Las Vegas Shooting

You are wrong about that.
Its illegal to modify a rifle to fire automatically.
I still maintain this guy had something like an M249 (belt fed) or an AK47 with a drum magazine. The cadence of the fire was too constant for a modified rifle with a bump stop.
The guns that they have shown had standard 30 rd magazines and maybe a 50 rd. Videos have shown at least 100 rounds going off non-stop.
I think this guy bought a bunch of weapons as show. I think he had some sort of message to send.
 
You are wrong about that.
Its illegal to modify a rifle to fire automatically.
I still maintain this guy had something like an M249 (belt fed) or an AK47 with a drum magazine. The cadence of the fire was too constant for a modified rifle with a bump stop.
The guns that they have shown had standard 30 rd magazines and maybe a 50 rd. Videos have shown at least 100 rounds going off non-stop.
I think this guy bought a bunch of weapons as show. I think he had some sort of message to send.
You are wrong, on multiple points. Authorities said all modifications were legal. I suggest you watch the news conference from yesterday.
 
You are wrong about that.
Its illegal to modify a rifle to fire automatically.
I still maintain this guy had something like an M249 (belt fed) or an AK47 with a drum magazine. The cadence of the fire was too constant for a modified rifle with a bump stop.
The guns that they have shown had standard 30 rd magazines and maybe a 50 rd. Videos have shown at least 100 rounds going off non-stop.
I think this guy bought a bunch of weapons as show. I think he had some sort of message to send.

They were not modified to fire auto. He installed aftermarket bump stops which (for some reason) are legal. A bump stop uses the recoil of the gun to help you fire faster. Anything that enables these guns to fire at that rate should be illegal.
 
Yet another myth, the NRA barely gives to those in Congress, compared to other lobbying groups, they don't control Congress they couldn't even rent them for the lousy 3 million they give a year. And that was in a presidential election year.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082

You want to see who owns Congress, take a look at how much employee unions and pharmaceutical companies donate to Congress. I'm not disputing that they're not owned I'm just disputing who owns them. The gun lobby is weak.

Hell, she isn't even that far off base. Look at the depictions of guns in school, guns when talked about in the media, guns when talked about by Hillary or Obama, they distort the truth, make things look worse than they are and tell lies. They spread ignorance willfully period while I don't agree with the NRA and don't even hold a membership anymore she's not too far off base.

The big pharma lobbies don't have millions of people behind it to call every congressperson and sway votes.

If someone in congress tries to vote anything anti-gun, the NRA mobilizes. They are so effective because they don't just use money. I mean, nobody has a "big pharma" sticker in the back of their pickup truck.

The NRA doesn't just sway people, they work to shoot down ANY discussion on the topic and put forward tons of laws for gun owners.

What cheeses people off is that we get shot down the moment we try to talk about the issue. Meanwhile, Trump can set aside the 1st amendment anytime it suits him in the interests of "safety".
 
The big pharma lobbies don't have millions of people behind it to call every congressperson and sway votes.

If someone in congress tries to vote anything anti-gun, the NRA mobilizes. They are so effective because they don't just use money. I mean, nobody has a "big pharma" sticker in the back of their pickup truck.

The NRA doesn't just sway people, they work to shoot down ANY discussion on the topic and put forward tons of laws for gun owners.

What cheeses people off is that we get shot down the moment we try to talk about the issue. Meanwhile, Trump can set aside the 1st amendment anytime it suits him in the interests of "safety".
If you go back to when the 2nd amendment was written, and use the guns the 2nd amendment was written for, muskets, one shot pistols, etc., you wouldn't have this problem at all.
 
I never knew why the murder numbers, by guns, in Chicago, is so high.



DLPb_IwUEAAmOL9.jpg

DLPb_t-V4AAFYWX.jpg


 
  • Like
Reactions: rankandfile
If you go back to when the 2nd amendment was written, and use the guns the 2nd amendment was written for, muskets, one shot pistols, etc., you wouldn't have this problem at all.

Yep, the idea that the 2nd makes any talk about gun control moot is silly. There's already lots of limits at the state and federal level on guns.

You'd have better luck going outside and screaming at the clouds to change the weather though. This is yet another "shutdown" point for the right. Mention guns and boom - you're an enemy and no longer can be spoken to. The pro-gun people have one simple rule - never give an inch on anything related to guns. There could be a gun that could misfire and accidentally hurt the person shooting it and the gun lobby would fight to keep it legal.

I'm actually not even a big believer in adding more gun laws (want to stop killings in Chicago? Give police more resources). However the idea that after something like this we can't even talk about it is silly.
 
Hey, I don't live in your country and as much as I respect it, I'm glad I don't. I don't want to live anywhere that thinks it's ok to change nothing after nearly 30 children are murdered.
I on the other hand am grateful, grateful that I live in a country that is not controlled by emotion, well we'll see in a couple years. Bad things happen and the dead or not a reason to revoke one's Rights and Freedoms. Hell if that was the case after a few drunk drivers no one would have a car, after a few overdoses no one would have pain medication, after a few drownings no one would have a pool at their home.
 
Unbelievable stuff. About a month ago i was thinking, how has there not been a mass shooting on this scale for awhile. Seems like we get one every 3-6 months now. Then this happens, a record breaker. So sad.

When people used to ask me if i wanted to have to kids i said yeah, eventually. I don't have any kids and if i never do i won't feel bad about it. What's the point in this world today? This isn't a world that i'd be proud of growing up in, unlike the 90's which were amazing.
You ever think of adopting? This gives you the opportunity to not bring someone in the world that you hold in to stain, but to help out those less fortunate who are already in the world.
 
The big pharma lobbies don't have millions of people behind it to call every congressperson and sway votes.

If someone in congress tries to vote anything anti-gun, the NRA mobilizes. They are so effective because they don't just use money. I mean, nobody has a "big pharma" sticker in the back of their pickup truck.

The NRA doesn't just sway people, they work to shoot down ANY discussion on the topic and put forward tons of laws for gun owners.

What cheeses people off is that we get shot down the moment we try to talk about the issue. Meanwhile, Trump can set aside the 1st amendment anytime it suits him in the interests of "safety".

So again your argument is moot, it is not the NRA, it is not the gun lobby. Objective information show that they are for less powerful in Congress than others. Your problem is with people, people who value their rights and their freedoms. These people vote, sorry that we live in a constitutional republic that allows them to abide by these rules. If people don't like the Constitution enough of them should get together ( 2/3 ) in order to change that.
 
If you go back to when the 2nd amendment was written, and use the guns the 2nd amendment was written for, muskets, one shot pistols, etc., you wouldn't have this problem at all.
You are factually incorrect and are spreading misinformation and lies.
 
I on the other hand am grateful, grateful that I live in a country that is not controlled by emotion, well we'll see in a couple years. Bad things happen and the dead or not a reason to revoke one's Rights and Freedoms. Hell if that was the case after a few drunk drivers no one would have a car, after a few overdoses no one would have pain medication, after a few drownings no one would have a pool at their home.
pretzel logic.
 
You are factually incorrect and are spreading misinformation and lies.
Muskets were still around and the guns, owned by the majority of the public, were one shot guns. I've proven you wrong multiple times in the past on this subject. You've been wrong every single time.
 
You are wrong about that.
Its illegal to modify a rifle to fire automatically.
I still maintain this guy had something like an M249 (belt fed) or an AK47 with a drum magazine. The cadence of the fire was too constant for a modified rifle with a bump stop.
The guns that they have shown had standard 30 rd magazines and maybe a 50 rd. Videos have shown at least 100 rounds going off non-stop.
I think this guy bought a bunch of weapons as show. I think he had some sort of message to send.
Bump fire stocks in Surefire magazines. Funny part is, I've never seen a Surefire magazine work through the entire course of a magazine dump. They are overpriced and unreliable in my opinion
 
I on the other hand am grateful, grateful that I live in a country that is not controlled by emotion, well we'll see in a couple years. Bad things happen and the dead or not a reason to revoke one's Rights and Freedoms. Hell if that was the case after a few drunk drivers no one would have a car, after a few overdoses no one would have pain medication, after a few drownings no one would have a pool at their home.
lol comparing any of these to mass murder
 
So Paul Ryan says that there are no plans to bring a gun silencer bill to the floor.
Still don't understand what the need for silencers is for. So that some guy at the firing range doesn't have to wear ear muffs? yea, sure....
 
So again your argument is moot, it is not the NRA, it is not the gun lobby. Objective information show that they are for less powerful in Congress than others. Your problem is with people, people who value their rights and their freedoms. These people vote, sorry that we live in a constitutional republic that allows them to abide by these rules. If people don't like the Constitution enough of them should get together ( 2/3 ) in order to change that.

Actually your argument is wrong.

We do not need to change the constitution in order to enact reasonable restrictions on guns. There's tons and tons of precedent. There are lots of limits on gun ownership. There are background check laws, there are laws against certain types of weapons, military grade hardware, etc. Laws at the state and local level.

The 2nd amendment does not give you the right to own certain types of weapons, and this has held up in courts over and over and over again.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106

The idea that the 2nd amendment is some sort of magic defense against any and all gun laws is simply false. It is so broadly accepted because the gun lobby works hard to pretend that we actually hold other parts of the constitution to such lofty standards.
 
Yet another myth, the NRA barely gives to those in Congress, compared to other lobbying groups, they don't control Congress they couldn't even rent them for the lousy 3 million they give a year. And that was in a presidential election year.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082

You want to see who owns Congress, take a look at how much employee unions and pharmaceutical companies donate to Congress. I'm not disputing that they're not owned I'm just disputing who owns them. The gun lobby is weak.

Hell, she isn't even that far off base. Look at the depictions of guns in school, guns when talked about in the media, guns when talked about by Hillary or Obama, they distort the truth, make things look worse than they are and tell lies. They spread ignorance willfully period while I don't agree with the NRA and don't even hold a membership anymore she's not too far off base.
It's about optics. While it may look like they spend very little for a particular candidate (however they spent 30 mil on Trump last year), they are a top contributor for ad and grass roots campaigns against democrats. 37 million in 2016 to be exact.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure the next time there is a Islamic terrorist attack everyone will say "Now is not the time to talk about how to prevent terrorist attacks" right? I'm totally sure Trump wouldn't bring up his ban within minutes or anything.

But "muh freedoms"
 
Wait so you're saying this guys didn't break a single law (re: the guns/mods/ammo) until he started shooting his guns at people?
 
That's honestly quite troubling. There's a fundamental necessity for many things that can be used as weapons, which is why they are regulated but not outright banned. But what is the fundamental necessity for a civilian to own a freaking assault rifle (let alone dozens of rifles) that can mow down hundreds of people?
 
That's honestly quite troubling. There's a fundamental necessity for many things that can be used as weapons, which is why they are regulated but not outright banned. But what is the fundamental necessity for a civilian to own a freaking assault rifle (let alone dozens of rifles) that can mow down hundreds of people?
'Merica
 
That's honestly quite troubling. There's a fundamental necessity for many things that can be used as weapons, which is why they are regulated but not outright banned. But what is the fundamental necessity for a civilian to own a freaking assault rifle (let alone dozens of rifles) that can mow down hundreds of people?

It makes their penis bigger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viktor