50 Dead in L.V.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not only are we hearing about another "assault weapon" ban, we're hearing calls to REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
.........
What Hitler wanted was pretty easy to divine by reading "Mein Kampf". This is like Hitler SAYING what he wants every night, on every TV channel, on every radio station, in every newspaper, and on the internet, multiple times a day. At what point do you take him at his word?

So what does "taking him at his word" mean in this context? You sound like you believe you've discovered something nobody else is aware of.

Of course a repeal of the 2nd Amendment has always been the dream "solution" for people opposed to private gun ownership. And if a repeal effort ever gets political traction, we'd be in real trouble. Because in contrast to a lot of legislative gun control proposals, it would be perfectly constitutional.

Among gun rights advocates, all too many seem to think the Constitution consists of the 2nd Amendment, and they've never really bothered with the rest. Then there are folks who think gun rights are "god-given"; that may make you feel good, but is impractical since we don't live in a theocracy.

We have a constitutional republic, and that means that any "rights" exist exactly as long as sufficient majorities of voters, their elected representatives, and the judges who check-and-balance them, agree that they exist.

That's why we will always have to engage in politics to defend our rights, like it or not. The NRA has gotten as influential as it is because they're generally good at that. Of course that's going to tick off the purists. But absolutist whining about "rights" isn't going to cut it in a system which the Founding Fathers laid out to work by competing interests battling it out.
 
So what does "taking him at his word" mean in this context? You sound like you believe you've discovered something nobody else is aware of.
How many times does somebody have to look you in the eye and say, "I want to take your guns away" before you believe them? That's what they want, PERIOD. They're willing to do it in stages, but that's what they want.

How many Jews did Hitler kill in 1933? 1935? 1939? 1942? 1944?

Sometimes evil can show considerable patience.


Among gun rights advocates, all too many seem to think the Constitution consists of the 2nd Amendment, and they've never really bothered with the rest. Then there are folks who think gun rights are "god-given"; that may make you feel good, but is impractical since we don't live in a theocracy.
The same people who want to eliminate the 2nd Amendment are only too happy to tell you how much they want to gut the 1st. I've been seeing this AT LEAST since the '80s with Catherine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin and their anti-"obscenity" legislation.

The whole "speech is violence" gibberish is simply the "logical" conclusion of their delusional assertion that they have the right to speak... WITHOUT CONTRADICTION.

You think you're going to compromise with these psychopaths. You could not be more wrong if you tried.
 
That's why we will always have to engage in politics to defend our rights, like it or not. The NRA has gotten as influential as it is because they're generally good at that. Of course that's going to tick off the purists. But absolutist whining about "rights" isn't going to cut it in a system which the Founding Fathers laid out to work by competing interests battling it out.
‘You give them bump stock, it’s going to be a slippery slope.’ I certainly hope so.” – House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

What kind of "deal" are you going to make with THAT?

Ann Frank would have had the same chance of making a deal with Adolf Eichmann.
 
With all the talk of killing, shooting, speculation about this gun or that gun and everything else...it's nice to see some people and animals are doing something to help alleviate the stress and pain, even if just for a little while.

A team of Golden Retreivers has been walking the halls and visiting the rooms at Sunrise Hospital in Las Vegas.

You can read the article and view a brief video by clicking here.

22222029_1658353530853232_315421222377447688_n_1507269134259_11319298_ver1.0.jpg



1005-en-comfortdogs-evans4.jpg

Those are the Lutheran Church Charities Comfort Dogs. If you're on Facebook, look them up. Each dog has his/her own page, and the updated posts are written in the first person, as if the dog was writing them.

This is one of my favorite charities, btw...great organization doing great work.
 
Those are the Lutheran Church Charities Comfort Dogs. If you're on Facebook, look them up. Each dog has his/her own page, and the updated posts are written in the first person, as if the dog was writing them.

This is one of my favorite charities, btw...great organization doing great work.

I just took a brief look at their Facebook page. I believe I will be looking at them and their photos a lot.

Aren't the dogs beautiful? And they seem to just emanante love, peace, and comfort, don't they?

Thank you so much for pointing them out to me.

Here are two scenes from their ongoing visit to Las Vegas. Photos from the Lutheran Chuch Charities Comfort Dogs Facebook site.

22154253_10155895582593010_1346709506629703761_n.jpg


22089794_10155895582493010_371096291415170606_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
I realize I'm new here and I don't want to rub anyone the wrong way, but the word rights doesn't belong in quotation marks.

And they are not "God-given" rights - they are Creator-endowed rights, meaning you are born naturally possessing them no matter if you consider Yahweh your creator or your parents.

Gun owners have "compromised" enough.

We "compromised" in 1934 with the National Firearms Act
We "compromised" in 1968 with the Gun Control Act
We "compromised" in 1986 with the Hughes Amendment
We "compromised" in 1994 with the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban

We always give ground and never gain any - that's on the "Well, it doesn't effect my revolver or hunting rifle" Fudds and the WEAK and cowardly NRA.
 
I realize I'm new here and I don't want to rub anyone the wrong way, but the word rights doesn't belong in quotation marks.

And they are not "God-given" rights - they are Creator-endowed rights, meaning you are born naturally possessing them no matter if you consider Yahweh your creator or your parents.

Gun owners have "compromised" enough.

We "compromised" in 1934 with the National Firearms Act
We "compromised" in 1968 with the Gun Control Act
We "compromised" in 1986 with the Hughes Amendment
We "compromised" in 1994 with the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban

We always give ground and never gain any - that's on the "Well, it doesn't effect my revolver or hunting rifle" Fudds and the WEAK and cowardly NRA.

Don't forget the GFSZA compromise. One which the court struck down, and then they rewrote it and shoved it back on us again. And gun owners sat idly by because the gun rights orgs supported it.

If someone gives us a disease, and promises you they will manage it for you, possibly make it better for a small fee. Should we keep falling for it?
 
If no one minds, I will post one more photograph from the Lutheran Church Charities Facebook page.

A simple but eloquent photograph that says so much.

This is Jeremiah...a Biblical name if there ever was one. And the "Please Pet Me" on his harness really got to me. I mean, who wouldn't want to pet him?

22181353_10155900927693010_5678507575133116493_o.jpg

Most of the Comfort Dogs have Biblical names...very fitting, isn't it?

There are a number of charities to whom I give money...the Lutheran Church Charities Comfort Dogs is one of them.

Comfort Dogs
 
Thank you to all the first responders that put their lives on the line and had to go through this also, many of them and family will suffer for a long time also.....

My brothers and sisters in Las Vegas did an exceptional job last Sunday night...very proud of them. This remarkable article explains the tactics they used...all I can say is "wow"...
Armed with a new approach, police and medics stormed through the Las Vegas gunfire, saving lives - The Washington Post
 
I'm confident in saying we can say "goodbye" to bump-stocks. Millions of Americans who have never heard of them certainly have now, and in my view (not that I agree), their availability will be hard to defend.

Like this would be some sort of great loss?

I've read all the posts on this thread with great interest, largely because I think of Forum members as being civil and polite, and able to express themselves without resorting to innuendo or insult.

I need to weigh in on this whole "bump stock" debate...and I hope y'all will bear with me, and accept that my views are sincerely held...

I have never been able to see any legitimate use for these devices. You can't use them for hunting or organized target shooting. They are no good for plinking or informal target shooting. (Their very design -- which is clearly intended to circumvent the National Firearms Act -- is detrimental to accuracy.) One early news report on the Las Vegas shooting described them as a "novelty", and I think that word is appropriate...but we have to ask the question: Why would any serious shooting enthusiast want to own one of these? What are they good for?

I've asked myself that question over and over this past week, and the only answer I can come up with is this: They are only good for what that monster last Sunday used them for...to spray lead over a large area as quickly as possible.

I can defend every single firearm in my gun safe -- including my AR -- as having a legitimate use and purpose in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. But bump stocks? No way.

Friends, I am very conservative-to-libertarian in my social views. I am an NRA Life Member. I am a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights. BUT...

We don't live in a libertarian dreamworld. Our Republic has laws, and among them are legitimate --- and generally mild --- restrictions on every single aspect of our freedom. For us to defend these bumpstocks as if banning them would threaten the 2nd Amendment just makes us look like extremists...it plays right into the hands of the gun banners in Washington, and, I think, paves the way for them argue that we gun owners are unreasonable, possessed of poor judgment, and not to be trusted when it comes to crafting laws relating to gun ownership.

Thanks for your patience in reading this far... :)
 
Wut? Why would they need a 'legitimate use?' And who gets to decide what is legitimate?

We do. If you expect me to jeopardize my gun rights by defending the indefensible for the benefit of a few yahoos who want to hide behind adult gun owners, you better come up with a darn good reason. So far, nobody has.
 
I think we are reaching a critical mass point in this country where the “repeal and replace” of the Second Amendment is a real possibility. The demographics of the country are changing and it won’t take many more events of this magnitude to tip the scales.

Then what? Its the Constitutional way to achieve gun control. It won’t matter who is on the Supreme Court if there is a blank spot between the First and Third Amendments.

It sure will be interesting to see how all the Oathkeepers will act then.
 
Simulated full-auto isn't "indefensible" any more than owning a car that is capable of topping 160 MPH.

What's "indefensible" was allowing all the previous gun legislation that took away full-auto in the first place. The NRA backing the Hughes Amendment is what's indefensible. If not for that traitorous move, no one would have a need for these novelty Bump Stocks.

Personally, I think Bump Stocks are stupid, but you know what's even dumber? More gun laws - particularly the Hughes Amendment. It's firearm class warfare. It turned a right into a luxury. In 1985 you could buy a $600 Colt SP1, $20 worth of parts, buy a $200 stamp, and pay a smith $100 and you had yourself a legal (albeit registered) M16. Now that same gun you spent under $1,000 in 1985 on sells for a whopping $30,000. That's garbage. The NRA and their "compromising" legislated the working man out of FA ownership, and bump stocks were a childish - and LEGAL - way to try and get back that right that was turned into a LUXURY by our politicians and the NRA.
 
We do. If you expect me to jeopardize my gun rights by defending the indefensible for the benefit of a few yahoos who want to hide behind adult gun owners, you better come up with a darn good reason. So far, nobody has.

IMO people who sell others out are the ones jeopardizing your/our rights. It is how we got in this mess in the first place.

Turn on law abiding guns owners of a certain demographic, and I guarantee they turn on you. You don't need a semi auto, and I am perfectly happy with my revolvers. Heck, I sometimes carry cap, and ball they work, you don't need anything more than that.

I forgot method of carry, since I open carry I see no need for conceal carry to be legal.
 
Last edited:
Wut? Why would they need a 'legitimate use?' And who gets to decide what is legitimate?

Well, for the most part, our legislators get to decide what is or is not a legitimate use for almost any consumer product. We gun owners tend to forget that, since we, through the NRA, have gotten firearms exempted from most consumer product safety laws.

We gun owners also have the right to pass judgment on what is or is not a legitimate use for a given firearm. If somebody told you he was going out West to hunt elk with his 10/22, I doubt you'd simply wish him luck while supporting his right to use whatever he wants.

Among the legitimate uses for firearms that I'm aware of are: Self-defense; hunting; target shooting of all kinds; and the assertion of one's 2nd Amendment rights. I am unaware of how a bump stock aids or facilitates any of those purposes.

Finally --- and this needs to be repeated often --- a bump stock is not a firearm; it is an accessory. Unlike a magazine, which is integral to the operation of the firearm, the bump stock is an added-on device, and it isn't needed for proper functioning of any firearm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top