Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which weapons could Paddock have had access to (without removing all rifles) that could have prevented this?
Bump fire stocks are a red herring, you can bump fire without one, they also don't violate the NFA because it's specific that automatic fire only applies to weapons that fire more than one round per trigger pull. Paddock carefully selected his location so he had a large area of a mass of people and only had to keep the rifle (s) pointed in a general direction (not easy, but not impossibly difficult). Could have done it with the venerable M1895 lever action.
I'd like to know which weapons he should have had access to that would have prevented this without removing rifles or firearms with more than 1400' range.
Think Austin and UT, Bolt Action Rifle, trained shooter.
I would not complain, other than to say that I should be able to have any firearm that law enforcement has, but that is just me and I have had far more fire power at my disposal than they will ever have, we hope. An Armed Citizenry means an Honest Government.
Bwahaha. I choked just a bit on this one. Of course I get your point. Imagine if we weren't armed.
If you wish to make a bomb you only need some off the shelf gradients. The ingredients are no secret. The same type of explosive is commonly used in the mining industry because it's very effective explosive at blowing up hard things and ver safe to handle.
Furthermore based on the footage it appears that was very open area with very easy access, why didn't he just butt a huge a 4 wheel drive, lift it, push bars, and so on. Drive it right the 22K crowd....
The point is if you want ti kill a lot of people you will not stop someone like this from doing it.
Not exactly true after the Oklahoma bombing the ATF got laws passed which make it much more difficult to obtain the proper blasting caps to trigger a high explosive ANFO bomb. McVeigh used blasting caps and other explosives he stole from a mining operations because of laws changed not that easy to steal that stuff now. This is why last number of years you have seen bomb attacks with smokeless powder or flash powder still deadly but not HE type of stuff like before one could buy dynamite with a drivers license in most states.
Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia.
But it could be, with much more ease, without the 2nd Amendment. I think the ultimate goal of people like the author of this piece is a ban on private gun ownership.
I don't consider that a "problem" because I think that should be repealed.
Again, people claiming "it can't be done" are simply saying "I prefer mass shootings"
well then why not try to get the second amendment repealed then? you only have to get 67% of both houses of congress, and 38 states to ratify such an amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
Rules and guidelines are created and changed to suit the needs of the people. If the majority of Americans wish to see a change to an Amendment then that will happen. I wouldn't repeal the second amendment, I would just add wordage that would make it only applicable to state militias.
you cannot change the verbiage of an amendment, you have to repeal it and replace it. and just so you know, the militia mentioned in the second amendment meant that the PEOPLE ARE the militia.
Good on the NRA. No one "needs" to pretend to shoot full auto. Suck it up and buy an actual one or get faster with your damn finger. Or make one out of a rubber band or modify your weapon and take your chances. Or go rent one if you need an adrenaline/testosterone fix. JMHO.
Besides what a waste of friggin ammo we spent too much time reloading.
Are you upset that the numerous reports of robberies, rapes, murders, assaults, and intimidations that were common in colonial days, weren't all listed word for word in the Constitution?
What you mean "we", Kimosabe?
Yup, here come the lies and preposterous wishful thinking, right on schedule.
Look in the dictionary under "Garbage In, Garbage Out", and you will find the two last quotes above listed in close proximity.
You know the liberals have resoundingly lost the debate, when they start coming up with such ridiculous fibs, and try to draw conclusions based solely on those fibs.
Utter nonsense. You cannot win by stacking it higher and deeper.
I happen to favor the 2nd and permissive concealed carry. It is not my personal view of the best choice. But it is the best choice given the situation as it exists.
The negotiation on the limits on arms is interesting and the days of legal external devices are numbered.
I never said they didn't think about technological advances. My point is that even with the Kalthoff repeater, it took over a hundred years before something came along to out fire it.
Technology moved slowly. I still maintain, that if they had known the fire power and the amount of weaponry and it's uses, in the US today, they wouldn't be happy.
However whether or not they knew, didn't know, or cared is not important. What IS important is what is actually happening today, and what should be done about it.
1. You must register to vote. If you are not properly registered, you should, and will be refused.
2. Since we are talking about rights, the right is stated in the context of a "well regulated militia". Outside of that, there is no written right. So you if you are in a WELL REGULATED MILITIA, then I guess it's the militia that is regulated, and that will take care of it.
FWIW, I am not suggesting this is the best answer. In fact I know it is not. But if you are going to go with the "I will stonewall you by being Captain Literal", then that sword cuts both ways. Personally, I think it would be much worse to go back to the literal words of the Constitution, and only let people bear arms if they are in a well regulated militia, but if that's your argument, you can stand behind it, and see how much support you will get. Please don't come after mine though, I'm not in a militia of any sort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah
Well, that well regulated militia is the general populace of the country.
tam is right. my ghost you have to understand what the phrase "well regulated" meant when the constitution was written. at that time it meant in good working order, not load up with regulations until no one can have anything. also note that the militia is in fact the general populace of the country, in other words WE THE PEOPLE are the militia. but MG you are ignoring the second part of the amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
