The car seems to be the new gun here in the UK. Some other nut job drives into people today outside history museum central london. Its just complete madness everywhere i fear for my childrens world
I understand no one was killed but the driver was detained. Do they know why he did that?
Natural History Museum crash: Man released by police
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile. Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done. Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective. Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be. I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse. But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile. Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done. Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective. Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be. I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse. But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
since Congress has made it effectively illegal to even study the issue by the CDC and the like , to not require certain reporting about shootings, found guns etc.
It shouldnt be that burdensome on federal agenicies , likeatf , to even track individual guns from point of sale onward.
unless a philanthropist is willing to front the money, I dont expect congress to act in the interest of the people within the constitution on this subject.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
This is an aspect that I was not aware of, not being a fan of country music (or the NRA). Apparently the NRA has a lifestyle "brand" involving country music, is a major sponsor of country artists, and encourages backlash/blackballing against those artists who are not pro-gun. A major country artist even received criticism for playing at a benefit for Sandy Hook victims and others pulled out of the benefit, if you can believe it.
This is an aspect that I was not aware of, not being a fan of country music (or the NRA). Apparently the NRA has a lifestyle "brand" involving country music, is a major sponsor of country artists, and encourages backlash/blackballing against those artists who are not pro-gun. A major country artist even received criticism for playing at a benefit for Sandy Hook victims and others pulled out of the benefit, if you can believe it.
As questions spiral about a significant shift in the timeline of the Las Vegas shooting, a security guard stands in the middle of the controversy: Jesus Campos.
At first, Campos, a guard at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, was hailed a hero for helping guide police to gunman Stephen Paddock's room on the 32nd floor. Police said Campos was shot in the leg at the end of Paddock's assault on concertgoers—potentially distracting the gunman and causing him to panic and kill himself.
But now, questions have been raised after Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo revised the timeline and said Campos had actually been shot about 9:59 p.m.—a full six minutes before the mass shooting began at 10:05 p.m.—which means the guard could have instead led Paddock to start opening fire on the crowd for fear of being caught.
Police have said it was difficult to identify the source of the bullets during the attack, and the confusion added more minutes to their lengthy response. But the revised timeline shows officers would have known where Paddock was before the mass shooting even started.
Did Campos call 911? What happened during those six minutes?
Much of Campos's story and background remains a mystery.
Campos's co-worker Liliana Rodriguez started a GoFundMe account for him on October 3, explaining that he'd been shot while on "random patrol" and it could have been "anyone of us."
"Funds will be used to provide relief and financial support for him while he gets back on his feet," Rodriguez's online petition says. "This is a young man that I work with day in and day out. Any financial support would be appreciated for the time he would need to recover."
A picture of Campos wasn't displayed as part of the fund because Rodriguez indicated that "due to privacy from the media we do not feel comfortable publishing a photo."
As questions spiral about a significant shift in the timeline of the Las Vegas shooting, a security guard stands in the middle of the controversy: Jesus Campos.
At first, Campos, a guard at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, was hailed a hero for helping guide police to gunman Stephen Paddock's room on the 32nd floor. Police said Campos was shot in the leg at the end of Paddock's assault on concertgoers—potentially distracting the gunman and causing him to panic and kill himself.
But now, questions have been raised after Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo revised the timeline and said Campos had actually been shot about 9:59 p.m.—a full six minutes before the mass shooting began at 10:05 p.m.—which means the guard could have instead led Paddock to start opening fire on the crowd for fear of being caught.
Police have said it was difficult to identify the source of the bullets during the attack, and the confusion added more minutes to their lengthy response. But the revised timeline shows officers would have known where Paddock was before the mass shooting even started.
Did Campos call 911? What happened during those six minutes?
Much of Campos's story and background remains a mystery.
Campos's co-worker Liliana Rodriguez started a GoFundMe account for him on October 3, explaining that he'd been shot while on "random patrol" and it could have been "anyone of us."
"Funds will be used to provide relief and financial support for him while he gets back on his feet," Rodriguez's online petition says. "This is a young man that I work with day in and day out. Any financial support would be appreciated for the time he would need to recover."
A picture of Campos wasn't displayed as part of the fund because Rodriguez indicated that "due to privacy from the media we do not feel comfortable publishing a photo."
Calls and text messages to Campos, Rodriguez and others who might know him were not immediately returned.
Uh oh Lucy, somebody’s got some splainin to do. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but if the police or any one else are lying to cover their asses, that is a problem. It puts the whole investigation at jeopardy if a simple accurate timeline cannot be derived.
As questions spiral about a significant shift in the timeline of the Las Vegas shooting, a security guard stands in the middle of the controversy: Jesus Campos.
At first, Campos, a guard at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, was hailed a hero for helping guide police to gunman Stephen Paddock's room on the 32nd floor. Police said Campos was shot in the leg at the end of Paddock's assault on concertgoers—potentially distracting the gunman and causing him to panic and kill himself.
But now, questions have been raised after Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo revised the timeline and said Campos had actually been shot about 9:59 p.m.—a full six minutes before the mass shooting began at 10:05 p.m.—which means the guard could have instead led Paddock to start opening fire on the crowd for fear of being caught.
Police have said it was difficult to identify the source of the bullets during the attack, and the confusion added more minutes to their lengthy response. But the revised timeline shows officers would have known where Paddock was before the mass shooting even started.
Did Campos call 911? What happened during those six minutes?
Much of Campos's story and background remains a mystery.
Campos's co-worker Liliana Rodriguez started a GoFundMe account for him on October 3, explaining that he'd been shot while on "random patrol" and it could have been "anyone of us."
"Funds will be used to provide relief and financial support for him while he gets back on his feet," Rodriguez's online petition says. "This is a young man that I work with day in and day out. Any financial support would be appreciated for the time he would need to recover."
A picture of Campos wasn't displayed as part of the fund because Rodriguez indicated that "due to privacy from the media we do not feel comfortable publishing a photo."
Calls and text messages to Campos, Rodriguez and others who might know him were not immediately returned.
Uh oh Lucy, somebody’s got some splainin to do. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but if the police or any one else are lying to cover their asses, that is a problem. It puts the whole investigation at jeopardy if a simple accurate timeline cannot be derived.
Yeah let s hope the time is wrong. I just read another article stating the hotel is disputing the time.
I dont think MB should be held responsible. They didn't do anything wrong that I've heard of. But that act might not cover it, are they considering this a terrorist act? I think the definition of terrorism includes a political gain or motive. Without any motive, he's just a nut job and not a terrorist. Unless the FBI or federal government amends the definition to apply to all mass killings/shootings.
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile. Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done. Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective. Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be. I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse. But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"
I dont think MB should be held responsible. They didn't do anything wrong that I've heard of. But that act might not cover it, are they considering this a terrorist act? I think the definition of terrorism includes a political gain or motive. Without any motive, he's just a nut job and not a terrorist. Unless the FBI or federal government amends the definition to apply to all mass killings/shootings.
For TRIA coverage, they just need it certified:
any act certified by the Secretary of the Treasury, in concurrence with the Secretary of State and Attorney General, to be an act that is dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure and to have resulted in damage within the U.S.
I'm sure the CEO of MGM has already made all the appropriate phone calls and donations to get that moving.
I dont think MB should be held responsible. They didn't do anything wrong that I've heard of. But that act might not cover it, are they considering this a terrorist act? I think the definition of terrorism includes a political gain or motive. Without any motive, he's just a nut job and not a terrorist. Unless the FBI or federal government amends the definition to apply to all mass killings/shootings.
For TRIA coverage, they just need it certified:
any act certified by the Secretary of the Treasury, in concurrence with the Secretary of State and Attorney General, to be an act that is dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure and to have resulted in damage within the U.S.
I'm sure the CEO of MGM has already made all the appropriate phone calls and donations to get that moving.
The CEO didn't have to . Adelson was on the phone to the WH, McConnell and Ryan before the cops responded.
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile. Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done. Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective. Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be. I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse. But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind. several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations. lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times. i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile. Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done. Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective. Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be. I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse. But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind. several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations. lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times. i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
Except that's not what you said. Do you have a link to Feinstein and Pelosi's official statements on gun control and your claim that they want to ban them? I ask because the misrepresentation of facts and positions by those in favor of sensible gun control legislation is rampant, common and a tactic of the nutters. Please back your claims in the previous post with legitimate links to Feinstein, Pelosi's or all the "other" anti gunners. Google is your friend and if as common as you claim, it should be easy enough to link to.
Define "everyday people." Does that include law abiding? Felons? Inner city or country folk? Mentally ill? Everyday people? Like Paddock? Harris and Klebold? Cho? Salvi? Lanza?
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile. Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done. Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective. Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be. I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse. But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind. several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations. lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times. i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
Except that's not what you said. Do you have a link to Feinstein and Pelosi's official statements on gun control and your claim that they want to ban them? I ask because the misrepresentation of facts and positions by those in favor of sensible gun control legislation is rampant, common and a tactic of the nutters. Please back your claims in the previous post with legitimate links to Feinstein, Pelosi's or all the "other" anti gunners. Google is your friend and if as common as you claim, it should be easy enough to link to.
Upon seeing her Clinton gun ban enacted in 1994, she said: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile. Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done. Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective. Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be. I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse. But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind. several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations. lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times. i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
Except that's not what you said. Do you have a link to Feinstein and Pelosi's official statements on gun control and your claim that they want to ban them? I ask because the misrepresentation of facts and positions by those in favor of sensible gun control legislation is rampant, common and a tactic of the nutters. Please back your claims in the previous post with legitimate links to Feinstein, Pelosi's or all the "other" anti gunners. Google is your friend and if as common as you claim, it should be easy enough to link to.
Upon seeing her Clinton gun ban enacted in 1994, she said: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
Fienstein chooses her words more carefully now.
assuming that was related to assault weapons listed under that finite ban.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile. Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done. Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective. Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be. I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse. But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind. several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations. lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times. i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
Except that's not what you said. Do you have a link to Feinstein and Pelosi's official statements on gun control and your claim that they want to ban them? I ask because the misrepresentation of facts and positions by those in favor of sensible gun control legislation is rampant, common and a tactic of the nutters. Please back your claims in the previous post with legitimate links to Feinstein, Pelosi's or all the "other" anti gunners. Google is your friend and if as common as you claim, it should be easy enough to link to.
Upon seeing her Clinton gun ban enacted in 1994, she said: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
Fienstein chooses her words more carefully now.
So we have one US senator out of 100 and a quote from 1994 as evidence of "many?" Okay then, I'll try to avoid that wave of UN troops coming to take everyone's guns.
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile. Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done. Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective. Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be. I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse. But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind. several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations. lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times. i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
news flash:
When 2A was written, everyday people didn't have unfettered access to guns. It was a luxury item, and still is today. The only way for many people to acquire a gun was to join the state militia (it was well-regulated).
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile. Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done. Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective. Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be. I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse. But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind. several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations. lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times. i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
news flash:
When 2A was written, everyday people didn't have unfettered access to guns. It was a luxury item, and still is today. The only way for many people to acquire a gun was to join the state militia (it was well-regulated).
Aren’t there states out there that consider all of its residents as members of their “well-regulated militia”? Well regulated being that they are bound by the state’s laws and regulations? I think that if the wording were ever changed to only allow state militia personnel to own firearms, many other states would take this approach as well...and I would support their ability to do this.
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile. Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done. Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective. Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be. I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse. But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind. several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations. lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times. i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
news flash:
When 2A was written, everyday people didn't have unfettered access to guns. It was a luxury item, and still is today. The only way for many people to acquire a gun was to join the state militia (it was well-regulated).
Aren’t there states out there that consider all of its residents as members of their “well-regulated militia”? Well regulated being that they are bound by the state’s laws and regulations? I think that if the wording were ever changed to only allow state militia personnel to own firearms, many other states would take this approach as well...and I would support their ability to do this.
"I support a well-regulated militia, as long as everyone is part of the militia and there are no regulations"
Comments
Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective.
Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be.
I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws.
To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse.
But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
It shouldnt be that burdensome on federal agenicies , likeatf , to even track individual guns from point of sale onward.
unless a philanthropist is willing to front the money, I dont expect congress to act in the interest of the people within the constitution on this subject.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
http://vancouversun.com/pmn/entertainment-pmn/many-in-country-music-mum-over-gun-issues-after-vegas-deaths/wcm/eddc6f48-4d4f-4a13-a141-e7cf1399b005
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jesus-campos-las-vegas-security-223728950.html
As questions spiral about a significant shift in the timeline of the Las Vegas shooting, a security guard stands in the middle of the controversy: Jesus Campos.
At first, Campos, a guard at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, was hailed a hero for helping guide police to gunman Stephen Paddock's room on the 32nd floor. Police said Campos was shot in the leg at the end of Paddock's assault on concertgoers—potentially distracting the gunman and causing him to panic and kill himself.
But now, questions have been raised after Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo revised the timeline and said Campos had actually been shot about 9:59 p.m.—a full six minutes before the mass shooting began at 10:05 p.m.—which means the guard could have instead led Paddock to start opening fire on the crowd for fear of being caught.
Police have said it was difficult to identify the source of the bullets during the attack, and the confusion added more minutes to their lengthy response. But the revised timeline shows officers would have known where Paddock was before the mass shooting even started.
Did Campos call 911? What happened during those six minutes?
Much of Campos's story and background remains a mystery.
Campos's co-worker Liliana Rodriguez started a GoFundMe account for him on October 3, explaining that he'd been shot while on "random patrol" and it could have been "anyone of us."
"Funds will be used to provide relief and financial support for him while he gets back on his feet," Rodriguez's online petition says. "This is a young man that I work with day in and day out. Any financial support would be appreciated for the time he would need to recover."
A picture of Campos wasn't displayed as part of the fund because Rodriguez indicated that "due to privacy from the media we do not feel comfortable publishing a photo."
During a brief phone conversation with ABC News, Campos said, "I'm fine...I was just doing my job."
Calls and text messages to Campos, Rodriguez and others who might know him were not immediately returned.
But that act might not cover it, are they considering this a terrorist act?
I think the definition of terrorism includes a political gain or motive. Without any motive, he's just a nut job and not a terrorist. Unless the FBI or federal government amends the definition to apply to all mass killings/shootings.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
For TRIA coverage, they just need it certified:
any act certified by the Secretary of the Treasury, in concurrence with the Secretary of State and Attorney General, to be an act that is dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure and to have resulted in damage within the U.S.
I'm sure the CEO of MGM has already made all the appropriate phone calls and donations to get that moving.
Prepare your anus, Mandalay.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/mandalay-bay-las-vegas-shooting-liability-2017-10
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://abcnews.go.com/US/vegas-shooting-survivor-sues-hotel-festival-organizer-bump/story?id=50418365&yptr=yahoo
several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations.
lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times.
i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Fienstein chooses her words more carefully now.
assuming that was related to assault weapons listed under that finite ban.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
When 2A was written, everyday people didn't have unfettered access to guns. It was a luxury item, and still is today. The only way for many people to acquire a gun was to join the state militia (it was well-regulated).