Why Was No One Armed & Shooting Back In El Paso WalMart ?

[Rustic]

The USSC said the 2md amendment does not mean no regulation.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Hmmm where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to own a military style weapon.

Define "military style weapon".

Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to own a AK47, AR15, M16, etc.

lol
Where does it Say Americans don’t have an right?

Where does it say you do?

 

[Superbadbrutha]

The El Paso Walmart shooter killed 20 people (so far) and wounded 26 more. He may well have fired some shots missing people also. It's pretty fair to say this nut fired at least 50 shots, and very possibly well more than that.

It takes quite some time to fire that many shots individually, as this guy did, walking aisle to aisle, through the store. If there had been an armed security guard, or any armed citizen with a CCW license, this guy could have (and should have) been stopped cold after the first 2 or 3 shots.

As someone who has a CCW license, and is armed 99% of the time, when I'm walking around outside, it is amazing to me that there could have been that many people walking around unarmed and defenseless. Why? Don't they know something like this could happen at any time ?

In contrast, in 2002, a Muslim terrorist (Hesham Mohamed Hadayet) walked into Los Angeles Airport (LAX) armed with 2 handguns, plus magazines loaded with dozens of bullets. He shot and killed 2 people, and wounded 4. The airport was filled with people. The terrorist was shot dead right on the spot, by a security guard who was armed and ready to deal. Without that good guy with a gun, the airport would have been a bloodbath, just like this WalMart, and probably even worse.

This ARMED DEFENSE is what should have been the case in El Paso. How this guy could pull off what he did without getting shot, by a guard or CCW carrying citizen is mind boggling.

2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting - Wikipedia

Because the Democrats took the guns and or are scaring legal gun owners away

This guy was a legal gun owner, wasn't he?

Dude even the cops were afraid to shoot

Wake up

Was the guy a legal gun owner or not?

 

[Superbadbrutha]

The USSC said the 2md amendment does not mean no regulation.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Hmmm where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to own a military style weapon.

Define "military style weapon".

Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to own a AK47, AR15, M16, etc.

lol
Where does it Say Americans don’t have an right?

Where does it say you do?

How many folks could you shoot in a minute with that weapon?

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.".

Are you sure you want to go there? Read Federalist Papers #46.
What the Founders feared most was a government controlled standing military that could impose its will on the citizens. But because an organized military was necessary to defend the new nation ("security of a free state"), the Founders insisted that the citizens should be armed to prevent a tyrannical government. Thus you have 2A.

Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to own a AK47, AR15, M16, etc.

Where does it say I do not?

So are you allowed to own a Tomhawk missile.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you can carry a Tomahawk missile. 2A says "keep and bear"[/QUOTE]

You don't need to carry it to own it or bear it. Do you think it is ok for the average citizen to own a Abrams Tank, how about a 60 or a 50?

 

[miketx]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.".

Are you sure you want to go there? Read Federalist Papers #46.
What the Founders feared most was a government controlled standing military that could impose its will on the citizens. But because an organized military was necessary to defend the new nation ("security of a free state"), the Founders insisted that the citizens should be armed to prevent a tyrannical government. Thus you have 2A.

Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to own a AK47, AR15, M16, etc.

Where does it say I do not?

So are you allowed to own a Tomhawk missile.

I don't think you can carry a Tomahawk missile. 2A says "keep and bear"[/QUOTE]

You don't need to carry it to own it or bear it. Do you think it is ok for the average citizen to own a Abrams Tank, how about a 60 or a 50?[/QUOTE]
Yeah we should all have a tank. Free of course per AOC.

 

[miketx]

I wonder if this mutant retard who murdered all those people in El Paso had any idea that they were all mostly American citizens?

 

[OldLady]

The Cielo Vista Mall was well known for banning permitted concealed handguns

I suspected that, it explains why he drove 600 miles to find a soft target. Just like the Colorado wack job who passed two other movie theatres to get to the one that didn't allow firearms.

Another person in the store shooting is not the answer.

So your answer is to take away my Constitutional right because a nut decided to shoot up a mall. Have I got that right?

I have a feeling that the reason Patrick Crusius chose to travel to El Paso is because it is on the border and the neighborhood is predominantly Hispanic. A poster in the main thread on this (in Breaking News) said he and his son had been in that Walmart once and he and his son were the only white people in it. It was all Mexicans, he said.
Patrick Crusius was gunning for Hispanics so of course he went to the border. Hispanics were his target.

 

[Rustic]

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Define "military style weapon".

Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to own a AK47, AR15, M16, etc.

lol
Where does it Say Americans don’t have an right?

Where does it say you do?

How many folks could you shoot in a minute with that weapon?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The USSC said the 2md amendment does not mean no regulation.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Hmmm where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to own a military style weapon.

Define "military style weapon".

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court – including the meaning of ‘shall not be infringed.’

Firearm regulatory measures that are consistent with Second Amendment case law – measures which have not been invalidated by the Supreme Court – do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

For example, the courts have consistently held that AWBs are indeed Constitutional, the Supreme Court having never struck down an AWB.

Moreover, a military style weapon (or assault weapon) is defined solely by lawmaking bodies, elected officials determine what weapons will be subject to regulation, they alone have that authority.

What gun manufacturers might consider to be a military style weapon (or assault weapon), or what the military might consider to be a military style weapon (or assault weapon), or what private citizens might consider to be military style weapon (or assault weapon) is legally irrelevant, having no bearing on the regulation of such firearms.

 

[Diver Diva]

You don't need to carry it to own it or bear it. Do you think it is ok for the average citizen to own a Abrams Tank, how about a 60 or a 50?

bear
/ber/
verb

1. 1.
   (of a person) carry.
   "he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses"
   
   

 

[WinterBorn]

The El Paso Walmart shooter killed 20 people (so far) and wounded 26 more. He may well have fired some shots missing people also. It's pretty fair to say this nut fired at least 50 shots, and very possibly well more than that.

It takes quite some time to fire that many shots individually, as this guy did, walking aisle to aisle, through the store. If there had been an armed security guard, or any armed citizen with a CCW license, this guy could have (and should have) been stopped cold after the first 2 or 3 shots.

As someone who has a CCW license, and is armed 99% of the time, when I'm walking around outside, it is amazing to me that there could have been that many people walking around unarmed and defenseless. Why? Don't they know something like this could happen at any time ?

In contrast, in 2002, a Muslim terrorist (Hesham Mohamed Hadayet) walked into Los Angeles Airport (LAX) armed with 2 handguns, plus magazines loaded with dozens of bullets. He shot and killed 2 people, and wounded 4. The airport was filled with people. The terrorist was shot dead right on the spot, by a security guard who was armed and ready to deal. Without that good guy with a gun, the airport would have been a bloodbath, just like this WalMart, and probably even worse.

This ARMED DEFENSE is what should have been the case in El Paso. How this guy could pull off what he did without getting shot, by a guard or CCW carrying citizen is mind boggling.

2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting - Wikipedia

It takes quite some time to fire that many rounds? Are you that naive?

The Dayton Ohio shooter was only shooting for around 1 minute. He killed 9 people and wounded 26. The people in Ohio went from having a good time to running for their lives in 60 seconds. If you are armed it takes time to figure out what the hell is going on. Not to mention, if a CCW holder pulls out a gun, another CCW holder comes around the corner and sees him, does he shoot him?

Plus, how many shooters are there? In 2014 a couple (Jerad & Amanda Miller) shot two police officers in a pizza place and then went to Walmart. Jerad Miller started shooting and ordered shoppers to leave. A CCW holder, Joseph Wilcox, pulled out his Glock and challenged Jerad. Wilcox didn't know the woman he walked by was armed and part of the shooting. Amanda Miller shot Joseph Wilcox. He died on the scene.

Not knowing how many shooters there are, or even what is going on, makes drawing a weapon dangerous. Plus, the Walmart was full of shoppers (I've seen estimates range from 1,000 and up) doing their Back-to-School shopping, which means most of the people were families with kids with them. People ran, which is a smart thing to do.

I am all for private citizens using a gun to stop a shooting. But I am also all for civilians surviving. The armed veteran chose to help get children out of the store rather than shooting it out with the gunman.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This ‘wild west/shoot-out’ fantasy common to most on the right illustrates just how ridiculous and wrong conservatives are concerning the issue of gun crime and violence.

 

[Diver Diva]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court – including the meaning of ‘shall not be infringed.’

Firearm regulatory measures that are consistent with Second Amendment case law – measures which have not been invalidated by the Supreme Court – do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

For example, the courts have consistently held that AWBs are indeed Constitutional, the Supreme Court having never struck down an AWB.

Moreover, a military style weapon (or assault weapon) is defined solely by lawmaking bodies, elected officials determine what weapons will be subject to regulation, they alone have that authority.

What gun manufacturers might consider to be a military style weapon (or assault weapon), or what the military might consider to be a military style weapon (or assault weapon), or what private citizens might consider to be military style weapon (or assault weapon) is legally irrelevant, having no bearing on the regulation of such firearms.

So what you are saying is that the government decides what type of weapons law abiding citizens are allowed to have, which is exactly the opposite of the intention of 2A.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.".

Are you sure you want to go there? Read Federalist Papers #46.
What the Founders feared most was a government controlled standing military that could impose its will on the citizens. But because an organized military was necessary to defend the new nation ("security of a free state"), the Founders insisted that the citizens should be armed to prevent a tyrannical government. Thus you have 2A.

Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to own a AK47, AR15, M16, etc.

Where does it say I do not?

So are you allowed to own a Tomhawk missile.

I don't think you can carry a Tomahawk missile. 2A says "keep and bear"

You don't need to carry it to own it or bear it. Do you think it is ok for the average citizen to own a Abrams Tank, how about a 60 or a 50?[/QUOTE]
Yeah we should all have a tank. Free of course per AOC.[/QUOTE]

So if you can afford it why shouldn't you be able to buy it? Should every citizen be allowed to buy a 60 or 50 cal?

 

[rightwinger]

The El Paso Walmart shooter killed 20 people (so far) and wounded 26 more. He may well have fired some shots missing people also. It's pretty fair to say this nut fired at least 50 shots, and very possibly well more than that.

It takes quite some time to fire that many shots individually, as this guy did, walking aisle to aisle, through the store. If there had been an armed security guard, or any armed citizen with a CCW license, this guy could have (and should have) been stopped cold after the first 2 or 3 shots.

As someone who has a CCW license, and is armed 99% of the time, when I'm walking around outside, it is amazing to me that there could have been that many people walking around unarmed and defenseless. Why? Don't they know something like this could happen at any time ?

In contrast, in 2002, a Muslim terrorist (Hesham Mohamed Hadayet) walked into Los Angeles Airport (LAX) armed with 2 handguns, plus magazines loaded with dozens of bullets. He shot and killed 2 people, and wounded 4. The airport was filled with people. The terrorist was shot dead right on the spot, by a security guard who was armed and ready to deal. Without that good guy with a gun, the airport would have been a bloodbath, just like this WalMart, and probably even worse.

This ARMED DEFENSE is what should have been the case in El Paso. How this guy could pull off what he did without getting shot, by a guard or CCW carrying citizen is mind boggling.

2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting - Wikipedia

It seems that most armed citizens run away when the shooting starts

 

[Superbadbrutha]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court – including the meaning of ‘shall not be infringed.’

Firearm regulatory measures that are consistent with Second Amendment case law – measures which have not been invalidated by the Supreme Court – do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

For example, the courts have consistently held that AWBs are indeed Constitutional, the Supreme Court having never struck down an AWB.

Moreover, a military style weapon (or assault weapon) is defined solely by lawmaking bodies, elected officials determine what weapons will be subject to regulation, they alone have that authority.

What gun manufacturers might consider to be a military style weapon (or assault weapon), or what the military might consider to be a military style weapon (or assault weapon), or what private citizens might consider to be military style weapon (or assault weapon) is legally irrelevant, having no bearing on the regulation of such firearms.

So what you are saying is that the government decides what type of weapons law abiding citizens are allowed to have, which is exactly the opposite of the intention of 2A.

They decide how many wives or husbands you can have. They decide how much you pay in taxes. They decide where you can and can't travel to. They decide which drugs it's legal or illegal for you to use.

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court – including the meaning of ‘shall not be infringed.’

Firearm regulatory measures that are consistent with Second Amendment case law – measures which have not been invalidated by the Supreme Court – do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

For example, the courts have consistently held that AWBs are indeed Constitutional, the Supreme Court having never struck down an AWB.

Moreover, a military style weapon (or assault weapon) is defined solely by lawmaking bodies, elected officials determine what weapons will be subject to regulation, they alone have that authority.

What gun manufacturers might consider to be a military style weapon (or assault weapon), or what the military might consider to be a military style weapon (or assault weapon), or what private citizens might consider to be military style weapon (or assault weapon) is legally irrelevant, having no bearing on the regulation of such firearms.

So what you are saying is that the government decides what type of weapons law abiding citizens are allowed to have, which is exactly the opposite of the intention of 2A.

No it isn’t

 

[WinterBorn]

The El Paso Walmart shooter killed 20 people (so far) and wounded 26 more. He may well have fired some shots missing people also. It's pretty fair to say this nut fired at least 50 shots, and very possibly well more than that.

It takes quite some time to fire that many shots individually, as this guy did, walking aisle to aisle, through the store. If there had been an armed security guard, or any armed citizen with a CCW license, this guy could have (and should have) been stopped cold after the first 2 or 3 shots.

As someone who has a CCW license, and is armed 99% of the time, when I'm walking around outside, it is amazing to me that there could have been that many people walking around unarmed and defenseless. Why? Don't they know something like this could happen at any time ?

In contrast, in 2002, a Muslim terrorist (Hesham Mohamed Hadayet) walked into Los Angeles Airport (LAX) armed with 2 handguns, plus magazines loaded with dozens of bullets. He shot and killed 2 people, and wounded 4. The airport was filled with people. The terrorist was shot dead right on the spot, by a security guard who was armed and ready to deal. Without that good guy with a gun, the airport would have been a bloodbath, just like this WalMart, and probably even worse.

This ARMED DEFENSE is what should have been the case in El Paso. How this guy could pull off what he did without getting shot, by a guard or CCW carrying citizen is mind boggling.

2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting - Wikipedia

It seems that most armed citizens run away when the shooting starts

In a situation like in El Paso, that is probably a smart thing to do.

 

[WinterBorn]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court – including the meaning of ‘shall not be infringed.’

Firearm regulatory measures that are consistent with Second Amendment case law – measures which have not been invalidated by the Supreme Court – do not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

For example, the courts have consistently held that AWBs are indeed Constitutional, the Supreme Court having never struck down an AWB.

Moreover, a military style weapon (or assault weapon) is defined solely by lawmaking bodies, elected officials determine what weapons will be subject to regulation, they alone have that authority.

What gun manufacturers might consider to be a military style weapon (or assault weapon), or what the military might consider to be a military style weapon (or assault weapon), or what private citizens might consider to be military style weapon (or assault weapon) is legally irrelevant, having no bearing on the regulation of such firearms.

So what you are saying is that the government decides what type of weapons law abiding citizens are allowed to have, which is exactly the opposite of the intention of 2A.

They decide how many wives or husbands you can have. They decide how much you pay in taxes. They decide where you can and can't travel to. They decide which drugs it's legal or illegal for you to use.

Exactly. People have handed over so many freedoms already to bitch about having another right regulated.

 

[rightwinger]

The El Paso Walmart shooter killed 20 people (so far) and wounded 26 more. He may well have fired some shots missing people also. It's pretty fair to say this nut fired at least 50 shots, and very possibly well more than that.

It takes quite some time to fire that many shots individually, as this guy did, walking aisle to aisle, through the store. If there had been an armed security guard, or any armed citizen with a CCW license, this guy could have (and should have) been stopped cold after the first 2 or 3 shots.

As someone who has a CCW license, and is armed 99% of the time, when I'm walking around outside, it is amazing to me that there could have been that many people walking around unarmed and defenseless. Why? Don't they know something like this could happen at any time ?

In contrast, in 2002, a Muslim terrorist (Hesham Mohamed Hadayet) walked into Los Angeles Airport (LAX) armed with 2 handguns, plus magazines loaded with dozens of bullets. He shot and killed 2 people, and wounded 4. The airport was filled with people. The terrorist was shot dead right on the spot, by a security guard who was armed and ready to deal. Without that good guy with a gun, the airport would have been a bloodbath, just like this WalMart, and probably even worse.

This ARMED DEFENSE is what should have been the case in El Paso. How this guy could pull off what he did without getting shot, by a guard or CCW carrying citizen is mind boggling.

2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting - Wikipedia

It seems that most armed citizens run away when the shooting starts

In a situation like in El Paso, that is probably a smart thing to do.

Should I engage in a shoot out with that guy with an AK-47 or should I exit that door?