ADVERTISEMENT

Vegas shooting

Negative.

lol actually you did. You went absolutely nuts on here, attempted to insult USFSucks into meeting you at a UCF basketball game to fight, and were searching seats to find out where he was sitting. You then went into a well needed exile after everyone had their jaws hit the floor that you actually went that insane over comments on a message board.
 
lol actually you did. You went absolutely nuts on here, attempted to insult USFSucks into meeting you at a UCF basketball game to fight, and were searching seats to find out where he was sitting. You then went into a well needed exile after everyone had their jaws hit the floor that you actually went that insane over comments on a message board.
i thought it was a magic game. maybe @USFSucks can clear this up
 
Nah, he was just being a little worm as usual and tossing out personal insults left and right for many months straight. He tried to pretend like he was some tough guy and I told him he wouldn't say the things he said online in person. He claimed he would so I offered him the opportunity to meet up to find out. Really just as simple as that.
 
My memory might be a little fuzzy but here it goes:

Blue and sucks got into it in here. Somehow, both knew each other were going the NCAA tournament games that were hosted in Orlando. Blue called out sucks and the latter said blue was a pussy. Blue said he'd never say that to his face. So sucks gave blue the exact seat numbers he was sitting in at amway (sucks was there for the entire weekend with his dad since they bought a pass) but blue never showed. Blue said he showed and that sucks wasn't there and was a lying bitch. Sucks then told blue he was sitting at hamburger Mary's drinking beer and for blue to come by--no blue.

Btbones and I then asked blue wtf he planned on doing to sucks-- no response.

Then something happened--blue stalked Glenn on facebook or something and was posting pics of him, private info, all kinds of other stuff. Bunch of threatening language towards him as well. Brandon had to come in here and moderate (basically because Brahman is a horrible fukcing moderator) and wanted to talk with blue about threats and stuff. And here we are, several years later.

I am sure I've left out details so feel free to jump in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Great2BAKnight2
My memory might be a little fuzzy but here it goes:

Blue and sucks got into it in here. Somehow, both knew each other were going the NCAA tournament games that were hosted in Orlando. Blue called out sucks and the latter said blue was a pussy. Blue said he'd never say that to his face. So sucks gave blue the exact seat numbers he was sitting in at amway (sucks was there for the entire weekend with his dad since they bought a pass) but blue never showed. Blue said he showed and that sucks wasn't there and was a lying bitch. Sucks then told blue he was sitting at hamburger Mary's drinking beer and for blue to come by--no blue.

Btbones and I then asked blue wtf he planned on doing to sucks-- no response.

Then something happened--blue stalked Glenn on facebook or something and was posting pics of him, private info, all kinds of other stuff. Bunch of threatening language towards him as well. Brandon had to come in here and moderate (basically because Brahman is a horrible fukcing moderator) and wanted to talk with blue about threats and stuff. And here we are, several years later.

I am sure I've left out details so feel free to jump in.

So basically, it's way more creepy and deranged than I had made it seem. I forgot the stalking part.
 
Not too far off, Joe. Only it was more like... Sucks constantly went off on me unprovoked in nearly every thread...every single day...for months. I ultimately responded by saying he'd never say those things in person...to which he replied that he would and couldn't wait to do so. He told me to meet him at Hamburger Mary's prior to an NCAA tourney game, but I went, and of course he was nowhere to be found. I then logged into the forum during the game and posted that he wasn't there. Near the end of the game, he posted where he claimed to be sitting, so I went over to where he claimed he was...and he was again nowhere to be found. I then looked him up and posted a picture of him and said he was pathetic.
 
I'm not wanting to revisit childish shit but glen let his seating situation be known well before the tourney was over . i remember thinking blue was seriously deranged and really believed he was coming after sucks . Luckily for all involved it didn't happen
 
I have no problem with 'preppers.' In fact, if the 'fits hit the shan,' he's the first guy you'll go to for food and protection.

That's what gets me about Progressives, they never take the responsibility of freedom seriously, and just want to inhibit the most responsible, most self-sufficient, Americans.

It's the same reason I like to hang out with people who conceal carry. If I go into an establishment with them, I feel much safer.

Now ... where a critically thinking Liberal differentiates themselves from a Progressive here is pointing out this fact ...

I have had to tell my conservative friends that "concealed carry" wouldn't have done squat in this situation. Firing up at someone 300m+ away is something you need a rifle for, and ideally a 6mm+ round too. And few disagree.

Even one of the country music artists have pointed this out. But, still, only 2% of crimes committed in the US are with rifles. So for the other 98% of cases, "concealed carry" is still very viable.
Spare us all.
 
I'm not wanting to revisit childish shit but glen let his seating situation be known well before the tourney was over . i remember thinking blue was seriously deranged and really believed he was coming after sucks . Luckily for all involved it didn't happen

I had tickets to a 2 game "session" on Day 1. Whether or not he had tickets to more than one session, I have no idea. I just know he wasn't at the restaurant he claimed to be at when we were supposed to meet or in the seat he claimed to be in for the tourney session I attended. I wasn't about to start spending hundreds of dollars on future sessions just to see if he was going to stop lying. And Bones, I may not always agree with you, Joe, 85, etc., but it's whatever, I take it for what it is and wouldn't be surprised at all if you guys were cool as hell and interesting guys off the board. But with people like Sucks and Sir Gal, well, they're just absolute scumbags and super wormy, pure and simple.
 
I had tickets to a 2 game "session" on Day 1. Whether or not he had tickets to more than one session, I have no idea. I just know he wasn't at the restaurant he claimed to be at when we were supposed to meet or in the seat he claimed to be in for the tourney session I attended. I wasn't about to start spending hundreds of dollars on future sessions just to see if he was going to stop lying. And Bones, I may not always agree with you, Joe, 85, etc., but it's whatever, I take it for what it is and wouldn't be surprised at all if you guys were cool as hell and interesting guys off the board. But with people like Sucks and Sir Gal, well, they're just absolute scumbags and super wormy, pure and simple.
I have no problem with you . Just was recounting the incident as I recall it . I truly don't know why you guys didn't meet up but like I said , it was for the best for all involved that you didn't .
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluechip12
Daily Mail has a huge on going article that now includes photos of inside the room along with some of the guns he had.

It is crazy to me that someone could buy this type of arsenal and not trigger a red flag to one of our many agencies. I'm not a gun guy but I can assume that 40 guns mostly made up of high powered riffles is a tad extreme. I'm just curious how he got it all. If they were legally bought, how does this type of volume go undetected....if they were illegally bought, how does a pasty old white man that used to be an accountant find the black market gun trade of rural nevada?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4944234/Two-23-rifles-inside-Stephen-Paddock-s-room.html
 
Daily Mail has a huge on going article that now includes photos of inside the room along with some of the guns he had.

It is crazy to me that someone could buy this type of arsenal and not trigger a red flag to one of our many agencies. I'm not a gun guy but I can assume that 40 guns mostly made up of high powered riffles is a tad extreme. I'm just curious how he got it all. If they were legally bought, how does this type of volume go undetected....if they were illegally bought, how does a pasty old white man that used to be an accountant find the black market gun trade of rural nevada?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4944234/Two-23-rifles-inside-Stephen-Paddock-s-room.html

Yes it is perfectly legal for a person that can legally own weapons to own as many as they want. Unless this guy was an octopus, the number of guns he owned really doesn't matter. He likely did this with only one or two.
 
Back on topic..

WaPo calling that twat Hillary out on her bullshit. She should be publicly flogged for her stupidity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-in-las-vegas/?utm_te&utm_term=.4a28fa77a9ec
Good article. The videos clearly illustrate there would be little advantage to using a suppressor. The statement at the end was most interesting,

"Satterly noted that a more effective means of suppressing the sound of those shots would have been to simply stand farther back in the room, letting the sound be absorbed by the room itself instead of escaping in all directions outside the window."

I never would think of that but it makes complete sense. Also interesting that suppressors "wear out" pretty quickly and become ineffective.
 
You know what's the worst? Conspiracy theories. I want to unfriend anyone who posts them on FB.
Oh I hate the conspiracy theories on these type of events. They're always based on first hand stories that are counter to the official story. But they seem to completely disregard our brains ability to "fill in the gaps" which can create an inaccurate accounting of events. The workings of the brain is a fascinating topic and actually makes me question our legal system's emphasis on eye-witness testimony given the more recent scientific findings.
 
Daily Mail has a huge on going article that now includes photos of inside the room along with some of the guns he had.

It is crazy to me that someone could buy this type of arsenal and not trigger a red flag to one of our many agencies. I'm not a gun guy but I can assume that 40 guns mostly made up of high powered riffles is a tad extreme. I'm just curious how he got it all. If they were legally bought, how does this type of volume go undetected....if they were illegally bought, how does a pasty old white man that used to be an accountant find the black market gun trade of rural nevada?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4944234/Two-23-rifles-inside-Stephen-Paddock-s-room.html
in one of the pictures you can clearly see a letter on the table next to his body. i wonder if we will ever learn its contents.

i dont think the number of guns should really be a red flag. i know several people with a high number of guns and tens of thousands of rounds. hell a few people in this forum have stated the same.

the guns were legal, and even the bump stock was legal. i assume that will likely change here shortly. also he had like 100 pounds of binary explosive. im honestly surprised he didnt try to use that. that will also likely be made illegal in the future.
 
So the guy was in this room for weeks? I wonder where all these guns were during that time. Did he just leave the "Do not disturb" sign on the door? Housekeeping never cleaned the room?
Not blaming housekeeping or anything, just amazed this guy kept all this weaponry in a room he didn't have the only key to.
 
Yes it is perfectly legal for a person that can legally own weapons to own as many as they want. Unless this guy was an octopus, the number of guns he owned really doesn't matter. He likely did this with only one or two.

That's something I just don't get though. Why does anyone need that many guns? To just have and collect? In my opinion (and I'm aware many disagree with me) guns aren't something anyone should need to collect. Go get a painting or something.

I'd at least like to see something where if someone buys a large amount of guns a "warning" is triggered to at least see what's up with why they have that many.
 
So the guy was in this room for weeks? I wonder where all these guns were during that time. Did he just leave the "Do not disturb" sign on the door? Housekeeping never cleaned the room?
Not blaming housekeeping or anything, just amazed this guy kept all this weaponry in a room he didn't have the only key to.

Housekeeping went into the room but didn't see anything our of the ordinary. I'll assume that they were all in suitcases that were probably tucked away in closets, etc. From the pictures I've seen of the room, it looks like it may have been a larger room. He definitely had the money for it.
 
That's something I just don't get though. Why does anyone need that many guns? To just have and collect? In my opinion (and I'm aware many disagree with me) guns aren't something anyone should need to collect. Go get a painting or something.

I'd at least like to see something where if someone buys a large amount of guns a "warning" is triggered to at least see what's up with why they have that many.

So people can't collect items because you don't agree with them? How is a gun collection any different than an art collection or a car collection or a coin collection?
 
  • Like
Reactions: drays21
That's something I just don't get though. Why does anyone need that many guns? To just have and collect? In my opinion (and I'm aware many disagree with me) guns aren't something anyone should need to collect. Go get a painting or something.

I'd at least like to see something where if someone buys a large amount of guns a "warning" is triggered to at least see what's up with why they have that many.
A guy at work was saying his son collects guns as an "investment". I told him, I don't want to be around if they ever skyrocket in value, he probably doesn't either. At that point money isn't worth anything.
 
Housekeeping went into the room but didn't see anything our of the ordinary. I'll assume that they were all in suitcases that were probably tucked away in closets, etc. From the pictures I've seen of the room, it looks like it may have been a larger room. He definitely had the money for it.
Ahh, makes sense. I just assumed housekeeping always rummaged through my suitcases :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: CommuterBob
That's something I just don't get though. Why does anyone need that many guns? To just have and collect? In my opinion (and I'm aware many disagree with me) guns aren't something anyone should need to collect. Go get a painting or something.

I'd at least like to see something where if someone buys a large amount of guns a "warning" is triggered to at least see what's up with why they have that many.

Luckily your opinion isn't written in the Constitution. 99.999999999% of people with large gun collections have never and will never commit something like this. it makes zero sense and is unconstitutional to implement something like you are suggesting simply because of your "feelings"
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
That's something I just don't get though. Why does anyone need that many guns? To just have and collect? In my opinion (and I'm aware many disagree with me) guns aren't something anyone should need to collect. Go get a painting or something.

I'd at least like to see something where if someone buys a large amount of guns a "warning" is triggered to at least see what's up with why they have that many.

I've got a family heirloom Winchester lever action rifle that was produced in 1901. It is by far more interesting and more valuable than any painting that you can throw my way, unless you're offering an original Dali or MC Escher. And even then I wouldn't trade that gun for any of those.

PS- let's say your last suggestion was actually law. The Vegas shooter had bought most of these weapons over a long period of time, but let's say for shits and giggles that he bought 5 at a time. Local police show up to his door and legally ask "Hey, what's with the 5 guns today"? He responds "Well, I finally had the cash and I've always wanted to buy these to try out down at the range".

What exactly is supposed to happen at that point? He had legally purchased them and the guy had no mental health history, or prior convictions.
 
That's something I just don't get though. Why does anyone need that many guns? To just have and collect? In my opinion (and I'm aware many disagree with me) guns aren't something anyone should need to collect. Go get a painting or something.

I'd at least like to see something where if someone buys a large amount of guns a "warning" is triggered to at least see what's up with why they have that many.
Do they need that many? No. But they can certainly want that many and there's no reason to stop it if they do it legally. As to your second point, I'm not sure it would have flagged this guy. Supposedly he worked at the IRS and Lockheed Martin in his career and never had a run in with the law. There'd be no reason to flag him on a normal background check. Maybe it could have been uncovered by checking his internet search history, but that would be a breach of the 4th Amendment and extremely expensive to implement.
 
That's something I just don't get though. Why does anyone need that many guns? To just have and collect? In my opinion (and I'm aware many disagree with me) guns aren't something anyone should need to collect. Go get a painting or something.

I'd at least like to see something where if someone buys a large amount of guns a "warning" is triggered to at least see what's up with why they have that many.
throughout history, governments have killed more people than any thing else and its not even close. that is why we have the second amendment.

honest question for you. do you think a jew in the 1930s would agree with you that no one needs to have a collection of guns?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinjaKnight
taken from unbiased america on facebook:
Local authorities gave a briefing last night to update the public on the state of the Las Vegas concert shooting investigation.

• The shooting timeline was clarified. Earlier reports seemed to conflict with each other, with one stating that the shooting stopped after 10 minutes, and another that it took 72 minutes to stop the shooter. The sheriff explained the discrepancy:

The first report of shooting came in at 10:08pm, Sunday evening (local time). At some point a security guard attempted to make entry to Paddock’s room and was shot and wounded. This may have been the time that the gunman killed himself, because at 10:19pm, just about 10 minutes after it began, the firing ceased. With no more shooting coming from the room, authorities treated it as a barricade situation, and proceeded more cautiously. After an hour they breached the room with explosives.

• Also reports that the gunman had filmed himself during the assault were seemingly debunked. There were 2 cameras in the hallway and 1 at the room’s door peephole, all aimed toward the hallway, apparently so the gunman could see when police were approaching.

• The number of firearms found in the room and at Paddock’s two houses in Verde and Mesquite is up to 47. That includes rifles, shotguns, and pistols, purchased in Nevada, Utah, California, and Texas.

• Twelve legal bump stocks were found in the hotel room. A bump stock, when installed onto the stock of a semi-automatic weapon, uses the recoil of each shot to essentially bump the weapon back and forward in a manner that allows the trigger to be rapidly and repeatedly pressed. Because it technically still only fires one bullet per trigger pull, it does not violate laws against automatic weapons.

• At a separate news conference yesterday, Sheriff Lombardo made one of the first comments about motive, though the tone may have been speculative rather than implying he knew something. “I want to understand the motivation... to prevent any future incidents, and, you know, did this person get radicalized unbeknownst to us? And we want to identify that source.”

It’s also not clear what type of radicalization the sheriff may have been referring to, as the term has been used in the past to describe both religious and political extremists.

• The shooter’s girlfriend, Marilou Danley, has now returned from the Philippines. She was met at LAX airport by federal authorities, who want to question her as a "person of interest." Video acquired by NBC shows Danley being wheeled through the airport in a wheelchair.

• In interviews with various media, Danley’s sisters say she was sent to visit family several weeks ago by Paddock, who told her he had found a cheap ticket to the Philippines. They claim she had nothing to do with the attack and is unaware of his motivation for it.

• AP says Paddock wired Danley about $100,000 several days ago. The money was for her to live on in the Philippines, and the move out of the U.S. was possibly intended to be permanent.

• Baristas at a Mesquite, NV, Starbucks claim they had often seen Paddock and Danley together buying coffee. They say Paddock was known for publicly berating his girlfriend and the abuse 'happened a lot'.

• According to Newsweek, Danley may have been living a double life. Public documents showed she was married to two men at once, used two Social Security numbers, lived in multiple addresses in several different states and had two dates of birth listed. Danley came to the U.S. in 1990 as Marilou Natividad, married to a Geary Danley. But in 1996 she wed Jose Bustos and changed her surname, though she did not dissolve the marriage to Danley until 2015. Both marriages were registered in Las Vegas, the scene of the killings, despite the fact that neither of her husbands lived there. The Danleys lived in Arkansas and Tennessee while the Bustoses lived in California. In California, her name is registered as Marilou Natividad-Bustos and her age is listed as 55 - but in Nevada, her name is down as Marilou Lou Danley and her age listed as 62.

• According to the Las Vegas Review, the shooter Paddock was prescribed fifty 10mg Valium tablets four months ago. The anti-anxiety drug can reportedly trigger aggressive behavior in people with underlying behavioral problems.

SOURCES: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Girlfriend-Las-Vegas-shooter-m…
http://dailycaller.com/…/sheriff-las-vegas-shooter-paddock…/
https://mobile.twitter.com/…/sta…/915454977962684417/video/1
http://www.newsweek.com/marilou-danley-gunmans-girlfriend-s…
https://www.reviewjournal.com/…/las-vegas-strip-shooter-pr…/
http://www.latimes.com/…/la-las-vegas-shooting-live-updates…
 
throughout history, governments have killed more people than any thing else and its not even close. that is why we have the second amendment.

honest question for you. do you think a jew in the 1930s would agree with you that no one needs to have a collection of guns?

Let me preface by saying that I am smart enough to know that I will change no one's mind on how they feel about guns, just like none of you will likely change mine. I think this ultimately, along with lobbying (like anything else) is the reason there has been no change in gun laws.

The second amendment refers to a well regulated militia, not one man owning 40 guns. I just see no reason one individual should EVER need that many guns. The difference between a painting and a gun, is that one is a WEAPON. It kills people or things.

Just my opinion, not going to change any of your minds and you won't change mine.
 
Let me preface by saying that I am smart enough to know that I will change no one's mind on how they feel about guns, just like none of you will likely change mine. I think this ultimately, along with lobbying (like anything else) is the reason there has been no change in gun laws.

The second amendment refers to a well regulated militia, not one man owning 40 guns. I just see no reason one individual should EVER need that many guns. The difference between a painting and a gun, is that one is a WEAPON. It kills people or things.

Just my opinion, not going to change any of your minds and you won't change mine.

The idea that the 2nd Amendment applies only to a militia is one of the most discredited talking points that apparently will not go away. Just watch the clip below; it's short but gets to the point extremely quick. There's really no debating the language if someone just reads as it was written. You claim to want a "real debate" on gun control yet you, like many leftie politicians, fundamentally refuse to admit that the 2nd Amendment does in fact, explicitly, grant the right to the PEOPLE to own firearms.

 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Let me preface by saying that I am smart enough to know that I will change no one's mind on how they feel about guns, just like none of you will likely change mine. I think this ultimately, along with lobbying (like anything else) is the reason there has been no change in gun laws.

The second amendment refers to a well regulated militia, not one man owning 40 guns. I just see no reason one individual should EVER need that many guns. The difference between a painting and a gun, is that one is a WEAPON. It kills people or things.

Just my opinion, not going to change any of your minds and you won't change mine.

So what is an acceptable amount of guns? The intent of the "militia" in the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizens to overthrow the government if they become corrupt. I'd much rather have 40 guns than whatever you deem to be acceptable. 99.9%+ of gun owners will never use their weapons to kill someone. Just because you don't enjoy shooting or collecting them doesn't mean it is wrong.
 
Let me preface by saying that I am smart enough to know that I will change no one's mind on how they feel about guns, just like none of you will likely change mine. I think this ultimately, along with lobbying (like anything else) is the reason there has been no change in gun laws.

The second amendment refers to a well regulated militia, not one man owning 40 guns. I just see no reason one individual should EVER need that many guns. The difference between a painting and a gun, is that one is a WEAPON. It kills people or things.

Just my opinion, not going to change any of your minds and you won't change mine.

Just for my information, what is your problem with one man owning 40 guys? Has one man ever used 40 guns to commit some crime that you are upset with?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT