Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, October 05, 2017

Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock may have been planning to strike two months earlier at the Lollapalooza festival in Chicago. ... Paddock had booked two rooms at the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago, across the street from Grant Park where Lollapalooza has been held since 2005, TMZ reports. Both rooms overlooked the festival area, and Paddock would have had a similar view of the crowd as he had in Las Vegas during the Route 91 Harvest country music festival on Sunday. Lollapalooza was held from August 3 to 6 this year, and Paddock's two rooms were booked from August 1 to 6 and from August 3 to 6. TMZ says Paddock, 64, never showed up for his bookings at the hotel.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

My G'daughter and her cousins were at Lolla. Counting blessings, mourning a little bit deeper for the victims and their loved ones.

#1 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2017-10-05 09:25 AM | Reply

F*@! this guy. Stop talking about him. Forget his name. He was a P.O.S. and deserves less attention in death than the little bit he got when he was alive.

#2 | Posted by qcp at 2017-10-05 09:57 AM | Reply

Apparently this guy had been stock piling guns for years and years...

#3 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-05 10:45 AM | Reply

F*@! this guy. Stop talking about him. Forget his name. He was a P.O.S. and deserves less attention in death than the little bit he got when he was alive.

#2 | POSTED BY QCP

That's actually a terrible idea. To understand how much worse this could have been and to understand what can be done to reduce the chances of these types of events, we really need to discuss him and how all of this came to be.

#4 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-05 10:46 AM | Reply

Local reporting is claiming:

Las Vegas Strip shooter targeted aviation fuel tanks, sources say

Las Vegas Strip mass murderer Stephen Paddock used his Mandalay Bay hotel room to fire bullets at jet fuel tanks Sunday night, a knowledgeable source told the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

The bullets left two holes in one of two circular white tanks. One of the bullets penetrated the tank, but did not cause a fire or explosion near the Route 91 Harvest country music festival, another knowledgeable source said late Wednesday.

The tanks are roughly 1,100 feet from the concert site, where Paddock killed 58 people and wounded almost 500. Several airplane hangars belonging to prominent corporations are also near the tanks.

www.reviewjournal.com

#5 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-05 10:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#4, How much worse it could have been? People understand how bad it actually was, there is no need to make up scenarios about how it could have been worse. 59 dead and hundreds wounded is bad enough.

If the country truly wanted to prevent things like this from happening we'd start by banning assault rifles and go all in on reasonable gun control methods. Anything less than that is a cop out.

#6 | Posted by qcp at 2017-10-05 11:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#4, How much worse it could have been? People understand how bad it actually was, there is no need to make up scenarios about how it could have been worse. 59 dead and hundreds wounded is bad enough.
If the country truly wanted to prevent things like this from happening we'd start by banning assault rifles and go all in on reasonable gun control methods. Anything less than that is a cop out.
#6 | POSTED BY QCP

No one is going to start banning assault rifles and go all in on reasonable gun control if we just pretend it didn't happen. We need to talk about how bad it was and how much worse it could have been. Because next time, it could be that bad.

#7 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-05 11:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There is a huge difference in not aggrandizing the killer and pretending this didn't happen. Building up some cult around the shooter and making him famous is immoral at the very least.

#8 | Posted by qcp at 2017-10-05 12:27 PM | Reply

Well, this sort of puts the lie to the conspiracy kooks who said he was out to get the country-loving Trump supporters.

#9 | Posted by cbob at 2017-10-05 12:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#5 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Good. He was wasting his ammo shooting at something other than people.

You have to stop breathlessly inserting every new development in this story into threads. You're making the guy a celebrity with every new report.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-05 12:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

If the country truly wanted to prevent things like this from happening we'd start by banning assault rifles and go all in on reasonable gun control methods.

Banning "assault rifles" won't change a thing.

Define "reasonable".

So far all I've seen is a reserving of old ideas, none of which would have prevented this incident and none of which address the root problem of why people are such miserable, self-centered -------- who feel the need to take as many people with them when they go.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-05 12:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It's fitting that Paddock chose Sharron 'Second Amendment Remedies' Angle's home state. She probably got moist for the first time in decades during the carnage.

#12 | Posted by Reinheitsgebot at 2017-10-05 01:14 PM | Reply

Banning "assault rifles" won't change a thing.

#11 | POSTED BY

Really? Says who, besides the gun lobby?

You know that speeds limits don't stop all people from speeding. It's a reasonable law that is enforced that drastically reduces the amount of drivers recklessly speeding down roads and highways thus saving lives. Gun control acts the sames way. It won't stop all gun violence but it will save lives. A child can comprehend this.

#13 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2017-10-05 01:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

So far all I've seen is a reserving of old ideas, none of which would have prevented this incident and none of which address the root problem of why people are such miserable, self-centered -------- who feel the need to take as many people with them when they go.

#11 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2017-10-05 12:59 PM | FLAG:

OK, then! All we have to do is figure that out. Let's see, where to begin...

#14 | Posted by cbob at 2017-10-05 01:59 PM | Reply

This attack was carefully planned. There must be a motive for the shooter, a seemingly wealthy white retired accountant and real estate developer. There is also a great need to spin this away from examining our national laws and sanity. If you're wealthy and you live in Mesquite instead of Vegas, that means you are a miser. This was an unspeakably horrible tragedy, but small compared to what we've done to other countries. What is the cause?

1: Paddock had a brain tumor?
2: Desperately wanted the USA to legislate stricter gun laws?
3: Hates the Government?
4: Hates country music?
5: His girlfriend blackmailed him out of his last $100,000?
6: Didn't get enough love from his mummy and daddy who he never knew?
7: Pissed off about his tax bill?
8: Pissed off about his health insurance bill?
9: Seeks revenge for all the innocent people we've murdered and countries we've destroyed?

What possibility have I left out?

#15 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-10-05 02:00 PM | Reply

10. Promoting self for Ultimate Gun Diva honors.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2017-10-05 02:03 PM | Reply

Jim, madness has no purpose, or reason, but it may have a goal. He must be stopped, held, destroyed if necessary.

--Mr Spock, Star Trek, "The Alternative Factor"

#17 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-10-05 02:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Really? Says who, besides the gun lobby?

Says people who actually know something about the topic.

Do you know much about the topic?

You know that speeds limits don't stop all people from speeding. It's a reasonable law that is enforced that drastically reduces the amount of drivers recklessly speeding down roads and highways thus saving lives.

One thing that's for sure is this topic is rife with awful analogies.

On both sides.

Gun control acts the sames way. It won't stop all gun violence but it will save lives.

Well now you've moved the goal posts from the specific "assault weapons" ban to the broadest of the broad gun control.

Why is that? Because the "assault weapons" ban in the 90's did nothing?

Because in the end what you really want is for something, anything to be done so you can pat yourself on the back for "supporting" something "constructive"? That is until it's obvious the "fix" did nothing at all, other than spend political capital on a pet idea.

A child can comprehend this.

Nonsense. Oversimplifying it won't get anything done.

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-05 02:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Jim, madness has no purpose, or reason, but it may have a goal. He must be stopped, held, destroyed if necessary.
--Mr Spock, Star Trek, "The Alternative Factor"

#17 | POSTED BY MADSCIENTIST

Mad, Paddock reminds me more of "The Enemy Within". All Humans have a dark side, an inner evil, that is brought under control by their "good" side through education, ethics, cultural behavior, parents, experiences, etc. Both sides need to live together. The devil isn't some cartoonish, horned entity that writers and artists invented centuries ago. He's in all of us.

#19 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2017-10-05 02:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You have to stop breathlessly inserting every new development in this story into threads. You're making the guy a celebrity with every new report."

Hardly:

A source knowledgeable about airport operations said jet fuel is hard to ignite and tanks like those across from Mandalay Bay have mechanisms in place to prevent fires.

Mike Boyd, a Colorado-based aviation consultant, echoed those words.

"A machine gun is not going to blow up a tank of fuel," Boyd said. "Jet fuel itself sitting there in a big wet pile is very hard to ignite. You have to be a very amateur terrorist to think anything like that."

#20 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-05 02:49 PM | Reply

It's unfair to judge this responsible gun owner with no criminal past by one twenty-minute lapse of judgment in his otherwise upstanding life.

Signed,
Brock Turner

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-05 02:52 PM | Reply

Hello JPW

"Do you know much about the topic?"
Translation, unless your a gunnut, you can't comment on gun control. Ok, I may be overstating that, not really what you're saying. You are correct, I'm no expert, but while I'm still alive, I like to speak my mind on just about everything that interests me. Fair?

"One thing that's for sure is this topic is rife with awful analogies. On both sides"
Like the oldy but goody: let's ban automobiles, they kill more people! Always good for a laugh.
Normally, I totally agree, especially other threads and topics, but I think mine was quite valid as it specifically addressed the positive effects of necessary legislation.

""Gun control acts the sames way. It won't stop all gun violence but it will save lives".
Well now you've moved the goal posts from the specific "assault weapons" ban to the broadest of the broad gun control."
I think limiting ridiculous massive magazine loads, banning semi auto, reducing the amount firearms one individual can buy is a good start, but again, not an expert, just using commonsense.

#22 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2017-10-05 02:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I think limiting ridiculous massive magazine loads, banning semi auto, reducing the amount firearms one individual can buy is a good start, but again, not an expert, just using commonsense.
#22 | POSTED BY CRISISSTILLS

You are in favor of banning most handguns?

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-05 03:01 PM | Reply

#23

And shotguns.

#24 | Posted by HanoverFist at 2017-10-05 03:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If only Reagan was still alive today to talk some sense into the GOP:

Two years after he left office, Mr. Reagan surprised the nation by endorsing the proposed Brady Law that established federal background checks of firearm buyers for criminal records and histories of mental disturbance. The former president noted that the law was inspired by the case of Jim Brady, his devoted press secretary who was partially paralyzed by a gunshot wound to the head during the assassination attempt. "This nightmare might never have happened" if the Brady Law had been in effect, Mr. Reagan emphasized in an op-ed in The New York Times. His support was significant in the eventual passage of the law in 1993.

No less important was Mr. Reagan's endorsement in 1994 of the assault weapons ban that was a major attempt to deal with efforts by domestic arms makers to sell adapted weapons of war to civilian buyers in the name of sportsmanship. "We can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals," Mr. Reagan declared in a joint letter to Congress with former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. The measure banning a wide range of military style guns and large-capacity ammunition clips narrowly passed, with supporters citing the letter.

takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com

#25 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-05 03:12 PM | Reply

I think limiting ridiculous massive...loads...

Peter North has retired. ☺

#26 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-10-05 04:59 PM | Reply

Banning "assault rifles" won't change a thing.

#11 | Posted by jpw

If people don't have weapons that can spray out tons of bullets without reloading, they can do a lot more damage.

Vegas couldnt have happened with a bolt action rifle.

#27 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-05 05:37 PM | Reply

*a lot LESS damage

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-05 05:38 PM | Reply

#20 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

That part of the article is precisely why I said You have to stop breathlessly inserting every new development in this story into threads. You're making the guy a celebrity with every new report.

It was a nothingburger but you had to have your Breaking News Moment anyway.

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-05 07:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Translation, unless your a gunnut, you can't comment on gun control.

Not at all.

I would just prefer opinions to be educated and policy implemented by people with solid opinions.

I think limiting ridiculous massive magazine loads, banning semi auto, reducing the amount firearms one individual can buy is a good start, but again, not an expert, just using commonsense.

Thank you for your honesty.

The above is far more expansive than banning "assault weapons".

If people don't have weapons that can spray out tons of bullets without reloading, they can do a lot more damage.

You're advocating for far more than banning "assault weapons" with this.

Or has that definition conveniently shifted again to mean anything that isn't a bolt action?

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-05 07:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"It was a nothingburger but you had to have your Breaking News Moment anyway."

I never said it wasn't a nothingburger. You're the one who called it a breaking news moment. I think that info, if correct, is of interest because it speaks to Paddock's mindset and also to his ignorance.

#31 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-05 07:40 PM | Reply

The above is far more expansive than banning "assault weapons".

If people don't have weapons that can spray out tons of bullets without reloading, they can do a lot more damage.

You're advocating for far more than banning "assault weapons" with this.

Or has that definition conveniently shifted again to mean anything that isn't a bolt action?

#30 | Posted by jpw

Gun nuts get so worked up about exact gun terminology, and then when someone doesn't know all the ---------- terminology, they act like that person therefore has no right to talk about guns. That's like saying someone can't speak out against drunk driving because they don't know how to drive a stick shift. It's a dodge used to try and avoid the issue and argue semantics instead.

When a non-gun nut says ASSAULT WEAPONS, they mean guns that can be used for attacks like vegas, orlando, and newtown.

Now that you've had it explained to you, you can stop throwing hissy fits about vocabulary words and start dealing with the real issues.

#32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-05 07:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Now that you've had it explained to you, you can stop throwing hissy fits about vocabulary words and start dealing with the real issues.

No.

It's about intellectual honesty.

Which you seem to think should be thrown out the window in order for your foot stomping, ignorant rant to be taken as anything other than the pile of overly-emotional ---- it is.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-05 08:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I never said it wasn't a nothingburger. You're the one who called it a breaking news moment.

You're the one who felt the need to interrupt a thread with a nothingburger.

I think that info, if correct, is of interest because it speaks to Paddock's mindset...

I figured you were going to say this.

Tell me, prior to reading the 'I didn't say it was a nothingburger' nothingburger did you think less of his mindset or think he was only half serious in his attempts to murder as many people as possible?

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-05 08:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It's about intellectual honesty.

Which you seem to think should be thrown out the window in order for your foot stomping, ignorant rant to be taken as anything other than the pile of overly-emotional ---- it is.

#33 | Posted by jpw

No it's about vocabulary words.

So that any time any person uses the word "assault weapon" you can put on your ---------- pocket protector and say "um actually assault weapons are blah blah blah" pretending you can't understand their point if they didn't use the proper vocabulary word.

#35 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-05 08:34 PM | Reply

So that any time any person uses the word "assault weapon" you can put on your ---------- pocket protector and say "um actually assault weapons are blah blah blah" pretending you can't understand their point if they didn't use the proper vocabulary word.
#35 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Accuracy matters. When people say "assault weapon" they don't know what they are talking about.

These assault rifles are no more powerful and don't fire any more quickly than comparable hunting rifles.

But they look scary with a pistol grip and some plastic add-ons, so the ignorant and uninformed don't even know what it is they are trying to ban when they say assault rifles should be banned.

If you want to have an intelligent conversation and be taken seriously, at least use the proper terminology and have a perfunctory understanding of the weapons you are talking about.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-05 08:40 PM | Reply

"These assault rifles are no more powerful and don't fire any more quickly than comparable hunting rifles."

You mean assault weapons.
And, that's what the bump stock is for.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-05 08:44 PM | Reply

Here's a bump stock vs a really skilled shooter firing normal:

www.youtube.com

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-05 08:49 PM | Reply

"Skilled shooter."

Now do the Vegas shooter.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-05 08:50 PM | Reply

If you want to have an intelligent conversation and be taken seriously, at least use the proper terminology and have a perfunctory understanding of the weapons you are talking about.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ

In other words, only ----------- can have an opinion on guns.

You know what a non ---------- means when they say ASSAULT WEAPON. They mean a weapon that can kill a crowd of people.

Now next time you hear the term you can simply continue the discussion instead of trying to derail it into a semantics debate about technicalities.

#40 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-05 08:51 PM | Reply

Here's a bump stock vs a really skilled shooter firing normal:

www.youtube.com

#38 | Posted by JeffJ

Which is why neither one should be legal.

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-05 08:51 PM | Reply

Or just do what chris rock recommended years ago, and make a bullet cost 5 thousand dollars.

#42 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-05 08:52 PM | Reply

In other words, only ----------- can have an opinion on guns.

No. When Sitz, Mustang, ROC, Madbomber and JPW start getting into some of the more technical stuff it's way beyond my level of knowledge.

But I've taken enough time to understand what "semi-automatic" means and that assault rifles are functionally no different than comparable hunting rifles.

Here's a bump stock vs a really skilled shooter firing normal:
www.youtube.com
#38 | Posted by JeffJ
-----
Which is why neither one should be legal.

#41 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

So, ban all semi-automatic weapons? Good luck with that.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-05 08:57 PM | Reply

Or just do what chris rock recommended years ago, and make a bullet cost 5 thousand dollars.

#42 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Unconstitutional. Repeal the 2nd Amendment and then we can entertain something like this.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-05 08:58 PM | Reply

"...and that assault rifles are functionally no different than comparable hunting rifles." - #43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-05 08:57 PM

When I was in high school (1.000 years ago) all the guys (and they were always guys) who drove the muscle cars were always complaining about how many speeding tickets they always got.

But, for some reason, the people who drove mom or dad's station wagon never got speeding tickets.

Even though the cars they drove were functionally no different.

#45 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-05 09:01 PM | Reply

Unconstitutional. Repeal the 2nd Amendment and then we can entertain something like this.

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-05 08:58 PM | Reply

All it says is arms. It says NOTHING about ammo.

#46 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-10-05 09:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"assault rifles are functionally no different than comparable hunting rifle"

No Jeff.

Assault weapons.

Assault rifles are fully automatic, though typically the mode of fire is burst fire.

Hunting rifles, and the assault weapons that are "just like them" are semiautomatic, as they only fire one round per trigger pull.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-05 09:01 PM | Reply

"Unconstitutional." - #44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-05 08:58 PM

Please cite chapter and verse of the Constitution where it says placing a $5,000.00 tax on a bullet is "unconstitutional."

The 2nd is completely mute on the subject of bullets or ammunition.

Thank you.

#48 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-05 09:04 PM | Reply

So, ban all semi-automatic weapons? Good luck with that.

#43 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

It seems he's willing to be honest about his intentions about that so I'm not sure why he's gotta pull the fear mongering "assault weapons" out of the bag for it.

#50 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-05 09:14 PM | Reply

Hans, an extra tax on bullets has been deemed to be an end-around on the intent of Amendment 2.

Sort of like a poll tax infringes the right to vote... without the need for an amendment banning it.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-05 09:16 PM | Reply

Even though the cars they drove were functionally no different.

Only on a shallow level.

To make a fair comparison, how fast did the kids driving a station wagon with a 440 big block in it drive?

#52 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-05 09:18 PM | Reply

#47 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

It's learning.

But still clinging to ridiculous, made up definitions from its past.

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-05 09:19 PM | Reply

Please cite chapter and verse of the Constitution where it says placing a $5,000.00 tax on a bullet is "unconstitutional."

This is none but the answer is found in how far the government is permitted to go in regulating a right. For example, the D.C. ordinance struck down in Heller did not ban handguns. However, it did so through the back door in that the handgun was required to be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." That "substantially burdened" the exercise of the right of self defense and is thus unconstitutional. So too a Chicago ordinance that effectively zoned gun ranges out of the city. So too a CA county that effectively zoned gun stores out of the county. The "substantial burden" concept applies to all constitutional rights and usually manifests itself in the strict scrutiny test.

A firearm without ammunition because it is prohibitively taxed is no longer a firearm. You have effectively banned firearms through the backdoor when you could not do so through the front door.

#54 | Posted by et_al at 2017-10-05 09:39 PM | Reply

"To make a fair comparison, how fast did the kids driving a station wagon with a 440 big block in it drive?"

That's more a function of the driver than the car.

The "no different" argument is no different than saying a Honda Accord and a Honda Crosstour are the same car because they're riding on the same chassis.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-05 09:41 PM | Reply

Unconstitutional. Repeal the 2nd Amendment and then we can entertain something like this.
#44 | Posted by JeffJ at

until America comes to its senses and does just that we will continue to have these massacres right on schedule

#56 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-10-05 09:41 PM | Reply

Americans, as a group, are too childish, irresponsibly, immature to handle gun ownership

#57 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-10-05 09:44 PM | Reply

#56 I wish I could flag that "offensive" because any society that tolerates murder like ours does is offensive to anyone who believes in liberty.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-05 09:46 PM | Reply

not sure why my statement of fact is offensive, but truth hurts I suppose

#59 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-10-05 09:47 PM | Reply

That's more a function of the driver than the car.

I was staying within Hans' analogy but changed it such that the internals are the same but the appearance is different.

Which is the primary difference between a traditionally configured and modern rifle.

#60 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-05 09:52 PM | Reply

"not sure why my statement of fact is offensive"

It's not the statement which is offensive, it's the society which makes it true.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-05 10:29 PM | Reply

"But still clinging to ridiculous, made up definitions from its past."

JeffJ is the one using the definition.
I'm the one telling him he's got the wrong definition.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-05 10:30 PM | Reply

"Which is the primary difference between a traditionally configured and modern rifle."

Sometimes secondary differences matter.
Like the sun is the primary source of the planet's warmth, but the greenhouse effect is the secondary source.
Like water vapor is the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect, but CO2 is the secondary contributor.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-05 10:32 PM | Reply

What possibility have I left out?

#15 | POSTED BY BAYVIKING

His recent "heart to heart" with JPW

#64 | Posted by ABlock at 2017-10-05 10:56 PM | Reply

"So far all I've seen is a reserving of old ideas, none of which would have prevented this incident and none of which address the root problem of why people are such miserable, self-centered -------- who feel the need to take as many people with them when they go."

Rockets don't address the root cause of man being stuck to the surface of the earth, which is gravity.
Rockets don't change gravity at all.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-05 10:59 PM | Reply

Sometimes secondary differences matter.

The secondary differences being?

Caliber and round (.223 or 5.56mm; powder charge ect) is going to be the same. Semi auto would be a common characteristic.

Depending on the model used (long barrel vs carbine), the ballistics might be worse in a carbine AR vs a traditional rifle.

The only major "secondary difference" I could see playing any role in this is the inline recoil of an AR, which prevents muzzle rise when being fired on automatic mode. The grip on a traditional rifle stock acts as a pivot point around which the muzzle rises significantly.

But then we're back to the bump stock being THE major factor.

Rail systems? No difference.

Bipod? Can be installed on traditional rifles.

Bayonet lug? I'd hope that's obvious.

Magazine capacity? I know he was found to have 50 round mags, I'm honestly not sure if you can get that large of a magazine for some like a mini 14. So maybe magazine capacity, which I've already stated now deserves to be seriously considered IMO.

#66 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-05 11:37 PM | Reply

I'm honestly not sure if you can get that large of a magazine for some like a mini 14.

I used to have 30s for my Mini. Someone made a 75 round drum but it didn't work.

#67 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-10-05 11:42 PM | Reply

"Vegas Shooter Booked Hotel Near Lollapalooza"

wew, lad. better get rid of all guns everywhere or else something like this is bound to happen again. if we don't give more money to no-bid firms who somehow curiously have the "solutions" ready to go immediately in the aftermath of such incidents, then the terrorists win.

nevermind the systematic drone-destruction of brown foreigners half a world away. that's something obama would've done.

#68 | Posted by wj112358 at 2017-10-05 11:47 PM | Reply

"wew, lad. better get rid of all guns everywhere or else something like this is bound to happen again."

Something like this is bound to happen again, that much is true.

" if we don't give more money to no-bid firms who somehow curiously have the "solutions" ready to go immediately in the aftermath of such incidents, then the terrorists win."

Ooh, there was a solution ready to go?

Was it issue every concertgoer a rifle, so they can shoot back?

That would actually be pretty funny, to see an entire crowd of people shoot at a hotel. With bump stocks.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-05 11:54 PM | Reply

"Someone made a 75 round drum but it didn't work."

Isn't it nice to know that high-capacity drums are more reliable now?

Someone took the time to make those better. Thank the Invisible Hand. And Obama. Mostly Obama.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-05 11:56 PM | Reply

"So maybe magazine capacity, which I've already stated now deserves to be seriously considered IMO."

Hey, something we can agree on.
(I took "seriously considered" to mean "banned.")

Some opponents of a high-cap mag ban point out that an easy workaround is to buy more guns, like Vegas guy did.

I think it's a valid point that a fair number of these shooters are well-to-do, so money isn't really a gating factor for the deadliness of their massacre.

That being said, I still support a ban on high capacity magazines, and I'll also point out to those who worry that the boogeyman invading their home will have a high capacity magazine, that you probably already own one, and certainly have time to buy one before they become illegal. Futhermore, you have a multitude of guns, which obviates the need for what the Founders called Ye Olde Bigg Clipp.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-06 12:02 AM | Reply

Isn't it nice to know that high-capacity drums are more reliable now?

I'm not so sure that they are.

#72 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-10-06 12:02 AM | Reply

I'm not so sure that they are.

IIRC the one used in Aurora jammed.

#73 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-06 12:06 AM | Reply

I think reliable drums would cost too much for the fools that want them.

#74 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-10-06 12:10 AM | Reply

(I took "seriously considered" to mean "banned.")

That is in fact what I meant.

Some opponents of a high-cap mag ban point out that an easy workaround is to buy more guns, like Vegas guy did.

Which is a valid point.

However, one can only carry so many guns (hence why magazines were developed in the first place) and any break in firing is time without rounds being sent down range.

#75 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-06 12:10 AM | Reply

Buy 500 before they are banned, you're bound to find some super reliable ones in that big a sample? ;)

I'm sure they're more reliable now. I am pretty sure I've seen then on weapons being used by actual military personnel.

Anyway, for those who say magazine size doesn't make weapons any more deadly, here's some advertising copy for a 95-round drum for your AK:

"The AK-47 design virtually tripled the firepower of the SKS carbine it replaced. The SKS had a capacity of 10 rounds that were loaded via a stripper clip into the SKS's internal magazine."

"Virtually tripled the firepower" but apparently no more deadly, if you listen to the people who will tell you that. I reckon the truth lies somewhere between the advertising copy and the "guns don't kill people" crowd.

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-06 12:11 AM | Reply

time to pack it in, folks. a liberal somewhere has decided, in its infinite wisdom, that all guns have to go. therefore, everyone must defer capitulate toward the obvious moral superiority of the left on this issue, because they are screaming loudly. they'll stamp their feet really hard if they don't get their way, too.

#77 | Posted by wj112358 at 2017-10-06 12:20 AM | Reply

a radical leftist once told me that, to paraphrase, "american christians are fascists." another told me that there is no reason for an individual to own a firearm other than, essentially, because they are insecure about the size of their wang.

how many commentators here are on board with one or both of the above sentiments?

#78 | Posted by wj112358 at 2017-10-06 12:33 AM | Reply

A better question is how many think you embody those sentiments, and the answer is everyone except the guys with small dicks.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-06 12:40 AM | Reply

"A better question is how many think you embody those sentiments, and the answer is everyone except the guys with small dicks."

I don't honestly know, because I've never engaged in dick-inspection. I do know at least two women who decided to buy guns for self-protection while living in a bad neighborhood during grad school.

Can we at least acknowledge that people (including women!) are able to choose to own weapons for rational reasons, and not just those commonly disparaged by know-it-all liberals?

#80 | Posted by wj112358 at 2017-10-06 12:49 AM | Reply

"Can we at least acknowledge that people (including women!) are able to choose to own weapons for rational reasons, and not just those commonly disparaged by know-it-all liberals?"

of course not. any and every gun-owner simply MUST be excoriated publicly as some kind of lunatic. That's par for the course for the modern liberal neo-marxist.

"The last few times it was falsely attempted, marxism killed dozens of millions. B-but it won't be the case under my own special, never-tried-before, form of marxism!"

#81 | Posted by wj112358 at 2017-10-06 01:16 AM | Reply

"I don't honestly know, because I've never engaged in dick-inspection."

Mackris, is that you?

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-06 03:11 AM | Reply

"Can we at least acknowledge that people (including women!) are able to choose to own weapons for rational reasons, and not just those commonly disparaged by know-it-all liberals?"

You're saying an arms race is rational.
But it's not.
So no.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-06 03:40 AM | Reply

You're saying an arms race is rational.
But it's not.
So no.
#83 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Does that apply to the US government too? It is the most heavily armed nation in the world.

#84 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 07:02 AM | Reply

Burger
www.youtube.com
Breyer
www.youtube.com

The disciplined minds of a Conservative and a Liberal reach the same conclusion about the meaning of the 2nd amendment. These arguments have been lost by appointments from the two most moronic Presidents this country has ever witnessed.

#85 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-10-06 09:50 AM | Reply

"Does that apply to the US government too? It is the most heavily armed nation in the world.
#84 | POSTED BY RAY "

At the national level an Arms Race is a corporate welfare program.
Whether you can afford the welfare is the limiting factor.
The United States, being one of the world's wealthiest countries, can afford plenty.

Speaking of irrational, in case you haven't noticed, people love the military. I mean, they really loooove the military. We honor them on Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, 9/11, Thanksgiving, and the Super Bowl. We worship them so much that when you kneel during the National Anthem because Black Lives Matter, a large swath of Americans don't believe you, and think you're doing it to disrespect the military.

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-06 11:28 AM | Reply

His recent "heart to heart" with JPW

#64 | Posted by ABlock

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

#87 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-06 11:57 AM | Reply

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

#87 | POSTED BY JPW

reference post #15

#88 | Posted by ABlock at 2017-10-06 12:11 PM | Reply

"Banning "assault rifles" won't change a thing."

Cool now do abortion!

P.S. I think you meant "assault weapons" as assault rifles are banned^H^H^H^H^H controlled.

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-06 12:17 PM | Reply

So, ban all semi-automatic weapons? Good luck with that.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ

That's a solution that will save lives. Your "good luck with that" is simply your acknowledgment that republicans are more scared of angering the NRA than they are of innocent people dying.

#90 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 01:23 PM | Reply

"The last few times it was falsely attempted, marxism killed dozens of millions. B-but it won't be the case under my own special, never-tried-before, form of marxism!"

#81 | Posted by wj112358

When poeple like you post crap about liberals and their "marxism" all it does is reveal you to be a gullible sucker for conservative propaganda.

No one on the left is proposing any sort of marxism.

Meanwhile the right has nazis marching proudly in the streets.

#91 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 01:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

All it says is arms. It says NOTHING about ammo. - #46 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-10-05 09:01 PM

The 2nd is completely mute on the subject of bullets or ammunition. Thank you. - #48 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-05 09:04 PM

arms.[ärmz]NOUN 1.weapons and ammunition; armaments:

New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771), where arms is defined as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another"

The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language (1794) "those instruments of offence generally made use of in war"

yes, when the 2nd speaks of weapons and ammunition, it certainly makes no mention of ammunition.

#92 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-10-06 01:49 PM | Reply

yes, when the 2nd speaks of weapons and ammunition, it certainly makes no mention of ammunition.

#92 | Posted by Avigdore

By that definition, grenades, cannons, and nukes should be legal and attainable too.

#93 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 02:03 PM | Reply

By that definition, grenades, cannons, and nukes should be legal and attainable too. - #93 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 02:03 PM

Can you explain what law prevents them?

#94 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-10-06 02:15 PM | Reply

No one on the left is proposing any sort of marxism.
Meanwhile the right has nazis marching proudly in the streets.
#91 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

And the left loudly advances their ideas about socializing the market economy. Just don't call it Marxism.

#95 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 02:15 PM | Reply

Can you explain what law prevents them?

#94 | Posted by Avigdore

That's my point.

So why aren't gun nuts throwing fits about those restrictions on their 2nd amendment rights?

#96 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 02:24 PM | Reply

And the left loudly advances their ideas about socializing the market economy. Just don't call it Marxism.

#95 | Posted by Ray

Regulating wall street so they don't rape the working class isn't marxism.

But voting for the puppet who want to deregulate them so they CAN rape the working class is pure greed and stupidity.

#97 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 02:25 PM | Reply

That's my point. So why aren't gun nuts throwing fits about those restrictions on their 2nd amendment rights? - #96 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 02:24 PM

Your point, when you stated that ammo wasn't covered by the 2nd amendment, was to question why gun nuts aren't throwing fits about restrictions on the 2nd amendment rights?
I don't speak for gun-nuts, I just try to inform the ignorant. Maybe you should start a group?

#98 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-10-06 02:30 PM | Reply

Your point, when you stated that ammo wasn't covered by the 2nd amendment,

#98 | Posted by Avigdore

That wasn't me.

My point is, if gun nuts are ok with people not being able to buy rocket launchers and nukes, then they are admitting that there are some weapons that are too dangerous for the public to attain.

Either all weapons are covered under the 2nd amendment, or the 2nd amendment allows restrictions on which weapons are attainable. Which is it?

#99 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 02:36 PM | Reply

Libs should do with guns what conservatives tried to do with healthcare - make it technically and legally AVAILABLE, even if it's not attainable.

#100 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 02:39 PM | Reply

Ray thinks we have a "market economy"? Does he believe in the tooth fairy too?

Our economy is based on cronyism.

#101 | Posted by Sully at 2017-10-06 02:42 PM | Reply

Regulating wall street so they don't rape the working class isn't marxism.

You sound like a born yesterday leftist. Regulations empower Wall Street. In fact, a central banking system is on Marx's short list in his Communist Manifesto.

But voting for the puppet who want to deregulate them so they CAN rape the working class is pure greed and stupidity.
#97 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Are you funny. Without the banks, Washington couldn't finance its gargantuan debts and unfunded obligations. The rape and pillaging began long before Trump. He's just a water boy.

#102 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 02:52 PM | Reply

Ray thinks we have a "market economy"? Does he believe in the tooth fairy too?
#101 | POSTED BY SULLY

The last I heard, consumers and sellers freely buy and sell by exchanging money. That's the essence of a market economy.

Governments could not exist without a market economy. Without which production would be impossible.

Our economy is based on cronyism.

That's only because the market economy is politicized. That's the nature of politics, not free markets.

#103 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 03:00 PM | Reply

You sound like a born yesterday leftist. Regulations empower Wall Street. In fact, a central banking system is on Marx's short list in his Communist Manifesto.

#102 | Posted by Ray

And you sound like a high schooler, just like every libertarian. Where simple solutions will magically fix incredibly complex systems with incredibly complex problems.

Regulations are the result of bankers proving they cant be trusted to work without them.

They screw people over, people write regulations so it doesn't happen again, then they complain about regulations.

#104 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 03:22 PM | Reply

"Regulations empower Wall Street. In fact, a central banking system is on Marx's short list in his Communist Manifesto."

Wall Street is Communist.
That explains a lot!

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-06 03:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Governments could not exist without a market economy."

Precisely backwards.

Capitalism is a government program.
Communism is a government program too.
Somehow only one of those statements confuses you.

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-06 03:27 PM | Reply

"...a central banking system is on Marx's short list in his Communist Manifesto." - #102 | Posted by Raystradamus at 2017-10-06 02:52 PM

Homeopathic medicine is on that same short list.

#107 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-06 03:30 PM | Reply

And you sound like a high schooler, just like every libertarian. Where simple solutions will magically fix incredibly complex systems with incredibly complex problems.

I never said there is a solution. I do know that the problems will continue to mount until some day they reach a breaking point.

Regulations are the result of bankers proving they cant be trusted to work without them.

Jesus Christ are you blind. Regulations give Wall Street a licencse to steal. They protect bankers. Washington and Wall Street are joined at the hip. They need each other.

#108 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 03:31 PM | Reply

Wall Street is Communist.
That explains a lot!
#105 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

According to Marx it is.

#109 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 03:32 PM | Reply

Jesus Christ are you blind. Regulations give Wall Street a licencse to steal. They protect bankers. Washington and Wall Street are joined at the hip. They need each other.

#108 | Posted by Ray

So a regulation saying investment advisors have to give advice in the best interest of the client and not the best interest of the advisor is a license for wall street to steal? HOW exactly?

#110 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 03:35 PM | Reply

"Jesus Christ are you blind. Regulations give Wall Street a licencse to steal." - #108 | Posted by Raystradamus at 2017-10-06 03:31 PM

Because Jesus Christ himself had nothing compared to the altruistic behavior of the robber barons of the late 19th-century.

#111 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-06 03:36 PM | Reply

Precisely backwards.
Capitalism is a government program.
Communism is a government program too.
Somehow only one of those statements confuses you.
#106 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Hahahaha. If that be the case, we can test it by eliminating taxes and the Federal Reserve. Let Washington run the factories.

I have no doubt you got your education in a government school.

#112 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 03:38 PM | Reply

Homeopathic medicine is on that same short list.
#107 | POSTED BY HANS

This is when the conversation sinks to the kindergarten level.

#113 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 03:39 PM | Reply

"I have no doubt you got your education in a government school." - #112 | Posted by Raystradamus at 2017-10-06 03:38 PM

At least Snoofy has an education.

I have no doubt you don't.

#114 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-06 03:41 PM | Reply

"This is when the conversation sinks to the kindergarten level." - #113 | Posted by Raystradamus at 2017-10-06 03:39 PM

Actually, in this thread, that started exactly at 7:02am this morning.

#115 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-06 03:44 PM | Reply

That wasn't me. - #99 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 02:36 PM

You are absolutely correct, and I apologize for my mistake.

#116 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-10-06 03:45 PM | Reply

So a regulation saying investment advisors have to give advice in the best interest of the client and not the best interest of the advisor is a license for wall street to steal? HOW exactly?
#110 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

That's for public consumption. In reality, the banks front run their clients (invest against their clients). The job of regulators is to drive away whistleblowers and keep the publice shrouded in ignorance. They have a license to steal.

#117 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 03:48 PM | Reply

This is when the conversation sinks to the kindergarten level.

#113 | Posted by Ray

No that happened when a kindergartner declared ALL regulation to be an evil wall street scheme.

#118 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 03:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The job of regulators is to drive away whistleblowers and keep the publice shrouded in ignorance. They have a license to steal.

#117 | Posted by Ray

The job of regulators is to protect americans from bankers. We don't get to choose or elect bankers. We get to elect politicians, who appoint regulators.

If the regulators aren't doing what you want them to, vote for different politicians. Good luck voting for different bankers.

#119 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 03:52 PM | Reply

"Let Washington run the factories."

Like the Manhattan Project, that kind of thing?

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-06 03:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

At least Snoofy has an education.
I have no doubt you don't.
#114 | POSTED BY HANS

You're both liberals. You people screw up everything you touch. Worse, you're too stupid to see the wake of destruction you leave behind. Don't make me laugh.

#121 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 03:53 PM | Reply

Like the Manhattan Project, that kind of thing?
#120 | POSTED BY SNOOF

Nuclear bombs? Huh!!!

#122 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 03:55 PM | Reply

If the regulators aren't doing what you want them to, vote for different politicians. Good luck voting for different bankers.
#119 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I'm listed on my home page as anarchist. The nation-state is a failed institution.

#123 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 03:57 PM | Reply

"Don't make me laugh."

Sounds like you could use a laugh.
Try reading your own posts, it always makes us laugh!

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-06 03:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You're both liberals. You people screw up everything you touch. Worse, you're too stupid to see the wake of destruction you leave behind. Don't make me laugh.

#121 | Posted by Ray

What is the liberal "wake of destruction?"

The iraq war?
The economic meltdown?
Trump?

Liberals created the 8 hour work day, all kinds of worker protections, the civil rights revolution, the sexual revolution, public education, they fight to protect the environment, keep your food safe.

If it weren't for liberals, you'd be getting raped by the rich FAR worse.

But your brain is so scrambled by simplistic libertarian nonsense that you hate the only people trying to make your life better.

#125 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 04:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

No that happened when a kindergartner declared ALL regulation to be an evil wall street scheme.
#118 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

How the hell do you think they got to be in the 1% bracket?

The Fed makes money cheap. Consumers borrow beyond their means. The banks own almost everything.

#126 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 04:01 PM | Reply

I'm listed on my home page as anarchist. The nation-state is a failed institution.

#123 | Posted by Ray

Yet you live in one.

So you're just a whiner.

If it's better to live outside a nation state, go do it.

But you wont because you know its far better to put up with the drawbacks of society than to live without one.

#127 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 04:01 PM | Reply

The Fed makes money cheap. Consumers borrow beyond their means. The banks own almost everything.

#126 | Posted by Ray

None of that proves regulations are bad.

Get rid of regulations and it would be even worse.

You've been a crybaby moron on this site for years making ridiculous childish statements and predictions that never come true, so spare us your claims of insight or enlightenment. Call yourself whatever you want, you're clearly a childish fool.

#128 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 04:04 PM | Reply

But your brain is so scrambled by simplistic libertarian nonsense that you hate the only people trying to make your life better.
#125 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

You're living on a cloud. You're divorcing yourself from the problems you create, that you say libertarians have no solution.
You're the problem. NOT the solution.

What is the liberal "wake of destruction?"

To name three: War. Health care. Education. With help from Republicans.

#129 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 04:08 PM | Reply

But you wont because you know its far better to put up with the drawbacks of society than to live without one.
#127 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

In spite of people like you who have no idea what they're doing.

#130 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 04:09 PM | Reply

None of that proves regulations are bad.
Get rid of regulations and it would be even worse.

That leaves an unregulated State. You think the State is made up of angels who came down from heaven. As I see it, the State is made up of humans who ascended from monkeys.

#131 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 04:13 PM | Reply

Re: Regulations - some protect the consumer but many exist to provide big corps a competitive advantage.

It is childish to pretend any market would regulate itself though. Disproven 1000x over. Anywhere that doesn't have something like the FDA has the problem of poison being sold as food and medicine, for example. "The Market" can't even fix something as basic as that on its own.

#132 | Posted by Sully at 2017-10-06 04:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Regulations give Wall Street a licencse to steal." - #108 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 03:31 PM
Then, less than an hour later it is:
"That leaves an unregulated State. You think the State is made up of angels who came down from heaven." - #131 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 04:13 PM
Poor
Raystradamus is quite confused.

The homeopathic medicine must be doing its thing.

#133 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-06 04:38 PM | Reply

#121 | POSTED BY RAY

Haha that was funny, I thought you were serious for second.

"You're both liberals. You people screw up everything you touch. Worse, you're too stupid to see the wake of destruction you leave behind."

Too funny. Describes the American conservative to the T though.

#134 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-06 04:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#129 | POSTED BY RAY

Oh god, Ray is upset that liberals want to end wars, give everyone healthcare, and better education for all.

Those darn liberals trying to keep America peaceful, healthy, and intelligent.

#135 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-06 04:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I'm listed on my home page as anarchist.

#123 | POSTED BY RAY

I know anarchists...I have friends who are anarchists...You sir, are no anarchist

perhaps a melding of two words, how about Asinarchist

#136 | Posted by ABlock at 2017-10-06 05:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I know anarchists...I have friends who are anarchists...You sir, are no anarchist

You are subscribing to the statist definition.
I state that I have no belief, faith nor confidence in government, in the same context as atheist.

#137 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 05:30 PM | Reply

Too funny. Describes the American conservative to the T though.
#134 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Oh yes. It's always the other guy's fault.
The point where both sides differ is on how to grow the state.

#138 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 05:32 PM | Reply

It is childish to pretend any market would regulate itself though. Disproven 1000x over. Anywhere that doesn't have something like the FDA has the problem of poison being sold as food and medicine, for example. "The Market" can't even fix something as basic as that on its own.
#132 | POSTED BY SULLY

The FDA is a classic example of state-corporate corruption. It defends the poisoning of the American public through food and medicine.
That's why the costs of health care are rising and chronic diseases on the increase.

You treat the market as some kind of an abstraction. The market is made up of consumers, individuals, who buy what serves their values. The FDA is one agency who sees that they don't know they are being poisoned.

#139 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 05:38 PM | Reply

#133 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2017-10-06 04:38 PM | FLAG: WTF?

#140 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 05:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Oh god, Ray is upset that liberals want to end wars, give everyone healthcare, and better education for all.
Those darn liberals trying to keep America peaceful, healthy, and intelligent.
#135 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Who are you kidding? Liberals love war when its pushed by a Democrat president.

give everyone healthcare, and better education for all.

Both suffering from prohibitive costs thanks to regulations and subsidies.

#141 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 05:43 PM | Reply

To name three: War. Health care. Education. With help from Republicans.

#129 | Posted by Ray

If you have to add WITH HELP FROM REPUBLICANS then it's not a LIBERAL trail of destruction.

This just shows how bad you suck at logic, along with everything else you post.

#142 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 05:51 PM | Reply

I state that I have no belief, faith nor confidence in government, in the same context as atheist.

#137 | Posted by Ray

Yeah you're a baby who's crying because the world isn't perfect. You think NO government is better than flawed government. Childish. Simplistic. And stupid.

Instead of advocating and working toward better government, you help make everything worse. Adults try to fix problems. Teenagers just cry about how everything sucks.

#143 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 05:53 PM | Reply

Liberals love war when its pushed by a Democrat president.
#141 | POSTED BY RAY

I think love is too strong a word, but yeah, most people were for the last democratic president's war, seeing as Hitler was murdering millions of innocent people and the Japanese Empire had just bombed us.

#139 | POSTED BY RAY
Ray thinks that corporations would label their drugs if the FDA didn't exist. I have some snake oil to sell you, boy.

#141 | POSTED BY RAY
Poor ray, he hates that education regulation! Guess what, kid, you can pick a number of for profit charter schools or colleges to go to. What was that one unregulated school that was so popular a few months back?... Oh yeah; Trump University.

Ray, you are about as smart as Gavaster when he isn't sober.

#144 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-06 05:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

RAY....i got that far, and then...i'm damn near never at a loss for words, but...

#145 | Posted by ABlock at 2017-10-06 06:02 PM | Reply

Ray, you are about as smart as Gavaster when he isn't sober.
#144 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

You yourself are a good example of how dumbed down the education system has become.

#146 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 06:04 PM | Reply

You yourself are a good example of how dumbed down the education system has become.

#146 | Posted by Ray

Pot meet kettle.

#147 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 06:07 PM | Reply

#146 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2017-10-06 06:04 PM | FLAG: Digging a hole

#148 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-06 06:07 PM | Reply

This just shows how bad you suck at logic, along with everything else you post.
#142 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

You suck at understanding logic.

Instead of advocating and working toward better government, you help make everything worse. Adults try to fix problems. Teenagers just cry about how everything sucks.

That would be impossible. Government is a predatory institution. Everything it does, it does by means of fraud, coercion and violence.

#149 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 06:08 PM | Reply

Pot meet kettle.
#147 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

You're adept at overlooking the many examples of government failure that I bring to you attention.

#150 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 06:10 PM | Reply

#150 | POSTED BY RAY

Some of them are failures, we acknowledge that. We don't accept your tinfoil hat reasons; ie; blanket-blaming liberals.

"Government is a predatory institution. Everything it does, it does by means of fraud, coercion and violence."
#149 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2017-10-06 06:08 PM

When you elect morons to "stick it to the man", when you don't vote to "stick it to the system", or when you elect anti-government officials because you are anti-government, you create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why don't you come up with governmental systems that work the way you think they should instead of crying about life and subscribing to your fantasy version of "anarchy".

#151 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-06 06:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"That leaves an unregulated State."

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

Ray you're an aging hippie??!!

#152 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-06 06:19 PM | Reply

That would be impossible. Government is a predatory institution. Everything it does, it does by means of fraud, coercion and violence.

#149 | Posted by Ray

Speed limits are not fraud, coercion or violence.

Such a baby.

You're the worst kind of idiot. The kind that thinks they're smart because they know a couple big words. But your sweeping absolutist statements show how weak your ability to understand complex systems is.

You find comfort in simplistic solutions like NO GOVERNMENT because your brain can't handle anything beyond that.

#153 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 06:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You're adept at overlooking the many examples of government failure that I bring to you attention.

#150 | Posted by Ray

And your adept at overlooking how examples of government failures don't prove we'd be better without government.

Because you're an idiot.

#154 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 06:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

When you elect morons to "stick it to the man", when you don't vote to "stick it to the system", or when you elect anti-government officials because you are anti-government, you create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
#151 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Mayby you are young. When I was young, I saw the danger of political power because of the rise of Nazism and communism. I believed the growth of the USA could be held in check. By the end of Reagan's second term, I reluctantly came to the conclusion that the growth of this government would overreach the private economy. We're in no-mans-land now. It won't have a happy ending.

I stopped voting after Reagan. What happens happens.

#155 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 06:31 PM | Reply

Because you're an idiot.
#154 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

That was deep.

#156 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 06:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Bears repeating:That would be impossible. Government is a predatory institution. Everything it does, it does by means of fraud, coercion and violence.

Speed limits are not fraud, coercion or violence.

Sure they are. The pretense is safety. They are purposely set low to increase the fines. It's legalized highway robbery.

#157 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 06:35 PM | Reply

Speed limits are not fraud, coercion or violence.

Sure they are. The pretense is safety. They are purposely set low to increase the fines. It's legalized highway robbery.

#157 | Posted by Ray

You're a moron.

Sorry you don't deserve more of a rebuttal than that anymore.

#158 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 06:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Government is a predatory institution. Everything it does, it does by means of fraud, coercion and violence."

Government is a reflection of the people.

#159 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-06 06:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Imagine there's no countries

"No nations, no borders!"

--SJW progressives

#160 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-06 06:42 PM | Reply

Government is a reflection of the people.
#159 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That's what makes governments so dangerous.

Sorry you don't deserve more of a rebuttal than that anymore.
#158 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

That's what makes people like you so dangerous.

#161 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 06:43 PM | Reply

And your adept at overlooking how examples of government failures don't prove we'd be better without government.
#154 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I haven't argued that. The problem is built into human nature. Hence there is no utopian form of society.

#162 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 06:48 PM | Reply

They are purposely set low to increase the fines. It's legalized highway robbery.
#157 | POSTED BY RAY

Just because you don't know the policy of NHTSA does not make that true.

#163 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-06 06:49 PM | Reply

Just because you don't know the policy of NHTSA does not make that true.
#163 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Whatever. The speed limits are well posted in my area. Whatever the window dressing, it's still highway robbery.

#164 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 06:56 PM | Reply

"No nations, no borders!"
--SJW progressives

#160 | Posted by nullifidian

Yeah that's it.

If you don't think cops should be allowed to murder innocent americans, then obviously you are for open borders.

You're almost as dumb as Ray.

#165 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 07:04 PM | Reply

That's what makes people like you so dangerous.

#161 | Posted by Ray

I'm not the one getting evil government elected.
Whining babies who don't vote are.

#166 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 07:05 PM | Reply

You're almost as dumb as Ray.
#165 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

It's scary to think that government is full of arrogant -------- like Speak who think they know what's best for the unwashed hoi poi.

#167 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 07:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm not the one getting evil government elected.
Whining babies who don't vote are.
#166 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Again. The operating method of government is based on fraud, coercion and violence. That's the kind of people attracted to public office.

#168 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 07:12 PM | Reply

#168 | POSTED BY RAY

That is because fools like yourself continue to elect violent, coercive frauds. Your apathy elects those people.

#169 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-06 07:16 PM | Reply

Again. The operating method of government is based on fraud, coercion and violence. That's the kind of people attracted to public office.

#168 | Posted by Ray

And what kind of person is attracted to the wall street banks you want to deregulate? Humanitarians?

#170 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-06 07:18 PM | Reply

Whatever. The speed limits are well posted in my area. Whatever the window dressing, it's still highway robbery.

#164 | POSTED BY RAY

Little kid, if you are so pissed about the speed limits, go to your local DMV as ask to see if the limits were reevaluated after the latest census like they should be.

Pissing yourself over it won't accomplish anything. That same analysis applies to your entire stance of government.

#171 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-06 07:18 PM | Reply

That is because fools like yourself continue to elect violent, coercive frauds. Your apathy elects those people.
#169 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

I've already stated that I stopped voting after Reagan. That's when I concluded nothing can stop the state from growing until it takes down the whole economy.

#172 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 07:20 PM | Reply

You're almost as dumb as Ray.

#165 | Posted by SqueakLoudly at 2017-10-06 07:04 PM |

Perhaps, but both of us are smarter than you. Which isn't saying much.

#173 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-06 07:23 PM | Reply

Little kid, if you are so pissed about the speed limits, go to your local DMV as ask to see if the limits were reevaluated after the latest census like they should be.
#171 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Working within the system is a useless stupid idea.

Pissing yourself over it won't accomplish anything.

As sure as tigers eat meat, a predatory institution is a predatory institution. I have better ways to spend my time.

That same analysis applies to your entire stance of government.

Of course. Even though everything the predatory state does involves some form of fraud, coercion and violence. That's not supposed to count because you all have good intentions.

#174 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 07:27 PM | Reply

#174;

www.amazon.com

www.amazon.com

You're gonna need those.

#173 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

You and Ray arguing about how smart you both are is like the seven dwarves arguing who is taller.

#175 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-06 07:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#172;

Google "apathy".

#176 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-06 07:33 PM | Reply

...think they know what's best for the unwashed hoi poi [sic].

I had some unwashed hoi poi at a luau one time. It was damned tasty, too. Not as good as King's Hawaiian rolls, though.

#177 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-10-06 07:47 PM | Reply

Why, you could even say that the unwashed hoi poi was enjoyed by the hoi polloi.

#178 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-10-06 07:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

--#175 | Posted by IndianaJones

You have as many rocks in your head as Lena Dumbham.

#179 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-06 07:51 PM | Reply

"I've already stated that I stopped voting after Reagan. That's when I concluded nothing can stop the state from growing until it takes down the whole economy." - #172 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-06 07:20 PM

Old Man Ray has seen a lot in his lifetime, and he wants you to know that he's finally figured out the game.

A previous incarnation of Ray lived in 17th-century Holland and lost the game, along with all of his worldly possessions, when Tulip Mania went bust. Legend has it that Ray went so far as to barter away his last jewgold to speculate on a single tulip bulb, only to be ruined when a sailor mistook it for an onion. To his great dismay, Ray discovered the sailor "eating a breakfast whose cost might have regaled a whole ship's crew for a twelvemonth". The events of that horrific afternoon seared an indelible mark on Ray's eternal spirit and his anguish reverberated across centuries. Ray decided to never again part with a single jewgold, and vowed to accumulate as many as possible in his future lives.

Over time, Ray has witnessed many an empire rise up only to be ------------ back down to earth by hubris, and notices many of the familiar symptoms occurring here in the USA. Rather than succumb to the forces of history, Ray has taken preemptive action, singlehandedly constructing a fortress made of solid jewgolds -- complete with gilded meats, vegetables, and various potables. He sees the rest of the world as playing court jester to what will be his epistemologically-ordained royalty, but might still like to watch you chase and scrounge after a few jewgolds between noshes on the turkey leg you will be bringing him. In case the mob becomes too unruly or the best-case scenario otherwise doesn't pan out, Ray has personally overseen the construction of his very own Golden Gun, and feels quite confident betting it against whichever antenna da' ---- chooses.

source

Indeed.

#180 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-06 09:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"You have as many rocks in your head as Lena Dumbham." - #179 | Posted by Nulli Quisling at 2017-10-06 07:51 PM

Figured out yet how the minority party in Congress can call a vote?

#181 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-06 09:14 PM | Reply

"nothing can stop the state from growing until it takes down the whole economy"

You mean like how health care consumes 18% of GDP in USA, but only 10% in the the modern world?

Our government must be more efficient, it's achieving its goal faster!

#182 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-06 09:21 PM | Reply

This reminds me of my favorite movie scene!

ISAAC: China is the last sovereign country in the world. Authoritarian but willing -- unlike U.N.-governed countries -- to give its people the freedom to do what they want.

JC DENTON: As long as they don't break the law.

ISAAC: Listen to me. This is real freedom, freedom to own property, make a profit, make your life. The West, so afraid of strong government, now has no government. Only financial power.

JC DENTON: Our governments have limited power by design.

ISAAC: Rhetoric... And you believe it! Don't you know where these slogans come from?

JC DENTON: I give up.

ISAAC: Well-paid researchers -- how do you say it? -- "think tanks," funded by big businesses. What is that? A "think tank"?

JC DENTON: Hardly as sinister as a dictator, like China's Premier.

ISAAC: It's privately-funded propaganda. The Trilateral Commission in the United States, for instance.

JC DENTON: The separation of powers acknowledges the petty ambitions of individuals; that's its strength.

ISAAC: A system organized around the weakest qualities of individuals will produce these same qualities in its leaders.

JC DENTON: Perhaps certain qualities are an inseparable part of human nature.

ISAAC: The mark of the educated man is the suppression of these qualities in favor of better ones. The same is true of civilization.

#183 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-06 09:25 PM | Reply

"The West, so afraid of strong government, now has no government. Only financial power."

^
This is the right-wing vision for America.
Trump is their perfect poster child.

Coincidentally, many other powers benefit when the USA is merely a banking state.

#184 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-06 09:26 PM | Reply

Is it to soon to talk about dick punching every psychic for hire who didn't foresee the Las Vegas shooting?

#185 | Posted by Tor at 2017-10-06 09:32 PM | Reply

Well this thread took a sharp turn down Short Bus Lane.

#186 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-07 12:37 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort