You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Self-defense is a Civil Right! STAND UP! (Infamous Shotgun Video at Freedom Plaza)
It took the police 72 minutes to respond according to one report. The shooter started shortly after 10 PM. The police breached his door at 11:58.
I know what it sounds like, but I would have ran towards the gun fire, not away from it. They took way too long. Where have all the warriors gone?! Have we all become farm animals??? I watch those videos and see people just laying there like idiots. Why?! Take cover. React. Get off the X god damn it.
We don't have a problem with guns. We have a problem with predators. They should be removed from society by any means necessary too. If it isn't a gun, it will be a knife. If it isn't a knife, it will be a vehicle. We need to stop depending on others for our security and provide it ourselves.
Why not a nuke? Or a chemical weapon? The tool used directly relates to the amount of damage done. Yes, we need to deal with predators, but we also should deal with the tools available to those who want to cause the most damage. I'm not saying government laws are necessarily the answer (see my post for more on that).
Yes, why not? You want to pay the costs of maintaining a nuke, securing it, and insuring yourself or your company? Go for it. Governments, as I have written already, have not done a very good job of maintaining those weapons.
Because, in my mind, these weapons only have one purpose: massive wholescale destruction and death. Desiring such a tool, IMO, is not a sign of a healthy, peaceful individual.
It is if that healthy, peaceful individual is under threat from a nuclear power, and nothing else will deter that power from taking what is yours, including your life.
MAD is a thing, and it has been working for longer than Moore's Law has held.
It's kept India and Pakistan from waging all out conventional war, despite the frequent incitements of border skirmishes.
I'm not saying it's good that such deterrents are necessary. I'm saying that wanting to cause wholesale destruction and death isn't why people have nuclear weapons.
The threat of returning violence with violence isn't peace, but it's better than war.
I'd love to get rid of them too, but I do not have a magic wand to wave to make that happen. Without governments though, the market might be able to do it. Again, who's going to insure you if you have one? Who's going to pay the damages when you use it? It would be a bloody expensive mess. Because of governments though, those systems are not in place. Governments, as usual, have special protections, are above the law, enjoy a huge double standard, and have a monopoly on force.
Spot on! At this point, that is one of the reasons that North Korea's leader is still in power, not necessarily because he has nuclear capability, but because China has stated that if Trump tries for a regime change there, like in Iraq for instance, they will step in. That is where the power stale mate takes place, like you have already stated, not peace, but better than war.
I heard a likely scenario this morning. NK gets an ICBM. Then they invade SK. Who's going to stop them?
Oh, you want to stop us? Okay, fine. We'll send an ICBM to Seattle. Are all the people there worth saving the people in SK?
All the while China sits back and laughs... Er, no, they don't sit back. They invade Taiwan.
I don't see how a knife, or even a car, could cause as much death as this man caused.
You say people didn't run for cover, and then in the same paragraph, scolded them for running. Your own words are contradictory. They did run for cover, how many people do you think ranand got gunned down for no reason?
How do you explain to the thousands of people that were directly affected by this vilence that nothing can be done to help?
Tell me how someone having a gun other than the shooter would have helped in this scenario? You gonna shoot someone who is 32 stories up?
You say it took them 72 minutes to respond, but I HIGHLY doubt they weren't on the scene within 10. When did the killings stop? Did everybody get hurt within the first 10 minutes. And there was just a stand off for the last 62 minutes as you say.
You can't just look at this in one single tunnel visioned way. I need you to give me every side of the story with all understanding of the facts before I can take you for anothing other than someone who is stuck in their own.... Wait for it... BiasNarrative.
He could have used a bomb. He had planes. He could have flown a plane into the crowd.
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding contradicting myself. You misunderstood my comment perhaps about me saying I would run towards the gunfire as in go to stop it. Yes, people should get to cover, and my post about this incident explains that process.
How can I explain to the thousands of people that were directly affected by this violence that nothing can be done to help? That question makes zero sense. What should I tell them? Predators don't follow laws. Make more laws. Predators won't care. Murderers do not follow gun laws.
Again, as I said in my post about this, having a gun while in that crowd would not have helped unless you ran towards the gun fire. The police responded more quickly than I reported above too according to updated information. Apparently, they were at the room within 15 minutes. Guess what. They went there with guns.
Biased narrative, ehh? I'm a private investigator. My job is to ask questions. You don't want to ask questions? That's fine. It's kinda ironic though with your handle. Is your answer always going to be to disarm law abiding people?
If it is, I have no interest in discussing this with you any further.
Contradiction. You stated, "I know what it sounds like, but I would have ran towards the gun fire, not away from it. They took way too long. Where have all the warriors gone?! Have we all become farm animals???"
That to me said that you were calling everyone who ran away animals and that they should be warriors instead. Yet, directly after, said they should be running away instead of hiding on the ground. Perhaps I misinterpreted your meaning?? Maybe not.
When it comes to telling those who were affected what can be done, saying, "There could be a mass shooting every day, and I would still not trade liberty for security." You think this helps at all when thousands of people are affected by these shootings by losing someone they love? It is ridiculous, like spitting in their face and saying the loss of that life does not matter because you are too afraid of the government. (Definitely a good fear to have.) But I will say that whenever we have made a change in our government, we made it through mass marches, guns were not needed to gain many of the rights that were not inherent originally in this country.
You say you are a private investigator and investigating is your job, yet what did you NOT do until I asked you about it. You believed they took way to long to respond and decided to spread that misinformation making people believe they took much longer to respond. Instead of explaining that when they were at the door within 15 minutes, I bet peoples lives were no longer in direct danger. That is why I said you were stuck in your own BiasNarrative. You refused to ask questions about the facts that did not make your opinion correct. Instead, you heard one report and took it as a fact because it fell in line with what you wanted to believe. That is my WHOLE point.
No where have I stated that guns should be taken away from people. All I am doing is playing devils advocate and asking you questions that don't fall in line with what your beliefs are.
If you truly want to believe what you believe, and want to keep your weapons at any cost, how will this be explained to those who will lose their loved ones? What is the best way to fix these issues? Do we want people running around like the wild wild west? If that is what you want, fine. Then something needs to be done for those who lose loved ones. Lose their livelihood. As I am sure you know, all actions will have a repercussion. So what can we do? What is your fix to stop these sorts of things from happening?
Also, I have heard reports that the hotel knew this guy was bringing guns into his room, do you know if that is true?
You seem to mistake grants of privilege for rights, when you say:
Guns never gained us any rights whatsoever, either.
We were born with rights, and nothing will take our rights away.
Our rights can be recognized by others, and the private arms in the hands of the American revolutionaries convinced the crown to recognize our rights.
Our rights can be trampled by others, and that is why the aforementioned private arms came into play - and this is exactly what @finnian is going on about.
The wars which the US has lost in the last century were all waged against guerillas using small arms. The US military would be hopelessly fractured if they tried to repress US people as they have in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan, and those that set the military on Americans would hang, in time.
The answer to give those people that have lost loved ones is hard, but the truth can be, and always is when the only reality is grief: they should have been armed, and trained to defend themselves.
You seem reasonable. You should be armed, and trained, to defend yourself, your loved ones, and our freedom.
Or, you can just settle for what you get.
Even if it's a bullet in the head from some whacko.
Yes, instead of standing there cowering, I would have moved my family to safety. Then I would have moved in the direction of fire.
That's not a contradiction. Most people, including agents of the state, will not help others. It is a rare breed who'll step up and risk their own life for mere strangers.
Yes, instead of laying there in the open without cover, they should have moved to cover. That's plain stupid to just lay there. You don't have to engage the attacker. Don't stand there like an idiot though either.
Afraid of the government? No, hardly. As I've stated elsewhere, no one is bullet proof. Governments fear armed people. It's the other way around. I'm supposed to combine my rage with cowardice? You expect me to disarm simply because some people get murdered? That's not going to happen.
I decided to spread misinformation? I'm not going to searching around for every post I've made and editing them for future updates. Sorry, I don't have time for that. Maybe you do. More and more information is coming out, and old information will be updated as we move forward.
He finished his job or died from the second shooter. The police didn't stop anything. The man decided to end his life, or he had it ended for him by a handler. History shows that is usually the case too. Police show up too late. My point is that people should not depend on them for their defense.
Let me explain something to you as clearly as I possibly can...
Americans will not disarm no matter what happens. Do you understand? I really don't think you do. You are all caught up in your emotions, and you fail to understand the primary principles of liberty. I cannot explain them to you. Something tells me you're not even an American, or perhaps you are a subject to a crown instead?
Something needs to be done for those who lose loved ones? What exactly would you do? Let's here your grand plan. Whip out your magic wand and make all the predators of the world disappear. Make all the sociopaths have a conscious. Go ahead. I'll wait.
Until you find a way to make that happen, I'm retaining my ability to deal deadly force at a distance.
Yes, actions have repercussions. That's a great way to end this reply, for actions do have consequences. The British crown learned that the hard way didn't they when they moved to disarm the militias and hang their leaders. Maybe the current empire will make the same mistake. My hope is that they do not. Repercussions? I don't believe you understand them either.
There will be a bloody revolution here in the USA before we are disarmed. When myself and my friends say liberty is worth any price, we really mean it.
Just a few points. You posted the 72 minutes comment 2 days ago, at which point we already knew how long it took them to respond. So please don't act like you didn't just read a headline and take it as gospel into the narrative you believed.
Second, again, I never said taking away guns. Seriously. I don't know how I can be more clear to you.
Third, I don't understand how you can be negative towards another American simply for voicing an opinion that is different than yours. Not sure about you, but I feel the first amendment gives me the right to speak my mind. Regardless of my opinion.
Is it acceptable in your idea of America that anybody who doesn't think like you is instantly not American? How do you know what I think or feel or want from the Freedom that I enjoy everyday?
I find it interesting that your opinion is all that matters. It doesn't matter that we live in a republic, that the people have a say and a voice. All that matters to you is your own opinion and damn everyone else.
You are belittling, rude, closed minded, and refuse to allow any other information into your thought process.
What would you say if I had every intention to buy guns and had my conceal and carry license in the "great" State of Illinois. Cause I was born and raised in a small town surrounded by cornfields in the heart of Illinois.
Doesn't matter to you right? Because I played devil's reject and challenged your view point? Even while saying I didn't want to take away your guns.
Sorry, I'm not entertained. This is very important. Sure, I'm an asshole when it comes to liberty. Even joking about further limitations pisses me off. I haven't edited any of my posts about the Vegas shooting, and tons of new information has come forward. Yes, things changed. It doesn't matter how long exactly it took though. They were still too late. The attack was over before they entered the suite.
This is not a republic and hasn't been for a long time. You perhaps don't understand what a republic is either. The difference, the key difference, between a republic and a democracy is that in a republic the smallest minority is the individual. The law comes first, majority rule never applies. Rules are based on common sense and natural law too.
Within natural law and common sense, I will retain the power to use violence in defense of my life and others. If the modern day law changes or the US Constitution changes, I... don't care. I will then be a criminal perhaps, but I will never disarm. Play devil's advocate all you want.
Our government is playing with fire here. You know it. I know it. Some things are not debatable.
Nice, France is a prime example here.
That's a good point. I didn't specifically mention it, but there have been mass shootings in other nations like France where the people are practically completely disarmed. So much for the idea that disarming all the people will stop mass shootings.
Playing devil's advocate here. You have completely open borders with countries that have less gun laws. Not that hard to sneak in weapons. Just throw it in your trunk and drive.
It's like the stupidity of the Chicago gun ban...... All you do is drive out of Chicago...... Genius......
Or this, for example. The necessity of industrial manufacturing is vanishing quickly, across all industries. No one is stuffing that genie back in the bottle.
The freedom to be armed is not granted. It is the very essence of humanity to utilize the laws of nature to organize their defense, and 3D printing is the latest iteration of our grasp of those laws.
It is a natural consequence of being alive and the sovereign source of authority, as you are.
The government, any government, is neither.
There should be no national borders that limit free travel by humans. Are you peaceful? Then you are free to travel. Not peaceful? You won't last long in any civilized area. The only reason we have such laws and the borders is to control people.
In a perfect world, it's be great to have no national borders. But that would involve everybody agreeing to certain standards and rules. :/
We are way far off from that. So many cultural differences it's insane.
Europe already does it. Why not the rest of the world? This gets back to the argument that gun laws don't stop murderers. Borders don't stop predators either. All they do is restrict the movement of good people.
Don't abide by the standards? You pay a heavy price. Go to Russia and don't respect their culture. See how that works out for you. ;-)
To think that by taking away an object to combat bad people doing bad things is a logical fallacy.
The same for applying more laws to law breakers.
There are a great many ways to cause wider death and horror than capping folks with an AK. I'll not go into detailed examples here, for reasons.
There was a reason firearms were used, and we don't currently know what it is.
All I'll say is that the only alternatives to firearms weren't knives or cars. To confine the debate so is disingenuous.
Hypothetically, as I've written elsewhere, let's say it was an arms deal gone bad.
The FBI thinks it is going to catch some terrorists. The terrorists use the FBI to get the weapons they need to carry out the attack. Why else have 23 guns as a lone gunman? It makes no sense.
The FBI has a history of providing actual explosives, bombs, guns, etc. to "catch" terrorists. Therefore, them doing it in this case is not surprising. If you were a terrorist group looking to attack Vegas, setting up an arms deal with the FBI is pretty genius.
That also explains all the cameras and why none of them supposedly recorded anything. They did and either the terrorists or the FBI swapped the media with blank ones.