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

[depotoo]

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!

Is that what you are going to tell the gun owner that is being charged, by a criminal, wild dog, wild animal, when his gun jams? Sorry, you don't need more than one. Too bad? Think it doesn't happen, you've never been around them.
There are also guns for different uses. Where one will take down one type animal, it might be the same as hitting it with a bb gun, for another animal.

 

[Sallow]

This is a lie.

No it's not.

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

You had to cut off my post because you cannot defend your ridiculous and patently zealous gun nut position.

Not only will a strict reading of the second amendment support what I post, but other parts of the Constitution do as well.

You really should sit down and read it.

 

[daws101]

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.

nice rationalization. but it's bullshit...
besides you cannot shoot more than one at a time.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Actually..the fact REMAINS, that of course I can.

And RELYING only on the Constitution.

You CANNOT.

 

[Avatar4321]

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

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

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

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

Lazy or just simply not very bright?

So you think the background checks are unrelated to the procurement? Seriously? Isn't the whole point of background checks (which i thought most if not all states did) to keep felons from procuring guns? If the background checks aren't supposed to prevent procurement, then what the heck is the point of them?

You haven't established that they legally obtained these weapons. If they legally obtained them, then there may be something wrong with how the background checks were conducted. If they weren't legally obtained, then the background checks are completely irrelevant to the case because of court no background check would be run when the firearm was illegally obtained.

I am guessing from the answer your providing and efforts to dodge the question that they probably obtained the weapons illegally, or at least that you think they did.

 

[daws101]

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.

false! it's central to my point...

 

[M14 Shooter]

You may religiously believe I cannot.

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

Actually..the fact REMAINS, that of course I can.

Prove it. Support your position that Case law corrupted original intent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 ..

I accept your concession of the point.

 

[Avatar4321]

So you immediately run to my new thread here...What does that say about you?

I'd say you can't defend what I am posting here just like you couldn't over there. Too lazy.

Were the weapons purchased illegally? Why is it so flippin hard to answer a simple question with you folks?

Why is it so hard for you to just look that up and post it? Oh wait, let me do that for you.... (Lazy, lazy, lazy)

"""Facebook announced in March that it will actively block buyers and sellers who do not intend to conduct background checks, prohibit users under age 18 from viewing gun sellers’ posts, and delete reported posts of potential sales across state lines."""



Oh, GOOD FOR FACEBOOK, if you're over 18 and/or have been banned from buying guns, Mark Zuckerberg will still help you out.

Why do you think expecting you to actually support your own positions is laziness on the part of others?

 

[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.

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...

the 2nd grants nothing.

again you're reading in to it what's not there.

Given the above, that;s funny.

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.

I am just as fairly sure you're wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No it's not.

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

You had to cut off my post because you cannot defend your ridiculous and patently zealous gun nut position.

Not only will a strict reading of the second amendment support what I post, but other parts of the Constitution do as well.

You really should sit down and read it.

I note that you did not even try to show that you did not lie.
Good to see you've accepted that sad fact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

false! it's central to my point...

You have a right, protected by the constitution, to own a gun for any and every traditionally legal use you might have for one.
Your "point" falls flat in the face of that fact.

 

[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!

Is that what you are going to tell the gun owner that is being charged, by a criminal, wild dog, wild animal, when his gun jams? Sorry, you don't need more than one. Too bad? Think it doesn't happen, you've never been around them.
There are also guns for different uses. Where one will take down one type animal, it might be the same as hitting it with a bb gun, for another animal.

another false assumer I own guns I was raised around guns.
my dad was firearms instructor in the marines and a hunter .
if your gun jams it's either a bad gun or has been badly maintained .
as to your mostly fantasy attacks by wild animals and dogs if your in a position to be attacked by a wild animal (presumably a large one) and the gun jams ,that's on you ,not the animal.
you are the one who picked the fight.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

No one is claiming anyone has the right to shoot kids in the face or "settle scores".

We are arguing we have the natural and Constitutional right to defend ourselves from harm. We have the right to protect ourselves.

Ironically, you just conceded that.

 

[depotoo]

And if it jams? Tell that to those that live in the country. The below post is from another forum. The link is to another story-

I live in black bear country in the Ozarks -- a friend just killed a 300 pounder with a bow. I have had bear in my back yard.My experience (backed up by friends with the same experience) is that black bear attacks are rare -- and usually food-related. Campers who fail to keep a clean camp and food out of reach may have problems, but otherwise blackies will leave you alone.Ernie Pagette killed a blackie with a .357 after two 165-grain Sierra boattail softpoints from a .308 failed (both bullets broke up on the shoulders). The bear did not attack him, but crawled into a laurel hell.If I was hunting bear with a handgun, I'd rely on that handgun -- and hardcast bullets for good penetration. With a rifle, I'd go with Nosler Partition Jackets, to avoid a repetition of Ernie's problem.
Robber?s gun jams, gets him killed | Metro, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com

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.

nice rationalization. but it's bullshit...
besides you cannot shoot more than one at a time.

 

[daws101]

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

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

I accept your concession of the point.

then you are accepting nothing..

 

[Sallow]

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

You had to cut off my post because you cannot defend your ridiculous and patently zealous gun nut position.

Not only will a strict reading of the second amendment support what I post, but other parts of the Constitution do as well.

You really should sit down and read it.

I note that you did not even try to show that you did not lie.
Good to see you've accepted that sad fact.

I didn't lie.

Not in the slightest.

And with this Argument? I can go Strict Constitutionalist and wipe your argument right off the map.

That..is the sad fact. Bub.

Which is:

-There is no right in the constitution for a private citizen to use a gun to defend the home.
-There is no right in the constitution for a private citizen to use a gun to hunt.
-There is no right in the constitution for a private citizen to use a gun for personal defense.
-There is no right in the constitution for a private citizen to use a gun to overthrow the government.
-There is no right in the constitution for a private citizen to use a gun for target practice.


I invite you to prove me wrong.

JUST using the Constitution.

Go.

 

[Sallow]

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.

No one is claiming anyone has the right to shoot kids in the face or "settle scores".

We are arguing we have the natural and Constitutional right to defend ourselves from harm. We have the right to protect ourselves.

Ironically, you just conceded that.

You don't.

It's not there.

 

[daws101]

And if it jams? Tell that to those that live in the country. The below post is from another forum. The link is to another story-

I live in black bear country in the Ozarks -- a friend just killed a 300 pounder with a bow. I have had bear in my back yard.My experience (backed up by friends with the same experience) is that black bear attacks are rare -- and usually food-related. Campers who fail to keep a clean camp and food out of reach may have problems, but otherwise blackies will leave you alone.Ernie Pagette killed a blackie with a .357 after two 165-grain Sierra boattail softpoints from a .308 failed (both bullets broke up on the shoulders). The bear did not attack him, but crawled into a laurel hell.If I was hunting bear with a handgun, I'd rely on that handgun -- and hardcast bullets for good penetration. With a rifle, I'd go with Nosler Partition Jackets, to avoid a repetition of Ernie's problem.
Robber?s gun jams, gets him killed | Metro, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com

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.

nice rationalization. but it's bullshit...
besides you cannot shoot more than one at a time.

dude you are reaching sure sign of desperation.
if you live in the woods then you should expect bears and other wildlife

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

No one is claiming anyone has the right to shoot kids in the face or "settle scores".

We are arguing we have the natural and Constitutional right to defend ourselves from harm. We have the right to protect ourselves.

Ironically, you just conceded that.

You don't.

It's not there.

Another lie.