Las Vegas Shooting

[Hortontoter]

And really an AR15 is a pea shooter. May be, but those peas do kill. I'm not saying everyone that owns an AR, AK or SK is going to go out and commit mass killings. But, on the other hand when these killings do occur these are normally the weapon of choice. Most don't go in armed with a single shot or bolt action.

 

[Wmiller07]

And really an AR15 is a pea shooter. May be, but those peas do kill. I'm not saying everyone that owns an AR, AK or SK is going to go out and commit mass killings. But, on the other hand when these killings do occur these are normally the weapon of choice. Most don't go in armed with a single shot or bolt action.

That is not true at all. The vast majority of people that commit crimes and murders with a gun use a handgun. Should handguns be banned too?

 

[bowhunter1023]

The good ole Internet and 4chan.

Mountain dew had a name the new Dew contest. Top voted name. "Hitler did nothing wrong" followed by "Granny's gush" and "diabetus"

The Jonas Brothers did a world tour "vote for your country and we'll do a show" contest. Top winner. North Korea.

Lays had a chip naming contest. Top winner. "90% air and like 4 chips"

They even managed to get Mein Kompf to the top of the NY times recommended reading list.

:smiley_clap:

 

[Hortontoter]

That is not true at all. The vast majority of people that commit crimes and murders with a gun use a handgun. Should handguns be banned too?

I'm talking mass murders. Not the thugs that shoot another over a drug deal gone bad.

 

[Wmiller07]

It's both. The vast majority of mass murderers don't use modern sporting rifles, they use handguns. I'm genuinely curious, what does the 2nd amendment mean to you. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just curious on how you interpret it.

 

[Jackalope]

I'm talking mass murders. Not the thugs that shoot another over a drug deal gone bad.

So ban the AR, they'll use a bolt rifle, ban the bolt rifle, they'll use a shotgun, ban a shotgun, they'll use a handgun, ban firearms completely, they'll use a box truck, ban the box truck, and they'll use sabotage poison, knives, bombs.. Stick them in a room naked with other people and they'll use their bare hands. Evil people are evil, banning an object will not stop them from killing people. The worst mass murder in American history was committed without firing a single shot. 1995 Oklahoma city, 168 killed. ANFO bomb.

 

[Beentown]

We have 56% more firearms now in the US than we did in 1994. Our homicide rate is down 44%.

You can't regulate evil. He could have done a bunch more damage with some fertilizer and diesel.

 

[finelyshedded]

The good ole Internet and 4chan.

Mountain dew had a name the new Dew contest. Top voted name. "Hitler did nothing wrong" followed by "Granny's gush" and "diabetus"

The Jonas Brothers did a world tour "vote for your country and we'll do a show" contest. Top winner. North Korea.

Lays had a chip naming contest. Top winner. "90% air and like 4 chips"

They even managed to get Mein Kompf to the top of the NY times recommended reading list.

rotflmao

That's some funny shit!!! Specially the Taylor Swift singing for a school of the deaf! Sorry Huck....:smiley_clap:

 

[finelyshedded]

So ban the AR, they'll use a bolt rifle, ban the bolt rifle, they'll use a shotgun, ban a shotgun, they'll use a handgun, ban firearms completely, they'll use a box truck, ban the box truck, and they'll use sabotage poison, knives, bombs.. Stick them in a room naked with other people and they'll use their bare hands. Evil people are evil, banning an object will not stop them from killing people. The worst mass murder in American history was committed without firing a single shot. 1995 Oklahoma city, 168 killed. ANFO bomb.

GREAT POST!!! Just wish all of America especially the libtards could comprehend this common sense logic!

 

[Gordo]

Reading random face book posts makes me scratch my head.

There's a shit TON of folks calling for the government to 'do something' that will eliminate these mass killings by way of gun control.

Lots of folks with very strong opinions 'for it'. I understand the 'thought' or 'idea', but would like to hear their actual plan.

It's fuckin impossible to 'eliminate' man made things from existence. Everyone is makeing it sound like it would be a 'piece o fugging' cake through legislation??!?

That's worked really well with all the other damn problems in our country......

What happens when the legislation kicks in and these problems still exist??? Shall we piss more of are constitutional rights out the window?

We could eliminate the right of folks to gather in large crowds(concerts/sporting events/ rib cook offs/etc). Just eliminate all that shit. That seems sure fire. More so then the latter

Nothing is that easy.

 

[Gordo]

So ban the AR, they'll use a bolt rifle, ban the bolt rifle, they'll use a shotgun, ban a shotgun, they'll use a handgun, ban firearms completely, they'll use a box truck, ban the box truck, and they'll use sabotage poison, knives, bombs.. Stick them in a room naked with other people and they'll use their bare hands. Evil people are evil, banning an object will not stop them from killing people. The worst mass murder in American history was committed without firing a single shot. 1995 Oklahoma city, 168 killed. ANFO bomb.

No doubt. Yet everyone is going to waist all of their energy thinking otherwise. Same old story

 

["J"]

Reading random face book posts makes me scratch my head.



“What happens when the legislation kicks in and these problems still exist??? Shall we piss more of are constitutional rights out the window? “



Nothing is that easy.

This is the exact reason we do not give up our liberties.....To get them back would cause another civil war....

 

[Just 1 More]

Hortontoter, I understand what you're saying and I for one, agree.. No one "NEEDS" an AR, SKS, AK or any rifle with a high capacity magazine and especially a bumpstock or suppressor.. These are just novelty items and as my buddy say's ..we have them because we can. If any of you think you need these things to protect yourself from the government then you're just wrong. If they want our guns, they're going to take them.. And if you're willing to die in the process.. then bye bye.. you're only fooling yourself if you think you're going to stop them.
I also agree that it's too late for the government to try and reign in the guns and high capacity magazines that are already out there.. No way they have a clue about how many bumpstocks, high cap mags or many of the AR's that have been built and changed hands without registration.
I picked up a bunch of ammo and a 30 rnd mag for my mini 30 today, figure they'll be pulled from the shelf before too long.. them damn 30 rnd mags are hard to find

 

[Hortontoter]

It's both. The vast majority of mass murderers don't use modern sporting rifles, they use handguns. I'm genuinely curious, what does the 2nd amendment mean to you. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just curious on how you interpret it.

The thing about the 2nd Amendment is the time frame in which it was written. At that time in history weaponry was no where near the level it is in todays society. Times have changed and maybe laws should change accordingly. I see no need for some guns that are available to the public, again just my opinion. Seems odd that a state that has such liberal laws pertaining to gun ownership would be where this latest tragedy took place. Think about it for a minute.

And I understand what Joe said. If there is a will there is a way.

 

[Wmiller07]

The thing about the 2nd Amendment is the time frame in which it was written. At that time in history weaponry was no where near the level it is in todays society. Times have changed and maybe laws should change accordingly. I see no need for some guns that are available to the public, again just my opinion. Seems odd that a state that has such liberal laws pertaining to gun ownership would be where this latest tragedy took place. Think about it for a minute.

And I understand what Joe said. If there is a will there is a way.

Here is why that argument Falls flat. At that time anyone could buy any type of weapon the military had. The intent of the law was to be able to rise up against a tyrannical government. Therefore they wanted any type of weapon the military had to be legal for purchase for civilians.

 

[Jackalope]

Hortontoter, I understand what you're saying and I for one, agree.. No one "NEEDS" an AR, SKS, AK or any rifle with a high capacity magazine and especially a bumpstock or suppressor.. These are just novelty items and as my buddy say's ..we have them because we can. If any of you think you need these things to protect yourself from the government then you're just wrong. If they want our guns, they're going to take them.. And if you're willing to die in the process.. then bye bye.. you're only fooling yourself if you think you're going to stop them.
I also agree that it's too late for the government to try and reign in the guns and high capacity magazines that are already out there.. No way they have a clue about how many bumpstocks, high cap mags or many of the AR's that have been built and changed hands without registration.
I picked up a bunch of ammo and a 30 rnd mag for my mini 30 today, figure they'll be pulled from the shelf before too long.. them damn 30 rnd mags are hard to find

I would very much disagree with you that they could not be stopped. The total number of people being paid by the federal government is 3.5 million, this includes all branches of the military at 1.5 million. And when I say every federal employee I'm talking about everybody from your mailman to the guy who empties the trash at the Department of Education.

More hunting licenses than that were sold in Pennsylvania, Texas, Alabama, and Michigan alone last year. Total hunting licenses for the nation was 15.5 million. Let's assume they all have a gun or two.

38% of Americans own a firearm, that's one hundred twenty-two million individuals. Of that 38% they own enough firearms for every man woman and child in America.

Let's say only 10% of them put up a fight, that is still 12 million vs 3.5 million.

Remember a while back when that one California cop went rogue and shot another cop and there was this big man hunt. One armed individual tied up the entire law enforcement resources of the state of California for a week. The LA police chief was hiding in his home with 20 armed guards for a week. They even had every Federal alphabet boy they could spare out there looking for this guy. One man. Just one.

Then we can move into the "Superior Firepower of our military and federal forces" blah. Tell that to the Afghans and north Vietnamese. And whose side do you think NATO would be on if our government turn military forces on its civilian population? For Christ sakes we are supporting known terrorist fighters in Syria because Assad used military force against his "civilians"

Just because for the past hundred and fifty some-odd years we have remained a largely peaceful nation, does not mean these boys out here don't have teeth. And this is what scares the ever living shit out of liberals and why they don't want you to have guns.

 

[Mike]

Here is why that argument Falls flat. At that time anyone could buy any type of weapon the military had. The intent of the law was to be able to rise up against a tyrannical government. Therefore they wanted any type of weapon the military had to be legal for purchase for civilians.

Correct.

 

[Jackalope]

The thing about the 2nd Amendment is the time frame in which it was written. At that time in history weaponry was no where near the level it is in todays society. Times have changed and maybe laws should change accordingly. I see no need for some guns that are available to the public, again just my opinion. Seems odd that a state that has such liberal laws pertaining to gun ownership would be where this latest tragedy took place. Think about it for a minute.

And I understand what Joe said. If there is a will there is a way.

At that time in history the most advanced firearm available was a musket. The most advanced military grade weapon was a cannon. When our founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment they prohibited neither from civilian ownership. They did not see fit to say that the civilian population should be vastly under armed compared to the government. They stated very plainly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They did not state that a civilian can own a musket as long as it did not possess two or more of the following features, rifling, set trigger, bayonet lug, or be of a caliber larger than 32 as those are reserved for military use.

As Weaponry has advanced military technology has gone leaps and bounds beyond what is available to your everyday citizen. When you compare an AR-15 to the Firepower of an A-10 Warthog the difference is immense. Comparatively the AR looks like a little pop gun. The point being the people are already severely limited in their armament comparative to our government. The Second Amendment today is far more restrictive than our founding fathers ever intended or imagined it could be.

 

[Wmiller07]

I would very much disagree with you that they could not be stopped. The total number of people being paid by the federal government is 3.5 million, this includes all branches of the military at 1.5 million. And when I say every federal employee I'm talking about everybody from your mailman to the guy who empties the trash at the Department of Education.

More hunting licenses than that were sold in Pennsylvania, Texas, Alabama, and Michigan alone last year. Total hunting licenses for the nation was 15.5 million. Let's assume they all have a gun or two.

38% of Americans own a firearm, that's one hundred twenty-two million individuals. Of that 38% they own enough firearms for every man woman and child in America.

Let's say only 10% of them put up a fight, that is still 12 million vs 3.5 million.

Remember a while back when that one California cop went rogue and shot another cop and there was this big man hunt. One armed individual tied up the entire law enforcement resources of the state of California for a week. The LA police chief was hiding in his home with 20 armed guards for a week. They even had every Federal alphabet boy they could spare out there looking for this guy. One man. Just one.

Then we can move into the "Superior Firepower of our military and federal forces" blah. Tell that to the Afghans and north Vietnamese. And whose side do you think NATO would be on if our government turn military forces on its civilian population? For Christ sakes we are supporting known terrorist fighters in Syria because Assad used military force against his "civilians"

Just because for the past hundred and fifty some-odd years we have remained a largely peaceful nation, does not mean these boys out here don't have teeth. And this is what scares the ever living shit out of liberals and why they don't want you to have guns.

Not to mention they did a poll and 80% of the military said it would not take up arms against civilians.

 

[Wmiller07]

I would very much disagree with you that they could not be stopped. The total number of people being paid by the federal government is 3.5 million, this includes all branches of the military at 1.5 million. And when I say every federal employee I'm talking about everybody from your mailman to the guy who empties the trash at the Department of Education.

More hunting licenses than that were sold in Pennsylvania, Texas, Alabama, and Michigan alone last year. Total hunting licenses for the nation was 15.5 million. Let's assume they all have a gun or two.

38% of Americans own a firearm, that's one hundred twenty-two million individuals. Of that 38% they own enough firearms for every man woman and child in America.

Let's say only 10% of them put up a fight, that is still 12 million vs 3.5 million.

Remember a while back when that one California cop went rogue and shot another cop and there was this big man hunt. One armed individual tied up the entire law enforcement resources of the state of California for a week. The LA police chief was hiding in his home with 20 armed guards for a week. They even had every Federal alphabet boy they could spare out there looking for this guy. One man. Just one.

Then we can move into the "Superior Firepower of our military and federal forces" blah. Tell that to the Afghans and north Vietnamese. And whose side do you think NATO would be on if our government turn military forces on its civilian population? For Christ sakes we are supporting known terrorist fighters in Syria because Assad used military force against his "civilians"

Just because for the past hundred and fifty some-odd years we have remained a largely peaceful nation, does not mean these boys out here don't have teeth. And this is what scares the ever living shit out of liberals and why they don't want you to have guns.

Not to mention they did a poll and 80% of the military said it would not take up arms against civilians.