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

[M14 Shooter]

Dude you have real issues. I wouldn't give you a gun! You would shoot your own self with it. haahahahahhahahahahahahaha, you're a toote. You are chasing your tail and it's funny watching it.

I've been consistent in all my posts. its your butthurt ass that keeps dredging up the same tired gun control crap.

You or the government has no right to tell me if I can or cannot own or carry a gun unless a court has decreed that I cannot.

wrong again if you truly understood the 2nd amendment you wouldn't be whining so much.
the real question here is not if you can own a gun but how many is a reasonable amount to own.
since you can only reasonably shoot one gun with any accuracy at a time, how many do you really need.
btw the 2nd amendment is the government's way of telling you under what circumstances you can own and use a firearm so yes "they" do have that right!

Nothing in Heller implies that the state can limit the number of guns you can have - in fact, it states that the 2nd protects a right to a gun for the traditionally lawful uses someone might have for a gun -- of which there are several score.

Please try again.

 

[Sallow]

I've been consistent in all my posts. its your butthurt ass that keeps dredging up the same tired gun control crap.

You or the government has no right to tell me if I can or cannot own or carry a gun unless a court has decreed that I cannot.

wrong again if you truly understood the 2nd amendment you wouldn't be whining so much.
the real question here is not if you can own a gun but how many is a reasonable amount to own.
since you can only reasonably shoot one gun with any accuracy at a time, how many do you really need.
btw the 2nd amendment is the government's way of telling you under what circumstances you can own and use a firearm so yes "they" do have that right!

I don't read the part of the 2nd where the right to keep and bear arms is limited to a certain number.

and the 2nd amendment says the government cannot infringe on your right, it limits GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE.

Your opinion, and the opinion of the government doesn't mean shit unless the 2nd is repealed.

Seems you didn't really read it at all.

There are several other parts to it.

Seriously.

Like using your arms as part of a militia to defend the state.

Unfortunately?

Case law corrupted original intent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

wrong again if you truly understood the 2nd amendment you wouldn't be whining so much.
the real question here is not if you can own a gun but how many is a reasonable amount to own.
since you can only reasonably shoot one gun with any accuracy at a time, how many do you really need.
btw the 2nd amendment is the government's way of telling you under what circumstances you can own and use a firearm so yes "they" do have that right!

I don't read the part of the 2nd where the right to keep and bear arms is limited to a certain number.

and the 2nd amendment says the government cannot infringe on your right, it limits GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE.

Your opinion, and the opinion of the government doesn't mean shit unless the 2nd is repealed.

your ignorance slip is showing.

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State.

This supports your position...how?

 

[Sallow]

I've been consistent in all my posts. its your butthurt ass that keeps dredging up the same tired gun control crap.

You or the government has no right to tell me if I can or cannot own or carry a gun unless a court has decreed that I cannot.

wrong again if you truly understood the 2nd amendment you wouldn't be whining so much.
the real question here is not if you can own a gun but how many is a reasonable amount to own.
since you can only reasonably shoot one gun with any accuracy at a time, how many do you really need.
btw the 2nd amendment is the government's way of telling you under what circumstances you can own and use a firearm so yes "they" do have that right!

Nothing in Heller implies that the state can limit the number of guns you can have - in fact, it states that the 2nd protects a right to a gun for the traditionally lawful uses someone might have for a gun -- of which there are several score.

Please try again.

Heller..like most of the decisions regarding the right to bear arms..is a corruption of the 2nd.

And seems to be the direct result of the well funded gun lobby.

 

[M14 Shooter]

wrong again if you truly understood the 2nd amendment you wouldn't be whining so much.
the real question here is not if you can own a gun but how many is a reasonable amount to own.
since you can only reasonably shoot one gun with any accuracy at a time, how many do you really need.
btw the 2nd amendment is the government's way of telling you under what circumstances you can own and use a firearm so yes "they" do have that right!

I don't read the part of the 2nd where the right to keep and bear arms is limited to a certain number.

and the 2nd amendment says the government cannot infringe on your right, it limits GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE.

Your opinion, and the opinion of the government doesn't mean shit unless the 2nd is repealed.

Seems you didn't really read it at all.

There are several other parts to it.

Seriously.

Like using your arms as part of a militia to defend the state.

Unfortunately?

Case law corrupted original intent.

You and I both know that you know you cannot support this position.

 

[M14 Shooter]

wrong again if you truly understood the 2nd amendment you wouldn't be whining so much.
the real question here is not if you can own a gun but how many is a reasonable amount to own.
since you can only reasonably shoot one gun with any accuracy at a time, how many do you really need.
btw the 2nd amendment is the government's way of telling you under what circumstances you can own and use a firearm so yes "they" do have that right!

Nothing in Heller implies that the state can limit the number of guns you can have - in fact, it states that the 2nd protects a right to a gun for the traditionally lawful uses someone might have for a gun -- of which there are several score.

Please try again.

Heller..like most of the decisions regarding the right to bear arms..is a corruption of the 2nd.

This is a lie.

 

[Sallow]

I don't read the part of the 2nd where the right to keep and bear arms is limited to a certain number.

and the 2nd amendment says the government cannot infringe on your right, it limits GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE.

Your opinion, and the opinion of the government doesn't mean shit unless the 2nd is repealed.

Seems you didn't really read it at all.

There are several other parts to it.

Seriously.

Like using your arms as part of a militia to defend the state.

Unfortunately?

Case law corrupted original intent.

You and I both know that you know you cannot support this position.

You may religiously believe I cannot..but the second supports my position.

Without case law? And a strict reading of the amendment?

You are under water.

 

[daws101]

I've been consistent in all my posts. its your butthurt ass that keeps dredging up the same tired gun control crap.

You or the government has no right to tell me if I can or cannot own or carry a gun unless a court has decreed that I cannot.

wrong again if you truly understood the 2nd amendment you wouldn't be whining so much.
the real question here is not if you can own a gun but how many is a reasonable amount to own.
since you can only reasonably shoot one gun with any accuracy at a time, how many do you really need.
btw the 2nd amendment is the government's way of telling you under what circumstances you can own and use a firearm so yes "they" do have that right!

Nothing in Heller implies that the state can limit the number of guns you can have - in fact, it states that the 2nd protects a right to a gun for the traditionally lawful uses someone might have for a gun -- of which there are several score.

Please try again.

missing the point.....
do you agree that an individual can with reasonable accuracy use only one firearm at a time?
owning more than one firearm may be lawful but not practical.

 

[martybegan]

wrong again if you truly understood the 2nd amendment you wouldn't be whining so much.
the real question here is not if you can own a gun but how many is a reasonable amount to own.
since you can only reasonably shoot one gun with any accuracy at a time, how many do you really need.
btw the 2nd amendment is the government's way of telling you under what circumstances you can own and use a firearm so yes "they" do have that right!

I don't read the part of the 2nd where the right to keep and bear arms is limited to a certain number.

and the 2nd amendment says the government cannot infringe on your right, it limits GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE.

Your opinion, and the opinion of the government doesn't mean shit unless the 2nd is repealed.

your ignorance slip is showing.

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State.

What part of that says the government can limit the # of guns I own? That's infringement.

And before you go on the militia tangent, The first part of the amendment prohibits the government from banning the states from having militias/armed forces. the 2nd part is what says the people have the right to keep and bear ARMS, not an arm the government lets you have, not one arm, not only 20 rounds of ammunition at a time. ARMS.

 

[depotoo]

By law, he had no rights to a gun. He was a convicted felon. Therefore his gun was illegally obtained, just like all criminals acquire them, not through a legitimate dealer. And no gun law will stop the black market on guns, just as medical marijuana laws will not keep those that don't need it, from acquiring it on the black market.

 

[daws101]

I don't read the part of the 2nd where the right to keep and bear arms is limited to a certain number.

and the 2nd amendment says the government cannot infringe on your right, it limits GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE.

Your opinion, and the opinion of the government doesn't mean shit unless the 2nd is repealed.

your ignorance slip is showing.

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State.

This supports your position...how?

someone else who has reading comp problems...

 

[M14 Shooter]

your ignorance slip is showing.

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State.

This supports your position...how?

someone else who has reading comp problems...

So... you can't answer my question. I get it. Thanks.

 

[theHawk]

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?

So it's the fault of the Right that this assclown wasn't behind bars for being a repeat offender?

With a record like that, he shouldn't of had just 2nd amendment rights taken away, he should of had his freedom taken away.

But, but, but, lefties keep wanting to give career criminals a second chance....

If you want to keep the streets safe, keep wackos like this guy locked up. Simple as that. But you limp-wristed liberals don't want to talk about that...you have to rant about the NRA.

 

[martybegan]

wrong again if you truly understood the 2nd amendment you wouldn't be whining so much.
the real question here is not if you can own a gun but how many is a reasonable amount to own.
since you can only reasonably shoot one gun with any accuracy at a time, how many do you really need.
btw the 2nd amendment is the government's way of telling you under what circumstances you can own and use a firearm so yes "they" do have that right!

Nothing in Heller implies that the state can limit the number of guns you can have - in fact, it states that the 2nd protects a right to a gun for the traditionally lawful uses someone might have for a gun -- of which there are several score.

Please try again.

missing the point.....
do you agree that an individual can with reasonable accuracy use only one firearm at a time?
owning more than one firearm may be lawful but not practical.

Skeet shooting: double shotgun
Varmint hunting: 30.06
Pistol targeting: .22 cal
Home defense 9mm
Home defense pump shotgun
Zombie Apocolypse: M1 Garand

Different guns have different uses.

 

[Sallow]

Nothing in Heller implies that the state can limit the number of guns you can have - in fact, it states that the 2nd protects a right to a gun for the traditionally lawful uses someone might have for a gun -- of which there are several score.

Please try again.

Heller..like most of the decisions regarding the right to bear arms..is a corruption of the 2nd.

This is a lie.

No it's not.

Heller deals with guns and uses the second as camouflage. The second amendment never mentions guns. It mentions arms. That's deliberate. Because the ground forces, which by original intent was meant to be the militia, could not be restricted to just using guns. They need all means of arms to protect the state.

The second was never meant to be an individual right for maniacs to have guns to shoot kids in the face, settle scores or shoot cans in the forest.

It was meant to provide a means to defend the country.

 

[M14 Shooter]

wrong again if you truly understood the 2nd amendment you wouldn't be whining so much.
the real question here is not if you can own a gun but how many is a reasonable amount to own.
since you can only reasonably shoot one gun with any accuracy at a time, how many do you really need.
btw the 2nd amendment is the government's way of telling you under what circumstances you can own and use a firearm so yes "they" do have that right!

Nothing in Heller implies that the state can limit the number of guns you can have - in fact, it states that the 2nd protects a right to a gun for the traditionally lawful uses someone might have for a gun -- of which there are several score.
Please try again.

missing the point.....
do you agree that an individual can with reasonable accuracy use only one firearm at a time?

Your question is irrelevant to the point you tried to make.
You have a right, protected by the constitution, to own a gun for any and every traditionally legal use you might have for one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Heller..like most of the decisions regarding the right to bear arms..is a corruption of the 2nd.

This is a lie.

No it's not.

It is - your statement is false, and you know it. Thus, you lied.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Seems you didn't really read it at all.

There are several other parts to it.

Seriously.

Like using your arms as part of a militia to defend the state.

Unfortunately?

Case law corrupted original intent.

You and I both know that you know you cannot support this position.

You may religiously believe I cannot.

No... the fact is that you cannot, and you know it.

 

[daws101]

I don't read the part of the 2nd where the right to keep and bear arms is limited to a certain number.

and the 2nd amendment says the government cannot infringe on your right, it limits GOVERNMENT, not the PEOPLE.

Your opinion, and the opinion of the government doesn't mean shit unless the 2nd is repealed.

your ignorance slip is showing.

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State.

What part of that says the government can limit the # of guns I own? That's infringement.

And before you go on the militia tangent, The first part of the amendment prohibits the government from banning the states from having militias/armed forces. the 2nd part is what says the people have the right to keep and bear ARMS, not an arm the government lets you have, not one arm, not only 20 rounds of ammunition at a time. ARMS.

false the first part grants the use of fire arms it does not prohibit anything.
again you're reading in to it what's not there.
arms is there because muskets could only shoot at best one round a minute.. I'm fairly sure that if automatic weapons a high capacity clips existed then the amendment would have been different.

 

[daws101]

This supports your position...how?

someone else who has reading comp problems...

So... you can't answer my question. I get it. Thanks.

you wish... it was ask and answered ..