Posted on 10/04/2017 7:59:24 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
How much lethal firepower should citizens be allowed to possess?
On October 1, there were 16,000 American soldiers serving in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. But it was Las Vegas that most resembled a war zone and represented the biggest danger to American lives that day. From the punched-out windows of his 32nd-floor suite at the Mandalay Bay hotel, Stephen Paddock rained down an appalling level of destruction on a country-music concert below. Using an enormous cache of guns, in less than 12 minutes he single-handedly massacred 58 people and injured 527 more. It was a deadlier day than American soldiers have ever suffered in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the worst mass shooting in modern US history.
This latest slaughter demands that the country grapple with gun-control issues beyond the debate over background checks. A more fundamental question is at hand: How much lethal firepower should citizens be allowed to possess?
There will be a fierce debate about where to draw the line, but no reasonable person can say the Vegas shooter wasn’t well past it. Paddock had effectively assembled a small ordnance depot in his luxury hotel suite. He had at least 23 firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. A majority of those guns were military-style assault weapons; some were mounted on shooting platforms with scopes and tripods and outfitted with devices that made them fully automatic. Investigators later found 19 more guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition at his home.
>How much lethal firepower should citizens be allowed to possess?<
As much as we want, a$$wipe.
He only had two hands.
That is less than three per month. What a slacker.
A 10 year old boy with a Marlin Model 60 and a sack full of .22LR could have done almost as much damage. It has nothing to do with the number of weapons. I’m sure the author would like us to return to muskets.
If those that stayed in adjacent hotel rooms had guns and explosives, they could have stopped the bad guy. But the hotel was unarmed, except the bad guy.
Good guys need proper guns even explosives so that bad guys can be stopped.
George Zornick published a stupid article in The Nation which completely ignored a very important Constitutional right. That should be illegal.
“The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower”- NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.
What part of “shall not be infringed” do these douche nozzles not comprehend?
liberals spout 33 lies a day... that should be illegal !
Liberal Idiots!
Why should it be illegal?
Can only shoot one at a time.
I don’t say it should be illegal; but it should damn sure trigger him onto a pretty strict watchlist, no?
Thats nothing, as a fabricator and machinist i would dearly love to build a minigun, saw several simple three barrel designs years ago.
One guy built one for .22lr even.
“I don’t say it should be illegal; but it should damn sure trigger him onto a pretty strict watchlist, no?”
No, it shouldn’t.
L
Do you think that if he was on a “watchlist” that anyone would have seen him do anything at all?
Because I don’t.
Not sure a .22LR will do a lot of damage at 300 yards. However, I wouldn’t stand 300 yards away and let you shoot at me so I could prove my opinion.
There is no reason one person needs that many guns. But the Constitution doesn’t say a reason is needed but fighting off a tyrannical government that’s trying to take away the people’s guns is a very good reason.
Not more deadlier than any month in Shitcago. Gun Free Zone that it is
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.