Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Las Vegas shooting


Rico1304
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'd be amazed how a bloke carrying a handgun could take on a bloke with a semi automatic 300m away. Unless he was Riggs.

 

Then bit I don't get is how it would pan out if the public engaged a shooter. Shooter walks into a bar and shoots, A sees it and shoots him, person B sees A shooting, he draws his gun. Police arrive, see a dead person and A and B with guns drawn so shoot them. Soon everyone is dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the US Constitution was written, the issue at hand with regard to the Second Amendment was the perceived threat of rogue government, so people had the right to bear arms in well regulated militias.

 

In the Federalist Papers, written by Thomas Jefferson - the main 'brains' behind the Constitution, he argued an equivalency in armament between the public and the government, so the public could keep the government in check if deemed necessary.

 

America has long since got away from that. If you talk to any Second Amendment advocate about this side of the issue, and then point out that their pea-shooters are massively outmatched by the American military, they either go quiet or say that the military would never do anything against its own people. Maybe. Maybe not. But that was precisely the issue at hand when the Second Amendment was drafted, and the equivalency in armament has long since disappeared.

 

I say this rather tongue-in-cheek, but the logical conclusion for Second Amendment activists who wish to uphold the spirit of the Second Amendment is to get their own nuclear arsenal to balance the government, just in case it does things they don't approve of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the US Constitution was written, the issue at hand with regard to the Second Amendment was the perceived threat of rogue government, so people had the right to bear arms in well regulated militias.

 

In the Federalist Papers, written by Thomas Jefferson - the main 'brains' behind the Constitution, he argued an equivalency in armament between the public and the government, so the public could keep the government in check if deemed necessary.

 

America has long since got away from that. If you talk to any Second Amendment advocate about this side of the issue, and then point out that their pea-shooters are massively outmatched by the American military, they either go quiet or say that the military would never do anything against its own people. Maybe. Maybe not. But that was precisely the issue at hand when the Second Amendment was drafted, and the equivalency in armament has long since disappeared.

 

I say this rather tongue-in-cheek, but the logical conclusion for Second Amendment activists who wish to uphold the spirit of the Second Amendment is to get their own nuclear arsenal to balance the government, just in case it does things they don't approve of.

 

You've got a rogue government now. Sadly, most of the gun owning idiots support it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting.  It doesn't usually take until page 6 on the Muslamic threads.

 

You see when someone blows themselves up or shoots someone and says 'I did this because the X says I should' I take them at their word. Like when Brevic set out his reasons, I believed he was a white supremacist fucking nut job. Like Westboro are Christian nutjobs. It's not fucking hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the usual nauseating shite being spouted by all the usual people.  Trump, Obama, May, etc. What fucking good is praying for the victims going to do ?

 

 

Just want to say we have good friends in Las Vegas who lead a very large congregation. They've opened the church and have been praying with people as they have come in, trying to find some rest or shelter or peace. They've been up all night and have been helping to sort transport and encouraging blood donations from the members of the church and so on. They love their city and the people therein, and they are heartbroken about what has happened, while at the same time they are rolling up their sleeves and doing all they can. 

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see when someone blows themselves up or shoots someone and says 'I did this because the X says I should' I take them at their word. Like when Brevic set out his reasons, I believed he was a white supremacist fucking nut job. Like Westboro are Christian nutjobs. It's not fucking hard.

Apart from the numerous ocassions when attackers have claimed that foreign policy was part of their motivation.

 

You've always ignored that bit. You've, in the past, categorically stated that it's not a motivating factor, even when an attacker has explicitly stated that it was.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...