Jump to content
Kerplop

Shooter in Las Vegas

Recommended Posts

Planes crash and the NTSB crawls all around that shit, determines what went wrong, and forces manufacturers to make changes to improve safety if possible. People fly planes into building and regulations are implemented to significantly increase cockpit security.

 

 

And their both just window dressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NTSB has forced many improvements over the years and probably saved thousands of lives. I wouldn't call that window dressing. How many hijackings have happened in the US since 9/11?

The same number that have been attempted. And the same number that happened prior to 911. Which is my point. They are abarent events. The number of people who even WANT to do them is minuscule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The same number that have been attempted. And the same number that happened prior to 911. Which is my point. They are abarent events. The number of people who even WANT to do them is minuscule.

 

There have been many hijackings in the US prior to 9/11. Heck, over 130 in just a 10 year period. How many are there now? 0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unbelievable LOL your government has atomic bombs, war planes, helicopters, etc. etc. you want to fight them with rifles? :lol2:

 

They can do one better, just switch your electricity and water off, cut fuel supply etc. they will bring most of the country to its knees without firing a single bullet, if they switch the internet off heads will explode better give those pensioners AR-15s.

 

Enough with the nonsense BS excuses you make yourself look foolish (arming disable people with AR-15s SMH ��‍♂️ LOL) it’s your right to have your weapons, it says so in your constitution, no need to come up with nonsense to justify it, end of story.

 

If that ever changes you will have to comply with the new rules and if the government decides to change it you won’t be able to do a God damn thing about it irrespective of how many guns you have, you think you live in a free world? Think again.

 

I think people are looking at this the wrong way.

 

It's not about beating the government 1 on 1 but serving as a massive deterrent.

 

Nobody likes fighting a guerilla war, which is what you'd encounter in such a scenario by a heavily armed populace. You can drop a bomb on them, in theory......but is that what will actually happen? We don't even do that to our enemies.

 

Bullies like easy targets because they won't fight back. Nobody likes to fight someone who will pose a challenge, even if they will win.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There have been many hijackings in the US prior to 9/11. Heck, over 130 in just a 10 year period. How many are there now? 0

 

where are you getting 130 in a 10 year period for just the USA? if you are counting flights that started in the US there is

 

80s 4

90s 2

00s 1

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unbelievable LOL your government has atomic bombs, war planes, helicopters, etc. etc. you want to fight them with rifles? :lol2:

 

They can do one better, just switch your electricity and water off, cut fuel supply etc. they will bring most of the country to its knees without firing a single bullet, if they switch the internet off heads will explode better give those pensioners AR-15s.

 

Enough with the nonsense BS excuses you make yourself look foolish (arming disable people with AR-15s SMH ��‍♂️ LOL) it’s your right to have your weapons, it says so in your constitution, no need to come up with nonsense to justify it, end of story.

 

If that ever changes you will have to comply with the new rules and if the government decides to change it you won’t be able to do a God damn thing about it irrespective of how many guns you have, you think you live in a free world? Think again.

We’ve been at war with a bunch of goat fcuking sheepherders for over a decade now and those are just a handful of guys with a bunch of Kalashnikovs with the same country with all of our technology, all of our nuclear warheads, all of our tanks and bombs still can’t seem to pull off a win. What do you think 100 million angry armed Americans could do against a corrupt military force

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any danger of some decent reasoning here?

We have ar15 are good for disabled people

 

And

 

Protect against government tyranny

 

And

 

Investigate and introduce legislation like plane crashes.

 

It is like village of the damned logic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any danger of some decent reasoning here?

We have ar15 are good for disabled people

 

And

 

Protect against government tyranny

 

And

 

Investigate and introduce legislation like plane crashes.

 

It is like village of the damned logic

Guys it’s a trap, the Brit wants our populace disarmed so he can avenge king George and have another crack at taking the Colonies back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any danger of some decent reasoning here?

We have ar15 are good for disabled people

 

And

 

Protect against government tyranny

 

And

 

Investigate and introduce legislation like plane crashes.

 

It is like village of the damned logic

 

 

Ar15s are used by ordinary citizens for the same reason they are used by the military: They are highly adjustable and easily used by tall people, short people, strong people and weak people. A guy who is 6 foot 8 can pick up my AR and in ten seconds adjust it to fit him perfectly.

 

A guy who is 5’4 can grab the same gun and use it too.

 

And yeah. Ultimately the second amendment is to protect guns si as to prevent government tyranny. You may disagree about how realistic that is. But it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys should ask the people in Catalonia how being disarmed and trying to vote and make government follow the will of the people without the means to defend themselves is going

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/05...ion-fears-grow/

 

 

 

 

(Ps if If you’re a foreigner and it bothers you that I’m bringing up a Spanish/European election issue, can you imagine how we Americans feel when we constantly have Canadians, Brit’s and Others telling us how we should handle our American issues?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We’ve been at war with a bunch of goat fcuking sheepherders for over a decade now and those are just a handful of guys with a bunch of Kalashnikovs with the same country with all of our technology, all of our nuclear warheads, all of our tanks and bombs still can’t seem to pull off a win. What do you think 100 million angry armed Americans could do against a corrupt military force

 

Kind of like A Bug's Life. I wonder how the people of Venezuela feel about not having their guns anymore, and being disarmed by their government in the name of "the greater good". I wonder how the people of Mexico feel being unarmed, and at the mercy of a corrupt government, and the government that is the cartels?

 

The Japanese never invaded our country's mainland because they knew that a "rifle was behind every blade of grass". Just like a nuke, it is a deterrent. It keeps honest (or less than honest) people honest. It is also the great equalizer. I love the mention of a nuke, as the nuke has been around for 75+ years and we have yet to use another one. We certainly wouldn't use it against our own people, nor could we.

 

I am tired of comparing our country to other countries. Other countries are great for what they are, as are we great for what we are. Part of what we are is in fact the 2nd amendment. I understand that other countries have socialized medicine, no guns (or very limited guns), et al. I have no interest in this country becoming other countries. Be it acid attacks, nail bombs, car attacks, mass shooters, IED's, or this mornings knife attack that killed 33 and injured 60. If you want my opinion (even if you don't, here it comes) social media has been our biggest catalyst for the negative things happening today. The pen is mightier than the sword, and now the written word is mightier than all and broadcast with little to no filter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yeah. Ultimately the second amendment is to protect guns si as to prevent government tyranny. You may disagree about how realistic that is. But it is what it is.

 

I fully understand that. I just think in this day and age the argument can be better.

To hear that used as an actual arguement in the country that is the leader of the Western world does underride the freedom of democracy.

I.e. Why are you voting in a tyrannical government.

Raise the arguement also goes for the anti gun lobby.

 

They are too many decent law abiding citizens to apply a blanket ban.

For every 1000 guns sold how many go to people should not have one? I would say the odds are stacked in the favour of societies good guys blanket ban is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kind of like A Bug's Life. I wonder how the people of Venezuela feel about not having their guns anymore, and being disarmed by their government in the name of "the greater good". I wonder how the people of Mexico feel being unarmed, and at the mercy of a corrupt government, and the government that is the cartels?

 

The Japanese never invaded our country's mainland because they knew that a "rifle was behind every blade of grass". Just like a nuke, it is a deterrent. It keeps honest (or less than honest) people honest. It is also the great equalizer. I love the mention of a nuke, as the nuke has been around for 75+ years and we have yet to use another one. We certainly wouldn't use it against our own people, nor could we.

 

I am tired of comparing our country to other countries. Other countries are great for what they are, as are we great for what we are. Part of what we are is in fact the 2nd amendment. I understand that other countries have socialized medicine, no guns (or very limited guns), et al. I have no interest in this country becoming other countries. Be it acid attacks, nail bombs, car attacks, mass shooters, IED's, or this mornings knife attack that killed 33 and injured 60. If you want my opinion (even if you don't, here it comes) social media has been our biggest catalyst for the negative things happening today. The pen is mightier than the sword, and now the written word is mightier than all and broadcast with little to no filter.

100% dead on

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not anti gun but I agree the agree an armed militia who has ar15’s and bump stocks would quickly be decimated by the Is government if it came down to it. That argument went away a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those arguing that the gov't could wipeout it's own people because of superior weaponry are operating on the assumption that our armed forces would follow orders to kill their neighbors, siblings, friends, and relatives. I would contend that some in fact would follow orders, but I believe the majority would fly the bird to their orders and walk away with some of that fantastic weaponry.

 

Speaking of that weaponry advantage, nukes aren't a deterrent in a civil war. Nuking your own country to kill rebelling citizens is like using a pound of C4 to kill a mosquito on your arm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fully understand that. I just think in this day and age the argument can be better.

To hear that used as an actual arguement in the country that is the leader of the Western world does underride the freedom of democracy.

I.e. Why are you voting in a tyrannical government.

Raise the arguement also goes for the anti gun lobby.

 

They are too many decent law abiding citizens to apply a blanket ban.

For every 1000 guns sold how many go to people should not have one? I would say the odds are stacked in the favour of societies good guys blanket ban is pointless.

 

 

 

You do understand that tyrannical governments don’t akways get VOTED in? Right. Here in the states we have a lot of protections that make a tyranny harder to pull off (independent legislative bodies separate from the executive and independent states etc) but nothing really prevents a good ol fashioned coup.

 

And. Not for nothing. But we have a major political party that’s been talking openly about it for almost a year now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those arguing that the gov't could wipeout it's own people because of superior weaponry are operating on the assumption that our armed forces would follow orders to kill their neighbors, siblings, friends, and relatives. I would contend that some in fact would follow orders, but I believe the majority would fly the bird to their orders and walk away with some of that fantastic weaponry.

 

Your counter argument just says that if the military is going to mutiny the citizenry still doesn’t need arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m not anti gun but I agree the agree an armed militia who has ar15’s and bump stocks would quickly be decimated by the Is government if it came down to it. That argument went away a long time ago.

Then why hasn’t the same government military been able to demolish a couple thousand or even tens of thousands of poor uneducated farmers with AK-47s from the 1970s Russian occupation, how would they annihilate 100,000, hundreds of thousands, several million people armed to the teeth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your counter argument just says that if the military is going to mutiny the citizenry still doesn’t need arms.

 

Um, what? The reason the military would "mutiny" in that scenario is because they were ordered to attack armed civilians. Assuming/hoping for a military coup or military opposition to an oppressive government in the absence of such an order is an entirely different (and much less likely) scenario. The government isn't nearly as likely to order the military to attack unarmed civilians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why hasn’t the same government military been able to demolish a couple thousand or even tens of thousands of poor uneducated farmers with AK-47s from the 1970s Russian occupation, how would they annihilate 100,000, hundreds of thousands, several million people armed to the teeth?

Because those two situations are apples and oranges. One is a half assed attempt at nation building and the other is a highly unlikely and hypothetical situation where a government indiscriminately wants to murder it’s own people.

 

The whole argument that crazy people will find a way to kill others simply doesn’t hold up. Yes they can use trucks and shit but ultimately those things were not created with the purpose of killing others. Guns are though, and the argument simply becomes “ If a crazy person can use a truck to kill others then might as well give them access to dozens of rifles “. This makes no sense no matter how you look at it.

 

Also at what point is a weapon too much for a civilian? If the intention is that guns are needed to defy government tyranny then surely people should be ok to own artilary and tanks and etc.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...