise buildings. We hosted the NY Yankees this evening in the playoffs; should have never happened since our stadium is surrounded by tall buildings.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think a far better solution would be to hire designated sniper teams to provide an overwatch for large scale events like these. Additionally I would have smoke grenades for the various security guards to use so that in the event of a active shooter they could deploy them to make his task all that much harder.

That's kind of knee jerk if you ask me. This only happened one time in such a venue and likely would not happen again in the future. The idea of terrorism is to terrorize people forcing them walk on eggshells from that point on.

As bad as 911 was and the deaths that took place, the real delight for terrorists is what happened afterwards. Random searches of airport passengers, TSA agents and their body scanners, long waits at airports, shutting down of operations because somebody found a suspicious looking luggage bag, things like that.

As a truck driver I can honestly say how it greatly effected air freight deliveries and pickups although I'm not at liberty to say how. What I can tell you is that 911 made it a real pain in the ass for all of us due to overreaction and over precautions. The terrorists are still winning over fifteen years after their attack. They share delight in our paranoia.

We can't let this unfortunate incident change the way we live. We can't allow liberals to cash in on this tragedy. The worst thing we could do is disallow outdoor concerts next to tall buildings, or have a militant presence at every event. Look at us! We are discussing the use of bump stock even though it was never used before and probably never will be used again even if left legal.

There is nothing wrong with learning from this situation, but what would be wrong is for us to be expecting a similar attack in the future and taking ridiculous precautions like having snipers at each event. If a hotel (or whatever) next to an event sees something unusual, no doubt, report it to somebody. In 99% of the cases, it would probably be nothing. But allowing us to be terrorized for the rest of our lives would be a huge win for this maniac; even worse if he did have some connection to a terrorist group.

Just like lightning actually strikes the same place MORE frequently than you have been led to believe, once a bad group figures out how soft a target is, they will continue to exploit those now identified soft targets.

Like always, there may be attempted copy cats, but very few if any and certainly not at this level. But after some time, people forget and it goes away as it always does.

Fun lovers are now well aware of this possibility, but we need to leave it up to them if they refuse to bow down and allow this thing to ruin their enjoyment. If they are weary, then don't go. If they are willing to take a chance no matter how low the risk is of something like this happening again, then it's up to them.

If something like this does happen over and over again, that's a different story. Evil wins and we need to do more. But for right now, I think our best approach is not to get too carried away with all this.

I disagree with you. Criminals are by nature not creative. That's why they are criminals. This guy was waaaay different from the run of the mill mass murderer. He has laid out a very easy to copy template, and I guarantee you that others will follow in his footsteps.

Okay, so let's just create a law to stop all outdoor concerts. Let's have body searches and X-ray machines in all hotel facilities. Maybe even have a curfew in Vegas. No more walking around to casinos after dark. Casinos can only stay open for their hotel guests, and locked doors at that.

Outside of Vegas, shut down all professional sports arenas that are near any kind of high rise buildings. We hosted the NY Yankees this evening in the playoffs; should have never happened since our stadium is surrounded by tall buildings.

All this just so people can have guns huh? Seems guns are more important than any other kind of liberty.

 

[westwall]

That's kind of knee jerk if you ask me. This only happened one time in such a venue and likely would not happen again in the future. The idea of terrorism is to terrorize people forcing them walk on eggshells from that point on.

As bad as 911 was and the deaths that took place, the real delight for terrorists is what happened afterwards. Random searches of airport passengers, TSA agents and their body scanners, long waits at airports, shutting down of operations because somebody found a suspicious looking luggage bag, things like that.

As a truck driver I can honestly say how it greatly effected air freight deliveries and pickups although I'm not at liberty to say how. What I can tell you is that 911 made it a real pain in the ass for all of us due to overreaction and over precautions. The terrorists are still winning over fifteen years after their attack. They share delight in our paranoia.

We can't let this unfortunate incident change the way we live. We can't allow liberals to cash in on this tragedy. The worst thing we could do is disallow outdoor concerts next to tall buildings, or have a militant presence at every event. Look at us! We are discussing the use of bump stock even though it was never used before and probably never will be used again even if left legal.

There is nothing wrong with learning from this situation, but what would be wrong is for us to be expecting a similar attack in the future and taking ridiculous precautions like having snipers at each event. If a hotel (or whatever) next to an event sees something unusual, no doubt, report it to somebody. In 99% of the cases, it would probably be nothing. But allowing us to be terrorized for the rest of our lives would be a huge win for this maniac; even worse if he did have some connection to a terrorist group.

Just like lightning actually strikes the same place MORE frequently than you have been led to believe, once a bad group figures out how soft a target is, they will continue to exploit those now identified soft targets.

Like always, there may be attempted copy cats, but very few if any and certainly not at this level. But after some time, people forget and it goes away as it always does.

Fun lovers are now well aware of this possibility, but we need to leave it up to them if they refuse to bow down and allow this thing to ruin their enjoyment. If they are weary, then don't go. If they are willing to take a chance no matter how low the risk is of something like this happening again, then it's up to them.

If something like this does happen over and over again, that's a different story. Evil wins and we need to do more. But for right now, I think our best approach is not to get too carried away with all this.

I disagree with you. Criminals are by nature not creative. That's why they are criminals. This guy was waaaay different from the run of the mill mass murderer. He has laid out a very easy to copy template, and I guarantee you that others will follow in his footsteps.

Okay, so let's just create a law to stop all outdoor concerts. Let's have body searches and X-ray machines in all hotel facilities. Maybe even have a curfew in Vegas. No more walking around to casinos after dark. Casinos can only stay open for their hotel guests, and locked doors at that.

Outside of Vegas, shut down all professional sports arenas that are near any kind of high rise buildings. We hosted the NY Yankees this evening in the playoffs; should have never happened since our stadium is surrounded by tall buildings.

All this just so people can have guns huh? Seems guns are more important than any other kind of liberty.

That's because they are the guarantee for all of the others. Take away your ability to say no to the government, and the government will take everything else away as they feel the need.

 

[Dale Smith]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

I support no restrictions whatsoever on the second amendment.

 

[oreo]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

No gun owner, like myself, can look at what happened in Las Vegas, and make a claim that assault weapons are NOT a threat to American everyday life. Yeah we can ban the bumper that will make a semi-automatic go automatic, but they'll come up with something else that will produce the same result. We have had too many incidents of people using assault weapons to kill innocent people. That is NOT what our forefathers intended when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

They need to do this:
1. Ban assault weapons from being sold in this country.
2. Close the loophole on gun shows and everyone gets a background check, including on private sales, like Colorado has done.(It does no good that your neighbor can sell a gun to anyone, who intends to use it on you.)
3. Continue with background checks, including mental health warnings. Anyone that is on a no fly list should not be allowed to purchase guns. Anyone on a terrorist watch list should not be allowed to purchase guns.

Republicans won't do any of this. They may ban the bumper--but they won't address assault weapons. The only way you're going to get that done is to vote for DEMOCRATS who are more concerned about public safety, and not like Republicans that are more concerned about protecting the NRA (whom they are attached at the hip with) and their nut case gun owners. Republicans would pass out Grenade's and Bazooka's if it got them votes.

If you want common sense gun control, you'll have to vote for DEMOCRATS. There is no other way.

 

[Dale Smith]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

No gun owner, like myself, can look at what happened in Las Vegas, and make a claim that assault weapons are NOT a threat to American everyday life. Yeah we can ban the bumper that will make a semi-automatic go automatic, but they'll come up with something else that will produce the same result. We have had too many incidents of people using assault weapons to kill innocent people. That IS NOT what our forefathers intended when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

They need to do this:
1. Ban assault weapons from being sold in this country.
2. Close the loophole on gun shows and everyone gets a background check, including on private sales, like Colorado has done.(It does no good that your neighbor can sell a gun to anyone, who intends to use it on you.)

Republicans won't do any of this. They may ban the bumper--but they won't address assault weapons. The only way you're going to get that done is to vote for DEMOCRATS who are more concerned about public safety, and not like Republicans that are more concerned about protecting the NRA and their nut case gun owners. Republicans would pass out Grenade's and Bazooka's if it got them votes.

If you want common sense gun control, you'll have to vote for DEMOCRATS. There is no other way.

"No gun owner, like myself, can look at what happened in Las Vegas, and make a claim that assault weapons are NOT a threat to American everyday life"

Not when deep state operatives use them for a psy-op or give them away by the truckloads to Mexican drug cartels in a lame attempt to blame Mexican civilian deaths on weapons that they lied and claimed from gun dealers here. USA.INCV is the biggest weapons dealer going.

The fact that "da gubermint" is running so many of these false flag operations in order to sway the public to disarm themselves should worry every gun and non-gun owner because obviously the owners of USA.INC have some plans for us that we are not gonna like much.

BTW, I don't participate in the elections of this banana republic but I wouldn't throw support behind a commie demcrat under any circumstance.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No gun owner, like myself, can look at what happened in Las Vegas, and make a claim that assault weapons are NOT a threat to American everyday life.

Bullshit. You've never even seen a gun.

There is no such thing as an "assault weapon." The word you're looking for is an "assault rifle" which is usually a carbine with a mid-sized round, and selective fire (which makes it capable of both full-auto and semi-auto). Those are pretty much illegal to own.

The only difference between an "assault weapon" and a regular civilian gun is that the "assault weapon" looks scary.

If you want any freedom....NEVER VOTE DEMOCRAT!!!!!

 

[oreo]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

No gun owner, like myself, can look at what happened in Las Vegas, and make a claim that assault weapons are NOT a threat to American everyday life. Yeah we can ban the bumper that will make a semi-automatic go automatic, but they'll come up with something else that will produce the same result. We have had too many incidents of people using assault weapons to kill innocent people. That IS NOT what our forefathers intended when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

They need to do this:
1. Ban assault weapons from being sold in this country.
2. Close the loophole on gun shows and everyone gets a background check, including on private sales, like Colorado has done.(It does no good that your neighbor can sell a gun to anyone, who intends to use it on you.)

Republicans won't do any of this. They may ban the bumper--but they won't address assault weapons. The only way you're going to get that done is to vote for DEMOCRATS who are more concerned about public safety, and not like Republicans that are more concerned about protecting the NRA and their nut case gun owners. Republicans would pass out Grenade's and Bazooka's if it got them votes.

If you want common sense gun control, you'll have to vote for DEMOCRATS. There is no other way.

"No gun owner, like myself, can look at what happened in Las Vegas, and make a claim that assault weapons are NOT a threat to American everyday life"

Not when deep state operatives use them for a psy-op or give them away by the truckloads to Mexican drug cartels in a lame attempt to blame Mexican civilian deaths on weapons that they lied and claimed from gun dealers here. USA.INCV is the biggest weapons dealer going.

The fact that "da gubermint" is running so many of these false flag operations in order to sway the public to disarm themselves should worry every gun and non-gun owner because obviously the owners of USA.INC have some plans for us that we are not gonna like much.

BTW, I don't participate in the elections of this banana republic but I wouldn't throw support behind a commie demcrat under any circumstance.

When is your next concert scheduled--when do you plan on going to the next packed football stadium or anywhere else where there is a crowd of people. Because now they have now become ducks in a shooting range.

I don't give a rats ass if you vote or not--but it should be clear to you that you're on a political board and without a vote from you--you're opinion on anything is worthless. Crawl back under the rock you came from.

 

[Spare_change]

From our Founding Fathers .....

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reckon that settles the issue.

 

[oreo]

No gun owner, like myself, can look at what happened in Las Vegas, and make a claim that assault weapons are NOT a threat to American everyday life.

Bullshit. You've never even seen a gun.

There is no such thing as an "assault weapon." The word you're looking for is an "assault rifle" which is usually a carbine with a mid-sized round, and selective fire (which makes it capable of both full-auto and semi-auto). Those are pretty much illegal to own.

The only difference between an "assault weapon" and a regular civilian gun is that the "assault weapon" looks scary.

If you want any freedom....NEVER VOTE DEMOCRAT!!!!!

Nope I own 3 pistols a 12 gauge shotgun and a 30/6 rifle for hunting. I don't need an assault weapon to protect myself. Neither do you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I don't need an assualt weapon to protect myself. Neither do you.

Go fuck yourself. I'll decide what I need.

I need a motherfucking machine gun and I will have one. I will not rest until ALL MOTHERFUCKING GUN LAWS are repealed.

Nope I own 3 pistols

Which are likely semi-auto, you fucking hypocrite.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No gun owner, like myself, can look at what happened in Las Vegas, and make a claim that assault weapons are NOT a threat to American everyday life.

Bullshit. You've never even seen a gun.

There is no such thing as an "assault weapon." The word you're looking for is an "assault rifle" which is usually a carbine with a mid-sized round, and selective fire (which makes it capable of both full-auto and semi-auto). Those are pretty much illegal to own.

The only difference between an "assault weapon" and a regular civilian gun is that the "assault weapon" looks scary.

If you want any freedom....NEVER VOTE DEMOCRAT!!!!!

If you want freedom, never vote either Republican OR Democrat. They're controlled by money, not by you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you want freedom, never vote either Republican OR Democrat. They're controlled by money, not by you.

I agree. One is simply moving toward totalitarianism faster than the other.

 

[toobfreak]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

No, it was purely political. It was just a "feel good" move by the Left. It really accomplished nothing------ full autos account for almost no murders in America and you can make a semi work like an auto so easy several different ways, and without even buying a bump stock or tampering with the gun mechanism, that the whole thing was a joke.

 

[Slade3200]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

I support no restrictions whatsoever on the second amendment.

Would you support a city or states right to pass laws that regulate the second amendment? Say a city wants to allow single shot pistols and hunting riffles. Should they be allowed to pass a law that says that?

 

[Dale Smith]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

No gun owner, like myself, can look at what happened in Las Vegas, and make a claim that assault weapons are NOT a threat to American everyday life. Yeah we can ban the bumper that will make a semi-automatic go automatic, but they'll come up with something else that will produce the same result. We have had too many incidents of people using assault weapons to kill innocent people. That IS NOT what our forefathers intended when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

They need to do this:
1. Ban assault weapons from being sold in this country.
2. Close the loophole on gun shows and everyone gets a background check, including on private sales, like Colorado has done.(It does no good that your neighbor can sell a gun to anyone, who intends to use it on you.)

Republicans won't do any of this. They may ban the bumper--but they won't address assault weapons. The only way you're going to get that done is to vote for DEMOCRATS who are more concerned about public safety, and not like Republicans that are more concerned about protecting the NRA and their nut case gun owners. Republicans would pass out Grenade's and Bazooka's if it got them votes.

If you want common sense gun control, you'll have to vote for DEMOCRATS. There is no other way.

"No gun owner, like myself, can look at what happened in Las Vegas, and make a claim that assault weapons are NOT a threat to American everyday life"

Not when deep state operatives use them for a psy-op or give them away by the truckloads to Mexican drug cartels in a lame attempt to blame Mexican civilian deaths on weapons that they lied and claimed from gun dealers here. USA.INCV is the biggest weapons dealer going.

The fact that "da gubermint" is running so many of these false flag operations in order to sway the public to disarm themselves should worry every gun and non-gun owner because obviously the owners of USA.INC have some plans for us that we are not gonna like much.

BTW, I don't participate in the elections of this banana republic but I wouldn't throw support behind a commie demcrat under any circumstance.

When is your next concert scheduled--when do you plan on going to the next packed football stadium or anywhere else where there is a crowd of people. Because now they have now become ducks in a shooting range.

I don't give a rats ass if you vote or not--but it should be clear to you that you're on a political board and without a vote from you--you're opinion on anything is worthless. Crawl back under the rock you came from.

If people are being used for target practice? It's by rogue elements of this corporate entity that you lovingly refer to as "gubermint". It's called the Hegelian Dialectic....cause the problem, wait for the emotional outcry and then propose a solution to the very problem you caused that benefits the agenda you serve. It has been used all through history and very effectively, I might add. Look up "Operation Gladio" and Operation Northwoods...Gulf of Tonkin that led to the escalation of the Vietnam War? It never happened and that has been declassified. My opinion matters a great deal and posters here like the information that I pass on. My Facebook page has around 700 followers. I do radio interviews....yeah, my "opinion" matters and I reach more people than you could ever hope to accomplish. I will go where I want to go with no fear and I will say what needs to be said while allowed to do so....get it now, you commie sack of shit?

 

[Dale Smith]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

I support no restrictions whatsoever on the second amendment.

Would you support a city or states right to pass laws that regulate the second amendment? Say a city wants to allow single shot pistols and hunting riffles. Should they be allowed to pass a law that says that?

We don't have "laws". We have acts, statutes, codes, ordinances and what they call "public policy" because corporate entities cannot pass "laws". We are under the Uniform Commercial Code which is statutory rules. When incorporate something, you take it from the law of the land to the "Law" of Admiralty. Common Law courts have ceased to exist since the Lieber Code was put in place during the Civil War and we are technically under Martial Law even to this day. BUT, to answer your question? States, cities, towns and counties can pass all the acts, statutes, codes and ordinances that they want and institute new "public policies" but I am not bound to follow them and I won't.

 

[toobfreak]

Would you support a city or states right to pass laws that regulate the second amendment?

A State HAS NO "RIGHT" to "regulate" the 2nd Amendment. That is an inalienable right, given by God, not by man, and certainly not the state. Technically, a person should have the right to buy anything he chooses if he can afford to! So long as he keeps and uses it responsibly, whose business is it of anyone but him?

We live in this fiction that if a man had a tank or canon, that he might go out and kill people with it. The truth is that responsible people act responsibly and assholes will always be assholes no matter what law you pass. ISIS has shown that you can go out and kill far more than 58 people with nothing more than your car!

And isn't that the odd thing---- this guy in Vegas, he could have killed far more than 60 people for far less money and with infinitely less effort just by running them over in the streets! Put a fake license plate on and just driven away. Yet he died and went through all that effort to use semi-auto guns instead! It is almost as if his real intent was just to give guns a bad name and fuel the gun debate issue!

Just sayin' . . . .

 

[Markle]

I agree that criminals could make greater use of automatic weapons if they wanted to, but your claim that they are not what is needed is just stupid. Gangs aren't known for spending hours at the gun range improving their accuracy. They depend on putting as much lead in the air as possible, and hoping some of it hits it's intended target. Automatic fired wepons would be the best possible gun for them to use. They don't use them because they are so highly regulated. Gun control does work quite well in that situation.

More likely this is the reason automatic weapons and silencers are not used in crimes today. Although I'll wager that bump stocks will be showing up in Chicago and other "gang" cities soon.

Use of a fully automatic class 3 weapon or a silencer in a crime can up the sentencing by 30 years even if no NFA prosecution takes place (18 USC sec. 924).

Penalties of Class 3 Weapons License | Class 3 Weapons License