• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How much damage could the Las Vegas shooter have done with bolt actions?

To answer your unspoken, but clear underlying point with this OP question?

Trying to limit the 2nd Amendment right to weapons that would be less than effective against those used by military and police forces apt to oppress our population is not an option. Regardless of how many fewer deaths one person armed might cause.

The right is not there to allow hunting, sport shooting, or home security etc., although all of those uses of this tool are still valid.

The right is there so that the PEOPLE can organize into militias so as to enable them to rise up in opposition to either home grown tyranny or external invasion.

The expectation is that each citizen should be capable of obtaining individual arms (not ordinance) the equal of any average infantryman of our, or any foreign military power.

Try again. :coffeepap:

Heady stuff, that whole resisting tyranny thing. Kind of gives you a feeling of direct connection to the sainted Founding Fathers, I bet. Keep yourself ready, you never know when someone will declare himself King and go all tyranical on you. Or some foreign nation will defeat the might of the US military and need to be resisted by civilians.
Give it a rest. The real reasons you want your guns are legitimate enough. You don't need to invent fantasies.
 
Heady stuff, that whole resisting tyranny thing. Kind of gives you a feeling of direct connection to the sainted Founding Fathers, I bet. Keep yourself ready, you never know when someone will declare himself King and go all tyranical on you. Or some foreign nation will defeat the might of the US military and need to be resisted by civilians.
Give it a rest. The real reasons you want your guns are legitimate enough. You don't need to invent fantasies.

(Sigh) I don't own any guns. I'm not concerned enough that my liberty is at risk as of yet; but I want the option to get them if and when I ever do.

I've stated the real reason for the existence of the Second Amendment, which is nothing near current arguments of a "living document" that can be modified to suit the needs of a more "enlightened" society.

The fear is not of kings or tyrants; although it seems many people on your side of the political spectrum try to paint the current President as either a budding Hitler or a moronic Mussolini. :roll:

No, the fear is of "do-gooders" who think people need to be held to SJW ideals of equality of outcome, enforced "new-speak" to prevent any personal offense, and submission to a nanny-state which will ensure the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few, or the one...for our own good.

Most tyrannies start out from good intentions, most frequently the idea of the tyranny of the majority, however fluid that majority might be and how sadly the current minority of the month may suffer.

History has shown that people who trade freedom for security...well as the old truism goes? Get neither freedom nor security.

The right to keep and bear arms only insures one's right to fight for one's other rights, it does not guarantee success. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
To answer your unspoken, but clear underlying point with this OP question?

Trying to limit the 2nd Amendment right to weapons that would be less than effective against those used by military and police forces apt to oppress our population is not an option. Regardless of how many fewer deaths one person armed might cause.

The right is not there to allow hunting, sport shooting, or home security etc., although all of those uses of this tool are still valid.

The right is there so that the PEOPLE can organize into militias so as to enable them to rise up in opposition to either home grown tyranny or external invasion.

The expectation is that each citizen should be capable of obtaining individual arms (not ordinance) the equal of any average infantryman of our, or any foreign military power.

Try again. :coffeepap:

Okay then we get it. You want us to let any nut who wants to, arm himself with an unlimited amount of the most destructive personal weapons in the world. What could go wrong? Actually "well regulated" armed "Militia's" were preferred over standing armies by our founders they were for not violent overthrow of the Govt.
To Keep and Bear Arms | by Garry Wills | The New York Review of Books
 
Last edited:
Maybe 20 people; if he was good.
More than that since in a crowd massed together 1 shot could equal three dead. I go based on 30-06 or .303 each of which I'm a dead shot with and have done the mad minute with a .303 back when you could get surplus ammo 5 cents a round. At that range maybe 20 if you had to pick them. Thousands? A bets off.
 
Why do you care? Seriously. Why does it matter. Everyone casualty there is on the shooter. You disagree?

Yes, however, when some folks see a body count, they tend to fixate on that, and say things like "See! That military rifle made it so he could kill way more than if he had a flint lock!"

Except that, with large crowds, often, the most damaged is caused by panic. Which can be caused by fire crackers, let alone by rifles.
 
To answer your unspoken, but clear underlying point with this OP question?

Trying to limit the 2nd Amendment right to weapons that would be less than effective against those used by military and police forces apt to oppress our population is not an option. Regardless of how many fewer deaths one person armed might cause.

The right is not there to allow hunting, sport shooting, or home security etc., although all of those uses of this tool are still valid.

The right is there so that the PEOPLE can organize into militias so as to enable them to rise up in opposition to either home grown tyranny or external invasion.

The expectation is that each citizen should be capable of obtaining individual arms (not ordinance) the equal of any average infantryman of our, or any foreign military power.

Try again. :coffeepap:

The Barrett M82 sniper rifle the M107, fire immense six inch bullets and are capable of killing a man standing nearly a mile and a half from the shooter. It was designed to take out military jets and helicopters   and can be just as effective against police helicopters and as far as I can tell they are some of the weapons used by our military and can also be purchased by the public but are highly regulated as far as I can tell.

In case of an invasion of a foreign force, militias could be formed but our military would be in charge. In the case of a rogue government our military would be ordered to turn on the people. There would be tanks in the streets. Things like Javelin anti-tank missiles and grenade launchers are not something available to the public to combat such things.

My point is this, not everyone owns guns nor has the ability to even shoot one or even has a desire to own one. In both scenarios the public would be overpowered and outgunned. Many of the high power weapons that are available to the public are very expensive including the ammo and most can not afford them nor see a use for them in their everyday life. Regardless of which scenario there would be those who remain pacifists. Others would be on the side that would give them personal gain regardless. Anyone who thinks there would be some patriotic up rise to fight either scenario is not thinking realistically. It has been since the beginning of this country there are always pacifists, patriots, and loyalists to whomever is in authority.
 
More than that since in a crowd massed together 1 shot could equal three dead. I go based on 30-06 or .303 each of which I'm a dead shot with and have done the mad minute with a .303 back when you could get surplus ammo 5 cents a round. At that range maybe 20 if you had to pick them. Thousands? A bets off.

Being pedantic doesn't help. It would have nowhere near 500 people.
 
To answer your unspoken, but clear underlying point with this OP question?

Trying to limit the 2nd Amendment right to weapons that would be less than effective against those used by military and police forces apt to oppress our population is not an option. Regardless of how many fewer deaths one person armed might cause.

The right is not there to allow hunting, sport shooting, or home security etc., although all of those uses of this tool are still valid.

The right is there so that the PEOPLE can organize into militias so as to enable them to rise up in opposition to either home grown tyranny or external invasion.

The expectation is that each citizen should be capable of obtaining individual arms (not ordinance) the equal of any average infantryman of our, or any foreign military power.

Try again. :coffeepap:

No, the military and police are not "apt to oppress our populace". Claiming so is a paranoid delusion at best.

And yes, the firearms your average civilian has are less effective than the weaponry available to the military. The fantasy that civilian militia would have any chance against a professional, well trained military force is a fond one, but history shows it to be totally untrue. Even the much vaunted militia of the American Revolution failed to come anywhere close to achieving their goals until they gained experience and learned how to fight in a professional manner, and even after then debacles like Bladensburg show what happens when militia goes up against people who actually know how to fight.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bladensburg

In case of an actual invasion(and by who, exactly? Neither China nor Russia has shown the capability to transport a force big enough to occupy this vast country, much less conquer it in the first place, and I doubt there's any other power out there capable of doing so) militias would be a liability at best. And before you start talking about Afghanistan......had the Taliban managed to take power back yet? No? How many years has it been? How many have we killed? And these are people hardened by decades of warfare. Do you actually think your average, soft American "militiaman" is capable of putting out that kind of war effort? Because nothing in American history shows that American society is capable of doing so. We get bored when our overwhelming victories don't just make the other side give up and go away.

No, there is literally zero reason why any American citizen should be allowed to obtain rocket launchers, .50 caliber machine guns, hand grenades.....

Try again. And this time stop watching so much Red Dawn.
 
=vesper;1067712499]The Barrett M82 sniper rifle the M107, fire immense six inch bullets and are capable of killing a man standing nearly a mile and a half from the shooter. It was designed to take out military jets and helicopters   and can be just as effective against police helicopters and as far as I can tell they are some of the weapons used by our military and can also be purchased by the public but are highly regulated as far as I can tell.
Overall the entire cartridge is about five point .45 inches where as the Case length‎: ‎3.91 in (99 mm).Not sure where you came up with six inch bullets.
In case of an invasion of a foreign force, militias could be formed but our military would be in charge.
No one is saying the military wouldn't be in charge.
In the case of a rogue government our military would be ordered to turn on the people. There would be tanks in the streets. Things like Javelin anti-tank missiles and grenade launchers are not something available to the public to combat such things.
In that event not all of the military would turn on the people. Put it in the bank.
My point is this, not everyone owns guns nor has the ability to even shoot one or even has a desire to own one. In both scenarios the public would be overpowered and outgunned. Many of the high power weapons that are available to the public are very expensive including the ammo and most can not afford them nor see a use for them in their everyday life.
Lots of SFs out there that would come to the forefront of militias and be armed by the military. You seem to think all the military would just follow a rogue government.

Regardless of which scenario there would be those who remain pacifists. Others would be on the side that would give them personal gain regardless. Anyone who thinks there would be some patriotic up rise to fight either scenario is not thinking realistically. It has been since the beginning of this country there are always pacifists, patriots, and loyalists to whomever is in authority.
And right on all counts, just not as right as you think.
 
No, the military and police are not "apt to oppress our populace". Claiming so is a paranoid delusion at best.

And yes, the firearms your average civilian has are less effective than the weaponry available to the military. The fantasy that civilian militia would have any chance against a professional, well trained military force is a fond one, but history shows it to be totally untrue. Even the much vaunted militia of the American Revolution failed to come anywhere close to achieving their goals until they gained experience and learned how to fight in a professional manner, and even after then debacles like Bladensburg show what happens when militia goes up against people who actually know how to fight.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bladensburg

In case of an actual invasion(and by who, exactly? Neither China nor Russia has shown the capability to transport a force big enough to occupy this vast country, much less conquer it in the first place, and I doubt there's any other power out there capable of doing so) militias would be a liability at best. And before you start talking about Afghanistan......had the Taliban managed to take power back yet? No? How many years has it been? How many have we killed? And these are people hardened by decades of warfare. Do you actually think your average, soft American "militiaman" is capable of putting out that kind of war effort? Because nothing in American history shows that American society is capable of doing so. We get bored when our overwhelming victories don't just make the other side give up and go away.

No, there is literally zero reason why any American citizen should be allowed to obtain rocket launchers, .50 caliber machine guns, hand grenades.....

Try again. And this time stop watching so much Red Dawn.

you all have no idea what you are talking about
 
No, there is literally zero reason why any American citizen should be allowed to obtain rocket launchers, .50 caliber machine guns, hand grenades.....

Try again. And this time stop watching so much Red Dawn.

First question, have you ever served in the ground forces either Army or Marines, or do you just like talking :censored ?

The common infantryman doesn't carry a "machine gun," while rocket launchers and grenades are "ordinance" and issued prior to going out into combat on an as needed basis. :roll:

No, the military and police are not "apt to oppress our populace". Claiming so is a paranoid delusion at best.

First point. It is the police/security and military forces of monarchs, oligarchs, dictators, and other oppressive regimes that enforce the rules. It is fear of prisons, government surveillance, paid informers, kristalnacht tactics, concentration camps, etc. all enforced by the barrel of a government gun. The guns are held by police and military forces.

And yes, the firearms your average civilian has are less effective than the weaponry available to the military. The fantasy that civilian militia would have any chance against a professional, well trained military force is a fond one, but history shows it to be totally untrue. Even the much vaunted militia of the American Revolution failed to come anywhere close to achieving their goals until they gained experience and learned how to fight in a professional manner, and even after then debacles like Bladensburg show what happens when militia goes up against people who actually know how to fight.

In case of an actual invasion(and by who, exactly? Neither China nor Russia has shown the capability to transport a force big enough to occupy this vast country, much less conquer it in the first place, and I doubt there's any other power out there capable of doing so) militias would be a liability at best. And before you start talking about Afghanistan......had the Taliban managed to take power back yet? No? How many years has it been? How many have we killed? And these are people hardened by decades of warfare. Do you actually think your average, soft American "militiaman" is capable of putting out that kind of war effort? Because nothing in American history shows that American society is capable of doing so. We get bored when our overwhelming victories don't just make the other side give up and go away.

Second point. Now it is true that when "civilian militia" try to go head to head with trained military units, they typically lose. However, those are not the tactics used by civilian militia.

It was when they sniped from concealed positions, set up small ambushes to worry the enemy, engaged in perpetual acts of sabotage, and attacked small groups with larger numbers that they work best.

Civilian militia may also do well against police para-military units, who are trained in dealing with common arrests and the occasional gang shootout. Not with mass armed uprisings.

Currently, we occupy Afghanistan. Has it been "pacified" after 16 years of occupation? We occupied Iraq after defeating Saddam's organized army, and yet we continued to deal with rebel groups, and have now been dealing with ISIS for how many years?

Third point. I am ex-military with ten years combined experience in Army combat arms branches, both enlisted and officer. There are hundreds of thousands of veterans of all ages now pursuing civilian endeavors. We create a core of trained and experienced personnel who, if motivated enough, can offer some challenge to those actively serving.

Also, in a civil insurrection, there remains a danger that the very forces used might contain enough sympathizers entire units could defect to the rebel side, or simply refuse to fight. This may be especially true of National Guard units from the areas in revolt. There is also the possibility of defectors from Army or guard units who go AWOL to join the rebels.

Finally, as I've stated over and over, the right only guarantees the People the capability of engaging in a rebellion. It does not guarantee success. Better to have some chance, however small, than no chance at all.

The American Revolutionary War lasted eight years, and despite all your reservations it still resulted in the defeat of the most powerful military force at the time.

The very possibility that such an armed insurrection might ensue prevents most efforts at oppression.

Things are never as simple as people like yourself think... :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Let's say the Las Vegas shooter had some bolt action rifles with thousands of rounds of ammunition and he was a prior service military sniper or maybe competitive long range shooter and hunter. How many people could he have killed/wounded. The closest case I can find is the "Texas Tower Sniper" in 1966, Charles Whitman. He killed 16 people and wounded 31. I don't believe he had anywhere nowhere near the stockpile of ammunition, nor the massed number of active targets compressed into the specific location. Any opinions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

I highly doubt the Vegas terrorist would of been able to kill 58 people and injure nearly 500 in the span of 9-11 minutes with a bolt action rifle. He chose a semi automatic with a bump stock for a reason. To spray as many bullets as he could into a large crowd in a short manner of time.

To answer your unspoken, but clear underlying point with this OP question?

Trying to limit the 2nd Amendment right to weapons that would be less than effective against those used by military and police forces apt to oppress our population is not an option. Regardless of how many fewer deaths one person armed might cause.

I hear this a lot, but lets be reasonable. Lets say, the government lost its mind and for whatever reason became tyrannical. It's 2017. The military has drones, fighter jets, tanks, ships, satellites, submarines, nuclear weapons, etc. etc. What could you possibly do against that with your AR-15 equipped with a bump stock? That amendment came from the 1700's when none of that existed. People were running around with muskets and such. It was more of a equal playing field. Things have changed and you simply do not want to change with the time.
 
I hear this a lot, but lets be reasonable. Lets say, the government lost its mind and for whatever reason became tyrannical. It's 2017. The military has drones, fighter jets, tanks, ships, satellites, submarines, nuclear weapons, etc. etc. What could you possibly do against that with your AR-15 equipped with a bump stock? That amendment came from the 1700's when none of that existed. People were running around with muskets and such. It was more of a equal playing field. Things have changed and you simply do not want to change with the time.

Your argument is one I've heard over and over. It basically boils down to "The government is toooo powerful. Just give up!" :roll:

I refer you to points two, three, and four of my last post #39.

Rebellions occur when "reason" has been exhausted and action ensues.

It seldom matters when those like yourself tell other's who have reached a point where they think rebellion is the only recourse that they "cannot possibly succeed."

The 2A gives them the means to try, whether they fail or not is irrelevant to the right. :coffeepap:
 
Wow, what a reasoned and elaborate rebuttal. Oh wait. It was none of that.

rather than school you again, I will reference post 39 which pretty well schooled your stupid arguments rather well
 
First question, have you ever served in the ground forces either Army or Marines, or do you just like talking :censored ?

[B on an as needed basis[/B]. :roll:


s.


[]muld defect to the rebel side, or simply refuse to fight. This may be especially true of National Guard units from the areas in revolt. There is also the possibility of defectors from Army or guard units who go AWOL to join the rebels.

Finally, as I've stated over and over, the right only guarantees the People the capability of engaging in a rebellion. It does not guarantee success. Better to have some chance, however small, than no chance at all.

The American Revolutionary War lasted eight years, and despite all your reservations it still resulted in the defeat of the most powerful military force at the time.

The very possibility that such an armed insurrection might ensue prevents most efforts at oppression.

Things are never as simple as people like yourself think... :coffeepap:


I hate to break it to you bud, I didn't need to enlist yet to know that a bunch of hicks squatting in the mountains of Idaho and whining about the Jews are no match for the US military.

The M249 SAW isn't a machine gun? The Browning M2 machine guns mounted on Humvees aren't machine guns? Interesting opinion you've got there.

And yet, your average infantryman has access to then, and they are even more common in the hands of infantry from other countries. So yes, in your rush to snark you once again failed to take into account important information.

Amazingly, America is not a monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship nor oppressive regime of any stripe, nor is America going to become any of those things any time soon, if ever. So your fantasy is, as usual, pointless.

While your hysterics about "Kristalnacht tactics" is amusing, the fact remains that nothing of the sort has or will happened in this country.

And even when the civilian militia attempted such tactics they routinely failed to achieve their objectives or stop enemy forces. When they try to fight, they get crushed. When they try to hit and run, they get hunted down and then crushed. It is not 1776 anymore.

Yep, other groups have also used such tactics. One of the most noticeable being the French Resistance, who really did conduct campaigns of perpetual sabotage. The fact remains that without the landing of Overlord, the French Resistance never would have succeeded in forcing the Nazis out of France--- and that was a war machine much less capable than the present US military.

Police paramilitaries like SWAT are more than capable of dealing with "civilian militia", especially since in many ways said "militia" would operate much like a gang/ one of the major Mexican drug cartels--- murdering informers, intimidation tactics against locals in order to acquire shelter, food and supplies, publically displaying and mutilating the "enemy" troops that they kill.....

Gee, has Afghanistan ever been pacified? No. The area's status quo is low level violence, with eruptions via major wars. But no, the Taliban have not come back to power. And neither have Saddam's thugs.

"If motivated enough" being the key sticking point. Also "some challenge"; given how mediocre the "the militia movement" would perform in actual combat, any challenge at all would be a massive change.

Always possible, but a "risk" more than worth taking. People are not a hive mind; no matter how popular a rebellion may seem, there are always enough of those who disagree to make serious problems for the rebels. The government doesn't even need active support; they simply need to stop the civilian populace from actively supporting the rebels. And there are plenty of ways to do that.

The "right" to unjustly rise up against the government does not exist at all. The odds of such an uprising succeeding are minimal at best.

Ohh, a whole eight years. I hate to break it to you---that's not a particularly long time, nor does it apply to this situation. It would not take three months for plans to make it to America, nor would the "enemy" forces have a several thousand mile supply chain and opposing naval opposition.

Yes, and many top British commanders refused to serve or were stationed elsewhere. The Royal Army was never England's strong right arm in the first place.

No, the American system; which those in the "militia movement" despise, prevents oppression.
 
rather than school you again, I will reference post 39 which pretty well schooled your stupid arguments rather well

You have utterly failed to school me even once, and unfortunately for you I already countered post #39
 
I hate to break it to you bud, I didn't need to enlist yet to know that a bunch of hicks squatting in the mountains of Idaho and whining about the Jews are no match for the US military.

The M249 SAW isn't a machine gun? The Browning M2 machine guns mounted on Humvees aren't machine guns? Interesting opinion you've got there.

And yet, your average infantryman has access to then, and they are even more common in the hands of infantry from other countries. So yes, in your rush to snark you once again failed to take into account important information.

Amazingly, America is not a monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship nor oppressive regime of any stripe, nor is America going to become any of those things any time soon, if ever. So your fantasy is, as usual, pointless.

While your hysterics about "Kristalnacht tactics" is amusing, the fact remains that nothing of the sort has or will happened in this country.

And even when the civilian militia attempted such tactics they routinely failed to achieve their objectives or stop enemy forces. When they try to fight, they get crushed. When they try to hit and run, they get hunted down and then crushed. It is not 1776 anymore.

Yep, other groups have also used such tactics. One of the most noticeable being the French Resistance, who really did conduct campaigns of perpetual sabotage. The fact remains that without the landing of Overlord, the French Resistance never would have succeeded in forcing the Nazis out of France--- and that was a war machine much less capable than the present US military.

Police paramilitaries like SWAT are more than capable of dealing with "civilian militia", especially since in many ways said "militia" would operate much like a gang/ one of the major Mexican drug cartels--- murdering informers, intimidation tactics against locals in order to acquire shelter, food and supplies, publically displaying and mutilating the "enemy" troops that they kill.....

Gee, has Afghanistan ever been pacified? No. The area's status quo is low level violence, with eruptions via major wars. But no, the Taliban have not come back to power. And neither have Saddam's thugs.

"If motivated enough" being the key sticking point. Also "some challenge"; given how mediocre the "the militia movement" would perform in actual combat, any challenge at all would be a massive change.

Always possible, but a "risk" more than worth taking. People are not a hive mind; no matter how popular a rebellion may seem, there are always enough of those who disagree to make serious problems for the rebels. The government doesn't even need active support; they simply need to stop the civilian populace from actively supporting the rebels. And there are plenty of ways to do that.

The "right" to unjustly rise up against the government does not exist at all. The odds of such an uprising succeeding are minimal at best.

Ohh, a whole eight years. I hate to break it to you---that's not a particularly long time, nor does it apply to this situation. It would not take three months for plans to make it to America, nor would the "enemy" forces have a several thousand mile supply chain and opposing naval opposition.

Yes, and many top British commanders refused to serve or were stationed elsewhere. The Royal Army was never England's strong right arm in the first place.

No, the American system; which those in the "militia movement" despise, prevents oppression.


https://cdn1.lockerdomecdn.com/uplo...2d0c6a991530b302674ebd35faeaa737a2c0af5_large
 
Aww, look at that. You can't refute facts and don't have a point other than "I like guns" so you are going to post irrelevant cartoons.

you aren't posting facts, given you have admitted, IIRC, you aren't even old enough to legally get a CCW, I am going to laugh at your ignorant opinions that are devoid of reality.
 
you aren't posting facts, given you have admitted, IIRC, you aren't even old enough to legally get a CCW, I am going to laugh at your ignorant opinions that are devoid of reality.

Aw, look at that. More desperate dancing to avoid facing reality.

I hate to burst your bubble buddy, but your precious rifle is going to do jack and **** against artillery and air power.
 
Aw, look at that. More desperate dancing to avoid facing reality.

I hate to burst your bubble buddy, but your precious rifle is going to do jack and **** against artillery and air power.

who operates those artillery pieces? who gives the order to operate them.
 
Back
Top Bottom