The gun used in Vegas might not have been an automatic!

[Cable]

Obsession with reasons is stupid. Can you point to where the second requires a reason? This is America. Do you need a reason to own a muscle car? Paintball guns? Learn karate? Purchase a knife?

If you take a look at the Progressive positions, you shouldn't even have a right to 'think' certain ways.
It does not take a genius to see where that is headed.

 

[haymarket]

I would be interested to hear what this inquisition might look like. Can you elaborate?

I have not proposed any inquisition. If we had registration of all weapons, there would be a record of this killer owning over forty weapons. An initial inquiry could have been made where a police officer would be sent to ask why he had these. Someone earlier mentioned the owner of the Vegas Pawn shop featured on TV - Rick Harrison. I am sure he could quickly and clearly explain why he had more than forty weapons without any authoritarian inquisition. Could the Vegas killer had done the same?

Sadly, we will never know because we have no such safety policy to protect the public.

 

[Cable]

All but 8 died. That's the Christian Bible's claim. Not mine.

No, yours was that Noah murdered the rest of the world. How silly and baseless is that? Stop playing coy. You are teetering on the brink of being a liar. That isn't a reasonable position. It is a tactic.

 

[haymarket]

to what? The laws were already there...should we change them to make it LEGAL for him to obtain an automatic? You can't stop an illegal act by making it DOUBLY illegal....it's not going to do anything.

If he obtained the weapon illegally, then gun control is simply a moot point, NOT ONE SINGLE LAW could have prevented him from obtaining it.

Perhaps the penalty is not severe enough?

Perhaps the kit to assist in the modification should not be legal?

Why does a single law have to have prevented this event to be considered as something the American people want in the society they live in? That is a ridiculous standard.

 

[Cable]

I have not proposed any inquisition. If we had registration of all weapons, there would be a record of this killer owning over forty weapons. An initial inquiry could have been made where a police officer would be sent to ask why he had these. Someone earlier mentioned the owner of the Vegas Pawn shop featured on TV - Rick Harrison. I am sure he could quickly and clearly explain why he had more than forty weapons without any authoritarian inquisition. Could the Vegas killer had done the same?

Sadly, we will never know because we have no such safety policy to protect the public.

Not being one to shrink from the obvious, but a police officer coming to my house to inquire why I have x number of firearms is an inquisition.
My response might be: "Why don't you get your butt off my property eh?" IOW, none of your business. I don't need to provide you a reason.

Your assumption is that someone needs a reason you can appreciate before they should be allowed to own. The 2nd says otherwise.
I own them because I have the right to own them. Period.

 

[haymarket]

Will you explain what the gun ownership inquisition should look like? I want to understand how it would work to keep us 'safe.'

No inquisition. Just a reasonable inquiry from a police official when we find out that person is stockpiling their own armory as if a war is on the horizon.

 

[jonny5]

I've made that point before. Fact is guns are relatively inefficient as a means of mass murder. Each victim must be taken out individually. The top 10 list includes fertilizer, box cutters, fire, airplanes, homemade bombs. All with more than 60 victims. All completely legal.

But guns are ready and easy to use.

 

[cuban smokes]

If a weapon can be adapted and changed so that it pretty much functions as an automatic - and the audio of the Vegas slaughter easily confirms that function - does it matter it is is an automatic or not according to some definition intended to say it is not really?

it may only matter to some; depends on whom you're asking

the so called 'bump stock' is legal according to ATF

 

[American]

It appears that the Vegas killer had many guns because he used many guns in that attack. While he can only use one at a time that second, he did use many over t he hour he was firing.

Also, we seem to be asking about warning signs that a person is unstable and might do something like this. I would submit that owning over forty such weapons is a warning sign.

I wonder why a review of the national gun registration records did not trigger a visit to him when we saw he had so many and the type he owned?

OH WAIT!!!!! :doh We don't have any such thing. :shock: Never mind. :roll:

So you think this would help? How?

 

[haymarket]

Not being one to shrink from the obvious, but a police officer coming to my house to inquire why I have x number of firearms is an inquisition.

nope. Its a simple visit with a question. You being all melodramatic and using hyperbole about it does not change it.

My response might be: "Why don't you get your butt off my property eh?" IOW, none of your business. I don't need to provide you a reason.

Yes, today that might be your response. Which is why we need new laws so this could not be your response.

Your assumption is that someone needs a reason you can appreciate before they should be allowed to own. The 2nd says otherwise.
I own them because I have the right to own them. Period.

The Second says no such thing. It merely states you have a right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about what arms or all arms or protecting any specific arms.

 

[Cable]

Perhaps the penalty is not severe enough?
Perhaps the kit to assist in the modification should not be legal?
Why does a single law have to have prevented this event to be considered as something the American people want in the society they live in? That is a ridiculous standard.

The premise is that your methods might make us more safe. They will not. When someone is willing to trade their life to kill a bunch of others, there is no deterrent that will sway their efforts. There are just obstacles to overcome. And we see them overcome gun control obstacles all over Europe all the time.

There is a process to remove the 2nd amendment, if that is what the country wants to do. Unfortunately, that attempt would probably be considered the beginning of a revolution by too many in the Country to be worth a try.
Tyranny is held at bay by this amendment. At least to some degree, and for now....
History teaches us that our system will collapse at some point. Then the cycle begins anew. That is life.

 

[blackjack50]

If you take a look at the Progressive positions, you shouldn't even have a right to 'think' certain ways.
It does not take a genius to see where that is headed.

Clearly. It is all about controlling others. Why do you think they think communism has merit? And they love socialism. Other people's money is on their control.

 

[haymarket]

it may only matter to some; depends on whom you're asking

the so called 'bump stock' is legal according to ATF

Which is a good reason to look at that and consider if we need legislation on that issue.

 

[Cable]

No inquisition. Just a reasonable inquiry from a police official when we find out that person is stockpiling their own armory as if a war is on the horizon.

You have yet to elaborate on 'reasonable inquiry'.
Is it the haymarket rule of ownership? What is it?

 

[haymarket]

So you think this would help? How?

For one, we would not be reading today all these reports that "we had no warning this guy was nuts" .

 

[Tigerace117]

Yes, there is. As you said in an earlier post, this is what we reap in post-Christian America. yay.

I hate to break it to you, but even when America was in the full throes of its WASP glorification period there were mass shootings.

 

[haymarket]

The premise is that your methods might make us more safe. They will not. When someone is willing to trade their life to kill a bunch of others, there is no deterrent that will sway their efforts. There are just obstacles to overcome. And we see them overcome gun control obstacles all over Europe all the time.

There is a process to remove the 2nd amendment, if that is what the country wants to do. Unfortunately, that attempt would probably be considered the beginning of a revolution by too many in the Country to be worth a try.
Tyranny is held at bay by this amendment. At least to some degree, and for now....
History teaches us that our system will collapse at some point. Then the cycle begins anew. That is life.

This is what it always comes down to in the end from right wing gun nuts. It always comes down to this in the end and thank you for showing your hand so quickly before we wasted a hundred exchanges wasting valuable time.

If you actually believe that a few million people having thirty or forty weapons in their possession is going to defeat the Unites State Government and all their resources including the military, the police, the financial powers they wield and everything else, that is truly an irrational delusion that borders on severe mental illness as its a denial of reality.

You having all the guns you want is NOT going to protect you from the government if they decide to wipe you out so you are just a easy spot on the ground. Its simply not going to help you.

So lets put that right wing canard to rest.

 

[haymarket]

You have yet to elaborate on 'reasonable inquiry'.
Is it the haymarket rule of ownership? What is it?

I explained it to you. I have no idea why you have such trouble comprehending .

 

[Cable]

nope. Its a simple visit with a question. You being all melodramatic and using hyperbole about it does not change it.
Yes, today that might be your response. Which is why we need new laws so this could not be your response.
The Second says no such thing. It merely states you have a right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about what arms or all arms or protecting any specific arms.

So again, since you have avoided the question again, I ask again: What is the inquiry like? What if my response is I am attempting a new world record in personal gun ownership?
Do I have to tell this inquiring officer the intended use and schedule for each of my legally owned firearms?
Do I have to provide an inventory of my ammunition in stock, and why I have each round? Do I have to record each shot fired, and the reason behind it?
If I have 'military style' arms, do I need to show membership in a militia? Is it ok if I am a member of a militia?
What if the cop just has a bad feeling about me because I am rude to him?
Does he have the power to declare me an unfit owner based on that gut feeling? Do I get a trial before my peers?

Really, if you understand why the founders added the 2nd, you would know that you are headed down a very dark and dangerous path.
You will never be 100% safe until you are dead. And even then there may be issues.
Sometimes you just have to understand the dangers of life and forge ahead anyway.

 

[Cable]

This is what it always comes down to in the end from right wing gun nuts. It always comes down to this in the end and thank you for showing your hand so quickly before we wasted a hundred exchanges wasting valuable time.
If you actually believe that a few million people having thirty or forty weapons in their possession is going to defeat the Unites State Government and all their resources including the military, the police, the financial powers they wield and everything else, that is truly an irrational delusion that borders on severe mental illness as its a denial of reality.
You having all the guns you want is NOT going to protect you from the government if they decide to wipe you out so you are just a easy spot on the ground. Its simply not going to help you.
So lets put that right wing canard to rest.

See, this is where liberals don't get it. Our government is of the People (that's me and you), by the People, for the People.
As long as this is the case, then we are probably all good.
If this were to ever change, say a Progressive Marxist type revolution, then the People might get upset.
Then the challenge isn't quite as inequitable as "me" vs. the US government. It will be the People vs. the Marxist tyranny.
That is the historical transaction we see over and over again. Sometimes it goes well, sometimes the Tyrant wins.
It is what it is.

 

[Cable]

I explained it to you. I have no idea why you have such trouble comprehending .

No you didn't. For a police officer to go knock on anyone's door and asking questions, there has to be a Legal issue. There is no legal issue currently with owning x number of guns.
So something has to change for him to have the power to go knocking.
I'm asking you what are the needed changes?
What is the Haymarket reasonableness rule for x number of guns owned, and how do we get there?

 

[jimbo]

I have not proposed any inquisition. If we had registration of all weapons, there would be a record of this killer owning over forty weapons. An initial inquiry could have been made where a police officer would be sent to ask why he had these. Someone earlier mentioned the owner of the Vegas Pawn shop featured on TV - Rick Harrison. I am sure he could quickly and clearly explain why he had more than forty weapons without any authoritarian inquisition. Could the Vegas killer had done the same?

Sadly, we will never know because we have no such safety policy to protect the public.

Hay, ol' buddy, your position is exactly why gun banners will be a long time getting national registration. There is no reason "An initial inquiry could have been made where a police officer would be sent to ask why he had these." Might have DMV check out the dozen cars in his garage at the same time. He just might ge in an accident someday.

I realize that's the argument, but that's not the banners claim. The claim is that registration would assist in crimes committed investigations. We would never, no way, ever send anybody around to just check up on law abiding citizens. And absolutely never, ever, confiscate anybody's guns

FYI, the Pawn Shop does not handle firearms. That's been made clear several times on the show.

 

[cuban smokes]

This is what it always comes down to in the end from right wing gun nuts. It always comes down to this in the end and thank you for showing your hand so quickly before we wasted a hundred exchanges wasting valuable time.

If you actually believe that a few million people having thirty or forty weapons in their possession is going to defeat the Unites State Government and all their resources including the military, the police, the financial powers they wield and everything else, that is truly an irrational delusion that borders on severe mental illness as its a denial of reality.

You having all the guns you want is NOT going to protect you from the government if they decide to wipe you out so you are just a easy spot on the ground. Its simply not going to help you.

So lets put that right wing canard to rest.

by current statistics there are about 323 million guns in the US, owned by about 82 million individuals.

If the US military & US citizens ever squared off the military would certainly have every conceivable advantage as far as weaponry is concerned.

Can anyone here imagine the US military using Hellfire missiles launched from Predator drones on US citizens, on US soil?

We can all thank George W. Bush for that potential scenario; Thanks George .................

 

[Cable]

by current statistics there are about 323 million guns in the US, owned by about 82 million individuals.

If the US military & US citizens ever squared off the military would certainly have every conceivable advantage as far as weaponry is concerned.

Can anyone here imagine the US military using Hellfire missiles launched from Predator drones on US citizens, on US soil?

We can all thank George W. Bush for that potential scenario; Thanks George .................

I can't imagine it, because that would likely be my nephew firing, and he just isn't going to do that. LOL.

 

[cuban smokes]

I can't imagine it, because that would likely be my nephew firing, and he just isn't going to do that. LOL.

well, as I stated, "If the US military & US citizens ever squared off the military would certainly have every conceivable advantage as far as weaponry is concerned."

That doesn't cover the 'moral' question involved in such a scenario. I can imagine in such a scenario there would likely be many within the military that would refuse to 'fight' against their fellow citizens.