Stephen Paddock - Legally Purchased 33 Rifles in one Year

Can anybody argue that the US doesn't need more gun control? Evidently multiple gun purchases in one given transaction raises a flag with the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms), but because he purchased 33 rifles, one at a time, no flags were raised. This is absolutely ridiculous. Our citizens should be outraged!!!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/las-ve...-paddock-gun-purchases-didnt-raise-red-flags/

 

How many of those rifles were actually used in the massacre though?
Did having 33 rifles enable him to do more killing than if he had, say, only two?

It's also not that uncommon for people in Nevada to have more than 33 guns, especially old retired guys in rural areas.

 

Dat's too much firepower for just one person...

... Granny gets by just fine with just one...

... 12ga. Mossburg shotgun.

 

It isn't the number of guns, its the intent to use guns illegally that is the problem. I place my outrage upon the shooter, not the tools he employed in his evil act. Inanimate objects should not become the focus of the real cause to this massacre, the shooter himself. I still don't understand how people can see it any other way...

 

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And, if you've read this famous old saying, you should consider it well: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!" You may want to remember this when 'da boyz in da 'hood come kicking in your front door.... Oh, but try singing, "Kumbaya" to them... maybe that'll keep them from stealing everything you own, and killing you.

.. "Sh*t! Maybe if I remind them that I voted for Obama twice they won't kill me...."

 

Then clearly the best target of their outrage is the pseudo-Americans who shill for the treasonous goal of effectively repealing 2A.

 

The fact that he bought 33 firearms has no bearing on what he did. He didn't need more than 2 or 3.

 

Yes in fact many can argue that we do not need more gun control and they are correct.

Multiple gun purchases mean nothing.

People seem to forget that this guy was fairly successful and had a respectable amount of money. For reasons which are not clear yet he sent as in GAVE $100,000.00 to someone in the Philippines. He may have sent it to a friend ore relative or perhaps to someone else who was involved or even given it to charity. We just do not know but hopefully that will be investigate and we will find the answer.

But in the mean time it is important to remember that he was wealthy enough to give away a hundred grand and still go to casinos and rent expensive rooms and plunk down thousands or tens of thousands at a table.

What should be clear is that if he wanted to he probably could have found a black market dealer to sell him a belt fed full auto machine gun. OR purchased fake IDs to buy the same guns he had under different names. Or any number of other ways of acquiring such weapons to commit his heinous act and no amount of laws or red tap could have stopped him.

Every piece of recommended gun control legislation would have failed in the case of the Las Vegas massacre. IF someone has enough money, like this guy DID, the laws mean NOTHING and a person willing to spend that money to commit mass murder will do so.

The only effect these proposed laws would have is to disarm the poorer segments of society and leave them at the mercy of others.

 

First of all, I don't think we need to worry about the poorer segment of society purchasing 33 guns. They couldn't afford it. Worse yet, they could NOT afford the ammo.

Secondly, the FBI has trained personnel in the art of interrogation. They could probably spot mental instability and/or a propensity of violence.

Typical NRA rhetoric - nothing you can do!!! The US just experienced the worst slaughter in the history of this Nation. Do nothing!!! Right.

If any political figure talks about doing nothing, they will not get my vote. Large ammo purchases, non-ordinary gun purchases --- track it all --- start the interrogations --- enough, enough, enough!!! Just because there is a Right to Bear Arms, doesn't mean you have freedoms against being checked for sanity.

Just a visit from the Black SUV might be enough to tip this kind of person over the edge. Much rather have a shootout happen when there are trained G-Men on the alert, than wait for Vegas to happen again.

 

Uh you missed the point.

Everyone has the right to own a gun and the proposed laws merely disarm the poor people who need guns to protect themselves.

No the FBI cannot interrogate people to spot individuals who have a propensity for violence. There other constitutionally protected rights beyond the right to bear arms. Perhaps you have heard of the right against self incrimination often expressed by police as the right to remain silent. The FBI and police are not permitted to go around questioning random people looking for propensity's for violence. Generall they have to wait until they find reason to believe a crime has been committed.

It was not NRA rhetoric it was several simple facts. ALthough the NRA is generally correct everything I said was my own observations and you are simply ignoring FACTS.

YEs enough enough enough of your alarmist nonsense. The part about shall not be infringed does indeed mean you have the right not to be checked and the government is not qualified to check on people for such safety issues.

 

Mmmh... Kids of my times collected baseball cards and so if becoming older they collect guns up to a number which enables them to equip a company Marines with guns and this is totally OK?

Even with my European anti gun understanding I can accept the necessary to have a LEGAL gun for self defense or maybe hunting etc. ... means a pistol and 1 or 2 rifles and I will not complain much if not being full automatic military weapons. But 33 guns? Is Nevada suddenly such dangerous like Syria to live there or what the hack?

 

You evaded and ran from the question.

How is one person in possession of 33 guns more dangerous than a person in possession of two?

 

There are collectors with walk in gun safes that are as horrified by these shooting episodes as any antifa rioter. Having 33 guns only indicates you like guns a lot and have some disposable cash.

 

In Germany, as you know, your right to own weapons of self-defense does not exist, except in rare, highly-regulated circumstances. If I remember history correctly, Adolf Hitler effectively took away the right of German citizens to defend themselves from criminals, and from the government itself, and you have never gotten that right back....

What many of us in the U. S. fear is the unending efforts of those who, like Hitler, desire to rule over an effectively DISARMED citizenry. They've tried to make make ownership of weapons illegal, but so far, they've failed. So, next, they take devious methods to suppress the ability of a person to own weapons by instigating all kinds of "registration" schemes, banning many types of weapon accessories, imposing various kind of "limits" on what can be purchased, and the imposition of various kinds of taxes and fees on weapons and ammunition for them designed to make it too expensive for people to defend themselves.

These liberal, weapons-hating fascists use this "gradual" approach very successfully. Indeed, every time there is an outrageous tragedy involving a madman and a weapon, the whole Democrat Party is out in force, screaming for bans and limitations on weapons of all kinds. They WANT to disarm the whole country, but they will COMPROMISE and merely slap more restrictions, limitations, registrations, fees and taxes instead, until they can achieve their primary goal.

And THAT, Herr Mandelus, is why so many of us are dead-set against any such "compromising" with these fascists. They would take away our only dependable methods of self-defense and leave us completely at the mercy of criminals -- or neo-fascists, such as your own late Führer....

."Hey, you don't need GUNS! Just call '911' if someone's trying to kill you!"

 

He still only can fire one or two at the time, is it?

People freak out about the actual number of rifles - they should worry more about the amount of ammo/reloads they have.

 

But that fear of Hitler and disarmed citizens is total nonsense! In 1933 and before, there was a weapon law in Germany, which was far more free than today's US Weapons Act. To put it plainly ... absolutely everyone could have a gun in the Germany or even more than one ... without problems! Just think why the SA brown shirts armed all problemslos with the K-98 carabiner as used in the army
And still in the context: Even Jews were allowed to have weapons until about 1938 ... despite Nazis!

And has this helped anything to prevent Hitler and what Nazis did? no!

 

I am a Canadian Deplorable / Trump supporter but........
I do have to admit that a powerful case can be put forward for control on certain types of guns.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3784603/...icle&utm_medium=MostPopular&utm_campaign=2014

Australia banned semi-automatic weapons after a mass murder: Here’s what happened next

 

I'm not sure these were his weapons or he did the shooting. Too many questions to make a case. I wonder if he wasn't murdered and put there? NOT saying he was but it is a possibility.
2nd A was to safeguard the free people and the states from their government enslaving them. Like they have today.
Back then there were no high powered weapons so the people had the same firepower as the government did. That was the intention.
So the leaders to insure theri control and power over the people created ' The League Of Nations ,today known as ' The Unites Nations '. Since then our leaders have an army of foreigners plus their own military to keep us under control.
They practice taking over our cities and states with their foreign allies right in our face. While naive Americans clap and celebrate their captivity.

 

We just had the worst mass slaughter in US History. Monitor it all - guns, ammo, etc. If there are any extreme purchases, contact the party. Determine why. Freedom to bear arms does not include freedom from a demonstration of sanity. The gun advocates want to just sit around and do NOTHING, and wait for the next occurence. It's time to act. If I hear any politician talk about doing NOTHING, they will not get my vote.

 

Monitoring and permits are acceptable, yes. But it costs a lot of red tape and bureaucracy... that most criminals will elude, anyway.

Might as well try and ban knives.

 

Yes, but you and I are not experts. The experts can figure it out, and arrive at a workable solution. Doing NOTHING is not an option with me. No Action, No Vote.

 

I live in the Tampa area. It's a big joke. The mayor shoots a M60 with blanks in it. Got in trouble for pointing it at the press last year. FYI, it's a democratic mayor.

And no i have no issue with 33 guns. I don't own 33 but my dad does. I'm not there yet. Not a big deal.

 

There are no such experts and no solution or law or regulation could have prevented vegas.

 

It is happening all over, not just Tampa. And the joke is on us.
I just try and keep my soul anymore. I feel the rest of me is treatened. I'm old so it won't affect me that long, but I do feel for the young.

 

Excuses, excuses, excuses. Do NOTHING, do NOTHING, do NOTHING!