- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 120,954
- Reaction score
- 28,531
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
And I have little doubt that a visit to his shop and home would resolve any questions.
Could we same the same about the Vegas killer?
WOW, if that is the case, then they had better be watching Rick Harrison very closely.
He has a lot of guns and he also lives in Vegas.
:lol:
the ones protected are the ones commonly used by the military according to SCOTUS.
And I have little doubt that a visit to his shop and home would resolve any questions.
Could we same the same about the Vegas killer?
And is SCOTUS infallible and always correct?
I don't know, can we?
Does anybody know?
I don't know, can we?
Does anybody know?
Only when they decide in favor of leftist loonery.
https://www.galatiinternational.com/bmf-trigger-activator-1022-22-rifle-rapid-fire-crank.html
I was watching one of the talking heads on TV and caught something interesting when they were talking about the kind of gun used in the shooting in Las Vegas. Apparently you can make a semiautomatic shoot as fast as an automatic in several ways. the most interesting requires the use of a tripod. You attach the weapon to the tripod and add a crank to the weapons trigger. It looks like a crank handle attached to the trigger guard that has a wheel with several knobs on it. It looked like there were four of those. Every time you cranked the wheel the knobs would push the trigger firing the gun up to four times every time you cranked the wheel. The gun would fire as fast as most automatics. The reason I mention this is a also heard that the shooter had two guns set up on tripods. It is interesting how gun makers and those who make attachments for weapons are only interested in sales. The use of this crank makes the weapon useless for hunting or for self protection, so the only reason is for killing people on a mass scale.
I don't see any "progressives" lobbying for less stringent DUI laws.
So that is a NO - the Court is not infallible and is sometimes not correct.
Not what I said. I said you and your ilk believe they are infallible when they decide in favor of the stupid **** you promote.
It appears that the Vegas killer had many guns because he used many guns in that attack. While he can only use one at a time that second, he did use many over t he hour he was firing.
Also, we seem to be asking about warning signs that a person is unstable and might do something like this. I would submit that owning over forty such weapons is a warning sign.
I wonder why a review of the national gun registration records did not trigger a visit to him when we saw he had so many and the type he owned?
OH WAIT!!!!! :doh We don't have any such thing. :shock: Never mind. :roll:
Rapid fire legal weapons of one sort or the other have been around for years. The Gatling is a crank operated tripod mounted fast fire weapon. This is the first real incident of one being used in a mass murder.
If this shooter used bump stocks or triggers or crank fired weapons, or legally obtained automatics he has carefully planned for months. I don't know how you can stop those dedicated to killing a bunch of people. More laws won't do it. Murder is the highest punished and most prohibited crime, and 100% of mass murders involve murder.
I know several people who own over 40 firearms and not one single one has ever shot anyone. There are a lot of deer, elk, moose, ducks, quail, chuckar, geese, etc. that have died, but not one single person has ever been shot by these folks. They are stable family men and women, with good jobs and are a positive influence in the community.
I'll take a crack at it.... More progressives drink than shoot guns. Therefore they have the same "aww, shucks" attitude about drinking related deaths as gun rights advocates have about gun related deaths. Me, I'm a fan of both drinking and guns, and I think that we should try our hardest to get a handle on the deaths that take place as a result of both of my fun activities, before both of them get taken away...or more needless deaths happen. You can still enjoy your rights while being responsible about them, as is demonstrated by the majority of gun owners and drinkers.
The question is even if you could somehow ban guns, would he have done something else? Use a truck or a bomb or poison or some other means. Maybe kill people one at a time using mailbombs or anthrax?
Not together I hope... :shock:
:mrgreen:
God directed Noah to kill all the people on earth except his immediate family and a couple other animals. The largest mass murder in history. Noah did as told. Probably not the best role models.
And is SCOTUS infallible and always correct?
Just shows you how much atheists know about the Bible. Noah didn't kill everyone on earth but his family. Learn something today if you can.
I am sure that is true. So what? What should be the warning sign of too many guns? A hundred? Five hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand?
If there is roughly one gun for every American that means a person with 42 guns (and that is all we know today) has 42 times the average number. Should that not trigger at least an inquiry?
We should just get rid of it.
Noah didn't kill anyone... :roll:
Your premise is faulty. Owning more guns than you think a person should own is not a warning sign.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?