TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote:Well apparently Native Americans are not the only ones to hold the title of most dead from a mass killing.

Only one massacre can be the most deadly. The rest are runners up.

I think the author is blinded by his own biases. I doubt the MSM ignored the murders he lists because of the skin color of the victims. I think they turn a blind eye to the ones he lists, and other mass killings, because of the killers not because of the victims. The mass shootings being ignored by the MSM were done under the auspices of the government.

The MSM doesn't want to report things like that. If that was common knowledge, it would be obvious that gun control should be targeted at agents of the government, not private citizens. That doesn't fit their narrative.

Captain Matt wrote:

philip964 wrote:Well apparently Native Americans are not the only ones to hold the title of most dead from a mass killing.

Only one massacre can be the most deadly. The rest are runners up.

I think the author is blinded by his own biases. I doubt the MSM ignored the murders he lists because of the skin color of the victims. I think they turn a blind eye to the ones he lists, and other mass killings, because of the killers not because of the victims. The mass shootings being ignored by the MSM were done under the auspices of the government.

The MSM doesn't want to report things like that. If that was common knowledge, it would be obvious that gun control should be targeted at agents of the government, not private citizens. That doesn't fit their narrative.

Another inconvenient truth is that more people are shot and killed in Chicago each month than was killed in Las Vegas on that horrible day. Yet the Chicago killings do not stir the politicians, or the MSM.

Lynyrd wrote:

Captain Matt wrote:

philip964 wrote:Well apparently Native Americans are not the only ones to hold the title of most dead from a mass killing.

Only one massacre can be the most deadly. The rest are runners up.

I think the author is blinded by his own biases. I doubt the MSM ignored the murders he lists because of the skin color of the victims. I think they turn a blind eye to the ones he lists, and other mass killings, because of the killers not because of the victims. The mass shootings being ignored by the MSM were done under the auspices of the government.

The MSM doesn't want to report things like that. If that was common knowledge, it would be obvious that gun control should be targeted at agents of the government, not private citizens. That doesn't fit their narrative.

Another inconvenient truth is that more people are shot and killed in Chicago each month than was killed in Las Vegas on that horrible day. Yet the Chicago killings do not stir the politicians, or the MSM.

What does Chicago have to do with the killing of unarmed people at a Country Music Concert? How can you compare the two? We all know the reason behind all the killings in Chicago. Its drugs,and gang wars. Sad to say but people are already accustomed to that and frankly dont give a crap anymore.This "terrorist",yes he is a damn terrorist,shot and killed and injured innocent people who probably didn't do one damn thing to them. This is why politicians and the MSM are stired over this and not whats happening in Chicago.

I think that Chicago proves the point that the strictest of gun control does not nor would not prevent killing no matter what the motive.....big picture.

Killadocg23 wrote:

Lynyrd wrote:

Captain Matt wrote:

philip964 wrote:Well apparently Native Americans are not the only ones to hold the title of most dead from a mass killing.

Only one massacre can be the most deadly. The rest are runners up.

I think the author is blinded by his own biases. I doubt the MSM ignored the murders he lists because of the skin color of the victims. I think they turn a blind eye to the ones he lists, and other mass killings, because of the killers not because of the victims. The mass shootings being ignored by the MSM were done under the auspices of the government.

The MSM doesn't want to report things like that. If that was common knowledge, it would be obvious that gun control should be targeted at agents of the government, not private citizens. That doesn't fit their narrative.

Another inconvenient truth is that more people are shot and killed in Chicago each month than was killed in Las Vegas on that horrible day. Yet the Chicago killings do not stir the politicians, or the MSM.

What does Chicago have to do with the killing of unarmed people at a Country Music Concert? How can you compare the two? We all know the reason behind all the killings in Chicago. Its drugs,and gang wars. Sad to say but people are already accustomed to that and frankly dont give a crap anymore.This "terrorist",yes he is a darn terrorist,shot and killed and injured innocent people who probably didn't do one darn thing to them. This is why politicians and the MSM are stired over this and not whats happening in Chicago.

No, they are stirred because they follow the same ideology as Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago and former Chief of Staff to President Obama: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Cornyn is focused on bump-stocks.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... stock-ban/

On Wednesday Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said a hearing on banning bump-stock devices is “worthwhile.”
His statement comes three days after an attacker used a bump-stock device criminally to attack concert-goers in Las Vegas.

According to Politico, Cornyn talked about semiautomatics versus automatics and said he is “not sure how the bump stock [fits] into that scheme,” but he believes the Senate “ought to get to the bottom of it.”

He said, “It is ordinarily illegal to transform a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapon, and it’s illegal to buy an automatic weapon unless you have a special license and undergo a special background check.”

Killadocg23 wrote:

Lynyrd wrote:

Captain Matt wrote:

philip964 wrote:Well apparently Native Americans are not the only ones to hold the title of most dead from a mass killing.

Only one massacre can be the most deadly. The rest are runners up.

I think the author is blinded by his own biases. I doubt the MSM ignored the murders he lists because of the skin color of the victims. I think they turn a blind eye to the ones he lists, and other mass killings, because of the killers not because of the victims. The mass shootings being ignored by the MSM were done under the auspices of the government.

The MSM doesn't want to report things like that. If that was common knowledge, it would be obvious that gun control should be targeted at agents of the government, not private citizens. That doesn't fit their narrative.

Another inconvenient truth is that more people are shot and killed in Chicago each month than was killed in Las Vegas on that horrible day. Yet the Chicago killings do not stir the politicians, or the MSM.

What does Chicago have to do with the killing of unarmed people at a Country Music Concert? How can you compare the two? We all know the reason behind all the killings in Chicago. Its drugs,and gang wars. Sad to say but people are already accustomed to that and frankly dont give a crap anymore.This "terrorist",yes he is a darn terrorist,shot and killed and injured innocent people who probably didn't do one darn thing to them. This is why politicians and the MSM are stired over this and not whats happening in Chicago.

Chicago proves that gun control doesn't work.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/the ... urce-says/

A number of bullet holes in aviation fuel tanks at 2000 feet from shooter. I forgot how close all this is to the airport.

Had a gun safe. Mentioned a gun room. I think we are up to 43 guns now.

Reno neighbors said he was strange.

Had allergy problems. Wore gloves, girlfriend didn't wear makeup or perfume. Casino cleaned carpets for him with plain water.

Killadocg23 wrote:
What does Chicago have to do with the killing of unarmed people at a Country Music Concert? How can you compare the two? We all know the reason behind all the killings in Chicago. Its drugs,and gang wars. Sad to say but people are already accustomed to that and frankly dont give a crap anymore.This "terrorist",yes he is a darn terrorist,shot and killed and injured innocent people who probably didn't do one darn thing to them. This is why politicians and the MSM are stired over this and not whats happening in Chicago.

He was not a terrorist, at least not that they have uncovered yet. ISIS has claimed him, but that link is yet to be proven.

If you're using the term "terrorist" in the generic form, please refer to the actual definition:

"a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

The use of this word has become too common by the MSM in order to water down those that we are actually at a sustained war with. There is no known political aim to this attack. Terrorism, by definition, is used to exert influence and to scare a group into change. A psychopath killer with no known political ties does not meet this standard. Horrible, tragic, insane, vile - yes. Terrorism - no, at least not yet proven.

Obama's administration ok'd the bump stock, apparently cleared in part because of its ability to allow persons with disabilities to use the weapon.

In the ATF June 2010 letter:

“The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed. In order to use the device, the shooter must apply constant forward pressure with the non-shooting hands and constant rearward pressure with the shooting hand. Accordingly, we find that the ‘bump stock’ is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.”

Company patented it and got ATF's approval all during the Obama administration.

philip964 wrote:https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/the ... urce-says/

A number of bullet holes in aviation fuel tanks at 2000 feet from shooter. I forgot how close all this is to the airport.

Had a gun safe. Mentioned a gun room. I think we are up to 43 guns now.

Reno neighbors said he was strange.

Had allergy problems. Wore gloves, girlfriend didn't wear makeup or perfume. Casino cleaned carpets for him with plain water.

The AvGas thing is silly to me. This guy was intelligent by all accounts and a pilot. He had to know that shooting an aviation tank had virtually no chance to cause an explosion or a fire.

Chicago proves that gun control doesn't work.

I agree. It's never routine when I need to travel through or near Chicago. Failed gun control policies are one part of the many issues there, and many other places in the US. Would better policies have changed the Las Vegas terrorist attack? Not directly.
Political debate over added proposed rules isn't productive to make the US safer again. That will require a culture change towards pervasive goodness, and aggressive opposition to evil mindsets and unconstitutional policies that encourage evil to grow and multiply.

TVGuy wrote:
If you're using the term "terrorist" in the generic form, please refer to the actual definition:

"a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political, religious, or ideological aims."

Fixed that for you. I agree with your point, but if you exclude religious and ideological goals from your definition, every Muslim terrorist attack that's ever occurred no longer meets the definition of "terrorism." One could argue that Antifa and BLM wouldn't either.

imkopaka wrote:

TVGuy wrote:
If you're using the term "terrorist" in the generic form, please refer to the actual definition:

"a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political, religious, or ideological aims."

Fixed that for you. I agree with your point, but if you exclude religious and ideological goals from your definition, every Muslim terrorist attack that's ever occurred no longer meets the definition of "terrorism." One could argue that Antifa and BLM wouldn't either.

Until we know this guy's motives, we can't really say whether he is a terrorist, or not. We can speculate and guess, but that is all.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

imkopaka wrote:

TVGuy wrote:
If you're using the term "terrorist" in the generic form, please refer to the actual definition:

"a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political, religious, or ideological aims."

Fixed that for you. I agree with your point, but if you exclude religious and ideological goals from your definition, every Muslim terrorist attack that's ever occurred no longer meets the definition of "terrorism." One could argue that Antifa and BLM wouldn't either.

Until we know this guy's motives, we can't really say whether he is a terrorist, or not. We can speculate and guess, but that is all.

Agreed and that is why I said "until that link is proven". My point was that it is misleading and incorrect to call any mass killing a terrorist event.