Vegas and Automatic Weapons
 

I'm sure it's yet to be determined but by the audio sounds like a fully automatic weapon was used, so it's either a completely illegal weapon or a legally purchased semi automatic converted to automatic action. I have no doubt this will bring up some gun control debate as this moves forward and while I personally agree in the constitutional right to own and bear arms, I also pretty sure our forefathers didn't mean civilians should be able to own military grade fire arms. I used to hunt, but haven't in decades, just never got my juices flowing like being on the water. I'm know many on this site hunt and I've been lucky enough to enjoy some of their yummy game treats back when we used to get together a few times every year to grille, eat, drink and then do some fishing. I can still taste some of GB Outdoors marinated bear meat, served up behind M&D's a decade or more ago, man was that good.

I personally question the need for any semi automatic AR15 type weapon, especially if those are easily converted to automatic action, if you aren't hunting with it what purpose does it serve. I guess if you have a Domesday shelter stocked with water and can goods, then yeah that's probably a natural fit; right along with your ham radio set. It's a F'd up world we live in and I can certainly appreciate wanting that personal "legal" arsenal ready if needed, but man it seems like every time you turn around someone with a screw loose is going ballistic.

My T&P's go out to all the victims, all the witnesses, all the first responders, but I question when does all this madness stop.

Great post. Hard to process, for me at least.

I'm also no huge fan of the types of guns that aren't assault rifles, but sure look like them, and the sexy look, unfortunately, fuels the fantasies of some really sick folks. But we tried a ban once, and it didn't do much.

Nothing will change until we are ready to talk about many things, including gun control; thresholds for committing the mentally ill; curbing the graphic violence in TV, movies, and video games; cutting back on the way that progressives mock traditional family values, and religion.

Personally, I think if it weren't for 5% (or so) of the population, we could all keep our doors wide open at night. I don't know if that 5% number is increasing, but I do believe they are becoming more and more wicked. I don't know if we have a larger number of people that are scary, but the scary ones that we have, are getting scarier. The Internet makes people detached from one another, we lose intimacy, which means some people will lose empathy.

I don't know. All I know is that I'm really sad.

Lol..easily converted. Go ahead and order a full auto sear , I'll wait here for your reply about the feds showing up at your door.. thousands die from cancer ,you can still buy cigarettes. Booze and cars kill more and they're still readily available..
Point is if you don't like them don't get one. And don't tell me what I can/can't own because you don't like them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

horrible senseless mass murder by a madman. I am afraid it's not the last one :(

don't blame the inanimate object like the reactionaries do

I can think of a reason to own what the military owns, a couple actually, for one a tyrannical government. they work for us and answer to us, not the other way around.

Cigarettes is a bad analogy. 99% of those who die from cigarettes, are the people who choose to smoke. The people who got killed yesterday, did not do anything negligent to contribute to this.

Couple things.

First, this tragedy is clearly horrible and was likely perpetrated by one persons or two at best. And the cause has yet to be determined (mental illness, grudge, whatever).

The audio surely sounds like something running full auto and reloads or switching guns. Premeditated by all accounts. Would be easier to do it with a truck, though. And where they have gun bans, trucks and pressure cookers and other improvised explosives are what they use. Crazy is going to do crazy.

Andy's point on converting to auto is spot on, think about it and get a knock on your door by people wearing threeletteragency jackets.

Could have been a bump/slide stock?? Dunno - but stupid people are going to do stupid things, particularly where people can't shoot back.

Reports are this guy had dozen plus weapons in a room rented for many days, this was a planned out premeditated disaster. He would have used some other avenue if he could not get possession of weapons.

Very, very sad and terrible.

I never told you or anyone what they can or can't own. If you can legally buy it, then you have that legal right. That however doesn't mean I agree with it, because I don't see the need to legally own assault rifles. When that next nut job blows a gasket, I would much prefer that those closest to him are dealing with a less lethal weapon and a better chance at getting out alive or that fewer lives are loss before he can be subdued.

Sure I don't know how easily a semi-automatic might be converted, but I've read it can and has been done. Not my point, but seeing your avatar, I'd expect you to be waving your NRA card in my face. Doesn't mean I don't know guns, I've hunted in the past, just found it cut into my fishing too much. Never brought down Bambi with an AR15 however and I guess my question would be what is the need for the assault rifles or anything that isn't required for the pursuit of hunting?

This guy brings 19 weapons or more into a hotel, how many fewer people do you think would have died and how much less suffering would have to be endured had he not had access to assault rifles or automatic weapons? Yes I agree with John to some extent that if he wanted to do harm and didn't have the weapons, he might have found another way, but he had access and did it his way. These lone wolfs I don't think are the terrorist trained average bomb carrying, truck driving, ready to die for alla nut job. These home grown nuts like the guns, they love the 15 minutes of fame and I'd just rather seem them with pistol or shotgun.

Hey it is America and IMHO (yeah I'm entitled to it), things have got to change when it comes to what weapons we can put in any Tom, #^&#^&#^&#^& or Harry's hands.

Ok, so you don't know what they are or how they function but you don't think people should own them? Got it,typical reactionary post. I get it , I do but hey nobody needs a vehicle that can go 80 mph too,innocent people are killed by speeders all the time...and texting and driving kills innocent people too ,so cell phones are gone too..let's just take everything. See the "slippery slope"?

Nowhere do "the forefathers" mention hunting in regard to the second amendment but they sure do mention a tyrannical government and I'll stick with the facts thanks. I won't wave any NRA card in anyone's face as long as they don't try and tell me what I should or shouldn't own. And by the way "assault rifles" are banned already. One needs a stamp approved by the ATF to own certain items.

If it makes anyone's feelings not hurt I asked all my rifles if they plan on doing anything wrong..but they just sat in my safe not talking or planning anything so we're safe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Second hand smoke...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty sure the texting and driving kills the driver and maybe a few innocent victims and the same can be said for the truck driver who has been driving his semi for 8 hours longer then he probably should have, how does that compare in the scope of what happened in vegas? I could use that argument and go in dozen's of directions, but we weren't talking highway safety; at least I wasn't.

Of course our forefathers didn't mention hunting, but I'm pretty sure at the time those words were penned, weapons on our side, the British side or anywhere in the world; were all pretty much basic and simple fire arms.

At some point you have to take time and place into consideration and what was so right, reasonable and so necessary then as a constitutional right, I think in today's environment and pressures needs to be seasoned with some fing common sense.

Do you think those who wrote those constitutional rights giving us all the right to own those basic firearms, in order to protect your life and the lives of your family, do you think today those same people would broad brush that to include everything? I seriously doubt those same people would feel the same today, not given the environment we are all living in today.

Some of me best friends are avid hunters, I'm not advocating taking guns away, I'm just saying control what can be bought and put better vetting on who can buy.

You are right, no mention of hunting. It does mention a well regulated militia.

I think GS is bringing up a discussion of what well-regulated militia means. Oxford dictionary states:

well-regulated, adjective
Properly governed or directed; (now) especially strictly controlled by rules or regulations.

Origin
Late 16th century; earliest use found in Geoffrey Fenton (c1539–1608), translator and administrator in Ireland. From well + regulated.

Having a discussion of where that line is a valid discussion. You have your opinion, we have ours.
Where is the line? Grenades? Tanks? Working Howitzer in your front yard?


Since Jim CT is probably the only one here who has seen what these weapons actually do to a person, so I'll weight his opinion appropriately.

In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself. Since then, there have been at least 1,518 mass shootings, with at least 1,715 people killed and 6,089 wounded.

No your advocating for something you don't know about. You think because the sounds were fast it was automatic weapon fire . You said they're easy to convert. You posted about it without knowing what type were used. ABC has just reported one rifle had a bump fire stock on it . I've shot one before, and I and my son can shoot my rifles pretty damn fast too. ATF was working to determine the rest of the facts. You posted about restrictions on something you don't even know if they were used.
We could go back and forth on other causes of innocent people dying all night from trucks,pressure cookers, hammers.. whatever you choose. My only point is nobody blames the other inanimate objects ..but if it fits the agenda go right ahead. I hear Hillary already blamed the NRA this afternoon so it's fitting the rest follow along now. But she's not the President...lol. Thank Christ for that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I inserted what you guys choose to leave out.

It also reads "shall not be infringed"...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's exactly why I said most, not all, people who die from lung cancer, are people who choose to smoke, so they chose their path. Not remotely close to what happened in Vegas.

Great.
Where is the line?
Grenades?
Mines?
Anti-aircraft guns in your back yard?

Can I get those? I pass a background check every firearm purchase I make. Do you get those through the internet loophole I hear so much about? Or are those already restricted items according to ATF?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, I'm just trying to find the line. Those are illegal (obviously I picked things that were clearly illegal), and that is OK with you that those are restricted?

there's that pesky word infringed


what bothers me is the never ending pigpile on within minutes of a gun related shooting where the left can't help using a tragedy for political purposes instead of coming up with actual solutions for stopping these madmen in their tracks or preventing mass casualties of large crowds of people. Fertilizer is pretty easy to buy enough of to blow up a federal building but gunshots? blame the gun, need gun control, need more gun laws. The laws we have infringe enough. Sometimes a few of the many whackjobs this country has produced go off the deep end. I don't have an answer. I feel for the dead and wounded as well as the first responders and others being shot at.

Yes it does, and that's the thing. I'm not a huge fan of all these guns in the hands of people with a questionable grasp of reality. But what's scarier to me, is ignoring the parts of the constitution we don't happen to like. I'm not a conspiracy nut, but that is a slippery slope I don't feel like embarking upon.

There isn't anything even close to an easy answer. I wish there were a lot less guns. I also wish there was a bit less evil, and a bit more empathy.

Everybody here is making a lot of sense, I think...no extreme reactions one way or the other. Neither Charlton Heston nor Nancy Pelosi has the answer, I'm confident of that.

Our moral compass needs a tune up. I turned the TV off and went outside to shoot hoops with my kids.

And for the record -I understand and respect everyone's opinion on their respective points. I do happen to be one of millions of responsible firearm owners , I don't go preaching or trying to force people to buy them or have an interest in them. I just want those that don't to not force their opinion on me. We can all look up facts to twist our opinions for our argument.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think that's a great point (sincerely, no sarcasm). If you take that "shall not be infringed" literally, then any restrictions, any at all, are unconstitutional. So where's the right place to draw the line?

The point is, because I'm done with the internet and TV for the night, is there is a line somewhere in there; to some of us it is more restrictive for some types of firearms, for others it is whatever the military has.

The answer is probably somewhere in between.

Hell no!! I'd love to safely and responsibly own an anti aircraft gun or 3!! The OP was about automatic weapons, rifles easily converted etc etc...that was my reply. Personally most illegal things are the most fun..yes I've fired several automatic firearms, no it doesn't make me an expert but it made me smile and dammit I liked them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:) that sounds like FREEDOM

Well restricted and properly licensed freedom. And yes it was .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here is a concise and precise explanation for the purpose of the Second Amendment. It explains the meaning and derivation and purpose of a well regulated militia. It explains the absolute rights of the people to own arms. It is Google's most referred to article on the purpose of the Second Amendment.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014...g-and-purpose/

The purpose of a right to keep and bear arms was expressly and completely to enable the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. There was no need to define what type of weapons were required to do so because, obviously, in order to defend against a tyrannical government, the people would have to possess whatever weapons, "arms", would enable them to do so. Obviously, hand guns, limited magazines, hunting rifles, AR 15's, wouldn't do the trick against a government today that has far more deadly weapons.

Because of the horrors of mass killings, there is a desire by many to overlook the actual purpose of the Second Amendment. There is always the attempt to "interpret" the Amendment to mean some right that is far more limited in scope than the expansive right to arms that the Amendment gives to the people. That, surely, the Founders, not knowing what kind of weapons exist today, would not have given the people the right to own them. There is no evidence that such is true. Quite the contrary, their fear of tyranny, of government disarming the citizens, the absolute guaranty they gave the people to defend themselves against tyranny, the evidence is that they actually did intend for the people to own whatever weapons necessary to preserve their freedom. And the militia referred to in the Amendment is not some national guard type of regiment. The militia is all the people.

We are also warned that an unrestricted right to keep and bear arms would lead to a bunch of people owning tanks, and fighter planes, and battleships, and nuclear weapons. On the one hand, if a tyrannical government has such weapons, what would a people need to fight them. On the other hand, how would any citizen even be able to buy any of those things if the government has control of their production, even if anyone other than the government actually wanted to buy some. And who would sell such weapons to private citizens without government permission.

In actuality, those who feel there must be some middle ground, that there must be some more "reasonable" interpretation, really would rather that the Amendment didn't exist. And they, it appears, do not think there is any reason to fear government. And many, if not most, who feel that way, don't really believe government should be limited. After all, we elect our governments. And, so, what's the point even of having or constantly referring to the Constitution. It is constantly getting in the way of government doing what needs to be done. If there were no such thing as the Constitution, the frightening gun "problem" would have been solved long ago.

Sometimes the greatest danger is total trust in those who profess to be your servants or your guardian angels.

Terrible event
Mass has THE strictest and most restrictive gun laws in the nation
I watched some of the cell phone footage. Sure sounded like full auto.
Pretty sure you can legally get/ own full auto weapons in NeVada with little hassle
But my wife never let me near vegas so
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't think of a single Gun Control law that would have prevented the Vegas shooting from happening.

I am hearing he had bump stocks. If thats true, and if they were never legal, perhaps a few more people would be alive. Is that worth giving up the freedom to own them? A lot of people say no. I am inclined to say yes, but the constitutional issue is troubling.

You are correct, no law would have prevented it. But possibly reduced the carnage...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't know and good question.

One of the problems with gun control laws is that when some are made the anti-gun folks make a law, they try to expand its reach.

A lot of people that would support increased licensing / testing / mental stability screening don't because we know that politicians and bureaucrats will abuse that.

Constitution is fine.

And the people who fear that there will be over-reach, are justified in feeling that way.

It all leads to gridlock. The right doesn't want to budge on guns. The left doesn't want to budge on things like committing the mentally ill, or curbing violence in the entertainment industry, or in curbing the notion that all weird human impulses are a cause for celebration., or letting up on mocking people like those who live in the Dakotas (where everyone has guns, and there is almost no gun crime...but they are "bitter clingers", not people to respect and emulate??)

I'd like to see some common sense gun laws, if they could pass the constitutionality test. I'd also like to see our moral compass get a tune up. Don't ask me how to do it.

name one....or two...

I'm thinking in the house and senate there's a deal making process that goes like this- We will give up the fight to protect the right to seek abortions if you give up the right to own assault rifles and high capacity mags.. and vice versa.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Come on, you think there's no such thing as a common sense gun law?

I would start with the tools that make mass shootings a realistic possibility for a "typical" homicidal maniac, if there is such a thing.

Things like high capacity magazines, bump stocks...maybe make it legal to go to a very expensive gun club that the individual pays to join, where you can go in a room all by yourself, and shoot it, if that's how you get your jollies. Don't let people take them home. That's military functionality, there's no earthly reason to have it in your home.

When the technology is available (is it yet?), maybe require that all future guns have fingerprint id, so that no one else can shoot them. If that adds to the cost of owning a gun, so be it.

There's always a trade off between liberty and security. If Sandy Hook doesn't cause you to re-think where that line is drawn, at least a little bit, I'd say you are a pretty callous person.

Scott, if you had 50 caliber machine guns in your house, I'd probably still feel safe letting you babysit my kids. 95% of us are no threat. But the fact is, there are some kooks out there, and unfortunately, they don't walk around wearing signs that say "I am a homicidal maniac". They are out there, and we can't identify them. So we can make it harder for them to kill our kids (we can never make it impossible), or we can choose not to make it harder.

would any of what you listed have stopped the shooting in Vegas?

"I'd also like to see our moral compass get a tune up." Man have you got that right.

Look I get that one nut job is to blame, the guns he used aren't responsible, but because he's up there with those types of weapons and not a couple rifles intended to deer hunt; is why 58 people and over 500 were injured. You want to use the "don't blame the tool" argument, then let's talk cell phones and the highway deaths attributed to them. Again the phone wasn't to blame, but as a trend grows and more deaths result, law changes are required to prevent more deaths. I have no problem with a new law and tougher penalties for either idiots on the highway texting while driving, or much more involved vetting to purchase firearms or limiting what can be purchased to avoid the magnitude of these mass shootings. I have no doubt as many have stated, most are responsible gun owners, but a troubled teen stealing their parents 16ga or pistol isn't near as bad as running into the school with their AR and a dozen clips.

how do you tune up the moral compass of a homicidal maniac?

And the pro- gun crowd doesn't do the same?

Did anything happened in Feb. of this year w/background checks?