Vegas shooting thead

• majorspark

  

  iclfan2;1875267 wrote:My biggest problem with Gun Control conversations is that the media are literally gun retarded. They have no one working at a paper or magazine that knows shit about guns. So their opinions and headlines are so easily called out as wrong it makes the conversation impossible to even start. You have poor hillbillies that know 1000 times more about guns than these faux intellectuals.

  So are politicians. Tim Kaine is a grade A idiot.
  

  He was only stopped finally because he did not have a silencer on his weapon. And the sound drew people to the place where he was ultimately stopped. Can you imagin what this would have been if he had silencers on these weapons?

  [video=youtube;kxGChNUBNuQ][/video]
• QuakerOats

  https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2017/10/05/new-isis-infographic-vegas-shooting-claims-paddock-converted-six-months-ago/
  
  ISIS continuing to say he converted
• justincredible

  

  Yeah, this would have been no different if he had a suppressor. The "silencer" myth is annoying.
• iclfan2

  

  Hillary f'ing Clinton said the same shit about silencers. People are so afraid of guns that they know nothing about them except what they see on tv and movies. Also, NRA is probably agreeing to talk about bump stocks bc it is low hanging fruit. It wouldn't stop any crime or make anyone more safe. As mentioned above (I screwed up the timeline) the guy had 11 minutes of shooting. It doesn't matter that he had a butt stock or not. 100s of magazines loaded and ready to go was all he needed in that elevated position.
  
  
  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
• majorspark

  

  justincredible;1875334 wrote:Yeah, this would have been no different if he had a suppressor. The "silencer" myth is annoying.

  He was located because the rate of fire caused enough smoke to set the smoke detector in his room off. Which alerts hotel staff.
• gut

  majorspark;1875342 wrote:He was located because the rate of fire caused enough smoke to set the smoke detector in his room off. Which alerts hotel staff.

  I'm not sure this is true. I've heard the radio chatter of them doing floor sweeps and following the sound of gunfire.
• isadore

  jmog;1875310 wrote:You and your meme do not understand commas and grammar.

  and you don't understand the Constitution
  Article I Section 8 Clauses 15, 16
  Article II Section 2 Clause 1
  Early legislation Militia Acts of 1792,94, 95
  Its about militia
• FatHobbit

  

  It also sounds like he was dead an hour before they found him. Did he still have ammo left? What the fuck?
  
  I saw today that they have released pictures of the hotel room and there is a note on the table. I'm hoping there are answers there.
• O-Trap

  

  isadore;1875349 wrote:and you don't understand the Constitution
  Article I Section 8 Clauses 15, 16
  Article II Section 2 Clause 1
  Early legislation Militia Acts of 1792,94, 95
  Its about militia

  Oh sweet Moses!
  
  If you think the founders done fucked up with Amendment II, that's one thing. I can respect the intellectual honesty, even if we disagree.
  
  However, the second amendment gives militia as a reason for its inception, but that doesn't make the amendment about militias.
  
  Don't be dense.
  
  And don't lecture people on whether or not they "understand the Constitution" if you're going to bastardize it like that yourself.
• HitsRus

  

  majorspark;1875331 wrote:So are politicians. Tim Kaine is a grade A idiot.
  
  
  
  [video=youtube;kxGChNUBNuQ][/video]

  Between his comments and Hillary's on "silencers", I think it pretty much sinks any argument that things would have been any better if they were elected instead of Trump. Listening to him run the gun control playbook ....NRA...the people want safety...etc. ....but the one that gets to me the most is the continuation of the Obama apology tour "the rest of the world thinks"....
  
  You know what Tim?.... I don't give a F*** what the rest of the world thinks and neither should you. Our ancestors left "the rest of the world" to come here, and the Republic they created has been around 250 years, which is a lot longer than most if not all of the other governments that you admire so much.
  We bailed their ass out in two world wars, and we've been guaranteeing their security for 70+ years since.
  
  So when "the rest of the world" wants to question or criticize us about ANYTHING about our government, including guns and the 2ndA..... Just say "That's because we are the USA.....AND YOU'RE NOT!"
  
  No apologies needed.
• salto

  

  iclfan2;1875337 wrote: It wouldn't stop any crime or make anyone more safe. As mentioned above (I screwed up the timeline) the guy had 11 minutes of shooting. It doesn't matter that he had a butt stock or not. 100s of magazines loaded and ready to go was all he needed in that elevated position.
  
  
  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  Do you really believe the same amount of people would have been killed in those 11 minutes, if he was not using a bump stock?
• iclfan2

  

  salto;1875359 wrote:Do you really believe the same amount of people would have been killed in those 11 minutes, if he was not using a bump stock?

  Yes. An AR can shoot a couple hundred rounds a minute. If you have enough guns and magazines in 11 minutes you could do a ton of damage. How many rounds did he shoot? I doubt it did much more than a well trained AR user. Again, you can replicate a bump stock fucking around with a finger through a belt loop.
  
  It's not an argument I care about tho bc banning them does nothing for me. It's a fuck around addition to begin with.
  
  
  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
• HitsRus

  

  ^^^^^ (at salto)just hold your horses there fella. Most people have been pretty reasonable about waiting for all the facts to come in and the investigation to proceed. Many Republican senators have signaled that they would be willing to consider legislation if applicable, and many of the pro 2A posters on this site have said that bump stocks probably should be illegal....SO does the eeevvvilll NRA.
  https://www.yahoo.com/news/nra-white-house-congress-support-review-lawfulness-bump-stocks-190949986.html
• gut

  It just amazes how often it's ignored that people in one country tend to be quite different than another, including the US, and what works over there may not over here, and vice versa.
  
  And there are many, many things we could go through and list, but I'll just stay on topic. Most of the intentional homicides in the US are gang/drug related - I don't think Sweden or Japan have that problem.
  
  I also don't know that other countries have these senseless, non-politically motivated type mass murders. And it's not for lack of guns - we've seen political/terrorist attacks there using any means necessary. Other [developed] countries just don't seem to have a Timothy McVeigh or Stephen Paddock. And "going postal" seems to be something uniquely American. Only comparable thing I can think of is the recent couple of suicide commercial airline pilots.
  
  Point being, you can take away all the guns....I don't think you're stopping these mass murderers. Many horrific things that can be done without a gun.
• isadore

  O-Trap;1875353 wrote:Oh sweet Moses!
  
  If you think the founders done fucked up with Amendment II, that's one thing. I can respect the intellectual honesty, even if we disagree.
  
  However, the second amendment gives militia as a reason for its inception, but that doesn't make the amendment about militias.
  
  Don't be dense.
  
  And don't lecture people on whether or not they "understand the Constitution" if you're going to bastardize it like that yourself.

  gosh a ruddies, read the Constitution and realize it has been hijacked by reactionaries. Militia and a fear of standing armies is the reason for this anachronism.
  1. Earlier versions of the Amendment include “no one religious scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person,” (Amendment passed by the House of Representatives, August 24, 1789. Shows the primary interest was in the Militia.
  2. Article I, II and IV of the Constitution and the Militia Acts of 1792, 94 and 95 establish Federal control of that militia to arm and command and use to suppress “domestic insurrection.”
• gut

  isadore;1875366 wrote: 1. Earlier versions of the Amendment include “no one religious scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person,” (Amendment passed by the House of Representatives, August 24, 1789. Shows the primary interest was in the Militia.

  Would it be fair to suggest the exclusion of that wording might have been intentional because the primary interest WAS NOT the militia alone?
  
  You're talking about the need for a militia, a regulated militia...and then going on to say the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". It's a separate clause, and the wording is not an accident. We need to regulate the militia, but we are specifically saying we will NOT regulate individual arms.
  
  A militia that needs to be - and intends to be - regulated. Who is going to regulate it? Well, the govt, of course. And that renders the second clause, if we accept your interpretation, as completely superfluous. And, no, there is no accidental or superfluous language in the Bill of Rights. Nor is the preceding phrase "for the security of a free state" unintentional or unnecessary.
• isadore

  gut;1875370 wrote:Would it be fair to suggest the exclusion of that wording might have been intentional because the primary interest WAS NOT the militia alone?
  
  You're talking about the need for a militia, a regulated militia...and then going on to say the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". It's a separate clause, and the wording is not an accident. We need to regulate the militia, but we are specifically saying we will NOT regulate individual arms.
  
  A militia that needs to be - and intends to be - regulated. Who is going to regulate it? Well, the govt, of course. And that renders the second clause, if we accept your interpretation, as completely superfluous. And, no, there is no accidental or superfluous language in the Bill of Rights. Nor is the preceding phrase "for the security of a free state" unintentional or unnecessary.

  In the future the blood soaked Heller decision will rank with Scott v Sandford and Plessey v Ferguson has the most outrageously wrong decisions of the Supreme Court.
  Before that the precedent set by United States v Miller set the rule. The 2nd Amendment was about a militia and the government had the power to regulate it.
  "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."
• gut

  isadore;1875416 wrote: Before that the precedent set by United States v Miller set the rule. The 2nd Amendment was about a militia and the government had the power to regulate it.

  No, they corrected an erroneous "precedent". As I said, it that is only about the militia and the govt right to regulate it, then there would be no need for the second clause. I think it's unmistakable that the purpose for that second clause is actually placing a limit on the first - we need to regulate the militia, we are not regulating you privately....and that is so important, we are specifically saying your right to own and bear arms "shall not be infringed".
  
  This is the Bill of Rights - individual rights and freedoms so important and valued they are spelled out explicitly. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 10 is placing limits on govt power, and guaranteeing individual due process and liberty. The govt is not granting itself powers here but rather placing immutable restrictions on the govt's power.
  
  You can see the pattern and same logic very specifically in 3 of the 10, exceptions being almost exclusively with respect to war:
  2) No infringement on the right to own and bear arms, EXCEPT with respect to a militia in defense of the country
  3) No forced housing of soldiers, EXCEPT as to be prescribed by law in a time of war
  5) Due process - again with an EXCEPTION related to war
  10) Possibly the most important, which is basically a catch-all saying the Fed has no power not explicitly granted under the Constitution. And then a literal reading of the other 9 makes even more sense - the only thing really carved out for the Fed is control of the army, which makes perfect sense in war time instead of several disorganized militias in each of 13 different states.
  
  The BoR is, literally, the Fed handcuffing and limiting it's power with ONE EXCEPTION: the centralization of military leadership and organization in time of war.
  
  Honestly, whether "strict constructionist" or "living document", it should be blatantly clear from context and language that the US CONGRESS shall not infringe on the right to bear arms. That second clause isn't just thrown in because they thought the Feds might not be able to arm their army - if you regulate the militia, you don't need to call out the right to bear arms because you just give them the guns, which you have the power to do because you gave yourself control over the militias.
• majorspark

  

  gut;1875344 wrote:I'm not sure this is true. I've heard the radio chatter of them doing floor sweeps and following the sound of gunfire.

  It was widely reported citing some retired LVPD Lt. with sources inside. Not confirmed by authorities. So possibly. What has been confirmed by authorities is two officers were on the 31st floor in 7 minutes after the first shots fired and reported gunfire directly above them. 12 minutes in the two officers were on the 32nd floor and immediately had the room number from a wounded security guard who had just engaged the shooter.
  
  The chatter that I have heard had been from outside on the ground several minutes in identifying muzzle flashes "half way up" the Mandalay Bay. Floor sweeps were conducted after the shooting stopped mainly to remove anyone from harms way and check for wounded individuals before they stormed the room. Had the shooter continued to be active they would have immediately went in. Floor sweeps take time no way that is how the located the shooter. 7 minutes in they are near the shooter. No way sound alone gets them there that quick.
• gut

  majorspark;1875474 wrote:What has been confirmed by authorities is two officers were on the 31st floor in 7 minutes after the first shots fired and reported gunfire directly above them. 12 minutes in the two officers were on the 32nd floor and immediately had the room number from a wounded security guard who had just engaged the shooter.

  Yeah, that's exactly what I heard. I suppose it's possible they zeroed in on smoke alarms, but I've actually not heard anything on that since the early hours of the initial reporting.
  
  But if the smoke alarm tipped them off, they go straight to the 32nd floor (or possibly 33rd), not the 31st. They saw flashes mid-level, and had multiple teams on multiple floors. One that we have audio of followed the sounds.
• majorspark

  

  gut;1875478 wrote:Yeah, that's exactly what I heard. I suppose it's possible they zeroed in on smoke alarms, but I've actually not heard anything on that since the early hours of the initial reporting..

  Definitely early reporting. Some sort of intelligence got them there quickly just not in force.
  

  gut;1875478 wrote:But if the smoke alarm tipped them off, they go straight to the 32nd floor (or possibly 33rd), not the 31st.

  To get there in 7 minutes obviously they used the elevator. If they knew what floor the shooter was on why would they want the doors to open up on the 32nd floor? We are talking about two police officers. Beat cops not SWAT.
  

  gut;1875478 wrote:They saw flashes mid-level, and had multiple teams on multiple floors. One that we have audio of followed the sounds.

  If the shots lasted about 10 minutes how could there be multiple teams on multiple floors following sounds?
• isadore

  gut;1875462 wrote:No, they corrected an erroneous "precedent". As I said, it that is only about the militia and the govt right to regulate it, then there would be no need for the second clause. I think it's unmistakable that the purpose for that second clause is actually placing a limit on the first - we need to regulate the militia, we are not regulating you privately....and that is so important, we are specifically saying your right to own and bear arms "shall not be infringed".
  
  This is the Bill of Rights - individual rights and freedoms so important and valued they are spelled out explicitly. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 10 is placing limits on govt power, and guaranteeing individual due process and liberty. The govt is not granting itself powers here but rather placing immutable restrictions on the govt's power.
  
  You can see the pattern and same logic very specifically in 3 of the 10, exceptions being almost exclusively with respect to war:
  2) No infringement on the right to own and bear arms, EXCEPT with respect to a militia in defense of the country
  3) No forced housing of soldiers, EXCEPT as to be prescribed by law in a time of war
  5) Due process - again with an EXCEPTION related to war
  10) Possibly the most important, which is basically a catch-all saying the Fed has no power not explicitly granted under the Constitution. And then a literal reading of the other 9 makes even more sense - the only thing really carved out for the Fed is control of the army, which makes perfect sense in war time instead of several disorganized militias in each of 13 different states.
  
  The BoR is, literally, the Fed handcuffing and limiting it's power with ONE EXCEPTION: the centralization of military leadership and organization in time of war.
  
  Honestly, whether "strict constructionist" or "living document", it should be blatantly clear from context and language that the US CONGRESS shall not infringe on the right to bear arms. That second clause isn't just thrown in because they thought the Feds might not be able to arm their army - if you regulate the militia, you don't need to call out the right to bear arms because you just give them the guns, which you have the power to do because you gave yourself control over the militias.

  The Supreme Court made a horrendous mistake in the Heller case on par with the Dred Scott decision. By a narrow 5-4 vote the reactionary court overturned the long held precedent set by the 8-0 1939 Miller decision. That court ruled correctly that the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment is about establishing a government regulated militia. The great fear at the time of the Founder was of “standing armies” as a threat to a free people. The militia provided a substitute for a permanent armed force. The Constitution in Articles I, II and IV demonstrate this along with the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment and contemporary legislation. The 1792 Militia Act, passed the same year the Constitution was ratified, spelled out what weapons and equipment each member of the militia would be required to obtain: “a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.” And it exempted certain men from the requirement: stagecoach drivers, ferrymen and Congressmen. Obviously the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment is about a militia which is to be government regulated.
  
• iclfan2

  

  Nice copy paste job. Again, please try and repeal it.
• justincredible

  

  iclfan2;1875512 wrote:Nice copy paste job. Again, please try and repeal it.

  Right? Talk about mealy-mouthed wimpshitting.
• Con_Alma

  ...so you believe the founders wanted to ensure a militia that could protect themselves/overthrow an oppressing gvt....that would also be regulated/controlled by said government??