PDA

View Full Version : Shooting at IHOP


Tom
09-06-2011, 03:02 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/ihop-shooting-nevada-leaves-dead/story?id=14457713

canleakid
09-06-2011, 03:50 PM
Damn shame, to early to speculate as to why it happened

TJDave
09-06-2011, 04:58 PM
Does Nevada have an open carry law?

Mike at A+
09-06-2011, 05:06 PM
I wonder why they aren't releasing the identity of the shooter? Are they possibly trying to associate him with the Tea Party at "someone's" direction? :lol:

bigmack
09-06-2011, 05:06 PM
Does Nevada have an open carry law?
After a suicide bomber blows up a bus would you wonder if it were legal to carry a bomb on a bus?

Saratoga_Mike
09-06-2011, 05:14 PM
I wonder why they aren't releasing the identity of the shooter? Are they possibly trying to associate him with the Tea Party at "someone's" direction? :lol:

Yes, it's a plot against the Tea Party OR they just aren't sure who the hell he is at this pt.

Mike at A+
09-06-2011, 05:29 PM
Yes, it's a plot against the Tea Party OR they just aren't sure who the hell he is at this pt.
Uh excuse me but they DO know who he is. They're probably searching his home as we speak for books written by Ann Coulter. :lol:

GameTheory
09-06-2011, 05:31 PM
Uh excuse me but they DO know who he is. They're probably searching his home as we speak for books written by Ann Coulter. :lol:Possibly, but according to the linked article, they have not identified him.

Mike at A+
09-06-2011, 05:33 PM
Possibly, but according to the linked article, they have not identified him.
The police released the fact that he was a "local man". If they know that I'm sure they know his name and address at the least.

redshift1
09-06-2011, 05:34 PM
I've never been able to understand why IHOP refuses to arm their employees. At the very least IHOP needs a Browning M2 mounted behind the service window giving the fry cook a clear tactical advantage and more importantly the ability to fully engage multiple targets.

JustRalph
09-06-2011, 06:02 PM
I've never been able to understand why IHOP refuses to arm their employees. At the very least IHOP needs a Browning M2 mounted behind the service window giving the fry cook a clear tactical advantage and more importantly the ability to fully engage multiple targets.

you're a barrel of laughs............

Saratoga_Mike
09-06-2011, 06:05 PM
Uh excuse me but they DO know who he is. They're probably searching his home as we speak for books written by Ann Coulter. :lol:

Now that's possible!

cj's dad
09-06-2011, 06:37 PM
Update- 2 National Guardsmen in uniform were killed.

The Judge
09-06-2011, 09:30 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/09/06/national/a095853D48.DTL&tsp=1

Mike at A+
09-06-2011, 09:31 PM
Somehow I can't visualize this guy having any Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh books in his house. Guess he's not one of those Tea Party terrorists I keep hearing about.

bigmack
09-06-2011, 09:37 PM
MSNBC is in pre-production meetings as Maddow, Matthews, Larry O, Big Ed, Rev. Al, and that ditz in the AM, Mika, plan multi, hour long specials including:

White People with Guns: The Real Enemy

Mike at A+
09-06-2011, 09:47 PM
Begs the question: Was this guy even here legally? This could get uncomfortable for Barry and his latest decree on illegals he deems worthy of staying here in America. Can't wait to here what comes out on this and the ensuing spin. :bang:

cj's dad
09-06-2011, 10:22 PM
Maybe he can be deported with Barry's aunt and uncle.

Robert Goren
09-06-2011, 10:26 PM
The story says he had a valid passport. He apparently is not a not a right wing nut nor an Islamic terrorist. Just your old fashion loony went off the deep end. We tend to forget that not everything is political. There was another one of them who went off at roller skating rink in Texas a month ago. Unfortunately this happens all the time.

Mike at A+
09-06-2011, 10:28 PM
A valid passport? Where from? Sweden?

Robert Goren
09-06-2011, 10:34 PM
A valid passport? Where from? Sweden? A quote from the article mentioned post 14 by The Judge
"Sencion was born in Mexico and had a valid U.S. passport."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/09/06/national/a095853D48.DTL#ixzz1XE55VS3X

Mike at A+
09-06-2011, 10:45 PM
As Gomer Pyle would say ..... SURPRISE SURPRISE!

Tom
09-06-2011, 11:51 PM
Why are we giving passports to mentally ill jerks?

horses4courses
09-07-2011, 12:05 AM
Why are we giving passports to mentally ill jerks?

Ummm....business as usual?

The guy lived a few miles away from me. This is all a bit close for comfort.
Family owns a pretty successful hispanic market store - been there for years in a low rent district in town. Why he chose to drive a half hour to Carson City, we'll probably never know. There's an IHOP here in South Tahoe.
This guy must have just flipped.........

TJDave
09-07-2011, 12:13 AM
Why are we giving passports to mentally ill jerks?

Because he was a citizen. I'm not sure that mental illness is a disqualifier. Unfortunately, there are thousands of U.S. citizens who are mentally ill.

bigmack
09-07-2011, 12:13 AM
Wouldn't it be ironic if it were found that he bought the AK down in AZ from the highly successful DoJ/ATF, Operation Fast & Furious?

If it were, can we assume Eric Holder is working fast & furiously to not let that nugget of info out?

Tom
09-07-2011, 12:43 AM
Because he was a citizen. I'm not sure that mental illness is a disqualifier. Unfortunately, there are thousands of U.S. citizens who are mentally ill.

The article says he was born in Mexico and had a valid US passport - that would suggest he is not a US citizen.

mostpost
09-07-2011, 12:56 AM
I wonder why they aren't releasing the identity of the shooter? Are they possibly trying to associate him with the Tea Party at "someone's" direction? :lol:
The identity of the shooter is in the first link posted by Tom; both in the video and the written story. Remedial reading and listening classes are available at your local community college.

mostpost
09-07-2011, 12:59 AM
MSNBC is in pre-production meetings as Maddow, Matthews, Larry O, Big Ed, Rev. Al, and that ditz in the AM, Mika, plan multi, hour long specials including:

White People with Guns: The Real Enemy

I watched most of the Ed show and most of The Last Word. Admittedly I wasn't paying close attention, but I did not hear this mentioned.

mostpost
09-07-2011, 01:02 AM
Begs the question: Was this guy even here legally? This could get uncomfortable for Barry and his latest decree on illegals he deems worthy of staying here in America. Can't wait to here what comes out on this and the ensuing spin. :bang:

Yeah let's just assume he is an illegal when we have no clue and no evidence that he is. That just makes it so much easier to bash Obama. BTW "here" is a place. "Hear" is what you use when you're dealing with sound.

PaceAdvantage
09-07-2011, 01:04 AM
Yeah let's just assume he is an illegal when we have no clue and no evidence that he is. That just makes it so much easier to bash Obama. BTW "here" is a place. "Hear" is what you use when you're dealing with sound.When Bush was president, I remember people here in off topic relating almost EVERYTHING that went bad in the world back to Bush.

So why should it be any different with Obama?

That was a serious question.

I hope you tell me it's because of racism. :lol:

toetoe
09-07-2011, 01:05 AM
I watched most of the Ed show and most of The Last Word. Admittedly I wasn't paying close attention, but I did not hear this mentioned.



Were listening classes not available at the reeducation camp ?

mostpost
09-07-2011, 01:08 AM
The article says he was born in Mexico and had a valid US passport - that would suggest he is not a US citizen.

Oh My God!!! You can't get a US Passport unless you are a United States Citizen. If he was not a US citizen he would have had a Mexican passport.
Think before you post.

mostpost
09-07-2011, 01:11 AM
When Bush was president, I remember people here in off topic relating almost EVERYTHING that went bad in the world back to Bush.

So why should it be any different with Obama?

That was a serious question.

I hope you tell me it's because of racism. :lol:
paraphrasing Tom; Bush isn't president anymore. Stop living in the past.

bigmack
09-07-2011, 01:15 AM
I watched most of the Ed show and most of The Last Word. Admittedly I wasn't paying close attention, but I did not hear this mentioned.
Good thing they're still in pre-production as mentioned. They were hopin' though. "We got one" was heard throughout the building.

And now they find he's of MEX dissent. Rats.

PaceAdvantage
09-07-2011, 01:19 AM
paraphrasing Tom; Bush isn't president anymore. Stop living in the past.You're serious? That's your response?

mostpost
09-07-2011, 01:25 AM
When Bush was president, I remember people here in off topic relating almost EVERYTHING that went bad in the world back to Bush.

So why should it be any different with Obama?

That was a serious question.

I hope you tell me it's because of racism. :lol:

I was not here during the Bush years so I cannot comment on that. My objection was to Mike at A+ deciding with no evidence to back it up that the shooter was an illegal and therefore this was all Obama's fault. Most of the stuff you guys post here is similar.

Let me correct myself slightly. Not only was there no evidence, but the evidence proved the opposite.

That is my serious response.

mostpost
09-07-2011, 01:27 AM
Good thing they're still in pre-production as mentioned. They were hopin' though. "We got one" was heard throughout the building.

And now they find he's of MEX dissent. Rats.
Do you mean he disagrees or do you mean descent? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

PaceAdvantage
09-07-2011, 01:27 AM
Most of the stuff you guys post here is similar.So now you're lumping me in with everyone else?

Again...seriously?

Stop taking the easy way out...

PhantomOnTour
09-07-2011, 01:28 AM
When Bush was president, I remember people here in off topic relating almost EVERYTHING that went bad in the world back to Bush.

So why should it be any different with Obama?

That was a serious question.

I hope you tell me it's because of racism. :lol:
Shouldn't you be asking that serious question to yourself or the folks who blame everything on Obama?
The idea that Reps can bitch, moan, and whine because the Libs did it is nothing but an excuse for your behavior, and a lame one at that, but it is not a justification.

PaceAdvantage
09-07-2011, 01:40 AM
Shouldn't you be asking that serious question to yourself or the folks who blame everything on Obama?
The idea that Reps can bitch, moan, and whine because the Libs did it is nothing but an excuse for your behavior, and a lame one at that, but it is not a justification.No, I should not. Why? Because I understand what is going on.

It happened from 2001-2008 so why shouldn't it continue to happen from 2009-2012? I find it humorous that some folks sit back all aghast that Obama takes all this heat...and then some even try and blame it on racism...when in fact, it has been going on ever since we've had Presidents...

And another thing...you seriously think I blame everything on Obama? You keep reading post after post from me doing just that on here?

Really?

Or are you another just taking the easy way out instead of thinking before you type?

FantasticDan
09-07-2011, 01:47 AM
The simple fact is that the anti-Obama threads in just 3 years already far outnumber the anti-Bush threads in 8. I wasn't here when Bush was Prez, but I've thoroughly searched the archives; it's not even close.

So that's a lame horse that could probably use some rest.

PaceAdvantage
09-07-2011, 01:50 AM
The simple fact is that the anti-Obama threads in just 3 years already far outnumber the anti-Bush threads in 8. I wasn't here when Bush was Prez, but I've thoroughly searched the archives; it's not even close.

So that's a lame horse that could probably use some rest.Sure you have. I've actually done the same and come up with hard numbers to prove it. Since you claim to have searched, I'm sure you've come across my calculations.

And btw, how come none of the Obama supporters on here seem to be able to start any positive Obama threads? Is it because of a lack of content? :faint:

PhantomOnTour
09-07-2011, 01:56 AM
No, I should not. Why? Because I understand what is going on.

It happened from 2001-2008 so why shouldn't it continue to happen from 2009-2012? I find it humorous that some folks sit back all aghast that Obama takes all this heat...and then some even try and blame it on racism...when in fact, it has been going on ever since we've had Presidents...

And another thing...you seriously think I blame everything on Obama? You keep reading post after post from me doing just that on here?

Really?

Or are you another just taking the easy way out instead of thinking before you type?
Simmer down Pace...i said you OR the folks blaming everything on Obama.
The reason it shouldn't happen from 2009-2012 is cuz it's lame-o whining a-holatry just like it was from 2001-2008 and before that.

redshift1
09-07-2011, 02:42 AM
The real argument is why are AK-47's still legal?

Tom
09-07-2011, 08:48 AM
Originally Posted by mostpost
paraphrasing Tom; Bush isn't president anymore. Stop living in the past.


Hey Newman, how did you get the nonsense out of what I posted?
I asked a serious question that had zero politics in it. Are you not capable of anything that does not include wiping Obama's nose for him?

horses4courses
09-07-2011, 09:50 AM
The real argument is why are AK-47's still legal?

Because it's a God-given right to have the ability to blow people's heads off, if you are doing so to protect yourself and what is yours???

Robert Goren
09-07-2011, 10:12 AM
Because it's a God-given right to have the ability to blow people's heads off, if you are doing so to protect yourself and what is yours???Exactly where in the Bible does it say that? I don't reading anything about the right to blow people's heads off for any reason.

horses4courses
09-07-2011, 10:21 AM
Exactly where in the Bible does it say that? I don't reading anything about the right to blow people's heads off for any reason.

You're exactly right.
I'm no Bible expert, but I'm sure you won't read that anywhere.

Anti-gun control people, though, would argue that massacres such as this would still occur even if such weapons were outlawed.
I've never quite understood that argument......

PaceAdvantage
09-07-2011, 11:55 AM
Simmer down Pace...i said you OR the folks blaming everything on Obama.
The reason it shouldn't happen from 2009-2012 is cuz it's lame-o whining a-holatry just like it was from 2001-2008 and before that.Simmer down... :lol: ...great debating technique...

Anyway, I understood exactly what you said and answered accordingly...

PaceAdvantage
09-07-2011, 11:59 AM
Anti-gun control people, though, would argue that massacres such as this would still occur even if such weapons were outlawed.
I've never quite understood that argument......Yes, it's so very tough to understand why an insanely criminal mind that would think nothing of blowing people's heads off with a legal AK-47 would be STOPPED from doing such a thing if only the AK-47 were made illegal.... :lol:

Because, after all, except for blowing people's heads off, the criminally insane are bound to obey any enacted gun control laws... :lol: :lol:

Really? Tough to understand?

Mike at A+
09-07-2011, 12:07 PM
The identity of the shooter is in the first link posted by Tom; both in the video and the written story. Remedial reading and listening classes are available at your local community college.
Hey idiot, did it ever cross your tiny little mind that maybe I didn't click that link and was following the story elsewhere and they didn't report the name yet?

Mike at A+
09-07-2011, 12:10 PM
Yeah let's just assume he is an illegal when we have no clue and no evidence that he is. That just makes it so much easier to bash Obama. BTW "here" is a place. "Hear" is what you use when you're dealing with sound.
No kidding asshole. I made a typo. When you stoop to that level (typo criticism) it proves what an asshole you are.

Oh, and it's hearING that you use when dealing with sound.

Saratoga_Mike
09-07-2011, 12:14 PM
No kidding asshole. I made a typo. When you stoop to that level (typo criticism) it proves what an asshole you are.

Oh, and it's hearING that you use when dealing with sound.

You sound angry again.

Mike at A+
09-07-2011, 12:17 PM
You sound angry again.
Ask me if I give a crap what you think.

horses4courses
09-07-2011, 12:20 PM
Yes, it's so very tough to understand why an insanely criminal mind that would think nothing of blowing people's heads off with a legal AK-47 would be STOPPED from doing such a thing if only the AK-47 were made illegal.... :lol:

Because, after all, except for blowing people's heads off, the criminally insane are bound to obey any enacted gun control laws... :lol: :lol:

Really? Tough to understand?

How anyone can justify the availability of such weapons to ANYONE is beyond me. Military and law enforcement use only. Their purpose is one dimensional.

PaceAdvantage
09-07-2011, 12:29 PM
No kidding asshole. I made a typo. When you stoop to that level (typo criticism) it proves what an asshole you are.

Oh, and it's hearING that you use when dealing with sound.Now it's getting way out of hand...stop with the name calling...

GaryG
09-07-2011, 12:35 PM
A murderous nut will always find a means to get the killing done. Gun control would not have stopped this one or the one at Virginia Tech. This is a lame excuse to justify gun control and it is not going to happen. Armed citizens are much less likely to be victimized by thugs and nuts.

Mike at A+
09-07-2011, 12:38 PM
Now it's getting way out of hand...stop with the name calling...
OK, sorry. I just objected to the "remedial reading" comment which was clearly a "personal attack". Next time, should I use "a**hole" or "a-hole" or "AH" or whatever is less offensive but still conveys the intended message. Or maybe just "You're an _SSH_L_, wanna buy a vowel?"

PhantomOnTour
09-07-2011, 12:57 PM
Simmer down... :lol: ...great debating technique...

Anyway, I understood exactly what you said and answered accordingly...
It's a technique that's only used when needed.

Robert Goren
09-07-2011, 01:17 PM
A murderous nut will always find a means to get the killing done. Gun control would not have stopped this one or the one at Virginia Tech. This is a lame excuse to justify gun control and it is not going to happen. Armed citizens are much less likely to be victimized by thugs and nuts.Being surrounded by armed men doesn't stop them either. It certainly did not stop John Hinckley. This can be argued back and forth for ever. It would be nice however if the NRA did not scream and yell at every attempt to at least make it a little harder for a nut to get his hands on an automatic weapon. I know that it would not stop them all, but if it stopped just one it might be worth it.

horses4courses
09-07-2011, 01:21 PM
A murderous nut will always find a means to get the killing done. Gun control would not have stopped this one or the one at Virginia Tech. This is a lame excuse to justify gun control and it is not going to happen. Armed citizens are much less likely to be victimized by thugs and nuts.

Granted, massacres caused by the insane will never be stopped completely.

Assault weapons being readily available?
Can't be justified. In my opinion, anyone who tries to is wrong.

andtheyreoff
09-07-2011, 01:26 PM
Begs the question: Was this guy even here legally? This could get uncomfortable for Barry and his latest decree on illegals he deems worthy of staying here in America. Can't wait to here what comes out on this and the ensuing spin. :bang:

Wow. This time, it took 17 posts for someone to mention Obama in a thread that has nothing to do with him. That has to be a PA Off-Topic record (if not, it has to be close)

Mike at A+
09-07-2011, 01:35 PM
Wow. This time, it took 17 posts for someone to mention Obama in a thread that has nothing to do with him. That has to be a PA Off-Topic record (if not, it has to be close)
Well, didn't Barry just come out with a plan to allow illegals to stay if they haven't committed a crime? And you KNOW in your heart of hearts that liberals were PRAYING that this guy would have been identified as a Tea Party conservative. I believe that's why it took a while for his identity to be released. Sort of "damage control". I think everyone (liberal and conservative) should acknowledge that Jimmy Hoffa may have caused this guy to go off the deep end. :lol:

The Judge
09-07-2011, 01:51 PM
could very well be a new record!!!

Mike at A+ if you felt that this post in any way connect with Obama it wouldn't have taken 17 posts to get to it.

Robert Goren
09-07-2011, 01:56 PM
Well, didn't Barry just come out with a plan to allow illegals to stay if they haven't committed a crime? And you KNOW in your heart of hearts that liberals were PRAYING that this guy would have been identified as a Tea Party conservative. I believe that's why it took a while for his identity to be released. Sort of "damage control". I think everyone (liberal and conservative) should acknowledge that Jimmy Hoffa may have caused this guy to go off the deep end. :lol:Like you weren't praying he wasn't!:lol:

Mike at A+
09-07-2011, 02:07 PM
Like you weren't praying he wasn't!:lol:
To put it into racing terms, there's nothing in the "Past Performances" that would cause me to believe it was a Tea Party member. :lol: :lol: :lol:

BlueShoe
09-07-2011, 02:30 PM
Media coverage of this tragedy has dropped off sharply today, barely any mention of it. Of course, if the shooter had been a non Hispanic white conservative we would be getting nothing else but on the airwaves, and the comrades over at MSNBC and the other Main Slime outlets would be in a hysterical frenzy.

TJDave
09-07-2011, 02:56 PM
First, the term "assault weapon" is pejorative. As I doubt the Kalashnikov was 'full fire' capable there would be NO difference in its effectiveness vs ANY caliber comparable handgun. In fact, in close quarters the handgun would be a more effective weapon and easily available everywhere. My guess would be that he used this particular weapon because he either owned or had access to it.

fast4522
09-07-2011, 03:13 PM
If the Kalashnikov was part of “Operation Fast and Furious”, watch out!

You do not bring a pistol to a gunfight, but a concealed handgun can benefit those who can present and fire faster than someone can turn, the guy across the way at the barbecue joint showed good form.

redshift1
09-07-2011, 03:17 PM
First, the term "assault weapon" is pejorative. As I doubt the Kalashnikov was 'full fire' capable there would be NO difference in its effectiveness vs ANY caliber comparable handgun. In fact, in close quarters the handgun would be a more effective weapon and easily available everywhere. My guess would be that he used this particular weapon because he either owned or had access to it.

Like WMD is a pejorative for ICBM, Following that logic why ban any military grade weapon.

Tom
09-07-2011, 03:19 PM
The Constitution refers to "arms," not just rifles and hand guns.

PaceAdvantage
09-07-2011, 03:36 PM
Media coverage of this tragedy has dropped off sharply today, barely any mention of it. Of course, if the shooter had been a non Hispanic white conservative we would be getting nothing else but on the airwaves, and the comrades over at MSNBC and the other Main Slime outlets would be in a hysterical frenzy.Indeed.

lsbets
09-07-2011, 03:40 PM
Like WMD is a pejorative for ICBM, Following that logic why ban any military grade weapon.

The AKs that you can buy are not military grade weapons, they are semi automatic rifles. Would you prefer that the ones available for legal purchase did not look like the AKs used by military forces throughout the world?

redshift1
09-07-2011, 05:25 PM
The AKs that you can buy are not military grade weapons, they are semi automatic rifles. Would you prefer that the ones available for legal purchase did not look like the AKs used by military forces throughout the world?

Good question, you would agree though that in most cases semi-automatic rifles are more powerful than a handgun and designed to provide a tactical advantage in gun fights over a handgun.


Banning all semi-automatic weapons would be a good start. Of course to the 80 people who die daily by firearms in the US Its probably a moot point.

PaceAdvantage
09-07-2011, 05:28 PM
The only people who are going to obey more stringent anti-gun laws are those people who aren't going to be out there indiscriminately shooting people in the first place.

The criminals will get their hands on guns regardless.

redshift1
09-07-2011, 05:39 PM
The only people who are going to obey more stringent anti-gun laws are those people who aren't going to be out there indiscriminately shooting people in the first place.

The criminals will get their hands on guns regardless.


Probably true but it could reduce deaths of the WV , ARI and NEV type.

boxcar
09-07-2011, 05:44 PM
Being surrounded by armed men doesn't stop them either. It certainly did not stop John Hinckley. This can be argued back and forth for ever. It would be nice however if the NRA did not scream and yell at every attempt to at least make it a little harder for a nut to get his hands on an automatic weapon. I know that it would not stop them all, but if it stopped just one it might be worth it.

Just remember that your last sentence cuts both ways! On this very forum, over the years, there have been numerous stories cited where lives or property were saved due to a law-abiding citizen taking out a bad guy.

Also, just how would the government go about determining who is a "nut" and who isn't? I take it you have a concrete plan for that? Should all potential gun buyers spend a week or two in a psyche ward for evaluation? And would this be paid for at the buyer's expense or covered under ObamaCare? :rolleyes:

And finally, once approved to buy a gun, how often should gun owners go for reevaluation to see if they still qualify as "sane"?

Boxcar

elysiantraveller
09-07-2011, 05:51 PM
The real argument is why are AK-47's still legal?

Because of the 2nd Amendment.

Anyone can own a semi-auto variant. To have a fully automatic one (legally) you need a class three firearms license and the weapon has to be in the BATF database so it must be pre-1985.

Hope that answered your question.

Fact is in that situation a 12 gauge would have been more effective for the shooter anyway.

elysiantraveller
09-07-2011, 05:53 PM
How anyone can justify the availability of such weapons to ANYONE is beyond me. Military and law enforcement use only. Their purpose is one dimensional.

I use my AR model all the time and I'm not shooting people.

TJDave
09-07-2011, 05:54 PM
in most cases semi-automatic rifles are more powerful than a handgun and designed to provide a tactical advantage in gun fights over a handgun.

In short range situations, no. At long range any rifle semi-auto or no, would have an advantage.

Banning all semi-automatic weapons would be a good start. Of course to the 80 people who die daily by firearms in the US Its probably a moot point.

Excepting revolvers, all handguns are essentially semi-automatic. You would ban these also?

elysiantraveller
09-07-2011, 05:57 PM
Being surrounded by armed men doesn't stop them either. It certainly did not stop John Hinckley. This can be argued back and forth for ever. It would be nice however if the NRA did not scream and yell at every attempt to at least make it a little harder for a nut to get his hands on an automatic weapon. I know that it would not stop them all, but if it stopped just one it might be worth it.

Still not sure if it was a automatic weapon.

fast4522
09-07-2011, 06:01 PM
Big mistake asking those who took all the drugs to write the rules for those of us who have not. Why do you think the skumbag felons are in favor of gun control, because we have more right than they do. Boxcar why on Gods green earth ask humpty dumpty what to do or how?

TJDave
09-07-2011, 06:04 PM
Still not sure if it was a automatic weapon.

It was a 22 Cal. revolver.

elysiantraveller
09-07-2011, 06:10 PM
It was a 22 Cal. revolver.

Huh?

Sheriff: Analyzing the Weapon (http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/Report_Several_shot_at_Nevada_IHOP_restaurant_1293 13033.html)

"Carson City Sheriff Kenny Furlong says they're analyzing the weapon to determine whether it is automatic or semi-automatic."

TJDave
09-07-2011, 06:22 PM
Huh?

Sheriff: Analyzing the Weapon (http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/Report_Several_shot_at_Nevada_IHOP_restaurant_1293 13033.html)

"Carson City Sheriff Kenny Furlong says they're analyzing the weapon to determine whether it is automatic or semi-automatic."

Sorry, I was referring to Hinckley.

trying2win
09-07-2011, 10:40 PM
I wonder why they aren't releasing the identity of the shooter? Are they possibly trying to associate him with the Tea Party at "someone's" direction? :lol:

Is this a time for questionable humor on your part?

Could you please show a little more class?

T2W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
~"You have enemies. Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

--Winston Churchill

trying2win
09-07-2011, 10:48 PM
The good thing is, the scum who did the shooting killed himself, saving taxpayers a lot of money if he had to stay in jail a long time if he had lived.

T2W

boxcar
09-07-2011, 10:57 PM
Simmer down Pace...i said you OR the folks blaming everything on Obama.
The reason it shouldn't happen from 2009-2012 is cuz it's lame-o whining a-holatry just like it was from 2001-2008 and before that.

Too bad none of the libs saw things that way from '01 thru '08. But now you do when the shoe is on the other foot? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

redshift1
09-07-2011, 11:12 PM
In short range situations, no. At long range any rifle semi-auto or no, would have an advantage.



Excepting revolvers, all handguns are essentially semi-automatic. You would ban these also?


Yes, I would except for the police, still leaves plenty of guns for the hunters and those concerned with self-defense. Criminals will sometimes obtain these weapons just as they sometimes gain access to fully automatic weapons as in the Hollywood shootout of 1997.

boxcar
09-07-2011, 11:12 PM
Exactly where in the Bible does it say that? I don't reading anything about the right to blow people's heads off for any reason.

Do you consider self-defense as an example of "for any reason"? And if one has to kill in self-defense, do you consider that murder? Do you know that only murder is forbidden by the 6th commandment? And did you know that only premeditated murder was a capital offense under the Mosaic Law?

Boxcar

elysiantraveller
09-07-2011, 11:57 PM
Yes, I would except for the police, still leaves plenty of guns for the hunters and those concerned with self-defense. Criminals will sometimes obtain these weapons just as they sometimes gain access to fully automatic weapons as in the Hollywood shootout of 1997.

There are way too many semi-autos already in civilian hands, I, for instance, have several. What are you going to do? Take them away from people?...

Secondly, by your own admission in the paragraph above, disarming the law-abiding public doesn't prevent criminals from gaining access to those weapons. So why bother?

Saratoga_Mike
09-08-2011, 12:00 AM
Do you consider self-defense as an example of "for any reason"? And if one has to kill in self-defense, do you consider that murder? Do you know that only murder is forbidden by the 6th commandment? And did you know that only premeditated murder was a capital offense under the Mosaic Law?Boxcar

I didn't know this Box. Please expand on it. Very curious (no sarcasm intended here).

Robert Goren
09-08-2011, 12:09 AM
Do you consider self-defense as an example of "for any reason"? And if one has to kill in self-defense, do you consider that murder? Do you know that only murder is forbidden by the 6th commandment? And did you know that only premeditated murder was a capital offense under the Mosaic Law?

BoxcarThat is one interpretation, but is not not the only one as I am sure you know. Acting self defense is ok. Now one for you, how about the killing of a bystander you knew you were putting in grave danger in order to protect some property?
Something else to ponder. A high school teacher once said to a class I was in. "Sending someone to meet his maker when he may not be ready yet is a grave responsibility and should not be taken lightly" The key word here is "yet". It implies all sorts of things.

lsbets
09-08-2011, 12:14 AM
Good question, you would agree though that in most cases semi-automatic rifles are more powerful than a handgun and designed to provide a tactical advantage in gun fights over a handgun.


Banning all semi-automatic weapons would be a good start. Of course to the 80 people who die daily by firearms in the US Its probably a moot point.

No, I wouldn't agree. In close quarters combat an AK-47 is a horrible weapon.

Banning all semi automatic weapons, aside from being unconstitutional, would be silly.

boxcar
09-08-2011, 12:41 AM
That is one interpretation, but is not not the only one as I am sure you know. Acting self defense is ok. Now one for you, how about the killing of a bystander you knew you were putting in grave danger in order to protect some property?
Something else to ponder. A high school teacher once said to a class I was in. "Sending someone to meet his maker when he may not be ready yet is a grave responsibility and should not be taken lightly" The key word here is "yet". It implies all sorts of things.

Nothing to ponder. The bible addresses manslaughter. This is what the "cities of refuge" under the Mosaic economy were all about.

Secondly, the number of everyone's days are ordained of God. It has zero to do about whether or not one is ready "yet" or not.

Boxcar

redshift1
09-08-2011, 03:45 AM
No, I wouldn't agree. In close quarters combat an AK-47 is a horrible weapon.

Banning all semi automatic weapons, aside from being unconstitutional, would be silly.

I'm confused on how the 2nd Amendment encompasses semi-automatic weapons or for that matter tanks and bazookas. How does that work?

redshift1
09-08-2011, 03:51 AM
There are way too many semi-autos already in civilian hands, I, for instance, have several. What are you going to do? Take them away from people?...

Secondly, by your own admission in the paragraph above, disarming the law-abiding public doesn't prevent criminals from gaining access to those weapons. So why bother?

Who said anything about disarming the public?

Why bother ? Why bother enforcing any law, why bother enforcing drug laws?

Robert Goren
09-08-2011, 08:36 AM
Nothing to ponder. The bible addresses manslaughter. This is what the "cities of refuge" under the Mosaic economy were all about.

Secondly, the number of everyone's days are ordained of God. It has zero to do about whether or not one is ready "yet" or not.

BoxcarPredestination is not an universally accepted doctrine. But since you believe in it. How can someone be murdered if God has ordained that the victim was going to die at that second anyway?

lsbets
09-08-2011, 08:52 AM
I'm confused on how the 2nd Amendment encompasses semi-automatic weapons or for that matter tanks and bazookas. How does that work?

Do you even know what a semi automatic is? Or do you think the 2nd amendment only covers muskets?

Robert Goren
09-08-2011, 09:18 AM
Do you even know what a semi automatic is? Or do you think the 2nd amendment only covers muskets?At the time it was written, it did.

lsbets
09-08-2011, 09:35 AM
So Robert do you think it should only cover muskets?

BTW- sent you a PM on something else.

elysiantraveller
09-08-2011, 10:19 AM
Who said anything about disarming the public?

Why bother ? Why bother enforcing any law, why bother enforcing drug laws?

If you were to ban semi-automatic weapons you would have to take them away from the general public. Like I said before I have several. Some of them have been in the family for 50+ years. My grandfather used them. You would take those away? (Not trying to be confrontational just asking)

Do you understand the difference between semi-auto's and assault rifles? A civilian AR-15 or AK-47 are not assault rifles and actually have real-world hunting application. I use mine to control predators on my property because it is the smallest(bullet)/safest/reliable gun I can get for that type of work.

elysiantraveller
09-08-2011, 10:20 AM
At the time it was written, it did.

It also said nothing about freedom of speech on the internet yet here we are...

boxcar
09-08-2011, 12:35 PM
Predestination is not an universally accepted doctrine. But since you believe in it. How can someone be murdered if God has ordained that the victim was going to die at that second anyway?

Generally, it is universally accepted -- just not in the same way as the Reformed Faith understands the teaching.

As far as your question goes because God also ordains the means to achieve his ends, yet without sinning; for God cannot sin. Now, I know what your next question is going to be -- but to address this adequately would be way beyond the narrow scope of this thread. And besides, I wouldn't want Greyfox to have a hemorrhage. :) Suffice it to say these next two texts are easily understood, regardless of your difficulty to reconcile the tension between the moral culpability of Man with the sovereign will of God.

Ps 139:13-16
13 For Thou didst form my inward parts;
Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb.
14 I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Thy works,
And my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from Thee,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth.
16 Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Thy book they were all written,
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.
NASB

And,

Luke 12:16-20
16 And He told them a parable, saying, "The land of a certain rich man was very productive. 17 "And he began reasoning to himself, saying, 'What shall I do, since I have no place to store my crops?' 18 "And he said, 'This is what I will do: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19 'And I will say to my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years to come; take your ease, eat, drink and be merry."' 20 "But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?'
NASB

Therefore, since no man knows what the next minute holds in store for him, let alone the next hour, day, week, month or year, it would do well to understand this text:

2 Cor 6:22 for He says,

"At the acceptable time I listened to you,
And on the day of salvation I helped you";

behold, NOW is "the acceptable time," behold, NOW is "the day of salvation" —
NASB

If you learn what this means and can capture and appreciate the sense of urgency of Paul's words, then you'll understand how you can be ready, regardless of when God will require your soul.

Boxcar

lsbets
09-08-2011, 12:50 PM
Hcap countdown. 3....2....1...........

hcap
09-08-2011, 01:57 PM
:lol: :lol:

/v/juW7SC_7bfM

Robert Goren
09-08-2011, 02:10 PM
So Robert do you think it should only cover muskets?

BTW- sent you a PM on something else.No, but it should not cover anti aircraft guns. There has be middle ground someplace on what you can own for your own defense. When I was a kid I was a hunter, so I understand a hunter's point of view. I don't think very hunters consider an AK-47 a hunting rifle. We just need to use a little common sense here.

elysiantraveller
09-08-2011, 02:27 PM
No, but it should not cover anti aircraft guns. There has be middle ground someplace on what you can own for your own defense. When I was a kid I was a hunter, so I understand a hunter's point of view. I don't think very hunters consider an AK-47 a hunting rifle. We just need to use a little common sense here.

You wouldn't use it because it is underpowered. The AR-15 on the other hand is the largest growing gun market out there because of its ability to be a incredible hunting rifle.

redshift1
09-08-2011, 02:27 PM
Do you even know what a semi automatic is? Or do you think the 2nd amendment only covers muskets?


I'm asking for some substantiation of your claims that the constitution somehow guarantee's the right to own semi-automatic weapons.

lsbets
09-08-2011, 02:35 PM
I'm asking for some substantiation of your claims that the constitution somehow guarantee's the right to own semi-automatic weapons.

The supreme court has said so in Heller and McDonald.

Robert Goren
09-08-2011, 02:35 PM
You wouldn't use it because it is underpowered. The AR-15 on the other hand is the largest growing gun market out there because of its ability to be a incredible hunting rifle. I know what type of hunter you are now. The type who pumps off as many rounds as possible into a covey of quail and hopes he hits one. The hunters I knew as a kid used look down their nose at those types of hunters. I guess in this day and age, the sport is completely gone from hunting.

elysiantraveller
09-08-2011, 02:45 PM
I know what type of hunter you are now. The type who pumps off as many rounds as possible into a covey of quail and hopes he hits one. The hunters I knew as a kid used look down their nose at those types of hunters. I guess in this day and age, the sport is completely gone from hunting.

Wow a personal attack!

I hate to tell you but the 7.62x39 (AK-47 Bullet) is WAY less powerful than the .30-06 you used to deer hunt with as a kid.

Sorry Robert but I'm just more educated on the matter than you are.

Also, I deer hunt with a muzzleloader, you know... one of those guns you get to shoot once then spend 1-2 minutes reloading so that kinda blows your away "opinion" of me.

Do me a favor... next time before you start judging someone check and see if what they are saying is correct.

redshift1
09-08-2011, 02:49 PM
If you were to ban semi-automatic weapons you would have to take them away from the general public. Like I said before I have several. Some of them have been in the family for 50+ years. My grandfather used them. You would take those away? (Not trying to be confrontational just asking)

Do you understand the difference between semi-auto's and assault rifles? A civilian AR-15 or AK-47 are not assault rifles and actually have real-world hunting application. I use mine to control predators on my property because it is the smallest(bullet)/safest/reliable gun I can get for that type of work.


You agree with this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeyS6LYIx4

elysiantraveller
09-08-2011, 03:03 PM
You agree with this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeyS6LYIx4

Yes.

All three guns the guy shot were AK-47's. One was a assault rifle as defined by the BATF.

Tom
09-08-2011, 03:09 PM
I know what type of hunter you are now. The type who pumps off as many rounds as possible into a covey of quail and hopes he hits one. The hunters I knew as a kid used look down their nose at those types of hunters. I guess in this day and age, the sport is completely gone from hunting.

If I ever went hunting, I would use grenades!
Close counts.

redshift1
09-08-2011, 04:34 PM
Yes.

All three guns the guy shot were AK-47's. One was a assault rifle as defined by the BATF.

Key words are selective fire between semi-automatic and automatic.

boxcar
09-08-2011, 04:40 PM
:lol: :lol:

/v/juW7SC_7bfM

That was your best "rebuttal" ever. At least it had entertainment value from two great oldies and goldies, yet. :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

elysiantraveller
09-08-2011, 04:42 PM
Key words are selective fire between semi-automatic and automatic.

I don't understand what you are trying to say? BATF defines a assault rifle as a gun that completes multiple firing cycles without multiple trigger pulls. The 2nd and 3rd AK were incapable of doing that.

It is illegal for a civilian to own a assault rifle unless they have a class 3 firearms license OR, depending on the state you live in, pays the tax stamp to go out and buy a gun available on the BATF registry which is restricted to guns made before 1985. Going that route a M16A1 will cost you roughly $15,000 and you can't shoot it anywhere.

Getting back on topic though I posed a question to you about semi-auto's.

If you were to ban semi-automatic weapons you would have to take them away from the general public. Like I said before I have several. Some of them have been in the family for 50+ years. My grandfather used them. You would take those away? (Not trying to be confrontational just asking)

You still haven't answered it and instead posted a video (from about 20 years ago I might add) about how the media consistently and inappropriately mislabels these firearms.

Robert Goren
09-08-2011, 05:06 PM
Wow a personal attack!

I hate to tell you but the 7.62x39 (AK-47 Bullet) is WAY less powerful than the .30-06 you used to deer hunt with as a kid.

Sorry Robert but I'm just more educated on the matter than you are.

Also, I deer hunt with a muzzleloader, you know... one of those guns you get to shoot once then spend 1-2 minutes reloading so that kinda blows your away "opinion" of me.

Do me a favor... next time before you start judging someone check and see if what they are saying is correct.I have not hunted since my Dad died in 1976. I never hunted deer although my dad did. I hunted Pheasants and ducks with first with a 410 (I don't think I ever got anything other some quail with it) I got pump 12 gauge for my 15th birthday. I was a terrible shot, but generally got a few birds a year. In this part of country at time Bird hunting was a big thing. I quit hunting for a few years after high school because a friend of mine was killed in a hunting accident. Even after I started again, my heart really wasn't in it. There used be sort of a hunter's code of things you don't do even though they might be legal. A lot thing have changed since I was a kid and this may be one of them. I have known people to feed deer all summer long just to get one opening day. Most people don't think that is right or at least they didn't used to.

elysiantraveller
09-08-2011, 05:47 PM
I have not hunted since my Dad died in 1976. I never hunted deer although my dad did. I hunted Pheasants and ducks with first with a 410 (I don't think I ever got anything other some quail with it) I got pump 12 gauge for my 15th birthday. I was a terrible shot, but generally got a few birds a year. In this part of country at time Bird hunting was a big thing. I quit hunting for a few years after high school because a friend of mine was killed in a hunting accident. Even after I started again, my heart really wasn't in it. There used be sort of a hunter's code of things you don't do even though they might be legal. A lot thing have changed since I was a kid and this may be one of them. I have known people to feed deer all summer long just to get one opening day. Most people don't think that is right or at least they didn't used to.

A .410 was one of my first two guns given to me by my grandfather. :) The second was a Ruger 10/22 which is semi-auto of course.

Hunters are no different now than they were back in '76. There has always been bad eggs and they always give the group as a whole a bad image. Where you made your mistake was assuming, after your 35 year hiatus and not knowing me from a hole in the wall, I was one of those bad eggs.

The point is these civilian-use military platforms do serve purposes to hunters. Like I said before the AR15 is the largest growing segment in American shooting industry and why?... because its simply a damn good gun with a ton of real-world hunting scenarios where its the best thing available. I personally have zero use for a AK because it shoots a big/slow bullet (AR is small/fast) but I know some people do... so if it works for them...

Now what happened in Carson City is terrible but what really happened is someone who is mentally deranged decided to start shooting people. Surprisingly, given there are 300 Million people in our society these events are pretty rare. The fact is, the type of gun being used doesn't matter when one guy is shooting a bunching of unarmed people. Hell, the body count probably would have been higher using a 12 gauge. I think in these scenarios the weapon used almost gets emphasized more than the fact this was a highly troubled/deranged/insane individual.

hcap
09-08-2011, 07:49 PM
That was your best "rebuttal" ever. At least it had entertainment value from two great oldies and goldies, yet. :ThmbUp:

BoxcarGershwin. American genius.

Btw, I give equal time to Handel's Messiah and JS Bach. No point not carrying some insurance :)

boxcar
09-08-2011, 08:11 PM
Gershwin. American genius.

Btw, I give equal time to Handel's Messiah and JS Bach. No point not carrying some insurance :)

You need to change carriers in a hurry...before your sacred Time runs out. :)

Boxcar

BlueShoe
09-08-2011, 08:21 PM
You wouldn't use it because it is underpowered. The AR-15 on the other hand is the largest growing gun market out there because of its ability to be a incredible hunting rifle.
No, it is the AR-15 5.56 round that is underpowered. A .223 was, and is, a varmint round, suitable for game animals no larger than a coyote, and definitely not for deer. There are many, many stories about this rounds failure to stop a man with a single solid hit, and its inability to penetrate. "Spray and Pray" may have been marginally effective in 'Nam, but not in todays combat scenarios. The military has been going back to heavier more effective rounds in recent years, with snipers using .308's or .300 Win Mag's. Also there has been some adoption of the 6.8 SPC round, which can be adopted into AR-15 type rifles and strikes a blow nearly 50% harder than the 5.56. Ruger has chambered their popular Mini-14 Ranch Rifle in this caliber. This would be a great weapon for use in an urban warfare riot or insurrection type of situation.

hcap
09-08-2011, 08:39 PM
You need to change carriers in a hurry...before your sacred Time runs out. :)

BoxcarSee, I try and talk to the other children nicely, and you throw your milk and cookies.

Btw, who died and made you insurance commissioner? Exactly who are you dressing up as this week?

elysiantraveller
09-08-2011, 11:09 PM
No, it is the AR-15 5.56 round that is underpowered. A .223 was, and is, a varmint round, suitable for game animals no larger than a coyote, and definitely not for deer. There are many, many stories about this rounds failure to stop a man with a single solid hit, and its inability to penetrate. "Spray and Pray" may have been marginally effective in 'Nam, but not in todays combat scenarios. The military has been going back to heavier more effective rounds in recent years, with snipers using .308's or .300 Win Mag's. Also there has been some adoption of the 6.8 SPC round, which can be adopted into AR-15 type rifles and strikes a blow nearly 50% harder than the 5.56. Ruger has chambered their popular Mini-14 Ranch Rifle in this caliber. This would be a great weapon for use in an urban warfare riot or insurrection type of situation.

I wasn't referring to Deer hunting with a 5.56 round and I actually agree with everything you said. For most hunting though I can't think of when you would use a 7.62x39 (over others available) except for maybe hog control... The 5.56 is a great varmint round whereas if one was going to use a 7.62x39 there are a boat load of more powerful cartridges in the same neighborhood (30-06, 7MM Mag, .308, .300 Win etc etc). Also, after about 250-300 yards the 5.56 carries more force than the AK downrange.

lsbets
09-08-2011, 11:19 PM
"Spray and Pray" may have been marginally effective in 'Nam, but not in todays combat scenarios.

With a 3 round burst there is no spray and pray, and I can assure you, the 5.56 round we use is highly effective in today's modern combat.

Reminds me of when I got home from Iraq and was buying a new 9mm. The guy at the gun store told me I needed to get a .45 because a 9 had no knockdown power. I explained that I preferred a 9 because that is what I was used to, and that a 9 had plenty of knockdown power. He told me I didn't know what I was talking about. I laughed at him, told him what I had just been doing for the last 13 months, and went to another store to buy my new gun.

The M-16 is an incredibly accurate and effective combat rifle, and the last I noticed, our enemies are a bit larger than coyotes.