Friday, October 6, 2017

So why is it...

That liberals are willing to take away rights of millions of American citizens who are responsible rifle owners, because a few use them irresponsibly to kill someone (less than four hundred rifle murders a year).... but are willing to look the other way as more than a thousand people a year are murdered by illegal immigrants?

On average, the percentage of legal American citizens who legally apply for and legally own some sort of rifle and then go on to murder someone is fractions of a percentage. Meanwhile, the percentage of illegal immigrants (who by nature have already broken the law) who go on to murder someone is actually higher. Approximately between two and three times as many people are murdered by illegal immigrants than are murdered by someone with a rifle.

I will tell you why

I think the reality is that people will always find an acceptable degree of collateral damage when it fits their personal priorities and personal politics.... but seem intolerant of any negative consequences to things that don't matter to them.

If you have desire for a gun for whatever reasons... the fact that a statistical blip of people are irresponsible with their guns will not convince you that you should give up your guns. Just as millions of car owners are not willing to give up their cars just because some people are irresponsible with their vehicles and people get hurt.  Likewise, if you are a political advocate for amnesty and opening up our southern borders, you are equally immune to the fact that over a thousand Americans a year are murdered by someone who is living here illegally.

But if you don't own a gun, don't care to own a rifle, and otherwise don't think they are necessary... then of course you only see the negative consequences. All murders committed with a rifle are senseless. Likewise, if you are not personally an illegal immigrant, do not have any personal ties to illegal immigration, and otherwise don't see any real benefit to illegal immigration... then the fact that a thousand people are killed every year by illegals will seem equally senseless.

So here is the question

Who gets to decide which freedoms outweigh the costs and which do not? Should there be some reasonable compromise that everyone sort of agrees upon (which has seemed to be our historical basis) or do we just follow the crowd in terms of which specific issues are worthy of cost and which are not... basically looking at majority rule and coloring everything black and white?

112 comments:

James said...

Answer to your question. The American people should get to decide and not the propagandistic powerful gun lobby that is only interested in protecting the right of the gun industry to make unrestricted profits through the sale of weapons.

C.H. Truth said...

James...

You didn't tell me why it's acceptable to you that over a thousand people a year are killed by illegal immigrants?

But unacceptable for you that less than four hundred are killed by people sporting rifles?


Isn't that the more important question?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The NRA agrees with the evil liberals. What the hell is the matter with you?

caliphate4vr said...

not the propagandistic powerful gun lobby that is only interested in protecting the right of the gun industry to make unrestricted profits through the sale of weapons.

Cold,

Do you really expect someone that wrote that pablum to give you a thoughtful answer?

C.H. Truth said...

The NRA agrees with the evil liberals

The NRA believes we should ban all rifles?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

No one wants to take away the right to possess a rifle. What the hell is matter with you ?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Besides, the much more important issue is the fact that the President of The United States is insane.

WASHINGTON — John Kelly, the White House chief of staff, abruptly scrapped plans to travel with President Donald Trump on Wednesday so he could try to contain his boss’s fury and manage the fallout from new revelations about tensions between the president and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, according to six senior administration officials.

Kelly summoned Tillerson, and their ally Defense Secretary James Mattis, to the White House, where the three of them huddled to discuss a path forward, according to three administration officials. The White House downplayed Kelly's decision to stay in Washington, saying he did so to manage day-to-day operations.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

If one or two people want to take away the right to possess a rifle, they sees do NOT represent all "evil " liberals.

What the hell is the matter with you?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Outside of your opinion, provide a link to a site where the primary sponsor of a law to ban the possession of a rifle.

What the hell is the matter with you?

C.H. Truth said...

No one wants to take away the right to possess a rifle.

Really?

We already have over three hundred different federal laws banning this, that, or the other thing. Do you honestly believe that going with the "issue of the day" by trying to regulate something called "bump stock" (a phrase I guarantee 99% of liberals have never used before this week) is actually going to solve anything?

The main question here Roger...

Is why the thousand of Americans who are murdered each year by illegal immigrants not worthy of your concern?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Bump stocks are dangerous. There is no credible limitation on anything beyond those devices. And in no fucking way is that an assault on the second amendment rights.

What the hell is the matter with you?

James said...

Even the NRA is at last seeing that it has gone too far in defending what cannot be defended. If future legislation can make it more difficult for a deranged killer LEGALLY to have access to weapons that can achieve such mayhem, we can be glad.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger -

This is what is generally called a philosophical question... not a specific question.

To the degree that people (like yourself) demand that we continue to create more and more laws to regulate something (rifles) which statistically do very little damage in our society....

But are willing to do whatever it is in their power to make sure that there are "less" laws and "less" regulation in other areas of our society that actually causes more damage to our society?


You do understand the basic concept of a high level philosophical argument? Or are you really not bright enough?

C.H. Truth said...

Bump stocks are dangerous. There is no credible limitation on anything beyond those devices.

So ban them, if it makes you feel better.


But the MS-13 gang problem is tangibly much more dangerous...

So what are you proposing we do to secure our borders to make sure more MS-13 gang members are not smuggled across?

James said...

CHFALSETRUTH: We already have over three hundred different federal laws banning this, that, or the other thing.

JAMES: Yes, and one of those things is any fully automatic rifle. So what do the producers of weapons do? Find a cynical, profitable way to get around this.

It is nothing short of insane to continue defending this.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I'm going to keep repeating this.

What the hell is the matter with you?

Your utterly increasingly hypocritical assaults on liberals are not rational.

Comparing deaths by automobiles and the use of hand guns to commit murder to what happened in Las Vegas is to put it simply is nuts.

James said...

Since fully automatic weapons were made illegal there have been very few killings traced to fully automatic weapons ("machine guns"), for one simple reason:

If a criminal is found to possess one, even in his/her private home or in the trunk of his/her automobile, that person will get SERIOUS prison time.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

We banned the possession of fully automatic weapons in 1986. By your "logic " we should repeal the law, because Mexican gangs commit murder.

Let's go back to the wild west, and have almost every one carry a side arm.

What the hell is the matter with you?

James said...

CH-UNTRUTH LOGIC:

Because lots of people get killed in automobiles, let's do away with speed limits.

James said...

"An armed Society is a polite Society".


The left only attacks and protest the USA.

In part because they know they are safe to do so thanks the US Miliarty and US Police Officers, support BLUELIVESMATTER.

C.H. Truth said...

Comparing deaths by automobiles and the use of hand guns to commit murder to what happened in Las Vegas is to put it simply is nuts.

Actually... no Roger...

- The guy who shot those people was nuts.
- Your over the top, emotional reaction is nuts.
- Believing that a law regarding bump stocks is actually going to make a tangible difference in our country's level of violence is nuts.


but hey.... keep acting irrational and avoiding my questions. It such a positive reinforcement of how impulsive people with no self control behave.

James said...

Today I advocate for the confiscation of Rifles, but only the ones I deem unnecessary, the rest are ok, check with me on which ones I think are necessary. However, when in doubt just show up at Planned Parent Hood with your weapon and they will take it and dispose/sell it with the baby parts.. You know to make unrestricted profits.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger -

Have I suggested we should "repeal" any laws?


I am pointing out the obvious...


That you only care about certain "types" of violence... and don't give a rat's ass about other types.


You will push laws that will do little (or nothing) to prevent further violence... while demanding we add "no new laws" that could tangibly curb other types of violence.

Explain why you don't advocate the same sorts of reactive laws across the board?

Helpful James said...

Roger, a correction of your statement is in order.

"We banned the possession of fully automatic weapons in 1986."

Not exactly, ownership is still legal. It is just restricted not banned.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

- Your over the top, emotional reaction is nuts.
- Believing that a law regarding bump stocks is actually going to make a tangible difference in our country's level of violence is nuts.

I repeat this because your emotional support to continue the rights to possess a bump booster is irrational and emotionally charged, and beyond logic.

- Your over the top, emotional reaction is nuts.
- Believing that a law regarding bump stocks is actually going to make a tangible difference in our country's level of violence is nuts.
--------

The rights of the people to make that decision through the actions of the congress within the limits of the Constitution as determined by the courts is how it works.

What the hell is the matter with you?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

James is correct and I knew that, but I failed to clarify that.

I am simply shocked by the irrational post by our esteemed host.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The proposed law restrictions on the possession of the bump booster is a rational response to the mass murder in Las Vegas.

The rights of the people of the United States and for what it stands for, within the limits of the Constitution as determined by the courts can make that decision. You may oppressively oppose it, but it is the rights to the people of the United States.

I personally find your comments are irrational and emotionally charged, not mine.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

"Believing that a law regarding bump stocks is actually going to make a tangible difference in our country's level of violence is nuts."


If the proposed changes in response to the mass murder in Las Vegas stop even one murder, it's worth it. Besides the fact that other insane potential mass murderers may play "follow the leader " and commit another mass murder. Why in hell are you opposed to the minor changes in the law, that may save who knows how many mass murder.

Your accusations of irrational thought are applied to the you.

C.H. Truth said...

The proposed law restrictions on the possession of the bump booster is a rational response to the mass murder in Las Vegas.

Let's assume that it is, Roger...

I have not argued with you regarding the current laws in place or whether or not we should create another new law as a very specific "reaction" to this particular event.

I don't believe it will tangibly do much other than make people feel better, but I have no issue with them passing.


It's a simple question THAT YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER


Why are you not equally concerned with other types of violence and why are you opposed to laws and regulations that would very likely make am more substantial and tangible difference?

that is the question Roger...


Stop your excessive straw man.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...


Why are you not equally concerned with other types of violence and why are you opposed to laws and regulations that would very likely make am more substantial and tangible difference?

that is the question Roger...


Stop your excessive straw man.

-----

First, you are the strawberry so to speak.

I'm not opposed to other laws, within of the Constitution as determined by the courts. But the DACA dreamers should not be deported.

What type of laws that you claim will reduce gun violence in the United States? We already have laws against the immigration of dangerous individuals. And the possession of machine guns is highly restricted. Buck booster should be banned, And that possession should be a class one felony.

I've been having mixed feelings about the President and his ban on the blanket ban of people from the list of Muslim nations. But unfortunately the President is again acting emotionally, and is using the restrictions to satisfy his base and of course, you. We could use extreme vetting without a total ban.


Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I have to take care of my medications and etc. LOL

My morning dosage is. Interesting.

I take about 30 pills a day. Most are dietary supplements, but more importantly is that the anti-rejection are quite important.

BTW news some hate, all of my doctors, yes, several of them are very happy with my progress. The nurse who checked me in yesterday, actually flirted with me. I'm not imagining it. But it's fun!

caliphate4vr said...

It's pity not flirting

C.H. Truth said...

I'm not opposed to other laws, within of the Constitution as determined by the courts. But the DACA dreamers should not be deported.

But you are opposed to additional border security, including any sort of physical wall... Laws that would reduce the illegal immigration of gang members, illegal drug traffic, as well as the smuggling of illegal weapons (like assault rifles).

You are actually against preventing immigration from countries that refuse to provide Homeland Security with the necessary information REQUIRED to actually vet them...


Why?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

BTW, the Trump economy lost 33,000 jobs last month. That's the first month without an increase in the the last approximately 90 months Trump rules!

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

But you are opposed to additional border security, including any sort of physical wall... Laws that would reduce the illegal immigration of gang members, illegal drug traffic, as well as the smuggling of illegal weapons (like assault rifles).

You are actually against preventing immigration from countries that refuse to provide Homeland Security with the necessary information REQUIRED to actually vet them...

Your utterly incorrect

Anonymous said...

Roger, you are funny, job increases belong to Obama, job losses belong to 45.

Could you be any more of an Economic child.

Anonymous said...

Any one seen Jane?
My Lawyer needs the name, address, phone number of jane's attorney and the court of record he is suing me in.

C.H. Truth said...

Your utterly incorrect

Am I?

So you are on the GOP/Trump side on these issues?

You believe in shutting down the borders with increased security including a physical wall...

and banning refugees and immigrants from dangerous countries we cannot vet ?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The Wall was a talking point, He said that in his letter to the President of Mexico.

We need the required information, and if it's not available, no entry.

The blanket comments on murder and drugs was a racist talking point, to get the supporters of race based highly restricted immigration. It worked perfectly on the fat ass liar on the legacy blog.

The real James said...

I, James, did not write the following posts above.

9:37 (incorrect grammar, for one thing)

9:42 (misrepresents me)

9:46 (not me, although it is correct, except for one thing: Legal ownership of an automatic weapon is VERY, VERY restricted and limited)
____________________

Those were all written by "Cowardly Obama" aka "James's F...ing Daddy" whose self respect is entirely that low.

James said...

Ch is losing on this one.

The real KD said...

The real KD has never said anything bad about the real James. But the fake KD has said bad things about the fake James. That is why we both have fake lawyers because we are threatening fake lawsuits.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

BTW I'm not a man who doesn't hide his emotions. I just saw a speaker at the funeral service for the Las Vegas PD officer who was killed while trying to save the lives of others. #tears

Charlie Cook said...

Tax Reform Is a GOP Fantasy

Charlie Cook: “So why are proponents so upbeat? My theory is that advocates see failure as unfathomable. On Wall Street and in corporate headquarters around the country, proponents have talked themselves (or their clients) into believing that tax reform is possible even though Congress has not passed a significant piece of legislation this year.

“The truth is that reforming, streamlining, or simplifying the tax code is incredibly difficult under the best of circumstances, and circumstances today are worse than usual. Even passing a big tax cut, which sounds easy (who turns down free candy?), is problematic because it either drives up the deficit or shifts the tax burden to other payers.”

WHO KNEW TAX REFORM COULD BE SO COMPLICATED LOL

The real James said...

CH is winning. CH will continue to win as longs as the fake James refuses to justify his support of Islamic terror and Mexican gangs.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

It's been an interesting discussion.

James said...

Now Cowardly is even using blue "The Real James" nomenclature. LOL

The real attorney for KD said...

I wonder how anyone can ever tell if it's the real KD or the fake KD who is insulting James. It could be fake James signing in as real KD to insult real James. Or real James signing in as fake KD to insult fake James. Or fake KD signing is as real James and then insulting fake James as if he were real KD.

The real KD said...

I'm so frightened I'm consulting an attorney.

Unknown said...

...

James said...

I agree with The House Minority Leader. I hope this is the beginning of the slippery slope on gun control.

JAMES'S FUCKING DADDY said...


I see asshole "pastor" james boswell has now completely lost it.

Yeah I am cowardly king obama but that is all you are correct on. All the rest is false conjecture and flat out fucking lies. As everyone on this board is, we are tired of your continuous spamming and cut-n-pasting from political_lire. I guess if that is what your life consists of it is certainly not worth much.

GO FUCK YOURSELF ASSHOLE !!!

ROFLMFAO !!!

Anonymous said...

Blogger C.H. Truth said...
James...

You didn't tell me why it's acceptable to you that over a thousand people a year are killed by illegal immigrants?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

the answer is very simple -

to the left those murderers are not illegal immigrants. they're undocumented democrats.

and the thousand + they kill is an acceptable level of collateral damage in pursuit of a permanent democrat majority via the millions of illegals who will vote democrat.



Anonymous said...

The NFL and Players announced those that are slaves, those that earn meager wages and other so call social injustices , the protest of the police, the US Flag and the Athem.

ALL Stood last nite. Putting thier own paychecks above Liberal Principles.

Anonymous said...

Looking at the post made by "james" it is unclear how many "James" there are, three monikers claim they are James, rendering that moniker useless.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
No one wants to take away the right to possess a rifle. What the hell is matter with you ?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Hillary Clinton says a gun buyback program similar to the one Australia implemented in 1996 is “worth considering” in the United States.

“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall on Friday.

The Australia gun control law, the 1996 National Firearms Buyback Scheme, was legislated after the Port Arthur massacre of the same year, in which a lone gunman killed 35 people.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/257172-hillary-australia-style-gun-control-worth-looking-at



no one with any respect for the 2nd amendment thinks australia's gun control program is "worth looking at."

Anonymous said...

It worked perfectly on the fat ass liar on the legacy blog.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


bingo tonight, alky?


Charlie Sheen said...

Ch is losing on this one.


Yeah, me and Roger are winning together.

Anonymous said...

The nurse who checked me in yesterday, actually flirted with me.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


taking pity on an old drunk who looks like achmed the dead terrorist is not flirting.

like cali said - it's pity.

Anonymous said...




roger won't understand this...


"The idea that gun control advocates don't want to confiscate your weapons is, of course, laughable. They can't confiscate your weapons, so they support whatever feasible incremental steps inch further toward that goal. ... It seems odd that someone would let murderers and madmen decide what inalienable rights we should embrace. It is almost humorous to hear someone advising you not to worry about domestic tyranny as he explains why the state should eradicate a constitutional right and confiscate your means of self-defense."

—David Harsanyi

Commonsense said...

For those liberals who think you don't need guns for self-defense.

In an urban environment it could take police anywhere from 10 to 15 minutes to respond to a call for help.

In a rural environment it could take upwards to an hour.

Commonsense said...

The nurse who checked me in yesterday, actually flirted with me.

Does anyone doubt this is the post of a pathetic attention-starved narcissist?

Anonymous said...




when seconds count the police are only minutes away.



Unknown said...

goodness such terrible language cowardly has to use.
inferiority complex run rampant?

Unknown said...

jay boz in blue is the new real james

C.H. Truth said...

The nurse who checked me in yesterday, actually flirted with me.

He was 5'6" tall 316lbs and had really bad complexion.

Anonymous said...

None, he cries out, injects himself in every thread, with what he has done, a real "Forrest frump".

Anonymous said...

ROFLAO

Anonymous said...

58 people were murdered, a National Tragedy, also know as one month of murders in o'linsky's Chicago.

Every month, month after month, no wonder the obama's fled and never looked back.

Anonymous said...

I live in one the least populated counties in Kansas. The Sheriff's Office might have two fine deputies on duty. It is clear, we must by force defend ourselves.

wphamilton said...

"Who gets to decide which freedoms outweigh the costs and which do not?"

Our three-body system of representative government is designed specifically to address this question, among others.

Are we worried about the "bump-stock"? The NRA isn't, probably because it's a dumb idea to begin with. Personally I think it's a mistake to outlaw it, because a bad guy with a bump-stock will probably waste all of his ammo missing his targets. The Federal government should kick back incentives to manufacture them, selling them cheap but regulating the spring frequency to whatever causes the most difficulty to aim the thing. Maybe tweak the angle and center of gravity to exacerbate the tendency to swing the barrel up.

Unknown said...

INSANE RAT SAYS
no one with any respect for the 2nd amendment thinks australia's gun control program is "worth looking at."

____________________

Parents of Sandy Hook's slaughtered children and relatives of those killed and wounded in this latest rampage might beg to differ.

Unknown said...

Unknown said...

WP: I think it's a mistake to outlaw it, because a bad guy with a bump-stock will probably waste all of his ammo missing his targets

James: The way Poddick did?

Commonsense said...

Are we worried about the "bump-stock"? The NRA isn't, probably because it's a dumb idea to begin with.

Bump stocks in particular and the bump trigger technique in general was never very popular simply because you could not lay down an accurate field of fire.

It is useless in practically all situations.

It took an evil genius to come up with plan that made accuracy a secondary consideration.

Anonymous said...

Lol, do you know any one that possess a Federal Firearms Licences?

Anonymous said...

James, say you want toirror that confiscation of arms, do you start on the east and west coast first, largest population centers.

Anonymous said...

Obama approved.

Unknown said...

23:1o Paddock

Anonymous said...

"Amnisty" Australia plan had a Amnisty clause, one only needs one of those when thier is a criminal code.

Sure follow the Australian disarmament plan. Start now Liberals, self-disarm.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jay boz said...

No one reads my spam.

Rev James Boswell

Unknown said...

SENSELESS: It took an evil genius to come up with plan that made accuracy a secondary consideration.

JAMES: How many more evil geniuses are out there? Be sure to defend their guns rights and give them free range.

*Paddock

Unknown said...

jay boz not in blue is not me, LOL

commie said...

That liberals are willing to take away rights of millions of American citizens who are responsible rifle owners,


No one is going to do that in spite of you saying so for the seventy seventh time....just like trump spreading fake news....How the mighty have crashed and burned.....

commie said...

menstral the fool posted.....

Bump stocks in particular and the bump trigger technique in general was never very popular simply because you could not lay down an accurate field of fire.

You dumb as dirt....who needs accuracy when you are firing 600 rounds a minute? He killed and wounded 550 people from 1000 feet away and you think that is not accurate......idiot

hey stump broke....knock off the boz trolling another example of your mental state going down the shitter....LOLOLOL

Anonymous said...

Commie aka Ette's bitch odopie.

Unlike you and jane, I use but one id, KD.

Hillary is in favor of the Australian gun confiscation and required registration laws. With critical in all punishments.

She is the shrill voice of the militants lesbian.

commie said...

CH alleged.....concerning confiscation of weapons



We already have over three hundred different federal laws banning this, that, or the other thing.

Do you just say shit to say shit???? Why don't you share 5 or so laws that are currently denying 2nd amendment rights....Can't wait for your guano......LOL

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

She was not that hot. Your pictures don't leave much to the imagination. Your nose is HUGE. I'm concerned about you.

Anonymous said...

Sir hillary, everyday she talks validates my vote against her.

So, she does not know much about it or how it would work in the US, but she is for it, why because it takes away guns and power from the people.

Commonsense said...

You dumb as dirt....who needs accuracy when you are firing 600 rounds a minute?

Soldiers in Afghanistan who need to lay down an accurate field of fire when Taliban terrorist charging their position.

He killed and wounded 550 people from 1000 feet away and you think that is not accurate.

As usual in your willful stupidity you didn't read the rest of the post.

It took an evil genius to come up with plan that made accuracy a secondary consideration.

And his plan was firing from 32 stories up into an open 800ft by 800ft field filled with 20,000 potential victims.

You don't need accuracy shit for brains.

Commonsense said...

JAMES: How many more evil geniuses are out there?

Don't know. This evil geniuses plan B was a car bomb.

Who knows what the next evil genius is going to do.

Are you planning to ban truck, cars, fertilizer and propane tanks as well as guns?

Planning to live in fear for the rest of your life? Be my guest.

But I won't.

wphamilton said...

Evil genius? Let's get real, this was no genius. He had no exit strategy, and if he used a bump stock it was because that's what he could buy down at the store and he didn't have the wit to think of something more effective. He had an average intellect at best and most likely way below average.

I know it's comforting to think that he must have a rare intellect making this a freak event, but it just isn't true. Any idiot can hurt or kill a large number of people if they're deranged enough to do it and either don't care if they get away or are too stupid to realize that they won't. The fact is, he was rich, stupid AND evil, which means that no amount of deterrence, no amount of outlawing one thing or another, would have prevented this despicable crime.

The only way to combat it is in response, and we need to think long and hard about the implication of gun control and the decriminalization of lethal self-defense by citizens.

Unknown said...

No, you will just do all you can to allow some other maniac to spray people with fusillades of bullets in the name of the arms industry to which you have sold your soul.

jay boz said...

I'm a fucking loser.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I had a very good day. I sent our esteemed host into the bunkhouse.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I understand that his opinion is full of false assumptions. You are gullible enough to post that without providing anything that supports his accusations.

Anonymous said...

Agreed

Anonymous said...

Delusional

Commonsense said...

Evil genius? Let's get real, this was no genius.

Yeah, it is real. What's unreal is you're discounting him as just some random intellectually deficient nut when the overwhelming evidence show just the opposite.

Commonsense said...

No, you will just do all you can to allow some other maniac to spray people with fusillades of bullets

Just what law do you think would have prevented it? Taking away the guns from law abiding citizens didn't work in France and it didn't work in Norway.

commie said...

He had an average intellect at best and most likely way below average.

You don't make millions as a pro gambler or a successful slum lord when you have below or average intellect.....

commie said...

Soldiers in Afghanistan who need to lay down an accurate field of fire when Taliban terrorist charging their position.

Really? You a soldier???? Why do you think they get auto weapons and training how to use them.....That is a main reason for the .223 weapons....less recoil which enables steady fire....god yer an idiot

You don't need accuracy menstral for brains finally said.....LOLOLOL

Thanx for repeating what I have said all along, asshole. You are the one worried about accuacry....game set match....

Unknown said...

7:41aM
Leave it to irrationally hate-filled SENSELESS to equate outlawing machine guns and devices that turn semi automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons -- leave it to SENSELESS to equate that to taking guns from law abiding Americans.

Those law abiders and the NRA no longer agree with his extremist position.

wphamilton said...

You don't make millions as a pro gambler or a successful slum lord when you have below or average intellect.....

This mythos is more common among conservatives, but totally unwarranted regardless.

The ability to differentiate between valid and invalid assumptions correlates with an individual's intellect far better than personal wealth. https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/02/06/correlations-of-iq-with-income-and-wealth/

wphamilton said...

Show me the evidence, overwhelming or otherwise. Whoever made that bald claim.

Commonsense said...

The FBI for one. The Clark county sheriff for another. If you read their descriptions of the crime with an intellectually honest view the you would make the same conclusion.

Or you can just continue to be obtuse.

Either way I'm done wasting my time arguing the obvious with you.

wphamilton said...

Show me where the FBI or the County Sheriff said anything at all that supports you here. Not what *you* infer from how they describe the crime. That's meaningless when you're claiming evidence. We already know that YOU have a weird about the wealthy, but it's not factual evidence of anything. You claimed "overwhelming evidence", so where is it?

Yes, you're done, because you have exactly zero evidence that Paddock was any smarter than the "average guy" that his own brother described him as, or "just a regular gambler" as he was described by casino workers familiar with him.

Commonsense said...

Scratched on a note in his hotel room were ballistic calculations to increase the effect of his fire.

So tell me again what supports your contention he's an idiot.

Like I said, you are arguing against the obvious and now it's bordering on willful stupidity.

wphamilton said...

Numbers on a note, which the Sheriff himself said meant nothing in particular and MIGHT BE related to the distance to the fuel tank. I guess for some people, writing down a number means you're a genius.

Which by the way, he shot at expecting it to explode no doubt. Which is what a dumb person would expect.

Commonsense said...

I did notice a note on the nightstand near his shooting platform. I could see on it he had written the distance, the elevation he was on, the drop of what his bullet was gonna be for the crowd. So he had had that written down and figured out so he would know where to shoot to hit his targets from there.

Bill Whitaker: What were the numbers? I am just trying to understand, were they calculations?

Dave Newton: Yeah, he had written he must have done the calculations online or something to figure out what his altitude was going to be and how high up he was-- how far out the crowd was going to be and what at that distance and what the drop of his bullet was going to be. He hadn't written out the calculations all he had was written out his final numbers that were on the sheet.

Bill Whitaker: Wow.

wphamilton said...

Wow? For a simpleton maybe that's a "wow what a genius", but for anyone else it's very simple.

No one said that he was a novice with guns. Drop is gravity and speed of the bullet in air, even an average gun person who "hates math" could figure it out and a below average person could google it.

Evil genius because he wrote down drop. Wow.