Las Vegas Terror Attack

[Kung Wu]

Sheesh... if you're an FBI profiler charged with rooting out guys like this before they blow up, you just have to throw up your hands, call it a day, and go have a beer somewhere.

Dude was early retired, had a $400K home on a golf course, a private pilots license and two planes, and college-educated with F500 type corporate gigs. How do you even... ?

Right. Sheesh. There HAS to be some underlying motive doesn't there? His father's history isn't enough to make you go "hmm".

[rrshock]

Right. Sheesh. There HAS to be some underlying motive doesn't there? His father's history isn't enough to make you go "hmm".

Exactly.

Now we get to hear the left ranting and raving about how guns kill people. Never mind the fact there is always a trigger man.

This was a horrible thing. Who knows if it could have been stopped. There will be a whole lot of opinions and rumors and whatever else you can think ofs. Its a bad, bad deal.

[1972Shocker]

A very sad day. There really are no words.

[Play Angry]

The miserable s.o.b. deserves 100% of the blame for this atrocity, zero doubt about it. I am sure he is beginning an eternity of warm and sulfurous contemplation of his misdeeds as we speak, and his actions will sadly go down in recent history as one of the more notable evils we have witnessed.

That said, I'd happily offer my support for a narrowly tailored proposal that would eliminate civilian access to rifles which can fire at that rate. What he used certainly seems to be an automatic weapon from a functional (if not technical) perspective and allows for indiscriminate killing on such a devastating scale.

The odds that a narrowly-tailored proposal (which doesn't loop in a billion other issues which would almost certainly engender my opposition) survives its infancy is of course next to zero in our current political climate, but I really can't envision a winning argument in support of such a weapon.

Obviously, such a restriction would not entirely prevent most tragedies like this, but the damage here likely would have been significantly mitigated.

58 deaths and still expected to rise with 500+ injured. Goodness what terrible numbers.

[SHOCKvalue]

Could've set your clocks this morning to the likelihood of comments and thoughts like this coming out of the shadows today:

http://www.kansas.com/latest-news/article176605571.html

No doubt a self-described open-minded and tolerant individual.

[Play Angry]

Could've set your clocks this morning to the likelihood of comments and thoughts like this coming out of the shadows today:

http://www.kansas.com/latest-news/article176605571.html

No doubt a self-described open-minded and tolerant individual.

Good for CBS for firing her immediately.

[shockfan89_]

That said, I'd happily offer my support for a narrowly tailored proposal that would eliminate civilian access to rifles which can fire at that rate. What he used certainly seems to be an automatic weapon from a functional (if not technical) perspective and allows for indiscriminate killing on such a devastating scale.

The odds that a narrowly-tailored proposal (which doesn't loop in a billion other issues which would almost certainly engender my opposition) survives its infancy is of course next to zero in our current political climate, but I really can't envision a winning argument in support of such a weapon.

Obviously, such a restriction would not entirely prevent most tragedies like this, but the damage here likely would have been significantly mitigated.

I struggle with this after each incident. I don't disagree emotionally, especially after such a huge loss of life, but how do you reconcile that with the 2nd amendment which states "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

[Play Angry]

I struggle with this after each incident. I don't disagree emotionally, especially after such a huge loss of life, but how do you reconcile that with the 2nd amendment which states "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

I can't tell if you're being disingenuous here.

There are already many, many limitations on the right to bear arms. I think 99.99+% of even the most fervent NRA members (myself included) do not believe in unfettered access to, say, machine guns or bazookas.

The rifle we hear in those audio clips sounds an awful lot like an automatic rifle to me. If there are versions on the market which are legal by exploiting a technicality within the definition but functionally operate the same in most material respects as an automatic rifle, then I would support closing the loopholes those models/modifications exploit.

I thought I had headed off this type of response with the narrowly-tailored qualifier but I see that I failed.

[WuDrWu]

How do you do that? I was up a lot of the night following this....I even tried to put myself in his shoes. Maybe I gambled away all my money and ruined my life. How do you pull the trigger? And when you do, and you see what you've done, how do you keep doing it? The mere thought repulses me to point of vomiting. How can you be that sick? None of those folks ever did anything to him. How do you shoot at a child? How does Sandy Hooks even happen? Maybe I'm not meant to understand.....I've tried. It's so beyond sickening. Disgusting, vile, evil, hateful. Unnatural.

[WuDrWu]

Could've set your clocks this morning to the likelihood of comments and thoughts like this coming out of the shadows today:

http://www.kansas.com/latest-news/article176605571.html

No doubt a self-described open-minded and tolerant individual.

Again, how do you think like that? This is a college educated individual, albeit at Columbia, but still, college educated and that's your response?

[Play Angry]

Again, how do you think like that? This is a college educated individual, albeit at Columbia, but still, college educated and that's your response?

The lack of empathy in response to so many of these events is mindblowing. One of my friends recently remarked that Venezuelans "had this coming" (in the sense that this was deserved) because of Hugo Chavez. Nevermind that his supporters certainly don't deserve to starve to death because of their vote, what about the 40+% of their citizenry who have resisted his regime and the current one all along?

These are frustrating times.

[shockfan89_]

I can't tell if you're being disingenuous here.

There are already many, many limitations on the right to bear arms. I think 99.99+% of even the most fervent NRA members (myself included) do not believe in unfettered access to, say, machine guns or bazookas.

The rifle we hear in those audio clips sounds an awful lot like an automatic rifle to me. If there are versions on the market which are legal by exploiting a technicality within the definition but functionally operate the same in most material respects as an automatic rifle, then I would support closing the loopholes those models/modifications exploit.

I thought I had headed off this type of response with the narrowly-tailored qualifier but I see that I failed.

Unfortunately I was being serious. I agree, there are already many, many limitations and I feel all of those are unconstitutional. I understand that 99.9% of even NRA members do not believe in unfettered access to machine guns or bazookas, but isn't that exactly what the constitution allows for?

I am not opposed to closing loopholes but I think you have to be VERY careful because almost any law would likely be considered infringing on a persons right to keep and bear arms.

You didn't fail at all. It is an issue I struggle with because I think the 2nd amendment is crystal clear, but I also understand the desire to limit automatic weapons.

[pinstripers]

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/10/02/top-cbs-lawyer-no-sympathy-for-vegas-vics-probably-republicans.html

I wish I was surprised

[ShockCrazy]

Unfortunately I was being serious. I agree, there are already many, many limitations and I feel all of those are unconstitutional. I understand that 99.9% of even NRA members do not believe in unfettered access to machine guns or bazookas, but isn't that exactly what the constitution allows for?

I am not opposed to closing loopholes but I think you have to be VERY careful because almost any law would likely be considered infringing on a persons right to keep and bear arms.

You didn't fail at all. It is an issue I struggle with because I think the 2nd amendment is crystal clear, but I also understand the desire to limit automatic weapons.

The thing is I don't think the 2nd amendment is as crystal clear as people want to make it seem. Given that EVERYTIME it is cited the first half is entirely ignored. You know the bit about a well regulated militia. Every other amendment in the bill of rights stands on it's own, no ambiguity, no qualifiers, yet there in the 2nd amendment is a qualifier. Interesting don't you think? No I'm not for the banning of weapons, but I think acting like the 2nd amendment protects the rights to all weapons for all people is not the writers' vision. Else why isn't the 2nd amendment solely "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

[wufan]

The thing is I don't think the 2nd amendment is as crystal clear as people want to make it seem. Given that EVERYTIME it is cited the first half is entirely ignored. You know the bit about a well regulated militia. Every other amendment in the bill of rights stands on it's own, no ambiguity, no qualifiers, yet there in the 2nd amendment is a qualifier. Interesting don't you think? No I'm not for the banning of weapons, but I think acting like the 2nd amendment protects the rights to all weapons for all people is not the writers' vision. Else why isn't the 2nd amendment solely "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."?

I think the states should have a well regulated militia that answers to the federal gov. I think that's the best way to stand up to a tyrannical government should the need ever arise.