Crime Las Vegas Mass Shooting

[TheFirstEMP]

I saw an eotech that's maybe $500. I think 1k per red dot is a little high. I read he had three FN AR15's. Those are more like 1k rather than 2k. I saw one Surefire mag that would be $100, but the other gun had a $10 Pmag sticking out of it.

This isn't really something to argue about though. Just gear talk.

There was a pile of surefire mags by the AR near the window.

 

[floivanus]

I saw an eotech that's maybe $500. I think 1k per red dot is a little high. I read he had three FN AR15's. Those are more like 1k rather than 2k. I saw one Surefire mag that would be $100, but the other gun had a $10 Pmag sticking out of it.

This isn't really something to argue about though. Just gear talk.

Multiple reports of several hundred round bursts, those surefire mags run $100 a pop, unless he only had one and reloaded if he had to have multiples, the 20 round pmag i saw was in the dd 308, comes with it so no need to tally that on.

Either way, in the ddm4s alone he had anywhere from 35-40 grand (low end if I estimated high on the eotech which range from $500-$1200 each) if a guy threw that much cash at this attack (not to mention renting a specific room) I don't think any sort of background check, gun limit or bumpstock ban would stop him.

He passed the background check, if they limited purchases he would've waited longer then done it, or used straw purchasers. And lastly, if there weren't a bumpstock available he could've converted them. Or used the bi-pop bumpfire technique.

 

[HomeRun916]

Multiple reports of several hundred round bursts, those surefire mags run $100 a pop, unless he only had one and reloaded if he had to have multiples, the 20 round pmag i saw was in the dd 308, comes with it so no need to tally that on.

Either way, in the ddm4s alone he had anywhere from 35-40 grand (low end if I estimated high on the eotech which range from $500-$1200 each) if a guy threw that much cash at this attack (not to mention renting a specific room) I don't think any sort of background check, gun limit or bumpstock ban would stop him.

He passed the background check, if they limited purchases he would've waited longer then done it, or used straw purchasers. And lastly, if there weren't a bumpstock available he could've converted them. Or used the bi-pop bumpfire technique.

Stop bringing logic into this debate!

 

[BearGrounds]

 

[faustian]

Thanks. The point I want to touch on is how to read the operative clause. SCOTUS recently ruled on that. They said that while the prefatory clause announces a purpose, it doesn't limit the scope of the operative clause. The individual right to keep and bear has been settled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Yes, your understanding is on-point. If only everyone was as capable and willing to learn this shit, we'd save a ton of time and energy lol

The inclination is always to broadly interpret a protected right. The 9th Amendment would seem to support this idea that citizens should be favored and given the benefit of the doubt versus government. Better to let 1000 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man.

Which is why it should be assumed that the prefatory clause was not intended to limit the operative clause.

Citizens have a right to arm themselves for purposes involving militias. Logically speaking, this does not mean this specific purpose is the only purpose which would justify the right. This is logic 101 stuff. And if there was any doubt as to the framers' intent:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Logic, imo, is largely innate. Particularly logic 101 tier issues such as the 2nd A prefatory clause. Yet anti-gun advocates will argue against this logic. So at some point i begin to suspect dishonesty.

Everything the framers did was for a reason, down to the specific language used. Nothing was random. So the right to keep and bear arms; you have to appreciate that there's two different things going on there: keep and bear. And the framers intended to protect both of them, or else they would've just said "right to have arms" or "right to possess arms", etc. And if this right was limited to militias, they would've worded it as such. Simply rearrange the clauses

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

changed to

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, for a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."

would eliminate the apparent conusion

The modification would suffice as the actual language required to support the anti-gun argument. And it could've easily been written, but the framers chose not to write it that way. They chose a more difficult wording, prefatory then operative and they did so for a reason and that reason is articulated in the Ninth Amendment. Beyond that, it's the objective logical deduction when reading the language. Y allows Z =/= A-X disallows Z

But people are people and some will be born with lesser ability than others and some will simply choose to be dishonest. Such is life

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

There was a pile of surefire mags by the AR near the window.

Thanks. I didn't see that.

Multiple reports of several hundred round bursts, those surefire mags run $100 a pop, unless he only had one and reloaded if he had to have multiples, the 20 round pmag i saw was in the dd 308, comes with it so no need to tally that on.

Either way, in the ddm4s alone he had anywhere from 35-40 grand (low end if I estimated high on the eotech which range from $500-$1200 each) if a guy threw that much cash at this attack (not to mention renting a specific room) I don't think any sort of background check, gun limit or bumpstock ban would stop him.

He passed the background check, if they limited purchases he would've waited longer then done it, or used straw purchasers. And lastly, if there weren't a bumpstock available he could've converted them. Or used the bi-pop bumpfire technique.

Where did you see he had 12 DD rifles?

No doubt he had a small fortune invested. Just didn't see it adding up to 100k.

 

[My Spot]

The lawyers got involved. There were a couple important SCOTUS decisions that came about since the sunsetting of the AWB. They ruled that individuals had a Constututional right to keep and bear arms, that states had to observe that right, and that banning a class of arms commonly held (such as semi-auto pistols) is against the law. If you can't ban semi-auto pistols you sure as fucking shit can't ban semi-auto rifles. One would have to be borderline retarded to think pistols were more protected than rifles. Any person who isn't a moron would have to agree that rifles are the most commonly appropriate tools for military/militia work. In Miller SCOTUS used as criteria whether or not the weapon was useful for a militia. They said it's protected if it is. So you do the math.

lol at him thinking that semi autos were banned during the AWB. Gun controll confirmed.

 

[My Spot]

Thanks. I didn't see that.




Where did you see he had 12 DD rifles?

No doubt he had a small fortune invested. Just didn't see it adding up to 100k.

A Colt 6920 is only $900. Aimpoint PRO + some sort of Aimpoint magnifier would around $700.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

lol at him thinking that semi autos were banned during the AWB. Gun controll confirmed.

When people don't have any interest in something it's hard to expect them to keep the details straight. But if they can't do that then they should at least understand the limitations of their opinion. I like the dude though and ain't gonna talk shit on him.

 

[Falsedawn]

Yes, your understanding is on-point. If only everyone was as capable and willing to learn this shit, we'd save a ton of time and energy lol

The inclination is always to broadly interpret a protected right. The 9th Amendment would seem to support this idea that citizens should be favored and given the benefit of the doubt versus government. Better to let 1000 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man.

Which is why it should be assumed that the prefatory clause was not intended to limit the operative clause.

Citizens have a right to arm themselves for purposes involving militias. Logically speaking, this does not mean this specific purpose is the only purpose which would justify the right. This is logic 101 stuff. And if there was any doubt as to the framers' intent:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Logic, imo, is largely innate. Particularly logic 101 tier issues such as the 2nd A prefatory clause. Yet anti-gun advocates will argue against this logic. So at some point i begin to suspect dishonesty.

Everything the framers did was for a reason, down to the specific language used. Nothing was random. So the right to keep and bear arms; you have to appreciate that there's two different things going on there: keep and bear. And the framers intended to protect both of them, or else they would've just said "right to have arms" or "right to possess arms", etc. And if this right was limited to militias, they would've worded it as such. Simply rearrange the clauses

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

changed to

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, for a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."

would eliminate the apparent conusion

The modification would suffice as the actual language required to support the anti-gun argument. And it could've easily been written, but the framers chose not to write it that way. They chose a more difficult wording, prefatory then operative and they did so for a reason and that reason is articulated in the Ninth Amendment. Beyond that, it's the objective logical deduction when reading the language. Y allows Z =/= A-X disallows Z

But people are people and some will be born with lesser ability than others and some will simply choose to be dishonest. Such is life

The framers chose to write it that way as a consequence of states presumably not being able to call forth the militia to put down slave rebellions. The original wording utilized "Country", not "State". The entire discussion surrounding the 2A was as to what circumstances the militia could be called instead of whether or not keeping and bearing arms was to be enshrined for individuals.

It's been perverted into an individual right as we've disregarded their intention of not having a standing army, but to act as if it was intended to mean an individual right is a retcon born entirely out of Scalia's reasoning in DC vs Heller.

You guys are quoting the amendment without any of the historical context, much like Justice Scalia the "originalist" who couldn't find himself considering the initial intentions of the militia when broadly ruling that the 2A conferred an individual right.

 

[faustian]

The government knows you're all retarded and can't be trusted not to kill each other with them so they feel bad and want to do something to stop it.

What % of Americans would you estimate have ever used a gun against someone

We both know that overall measures of gun violence, and violent crime in general, in America are skewed by a tiny segment of the population. The reasons for why this happens can and should be debated, but the fact that this is the case cannot

 

[JDragon]

Aren't we witnessing the same helpless reactions from the right that they rightfully call out liberals for following Islamic terrorist attacks? Only with regard to guns?

Just asking.

 

[rokzilla]

 

[Curmudgeon]

#fuckyourhashtags

 

[USA!USA!]

 

[Scheme]

Banning guns wont do anything to solve this issue.

Banning unvetted Muslim immigration will definitely help solve Islamic terrorism in the West.

 

[Limbo Pete]

The framers chose to write it that way as a consequence of states presumably not being able to call forth the militia to put down slave rebellions. The original wording utilized "Country", not "State". The entire discussion surrounding the 2A was as to what circumstances the militia could be called instead of whether or not keeping and bearing arms was to be enshrined for individuals.

It's been perverted into an individual right as we've disregarded their intention of not having a standing army, but to act as if it was intended to mean an individual right is a retcon born entirely out of Scalia's reasoning in DC vs Heller.

You guys are quoting the amendment without any of the historical context, much like Justice Scalia the "originalist" who couldn't find himself considering the initial intentions of the militia when broadly ruling that the 2A conferred an individual right.

*cough cough Shay's rebellion cough cough*

 

[cincymma79]

cuntiest of the cunts is schumer bringing up the budget after the attack

 

[Rational Poster]

What % of Americans would you estimate have ever used a gun against someone

We both know that overall measures of gun violence, and violent crime in general, in America are skewed by a tiny segment of the population. The reasons for why this happens can and should be debated, but the fact that this is the case cannot

Does it matter?

It should be a goal of a moral society to eliminate all forms of suffering and needless death.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Aren't we witnessing the same helpless reactions from the right that they rightfully call out liberals for following Islamic terrorist attacks? Only with regard to guns?

Just asking.

Yes, very much so.

Almost identical in the way it asks flawed questions with assumptions built in.

Islam is the problem, but we have never seen a Prince or oil baron arrested or drone bombed.

Guns are the problem, but people are willfully ignorant to the fact that we always had guns, but we didn't always have these monthly shootings.

The lack of critical thought by both sides, makes me hang my head in shame for the state of our union.