Las Vegas Shooting

Why in all that is holy would anyone want to do further damage to the "interpretation" of any part of the Bill of Rights, in the current political situation? It's plain English. You can't jack around with it without risking serious damage to basic Constitutional oversight. And it's almost completely unnecessary to do so.

We are so far from hitting the Constitutional limits on gun control we can hardly see them from here. The low hanging fruit - background checks, accountability for negligence, police oversight, etc - are all around.
It's easy - as you said, "low hanging fruit". The most obvious being restrictions on high capacity magazines, bump stocks and the like. There is precedent in regulating "machine guns" (now overturned) and even political will - if you believe the polls. OTOH, there are the extremely large contributions to electoral funds of pols that "cooperate" with the gun lobby arms dealers.

Or, considering the political turn of the last few years: "Oh my, nothing can be done..."
I am sickened and saddened by the senseless waste of life.
My prediction is nothing will be done about this. There will be talk about some form of gun control by congress which will fizzle out in a month or so.
Don't forget all the obligatory calls for "thoughts and prayers," in lieu of any meaningful discussion or action.
The US citizens will go about there business until the next mass shooting and then we will again wring our hands and say, "if only there were some way to stop this".
And we'll hear the phrase "wake up call" ad nauseam 'til it's lost any and all semblance of meaning, if it hasn't already.

The average American is apparently an idiot.
Pretty much.

Oh yeah, the NRA will call for more guns to prevent this from happening again.
And they'll remind us that "they're trying to take away our guns" or "ban guns altogether" without ever bothering to cite who specifically is trying to take away our guns or ban guns altogether--in fact, we've already seen a bit of that within this thread .
What, exactly, would cause an honest reevaluation of second amendment interpretation - and when will such discussion and reference not cause all to immediately prostrate themselves in worship of said "holy" amendment?

I really don't want to answer that question. The answer is at once obvious and uncertain. That is to say, I do not wish to enumerate such a terrible cost, yet I am also uncertain that would do anything but harden their fanaticism.

It is one thing to say that not all of them are utterly lost in fancy, but those who aren't probably should stop throwing in for common cause with delusion.

But we can also consider↑ what the musician had to say, because he got close enough: The legally-possessed and licensed firearms among band and crew were, under fire, useless. And having time to scribble his last words? It reads like a completely bullshit line, but that's the thing. We've heard the guys who have been to war tell us what two minutes under fire feels like. Nine minutes? Yeah, that'll leave a mark. And, you know, was it Kutcher who threw in from afar? (I'm uncertain what his shift on Amendment II actually means, but there is also that.)

But, to revisit the point:

• Sometime down the line I will acknowledge the point that once again it is only when these issues get close enough—Keeter literally uses the word "proximity" to make the point. Then again, when it's the imminent death of a shooting rampage, okay, you know, that's a bit different than what we usually complain about, like why Sen. Portman couldn't have recognized the problem with his attitudes toward homosexuals before his son had to make a difficult stand, or why Nancy Reagan couldn't have recognized the need for certain research before it was her husband who was dying ....​

I think we know what it takes, or will take, for many, and in that measure what will also fail for at least as many. We are dealing with a particular degree and manner of fanaticism.

And it's also just really unpleasant to think about. It's like other manners of fanaticism; other people need to suffer for them, and that just sucks. And the only thing that ever really stops them is if that suffering strikes too close. We saw it in the Gay Fray; we see it in medical research; we hear it from former antivax; &c., ad nauseam.

The bit with the Republican clamoring for abortion during a pregnancy scare would be funny, except, well, you know, I admit I have no idea if abortion is ever funny; I've just never witnessed women during such moments that it is.

(And, besides, what's the joke? What if men had abortions? Yeah, we'd make it a competition, and instead of D&X, we'd just tell them to cut and then we'll shotgun what's left of the little fucker to see who can pitch the farthest on egress. Fetal shotgun sharting. Just how the hell is that funny?)​

And it's one of those times when religion won't help. As much as I would love to rap my knuckles gently on their crania and singsong remind that God's will is as God's will does, and that the Lord works in mysterious ways, I'm an American, and conservative Christians decided they knew better than God decades ago, so, yeah, whatever, something about futility.

Oh, right. Yeah ... er ... I'm not certain what to say or even think about that range of outcome. We know what it takes, but, you know, fuck all, if we can get out of this without society going so far to hell, I'd really rather.

Then again, that part means ignoring the hardliners, and we have to remember, these are people who would purport to enforce themselves with the guns they possess and carry. So, yeah, we could always try that: Ignore them and have a responsible discussion at least until they start shooting in order to get everyone's attention.

But, yeah, I don't really have much for a plan on what comes after that.
1- black powder most certainly does explode.
2- making an explosion from a fast burning material is all about confinement (like a pipe bomb). making any explosive more effective is also about confinement and focus, and perhaps materials (as you can build deadlier devices by including flying parts as the effective tool for destruction)
3- black powder is unregulated and any idiot can buy it (or a similar material, like pyrodex); case in point, see the video link (also note that any idiot can teach how to build effective bombs on youtube or the interwebz...)

4- it doesn't matter what was used. the issue isn't that someone used [x] weapon, be it guns, knives, buses or even a hammer: the issue is that the person killed. the tool is inanimate, otherwise we would be regulating hammers, screwdrivers and cars as they're completely unregulated and kill more than firearms (BJS)... and that isn't even considering cars, which are regulated but still kill more than firearms.
A few things..

I never said that black powder was not dangerous. Although if your video demonstration is any indication, blowing a hole into a side of a tree trunk would still have caused less damage than one man with that many guns from a high vantage point.
the issue isn't abortion or the assumption about a persons politics
Who said it was?

you like to paint people with a picture of REPUB or some similar political outlook just because they're 2nd supporters or because they don't worship the ground you stand upon and state your beliefs are always correct
Well, this is escalating fast..

Are you alright?

You seem somewhat flustered and, well, irrational.

you're absolutely wrong about that one as in my state most people are DEM's, but are strong 2nd supporters. more importantly, people can be in the middle ground politically and both liberal and conservative depending on the issue (something you've ignored).
Considering I have not said anything about your political leanings, or your district (I don't even know where you live, State or otherwise), so I don't exactly understand what you are on about.

Or is this a rant because you have something to get off your chest?

perhaps your logic is flawed?
That guns should be regulated? Well, I live in a country where such laws are in place and do you know what happened to mass shooting events in said country? They went down to 0. Immediately.

But no, let's talk about your logic, shall we?

or perhaps your hate against the gun is so strong .... ??
Or lack-there-of...

considering your historical (and hysterical) displays in the past teaching people how to kill others and use racial prejudice to try and get away with it despite the federal laws that state (explicitly) that it is illegal, then i state it's the latter moreso that drives your flawed logic.
Wait, what?

The irony is that you accused me of being hysterical and in the same sentence, declared that I taught people how to kill others and to use racial prejudice to get away with it..

No no, please, call me hysterical some more. Because this one is delish.

Tell me something, Stumpy, you are aware that Tiassa and I are two different people, yes?

you're problem is with the legal system and enforcement
I thought my problem is that my 'hate against the gun is so strong'..?

and the core issue is the violence, not the weapon
And yet, it is the facility with which one can obtain said weapon that makes that violence so much easier. But we'll just ignore that, won't we?

we have existing laws that are effective but are not enforced (as demonstrated here: )
You really don't know how to link, do you?

making more laws makes no sense until the existing laws are enforced
Then have at it! Why are avid 2nd Amendment supporters even against the current laws that are in place?

linked and proven in that thread there are existing laws that prevent racially motivated homicide (18 U.S.C § 249). this is not a state law; it is federal, and as such supersedes state law.

however, these laws are not enforced. therein lies the problem... in point of fact, bells, t and ice all ignored that simple fact and defended the belief that it's legal to kill blacks in the US.

it is not legal, it is just not enforced.

as to the latter: promoting the belief that it's legal to kill blacks while then demonstrating how it's done in the US teaches it to those who are motivated to find a way to get away with homicide due to racial stupidity. defending this belief while demonstrating emotional skewed logic supporting your beliefs reinforces this situation as being viable. more to the point, absolutely misrepresenting the issue with a known so-called lawyer while pulling out the mod card to defend your echo chamber also reinforces this is being "fact".

so you have mods not only advocating for an illegal act, but then using demonstration after demonstration to reinforce how to do it while spreading the mindset that it's ok so long as you have an echo chamber and irrational people around you to help you violate federal law.

it's still illegal.

and again, repeated ad nauseum because logic isn't possible when you're emotional... it's just not enforced.

making it a media circus and promoting an echo chamber doesn't help. surely if the media (and irrational mods) stopped making the idiot maniacs nationalposter-idiots in the news for already unstable irrational people to idolize there would be a means to attack the actual issue: violence
Reading and comprehension are a problem for you, aren't they?

And it is interesting that in a thread about a white dude who went on a rampage and murdered dozens of people and injured hundreds of others, you are whining about your lack of comprehension about a discussion that took place months ago, about people who kill black people just keep getting away with it.

Are you attempting to deflect?

not frothing. it is a fact. and it's not dishonest.

read the thread

now read 18 U.S.C § 249 ( )

when you tell people it's legal to shoot blacks in the US

then you show how it has been done

then you refuse to note that this act is illegal as explicitly stated in federal law
You are an idiot.

We discussed and brought up exactly what happens and is widely reported and recognised, has been studied repeatedly by various institutions and we supported our arguments with such articles, links and expert opinions. And you saw that as instructions? You'd have to be a pretty twisted or dumbarse individual to get that out of it. Talk about acts of desperation because you couldn't keep up with the conversation.
the problem is people see shooting as a sport/hobby even though it's deadly. that's why you have games like counterstrike. it appeals to the primal predatory nature of target practice/hunting as well as makes some feel more formidable or less vulnerable with armament for defensive measures. it is most effective form of personal weaponry and that is why it's so popular. these are the reasons why banning guns has much resistance.

there is a duality that is at a tug of war here and that is the need for protection balanced against the misuse of it as predation against others. tough call. the solution could be strict laws against access to heavy artillery. that would make sense for the general public as no one needs that much firepower for personal self-defense anyways which makes a legitimate point.

the psychology behind the right to bear arms is one that didn't extend to women and unfortunately there is a contradiction also when you have laws to protect people by disempowering them which thereby also increases easy victimization, just not by gun deaths. people easily take advantage of knowing you have no weapons as well as afraid or hesitant to defend yourself because of protection of another's life etc. there is a problem with rendering vulnerable by castrating people of weapons for self-defense on the one hand but it can be unbalanced to the other extreme as this incident where there is no real call for or need of over-the-top weaponry as a regular citizen.
Last edited:
After watching the local news about it all tonight and reading this thread... it seems to me that the best way to move forward is to launch a class action against the NRA that forces them to take some collective responsibility for the atrocities it's pro gun policies condone and are complicit in.
If threatened with a class action every time there is a mass shooting perhaps they may actually take some responsibility and change things so there are less of them. Due to the strength, and influence of the gun lobby it is not up to government to provide solutions, it is up to the NRA and affiliates to do so.

The questions that Need to be addressed:
How is the NRA working towards preventing further mass shootings?
What strategies do they have in place and intend to put in place to minimize the national body bag count?

It is not up to Congress, Senate or even the POTUS to solve this issue. It is up to the NRA. IMO

** an individual with over 23 weapons at the scene plus countless others elsewhere, should be on a forensic data base somewhere... why isn't he?
Last edited:
On level 32, an officer said Paddock “shot down the hallway and hit a security guard.” On the ground, the dispatcher advises police to lock their cars as “citizens are trying to grab shotguns.”

“I need some more units here I’m being overtaken by citizens trying to take patrol cars,” one officer said. Another advises against travelling to a certain part of the festival ground.

Good grief!

I try to wrap my head around the fact that police had to pause in that kind of situation, to lock their cars because the citizens were trying to grab their shotguns..
Not to mention shotguns don't have the range to shoot back at the 32nd floor. (Hypotenuse distance anyone?)

I think the people in the crowd were working on the "more guns always make things better" rule.