VectorVictor Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 22 hours ago, knapplc said: Here are the first-world nations which are basically America's peers. The citizenry of these nations are not armed. Which of these are being brutalized by their government? Belgium Canada Denmark France Germany Greece Iceland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Portugal Spain Turkey United Kingdom Well...technically Turkey is currently sliding into a totalitarian regime territory...but since they're a NATO ally... 1 Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 7 hours ago, Landlord said: Maybe this is morbid of me, but I honestly can't believe that stuff like this doesn't happen more often. Like, I've always thought how easy it would be for me to cause insane amounts of destruction and death if I really wanted to, and I guess thank God that there are a very, very, very small number of people who are twisted enough to actually decide to do that? It just doesn't seem like it'd be that hard. Another thing to consider, to anyone who really plans on going down that path at some point they have to make a decision. Once they do the thing their life is over one way or another. Not alot of people in their right mind have it in them to give up their life to commit such a heinous act. Link to comment
Bigred_inSD Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 So many people including a local former media person here in Rapid having a real hard time wrapping their heads around a rich white guy doing this. Has anyone here posted the tweets by @boingboing when some assumed it was Isis then found out who was truly responsible Link to comment
ZRod Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 9 hours ago, BIGREDIOWAN said: Just the sheer number of rounds he sent towards the crowd meant he'd hit several targets. He didn't need to be that accurate. When you're firing a full-auto weapon from an elevated position sometimes it's all about tracking your path of rounds and walking them towards your target. Dude had tripods and scopes, modified weapons and was shooting down into a massive crowd from an elevated position. Even the worst shooter could cause enourmous casualties. Not to mention AR style rifles are extremly easy to use. I can shoot a shot gun ok, can't use a pistol for crap, but I picked up a busmaster and it was kind of scary how easy it was to hit the target and how quickly you could repeatedly do it. Link to comment
Kiyoat Husker Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 14 minutes ago, Bigred_inSD said: So many people including a local former media person here in Rapid having a real hard time wrapping their heads around a rich white guy doing this. Has anyone here posted the tweets by @boingboing when some assumed it was Isis then found out who was truly responsible Also kind of ironic that the hero/ unarmed/ wounded/ security guard that helped the SWAT team locate the room faster is a (presumably hispanic) guy named Jesus Campos. And he doesn't have health insurance. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Saw this somewhere ... those that are very alined to "2nd amendment" and gun rights, and the NRA are the same people that are trying to take health insurance away. So the man that's killed 59 and injured more than 500 has rights to own murderous weapons, but his victims don't have the right to be taken care of after he shot them. 2 Link to comment
schriznoeder Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 I had no idea that the entire gun industry is essentially immune from legal action. Repealing this PLCAA law might at least be a step in the right direction. 2 Link to comment
Dbqgolfer Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 1 hour ago, NM11046 said: Saw this somewhere ... those that are very alined to "2nd amendment" and gun rights, and the NRA are the same people that are trying to take health insurance away. So the man that's killed 59 and injured more than 500 has rights to own murderous weapons, but his victims don't have the right to be taken care of after he shot them. When one talks about gun rights, no one is saying the government should provide the guns for them. When one talks about right to health care, the meaning is that the government should provide it. Two totally different meanings of the word right. Way to try to confuse the two to make a point. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 12 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said: When one talks about gun rights, no one is saying the government should provide the guns for them. When one talks about right to health care, the meaning is that the government should provide it. Two totally different meanings of the word right. Way to try to confuse the two to make a point. Chill man - just relayed a comment I saw elsewhere. Way to get snippy at a stranger for no reason. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 10 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said: When one talks about gun rights, no one is saying the government should provide the guns for them. When one talks about right to health care, the meaning is that the government should provide it. Two totally different meanings of the word right. Way to try to confuse the two to make a point. Imagine there was an industry that was the middle man between the gun producers and the gun buyers - let's call them the Gun Insurance Industry (GII). Now if the GII could pick and choose who to sell guns to and only the very rich could get around the GII and buy guns directly from the producers, would that be an infringement of your 2nd Amendment rights? 2 Link to comment
Dbqgolfer Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 6 minutes ago, NM11046 said: Chill man - just relayed a comment I saw elsewhere. Way to get snippy at a stranger for no reason. Sorry about that, should have left last sentence off my post. Link to comment
Dbqgolfer Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 10 minutes ago, RedDenver said: Imagine there was an industry that was the middle man between the gun producers and the gun buyers - let's call them the Gun Insurance Industry (GII). Now if the GII could pick and choose who to sell guns to and only the very rich could get around the GII and buy guns directly from the producers, would that be an infringement of your 2nd Amendment rights? If the gov't did not mandate that I use GII, it would not be an infringement. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Just now, Dbqgolfer said: If the gov't did not mandate that I use GII, it would not be an infringement. Even if without a mandate guns were only really available to the wealthy? Link to comment
Dbqgolfer Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 6 minutes ago, RedDenver said: Even if without a mandate guns were only really available to the wealthy? Yep, kind of like the cost of a Mercedes prohibits me from owning one, but it isn't an infringement on my right to own one. Link to comment
Recommended Posts