# Las Vegas shooting



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/jun/09/neighbors-couple-suspected-las-vegas-killing-spree/



> Hours after a man and woman killed two police officers at an east Las Vegas pizza restaurant and then gunned down another victim at a nearby Wal-Mart before killing themselves, a picture of the shooters began to emerge.
> Residents at an apartment complex where it appeared the two lived together said they had a reputation for spouting racist, anti-government views, bragging about their gun collection and boasting that theyâd spent time at Cliven Bundyâs ranch during a recent standoff there between armed militia members and federal government agents.
> The Lafayette (Ind.) Journal and Courier newspaper identified the couple this morning as Jerad and Amanda Miller.
> According to one police official and a witness, one of the shooters shouted, âThis is a revolutionâ and âWe're freedom fighters.â
> ...


I do not understand why their neighbors never reported them. They were very clear about their intentions.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/jun/09/neighbors-couple-suspected-las-vegas-killing-spree/
> 
> I do not understand why their neighbors never reported them. They were very clear about their intentions.


+ + + + + + + + +
tried to warn those with ears to hear and minds which were open,
EXACTLY what the dangers were when Obama was campaigning
(has he ever stopped?) and promised "to fundamentally transform
the United States of America." Everyone was too focused on the
other rhetoric of 'Hope & Change.' Instead we were called racists
and bigots . . . and other equally flattering tagnames.

Guess it's all in who you want to listen to, as O was
(and still is) very clear in what his intentions are as well. 

Only (3) people died because of these two; while with Obama's
Benghazi fiasco, the cost was an ambassador and (3) other Americans.

It's just too bad that O doesn't save the taxpayers 
a further burden of having to try him for treason and/or impeachment
and taken the same avenue of escape like those two killers did in Vegas . . .


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + + +
> tried to warn those with ears to hear and minds which were open,
> EXACTLY what the dangers were when Obama was campaigning
> (has he ever stopped?) and promised "to fundamentally transform
> ...


LOL

If someone had turned them in, the Right would be the first to squawk, about their loss of free speech and the right to bear arms.


----------



## newfieannie (Dec 24, 2006)

I don't understand either. why didn't someone pick up a phone and report it. must have been more than that one neighbor who knew. those policemen could still be alive if they had someone watching those 2 . course someone may have and we haven't got all the facts yet. so sad! 3 good men up here last week and now 2 more of yours.~Georgia


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + + +
> tried to warn those with ears to hear and minds which were open,
> EXACTLY what the dangers were when Obama was campaigning
> (has he ever stopped?) and promised "to fundamentally transform
> ...


Is that really and truly all that you can do? Is the only way that you can react to something to try and deflect to blaming Obama about something entirely unrelated? There was no political situation here and yet you tried to make it one. This is like a political version of the Westboro Baptist Church. Shame on you.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

newfieannie said:


> I don't understand either. why didn't someone pick up a phone and report it. must have been more than that one neighbor who knew. those policemen could still be alive if they had someone watching those 2 . course someone may have and we haven't got all the facts yet. so sad! 3 good men up here last week and now 2 more of yours.~Georgia


Report what?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/jun/09/neighbors-couple-suspected-las-vegas-killing-spree/
> 
> I do not understand why their neighbors never reported them. They were very clear about their intentions.



I still can't quite figure out why no one was able to stop Elliott Rodger before he did what he said he was going to do.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> LOL
> 
> If someone had turned them in, the Right would be the first to squawk, about their loss of free speech and the right to bear arms.


Maybe, but, only because liberals really don't care about others rights or freedoms when they conflict with their views!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> I still can't quite figure out why no one was able to stop Elliott Rodger before he did what he said he was going to do.


Ask his parents!


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> LOL
> 
> If someone had turned them in, the Right would be the first to squawk, about their loss of free speech and the right to bear arms.


+ + + + + + + +
Patchouli wondered why nobody paid any heed to those two in Vegas.

My counterpoint is why didn't anybody heed those concerned with the
threats (and promises) that Obama was making concerning the destruction
......er . . . "transformation" of America.


Guess it depends on who's saying it and how it's said.



But then you already knew that . . . .


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> Is that really and truly all that you can do? Is the only way that you can react to something to try and deflect to blaming Obama about something entirely unrelated? There was no political situation here and yet you tried to make it one. This is like a political version of the Westboro Baptist Church. Shame on you.


+ + + + + + + +
The o.p. in her initial quote concerning what the alleged killers
were quoted as saying before committing suicide had definte
political overtones. If you don't believe that the decline and fall
of this once great country is totally unrelated to the leadership
which practices the "do as we say, not as we also do" philosophy,
then you are just too blind to see it. It does however, make it easier
for me to understand how we have fallen so fast and so quickly.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

As I was told by a cop when I turned in a notebook that I found on my property that detailed a shooting spree at a school; "we really can't do anything until they do something illegal".


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I can think of 2 good reasons why nobody reported them. 1) fear of retaliation, or 2) they thought it was just talk, didn't take it seriously. Mostly likely #2. 

Or they could have lived in an area like some neighborhoods in KC where a shooting takes place with 20+ people around but nobody saw nuthin, nobody knows nuthin. 

I have to wonder if it is our society today which seemingly drives so many people over the edge, or have people always been that unstable but we just didn't know about it due to lack of real-time mass media?


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + +
> The o.p. in her initial quote concerning what the alleged killers
> were quoted as saying before committing suicide had definte
> political overtones.


Before they committed suicide they killed two police officers and another innocent person!!


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

newfieannie said:


> I don't understand either. why didn't someone pick u
> 
> p a phone and report it. must have been more than that one neighbor who knew. those policemen could still be alive if they had someone watching those 2 . course someone may have and we haven't got all the facts yet. so sad! 3 good men up here last week and now 2 more of yours.~Georgia


+ + + + + +
someone (or many someones) may have called in on the threats.

But as JeffreyD has already mentioned: " Report what?"
Until someone actually carries out the elements of the crime . . .

We haven't yet devolved to the level that the
thought police can take someone into custody . . .
But give it some time . . . it's coming!

And much as hollywood would have you believe that there is infinite
manpower and resources to solve ALL the major crimes in 60 minutes
(or less), such is just not the case. Those who put on the uniform each
and every day, realize that there is a possibility that they might not be
coming home when their shift ends. My heart goes out to their families, but
I'm more concerned with the fate of this nation and where we ALL are heading.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + +
> The o.p. in her initial quote concerning what the alleged killers
> were quoted as saying before committing suicide had definte
> political overtones. If you don't believe that the decline and fall
> ...


The OP didn't write anything with political overtones, the KILLERS DID. So you're defending them? Absolutely amazing. But illustrative as to how we let people like this slide by...because we're too busy blaming someone else than dealing with the problem.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Brighton said:


> Before they committed suicide they killed two police officers and another innocent person!!


+ + + + + + +
You make this announcement as if it's a total revelation to me . . .

People die everyday. Cops, 'innocent' people
(whoever they may be),
since we are all guilty of something . . .

What's your REAL point? Don't be shy . . . I can take it.


Truthfully, I have to really wonder why it's taken OVER 24 hours to report on this?
Must be a certain topic in politics that someone doesn't want to discuss . . .


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> The OP didn't write anything with political overtones, the KILLERS DID. So you're defending them? Absolutely amazing. But illustrative as to how we let people like this slide by...because we're too busy blaming someone else than dealing with the problem.


+ + + + + + + 
But thank you for proving my point on the second!


How would YOU propose to deal with the problem?

Take their guns away or just outlaw all guns?

Worked pretty well in the war on drugs, didn't?

Last I recall, it was illegal to either partake in or distribute such.

How's that all working out . . .? How about drug-free zones around schools as well?


OR were you referring to the uninformed voter$ who allowed an illegal usurper to occupy the W.H.?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + +
> But thank you for proving my point on the second!


Are you going to start with "I know you are but what am I" next? Or we could do "I'm rubber, you're glue..."


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

newfieannie said:


> I don't understand either. why didn't someone pick up a phone and report it. must have been more than that one neighbor who knew. those policemen could still be alive if they had someone watching those 2 . *course someone may have and we haven't got all the facts yet. so sad! 3 good men up here last week and now 2 more of yours*.~Georgia


I think it may be more a case of not having all the facts yet. For example, in Moncton an arrest of an accomplice was made today in connection with Bourque (the Moncton cop killer) because of reports turned in about an accomplice who was known to Bourque and had been uttering death threats towards the cops and was encouraging Bourque to kill those RCMP. The authorities aren't going to tell the media or the public about reports like that until they've followed through on them and made arrests. Just like when they were asking people to not report police actions on social media during the man-hunt - they don't want the miscreants or the general public to know what's happening until they've accomplished their goals.

But as to why people in the know don't make reports - I think it's partly because some are afraid they might be wrong and imagining things and don't want to accuse somebody unjustly - and partly because some may know they are not wrong and are afraid they might get on somebody else's hit list in vengeance if their names get out in a report and nothing is done about it. But mainly I think (in the USA moreso than in Canada) people don't report other dangerous people because they have gotten so used to so MANY radical people constantly mouthing off a lot of hate mongering and crazy violent stuff (daring authority through freedom of speech and all that) that other people are just ignoring them and hope they go away or drop dead. There are so many mouthy people like that now, how are other people supposed to know who to take seriously as a dangerous fanatic and who to ignore as a mouthy but harmless nut?


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

I don't think the right will get any mileage out of justifying the actions of the gunmen in a case this blatant. My guess is this will be tagged a "false flag" event, once the talking points are worked out. To me it just looks like two people who went over the edge.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

copperkid3 said:


> Truefully, I have really wonder why it's taken OVER 24 hours to report on this?
> 
> . . .


It's because it's becoming so commonplace. What else do you call 5 seperate incidents in less than a week, some of them on the same day but in different locations? So commonplace that some of it isn't being reported at all.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> I think it may be more a case of not having all the facts yet. For example, in Moncton an arrest of an accomplice was made today in connection with Bourque (the Moncton cop killer) because of reports turned in about an accomplice who was known to Bourque and had been uttering death threats towards the cops and was encouraging Bourque to kill those RCMP. The authorities aren't going to tell the media or the public about reports like that until they've followed through on them and made arrests. Just like when they were asking people to not report police actions on social media during the man-hunt - they don't want the miscreants or the general public to know what's happening until they've accomplished their goals.
> 
> But as to why people in the know don't make reports - I think it's partly because some are afraid they might be wrong and imagining things and don't want to accuse somebody unjustly - and partly because some may know they are not wrong and are afraid they might get on somebody else's hit list in vengeance if their names get out in a report and nothing is done about it. But mainly I think (in the USA moreso than in Canada) people don't report other dangerous people because they have gotten so used to so MANY radical people constantly mouthing off a lot of hate mongering and crazy violent stuff (daring authority through freedom of speech and all that) that other people are just ignoring them and hope they go away or drop dead. There are so many mouthy people like that now, how are other people supposed to know who to take seriously as a dangerous fanatic and who to ignore as a mouthy but harmless nut?


The Occupy movement is a perfect example of which you speak!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Paumon said:


> It's because it's becoming so commonplace. What else do you call 5 seperate incidents in less than a week, some of them on the same day but in different locations? So commonplace that some of it isn't being reported at all.


 These are just previews, of the coming attractions. Lots of guns + lots of people angry at an imperfect word = events exactly like this. Just wait until generations of angry, well armed people, start developing dementia.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> It's because it's becoming so commonplace. What else do you call 5 seperate incidents in less than a week, some of them on the same day but in different locations? So commonplace that some of it isn't being reported at all.


Especially in places like DC and Chicago! It's a daily occurrence and it's embarrassing to those political factions that over see those areas so the news media ignore it. 

Right now, a few blocks from my home, a lunatic has taken over a house and is barricaded in side. It's all over the local news here. The police did try to apprehend him, but he ran, and now my neighborhood has to pay for this idiots actions! The news reporters are complete idiots and aren't getting anything right! It would be funny if it wasn't so sad!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> These are just previews, of the coming attractions. Lots of guns + lots of people angry at an imperfect word = events exactly like this. Just wait until generations of angry, well armed people, start developing dementia.


Aren't there generation's of angry, well armed people with dementia right now? Why would the future be any different?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + +
> Patchouli wondered why nobody paid any heed to those two in Vegas.
> 
> My counterpoint is why didn't anybody heed those concerned with the
> ...


 I can't really (in good conscience) equate politics, with murder, even though it sounds really great to do so.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> I can't really (in good conscience) equate politics, with murder, even though it sounds really great to do so.


Many of these murderers have left information behind that had political motivations as part of their insanity!


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> I don't think the right will get any mileage out of justifying the actions of the gunmen in a case this blatant. My guess is this will be tagged a "false flag" event, once the talking points are worked out. To me it just looks like two people who went over the edge.


+ + + + +
try to get milage out of "justifying" these killers?

Nothing that they have done or spoken, can justify the taking of those lives.

OTOH however, we have already seen an outcry 
from the left and uninformed reactionaries, that
"something needs to be done" or "why wasn't
something done before the event, to prevent it!"


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + + +
> tried to warn those with ears to hear and minds which were open,
> EXACTLY what the dangers were when Obama was campaigning
> (has he ever stopped?) and promised "to fundamentally transform
> ...


and 40 or so veterans and who knows how many soldiers overseas. and I bet a bunch of heart attacks and people who get to close to the truth.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + +
> try to get milage out of "justifying" these killers?
> 
> Nothing that they have done or spoken, can justify the taking of those lives.
> ...



My goodness! Why would anyone want to prevent a tragedy? Why...that would be like wearing a seatbelt or a....motorcycle helmet! Or getting a vaccine. Heaven forbid!


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> I can't really (in good conscience) equate politics, with murder, even though it sounds really great to do so.


+ + + +0+ + + + 
history and the current administration have proven otherwise . . .
hence my reason(s) for bringing in Obama and his cronies, which
include the lady-in-charge of the state department (Hillary) who 
have blood on their collective hands in the deaths of those in Benghzi.

What else would you call it but MURDER, when the ambassador
and his staff put in numerous requests for additional security, weeks
and even months prior to the attack and were refused by those in charge?

We don't even have to know that the planned cover-up was more important
than what could have been done during the actual attack. Although it would
be nice to know the name(s) of those who gave the order to 'STAND DOWN'
when a rescue team volunteered to go. . .


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Double posting


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> My goodness! Why would anyone want to prevent a tragedy? Why...that would be like wearing a seatbelt or a....motorcycle helmet! Or getting a vaccine. Heaven forbid!


+ + + + + +
conversation huh?

Or did I steal your thunder with the suggestion
to solve all the illegal shootings in this.country,
by doing away with the 2nd amendment?!!!

Silly me . . .


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

***************************


----------



## notwyse (Feb 16, 2014)

For my part...I feel deep sympathy for the officers and their families and friends. The photos of the broken fellow officers about breaks my heart. How brave these folks are...to serve their fellow citizens. Sad they should die while doing so. As to why it "took so long to report" ? Well I do talk about this and other things that bother me. But how do I come to this forum with my dismay? If I tell you that the first rapid sequence intubation I ran the meds for was a six year old boy who had been shot in the head by his sibling while playing with the family gun would you hear me? If I said that as a flight nurse my living nightmare call was a cop shooting during a domestic would you care? He died...and it changed my life too. Nothing will heal that pain or take away my guilt he did not live. So you see...I can't talk about the President and try to blame him. I want to talk about guns and gun regulations and that can't be discussed here.


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2014)

At this point what difference does it make ?


----------



## topofmountain (Nov 1, 2013)

This whole thing was very sad. 
What was a FELON doing with a gun collection. Nobody has been able to positively ID them at the Bundy ranch.
For those of you who don't live in metro areas. Getting the police to investigate something is much harder than a call to police. There first has to be a crime being committed.
I live just across the river from Laughlin NV. 100 miles from Las Vegas. Las Vegas Metro Police are the Clark County Sheriffs Dept. Talking crazy or raciest isn't a crime yet. Bragging about a gun collection isn't yet a crime either.
So calling the police on them may or may not of brought out the police.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

They have been positively IDed as being at Bundy Ranch. They took pictures. And Jerad Miller was interviewed. And he posted all over crazy websites like Alex Jones. He made an effort to get himself and his views out there. 

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art..._Killer_Jerad_Miller_Interview_at_Bundy_Ranch


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I saw his picture with Sheriff Mack (the one who wanted the women to be shot first)


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

According to all of the interviews with his neighbors he was loudly vocal all over his apartment complex and town. Since he was a convicted felon all they had to do was call the police to let them know he claimed to have a pile of guns and planned some sort of attack and he would have been landed in prison for a good long time. He was seen with guns so the police would have had an easy time getting a warrant and locking him and his wife up.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> They have been positively IDed as being at Bundy Ranch. They took pictures. And Jerad Miller was interviewed. And he posted all over crazy websites like Alex Jones. He made an effort to get himself and his views out there.
> 
> http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art..._Killer_Jerad_Miller_Interview_at_Bundy_Ranch


So? What does that prove other than they were 2 out of hundreds or thousands?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> According to all of the interviews with his neighbors he was loudly vocal all over his apartment complex and town. Since he was a convicted felon all they had to do was call the police to let them know he claimed to have a pile of guns and planned some sort of attack and he would have been landed in prison for a good long time. He was seen with guns so the police would have had an easy time getting a warrant and locking him and his wife up.


So why in this day and age of the government wanting neighbor to spy and tattle on neighbor, didn't anyone complain about them? And if they did, why was nothing done?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> So why in this day and age of the government wanting neighbor to spy and tattle on neighbor, didn't anyone complain about them? And if they did, why was nothing done?


I am hard pressed to understand your posts. My original question was why didn't anyone report them. That is what we are attempting to discuss here. What is your point in just repeating the question?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> So? What does that prove other than they were 2 out of hundreds or thousands?


Did you actually read the post I was responding to? They said he had not been positively IDed as being at Bundy's ranch. I gave them a link to show he had been.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> I am hard pressed to understand your posts. My original question was why didn't anyone report them. That is what we are attempting to discuss here. What is your point in just repeating the question?


As some of us are hard pressed to understand yours! You seem to know everything about this, so I asked you! 

What do you think should have been done? I kept it simple for ya!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> As some of us are hard pressed to understand yours! You seem to know everything about this, so I asked you!
> 
> What do you think should have been done? I kept it simple for ya!


I already stated what should have been done and you quoted it.....



Patchouli said:


> According to all of the interviews with his neighbors he was loudly vocal all over his apartment complex and town. Since he was a convicted felon all they had to do was call the police to let them know he claimed to have a pile of guns and planned some sort of attack and he would have been landed in prison for a good long time. He was seen with guns so the police would have had an easy time getting a warrant and locking him and his wife up.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> I already stated what should have been done and you quoted it.....



So, why do you think nobody complained?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> I don't think the right will get any mileage out of justifying the actions of the gunmen in a case this blatant. My guess is this will be tagged a "false flag" event, once the talking points are worked out. To me it just looks like two people who went over the edge.


I agree mostly. These were 2 loons. Perhaps one was a fanatic, domineering loon and dominated the other or maybe they were just 2 loons who found each other. I will guarantee you one thing. This thread was started solely because it appears these particular loons could be labeled right wing and the poster would not have started the thread if they has appeared to be loons of the left wing variety, of which we have had several.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Universal background checks would have helped too. Also if the people at Bundy ranch that he told he was a convicted felon had told the Police that would have prevented this. 

Interesting too that all 3 people killed by these people were armed. 2 Police officers and a guy with a CC gun. 



> *Joseph Wilcox, 31*
> After the Millers shot the officers, they fled to a Walmart where Jerad Miller allegedly fired one round and told everyone to get out.
> Wilcox, who was in the store and who was carrying a concealed weapon, moved to confront the shooter. But he didn't realize Jerad Miller was not alone.
> Authorities say Amanda Miller shot Wilcox, killing him.
> "Joseph died attempting to protect others. His death is completely senseless," Sheriff Gillespie told reporters.


http://www.kspr.com/news/nationworld/Family-friends-remember-Las-Vegas-victims/21051646_26408234


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> So? What does that prove other than they were 2 out of *hundreds or thousands*?


Was that supposed to be hundreds or thousands or was it supposed to be hundreds of thousands? 

In any case, even two is two too many, and I suspect there are hundreds of thousands of these people with this sickness and they are corrupting more and more impressionable people with their sickness every day because it's now so much easier to reach out to them.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

poppy said:


> I agree mostly. These were 2 loons. Perhaps one was a fanatic, domineering loon and dominated the other or maybe they were just 2 loons who found each other. I will guarantee you one thing. This thread was started solely because it appears these particular loons could be labeled right wing and the poster would not have started the thread if they has appeared to be loons of the left wing variety, of which we have had several.


That is simply not true. I am surprised there has been no discussion here of any of the 3 recent shootings. I posted this one because a common argument is that there is no way to prevent shootings. This one and the Elliot Rodgers one were both very preventable. In the first case the police dropped the ball and in this case people in the know refused to report it. If these two had been flaming liberals I still would have posted this.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Aren't there generation's of angry, well armed people with dementia right now? Why would the future be any different?


 No, IMO. The "greatest generation", were not as heavily armed and lived a greater part of their lives in peace and prosperity, so they generally don't have the hatred and disillusionment. It's the Vietnam war and forward generations, that have seen a much changed America, mostly changes not for good.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> So, why do you think nobody complained?


I have no idea that is why I asked the question.  I really can not fathom their thinking at all.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Was that supposed to be hundreds or thousands or was it supposed to be hundreds of thousands?
> 
> In any case, even two is two too many, and I suspect there are hundreds of thousands of these people with this sickness and they are corrupting more and more impressionable people with their sickness every day because it's now so much easier to reach out to them.


It was as I posted....or! I watched and there certainly were not hundreds of thousands! I don't think they had more than a few hundred, but some folks that were there have said that it could have been thousands....i don't believe it! 

So what can be done without violating their Constitutional rights? Did these people obtain their weapons legally? It doesn't appear to be the case because background checks would have found that he was a felon and would have been denied a purchase. And what to do about those hundreds of thousands that have a presumed mental illness? What exactly do you think is their illness or what is causing it? We had a time where the mentally ill were put in homes just for them. The aclu sued because they said it was unfair to them and they were released. Some ended up I'm prison, and others went to the streets. A few came home to their families!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> No, IMO. The "greatest generation", were not as heavily armed and lived a greater part of their lives in peace and prosperity, so they generally don't have the hatred and disillusionment. It's the Vietnam war and forward generations, that have seen a much changed America, mostly changes not for good.


There's been a few generations since the Vietnam War!


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

Funny, at our local Legion, we have WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, Afghanistan vets...they are all pretty ticked off at the current situation our country is in. 
And, yes, many of them have nice gun collections.
Would they take up arms? Don't know. But they are certainly vehement about the way they country is going.

Just my $0.03 (adjusted for inflation)

Matt


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Anderson Cooper is presently on CNN & berating the woman who lived
in the same apt. complex as the killers, who stated that she now wishes 
she'd said something to someone. He then brought in a guest 'expert'
from the Southern Poverty Law Center, who basically concurred in that same
analysis. Of course he went further in cautioning everyone to be concerned
about those who disagree with the gooberment and consider themselves patriots.

I believe there could be many reasons why folks may be reluctant in coming
forth in mentioning concerns about crazy neighbors, especially since now,
one may be criticized on a national news media for whatever choice
they decide to take or for questioning T.P.T.B.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Interesting too that all 3 people killed by these people were armed. 2 Police officers and a guy with a CC gun.


Yeah, even armed people can be killed. I sure don't want to be unarmed when lunatics are shooting at me!


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> Universal background checks would have helped too. Also if the people at Bundy ranch that he told he was a convicted felon had told the Police that would have prevented this.
> 
> Interesting too that all 3 people killed by these people were armed. 2 Police officers and a guy with a CC gun.
> 
> ...


+ + + + + + + 
EXACTLY, would it have prevented this tragedy from occurring?

Again you are in dream-land believing that 'someone' telling the police
that he was a felon in possession of firearms, would have somehow 
prevented this as well. HOW EXACTLY DO YOU BELIEVE THIS WOULD HAPPEN?

Remember . . .this is the 'real' world we're talking about; not liberal la-la land.

People who are armed (legally) can also be killed by those with weapons.

That's usually what happens when wars transpire.

Doesn't have to be firearms either.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

My take is that the government was overreaching at the Bundy ranch. and they (Bundy) had no control as to who shows up. I think these two were mentally unstable if you need to blame anyone blame the schools they are teaching garbage to our kids. and who knows what kind of home life they had.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Paumon said:


> It's because it's becoming so commonplace. What else do you call 5 seperate incidents in less than a week, some of them on the same day but in different locations? So commonplace that some of it isn't being reported at all.


Mo cows nailed it. The local bad boys and women seem to have access to a revolving door in the justice system. They get arrested, you read about it in the paper, then they're back out on the street. Last night I heard that a man charged with child abuse who had previous convictions for other things was out again. Maybe he never went in except briefly. He stole two ATV's for one offense that got him put away. When he got out, he stole two more off the same man. Got nailed and sent away again. Then he was nailed for child abuse.

I also heard that our newly elected member of the judiciary has adopted the ways of his predecessor. Most folks arraigned before the retired judge got a pass as long as they voted for him or his choices. He controlled a significant block of votes in the county. The stories came straight from the troopers and cops that had to deal with him. They despised him.

It's hard to discern bluster when you're hearing threats. Many will not get involved. This incident is a variation of what happened to Kitty Genovese.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Two crazy people did something crazy and everyone is surprized? If they had made their violent views known to their neighbors, then I believe the neighbors bear some responsibility. This is not being an informant or spying for the government. If I see my neighbors house on fire, or see a car wreck, or observe a crime being commited I will report it to the proper authorities. This is part of being a responsible citizen. As some of you may know, there are some politicians I do not care for. Now I will voice my opinion, express my distain and make my views publicly known. This is exercising my freedom of speech. If however I should start ranting about doing violence to these people or plotting harm against them I would very much expect administrators and members to raise concern and report me to the proper authorities. This is not being a tattle tail or spying. It's being responsible. The phrase "Freedom requires vigilence" has more then one meaning.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> Two crazy people did something crazy and everyone is surprized? If they had made their violent views known to their neighbors, then I believe the neighbors bear some responsibility. This is not being an informant or spying for the government. If I see my neighbors house on fire, or see a car wreck, or observe a crime being commited I will report it to the proper authorities. This is part of being a responsible citizen. As some of you may know, there are some politicians I do not care for. Now I will voice my opinion, express my distain and make my views publicly known. This is exercising my freedom of speech. If however I should start ranting about doing violence to these people or plotting harm against them I would very much expect administrators and members to raise concern and report me to the proper authorities. This is not being a tattle tail or spying. It's being responsible. The phrase "Freedom requires vigilence" has more then one meaning.


While I agree with your sentiment putting that vigilance into action on a daily basis is a more difficult proposition. Ofttimes the only accurate way to judge when action should have been taken is after the fact. There are posters in these very forums who have stated they would take action( sometimes violent) against government officials who might step foot on their land to enforce laws they disagree with. I have no way of judging the veracity of their claims. Were they someday to follow through on such threats should I, or you, be held somehow responsible for not having reported them? Sometimes bluster is just bluster, sometimes it is the precursor to action. Most often it's impossible to tell the difference.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Darren said:


> It's hard to discern bluster when you're hearing threats. Many will not get involved. This incident is a variation of what happened to Kitty Genovese.


+ + + + + + + + 
actuality, only (3) witnesses could be found that knew what was transpiring
outside their apartment doorways; (2) of which tried to do something -
one yelled at the assailant, one called the cops, while the third opened his
door, saw what was happening and then closed it - afraid to "get involved."

The myth that has prevailed in the 50 years since, is that there were (38)
witnesses who either heard her screams or watched the attack from their 
windows and did nothing. The reality however, is that (35) of those didn't 
exist and having only (3) just doesn't sell newspapers. Bad analogy.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

It only takes one to make a difference.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> I agree mostly. These were 2 loons. Perhaps one was a fanatic, domineering loon and dominated the other or maybe they were just 2 loons who found each other. I will guarantee you one thing. This thread was started solely because it appears these particular loons could be labeled right wing and the poster would not have started the thread if they has appeared to be loons of the left wing variety, of which we have had several.


It's not so strange though. Radical Sovereign Citizen plots aren't as isolated as you might think. There's a high-profile case coming up this fall that involves a chilling plot to kidnap, "convict" and execute Las Vegas Metro Police officers.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/sovereign-citizens-stand-trial-plot-kidnap-kill-cop

So you see that it's not 2 loons, but now it's 4 loons. Let's not pretend that these radical-right ideas can't become dangerous. It's no coincidence that the Gadsden flag (Don't Tread on Me) was used by the shooters to drape over one of the dead cops.

But you can expect that cops and lawmakers won't be taking this lightly.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

jtbrandt said:


> Yeah, even armed people can be killed. I sure don't want to be unarmed when lunatics are shooting at me!


Why? So they can take your gun and keep right on shooting like they did with the Police Officers? Nice of you to keep them resupplied.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + +
> EXACTLY, would it have prevented this tragedy from occurring?
> 
> Again you are in dream-land believing that 'someone' telling the police
> ...


It's really pretty simple actually. If the neighbors had called the Police and said Jerad Miller is wandering around our apartment complex claiming he is going to kill cops and he has a stockpile of guns to do it with they would have run his name through the system. He would have been flagged as a convicted felon. The Police then had grounds for a warrant to search his place. They go and find him and his wife and their gun hoard and their hate papers and their plans and bingo they are both in jail for a good long time and this horrible tragedy never happens. 

As for universal background checks I think the term is pretty self explanatory. No firearms are sold anywhere without a background check. Period.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> As for universal background checks I think the term is pretty self explanatory. No firearms are sold anywhere without a background check. Period.


Nevada has some pretty liberal gun laws. A private firearm transaction between two Nevada residents doesn't not require that it be done through a licensed gun dealer. It's simply a private transaction, with no background check. You aren't allowed to knowingly sell to a felon, *but you can just say you didn't know*.

Self Correction: By State Law, any private party may access Nevada's background check system for the purpose of checking the background of a potential gun purchaser. Currently, the check costs $25.00. Call your local NHP if you wish to access this system.

Evidently ignorance of a purchaser being a felon isn't a valid excuse.

There is also no handgun registration required in Nevada, except Clark County (where Las Vegas is). It's free though. They just do a free background check at the police station, then issue a card if you pass. If they catch you with an unregistered handgun the fine is stiff.

http://www.lvmpd.com/permits/firearmsregistration/tabid/125/default.aspx

As will always be the problem, people who aren't supposed to have handguns will get them and keep them unregistered. That's pretty easy to do in a state that allows private transactions without background checks.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Patchouli said:


> As for universal background checks I think the term is pretty self explanatory. *No firearms are sold anywhere without a background check.* Period.


Uummm ..... that's the problem. There are uncountable firearms that are sold without background checks in USA and all over the world.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> They have been positively IDed as being at Bundy Ranch. They took pictures. And Jerad Miller was interviewed. And he posted all over crazy websites like Alex Jones. He made an effort to get himself and his views out there.
> 
> http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art..._Killer_Jerad_Miller_Interview_at_Bundy_Ranch


The other part of the story is they were asked to leave the Bundy ranch by the militia.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + +0+ + + +
> history and the current administration have proven otherwise . . .
> hence my reason(s) for bringing in Obama and his cronies, which
> include the lady-in-charge of the state department (Hillary) who
> ...


How can you equate the execution of two local cops with the Obama administration?
How do you get the idea that killing local cops will somehow change the national political climate? (other than to get more liberal gun control proponents elected)


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Paumon said:


> Uummm ..... that's the problem. There are uncountable firearms that are sold without background checks in USA and all over the world.


Having recently been through a background check when purchasing another handgun, the background checks are complete jokes.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

Patchouli said:


> As for universal background checks I think the term is pretty self explanatory. No firearms are sold anywhere without a background check. Period.


Incorrect. In PA you can sell face to face, no FFL involved.

Or if you are a criminal, how do they get guns, besides stealing them? Not to hard for criminals to get guns. Fast and Furious ring a bell? Background checks did wonders there...

Matt


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> It's really pretty simple actually. If the neighbors had called the Police and said Jerad Miller is wandering around our apartment complex claiming he is going to kill cops and he has a stockpile of guns to do it with they would have run his name through the system. He would have been flagged as a convicted felon. The Police then had grounds for a warrant to search his place. They go and find him and his wife and their gun hoard and their hate papers and their plans and bingo they are both in jail for a good long time and this horrible tragedy never happens.
> 
> As for universal background checks I think the term is pretty self explanatory. No firearms are sold anywhere without a background check. Period.


 .............How many members of these gangs in Chicago who kill each other as well killing non gang members for money and drugs would you estimate have been subjected to a back ground check ? I'd say almost Zero ! The stolen weapons when first purchased by a NON felonous buyer were probably recorded during a back ground check but gangbangers don't concern themselves with such . , fordy


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Not too long age a local gun store was broke into and many guns stolen. The alarm didn't go off because the thieves broke a hole in the block wall instead of coming in the door or windows. AFAIK none of the guns were recovered. 

So even with background checks, criminals will still have access to guns. Just break into a house with a sign saying "protected by Smith & Wesson" or whatever and jackpot!


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Why? So they can take your gun and keep right on shooting like they did with the Police Officers? Nice of you to keep them resupplied.


To give myself a fighting chance. As an armed person, I might not be successful in fighting back (as the CC holder in this case found out) but as an unarmed person I would barely have any chance of surviving if an armed lunatic wants to kill me.

BTW, I was with you until you derailed your own thread with that dig against armed people being killed. You took the bait of other posters and made it political.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Roadking said:


> Incorrect. In PA you can sell face to face, no FFL involved.


I think he was saying that's the way it should be, not the way it is.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> It's really pretty simple actually. If the neighbors had called the Police and said Jerad Miller is wandering around our apartment complex claiming he is going to kill cops and he has a stockpile of guns to do it with they would have run his name through the system. He would have been flagged as a convicted felon. The Police then had grounds for a warrant to search his place. They go and find him and his wife and their gun hoard and their hate papers and their plans and bingo they are both in jail for a good long time and this horrible tragedy never happens.
> 
> As for universal background checks I think the term is pretty self explanatory. No firearms are sold anywhere without a background check. Period.


+ + + + + + + + + 
Everybody seems to think if they watch an entire season 
of NCIS Los Vegas or better yet, a single episode of Criminal Minds, 
that they are an "instant expert" in all things related to criminal law.

Ahhhh . . if it were only that simple, I wouldn't have had to go thru
(3) three separate police academies to become certified in (2) two
different states. Could have just told those police chief(s) . . .
"Hey, I haven't missed a single episode of Dragnet - Where's my badge & gun?!"

(Must be where Obama gets off claiming he's a constitutional scholar -
after all, who's going to bother on checking his credentials???)


BTW: I've yet to see anyone on either show before 
they go kicking in the front door of the proverbial scumbag,
actually go through the NECESSARY (and very legal steps)
to obtain a valid search warrant.

Which brings us back to the very real case back In Las Vegas
that is being critized by CNN's Anderson Cooper & the rest 
of the armchair warriors who know exactly what THEY 
would have done to have prevented this and every other tragedy!

Based on the criteria that you've described above, you'd NEVER
find a sane & sober judge to sign off on what you've proposed!

(Notice that I've left enough room for those of you on the left,
who like to circumvent the checks built into the constitution
by the founding fathers, who were well aware that there were 
those who like to find those kind of judges which appeal to
those who would bypass the rules of law. . .
Unfortunately that is what usually happens to
those kind of cases - a smart defense attorney
will get it sent on up to an appelate court where
the verdict will either be reversed, sent back &/or thrown out!)

To-obtain a search warrant,-police-must show
probable cause that a crime has been committed.

(Back in my day, it was designated as 'good' probable cause.
Apparently the standards have been allowed to slip a bit? Big surprise.)


*WHERE OH WHERE IS YOUR PROBABLE CAUSE?!?!?!?*


As I recall, there are (4) steps needed to ensure 
that a magistrate/judge will likely issue a warrant.

But you (and/or others) will have to sniff them out yourselves
if you so have that inclination; I 've grown weary of having to spoon-feed 
pablum to those who really don't care what is happening to this nation.


Regarding your definition of universal background checks . . .
it does sound self-explanatory and therein lies the rub.

I asked YOU to define it, but I've already heard from those
even further left, that THAT type of check isn't nearly enough.

The question is: WHAT IS? And where does it end?

(Strictly rhetorical . . . on my part, your side has made it 
abundantly clear, that these are strictly formalities in eventually
having ALL weapons in the hands of the authorities ONLY!)


BTW: Let's play a 'what-if' type of game with the same scenerio that
you've described for Mr.Miller & wife. Except that it's ALL talk . . . 
no weapons and he's abiding by the terms of his parole/probation.

Let's rev it up a notch and place you in the position of the concerned
neighbor citizen who decides to turn them in over their "dangerous and
threatening speech." And some overzealous cop gets some bleeding heart
judge between cocktails, to sign-off on a warrant based on 'your concerns'.
Their apartment door gets kicked in, in the middle of the night and someone
fires a weapon and another someone ends of either wounded or dead.

Who's going to be held accountable/responsible in the ensuing criminal and/or civil suits?

Maybe now you have a glimmer on why it's so cut-n-dry on CSI . . .
CRIMES SOLVED IN 60 MINUTES OR LESS.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

jtbrandt said:


> To give myself a fighting chance. As an armed person, I might not be successful in fighting back (as the CC holder in this case found out) but as an unarmed person I would barely have any chance of surviving if an armed lunatic wants to kill me.


Jtbrandt, based on the coverage of this story I have read, it seems the shooters were trying to clear the store and did not intend to harm anyone there. My impression is that the CC individual would have certainly survived had he NOT been armed, because then he would have exited the store with the other shoppers and left the gunplay to the police. In some cases, such as this one, doesn't carrying a weapon decrease the chance of survival for the average gun owner who is not trained in the tactics of an armed confrontation situation?


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> How can you equate the execution of two local cops with the Obama administration?
> How do you get the idea that killing local cops will somehow change the national political climate?
> (other than to get more liberal gun control proponents elected)


+ + + + + + +
did as well.) The juries still out on that one.

Personally, I think she didn't like the analogy,
that if you have a populace that refuses to become
informed and votes for the candidate who promises them
more bread & circuses, then you have to expect a certain amount
of lawlessnees to permeate society; from the top on down.

Nobody seems to be outraged that an American ambassador was murdered,
along with (3) others and their boss's FIRST RESPONSE, WHILE THE ATTACK
WAS STILL TAKING PLACE, is to call YouTube and have the supposed offending
and obscure video taken down!!! Nobody does something like that unless it was
already planned ahead of time. . . & especially when they refused to send help 
then or give an account to congress on their whereabouts during the attack. 
It's especially so when that same ambassador had been requesting additional 
security measures MONTHS PRIOR to the attack and been denied! 
Hillary states now: "What difference at this point, does it make?"


No . . . I don't believe the murder of two cops in cold blood 
will change the political climate in this country, as apparently neither does the
premeditated murder of an ambassador and 3 embassy staff members do either.


Lawlessness breeds more of the same . . . folks don't seem to realize that.

Or they simply don't care anymore unless it affects them directly. :shrug:


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> Jtbrandt, based on the coverage of this story I have read, it seems the shooters were trying to clear the store and did not intend to harm anyone there. My impression is that the CC individual would have certainly survived had he NOT been armed, because then he would have exited the store with the other shoppers and left the gunplay to the police. In some cases, such as this one, doesn't carrying a weapon decrease the chance of survival for the average gun owner who is not trained in the tactics of an armed confrontation situation?


+ + + + + + + + + +
exited the store with the other shoppers. 

In fact, I saw the interview with his buddy 
who was with him when the suspects came in.

He knew he was ccw that day and was turning to
suggest that his friend just walk out as instructed,
but by then it was too late, as the citizen decided to 
play hero - got tunnel vision and failed to account
for the other assailant. It cost him his life but NOT because
he was armed, but because he didn't size up the situation and
use his head. But then cops make the same mistakes as well.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> Jtbrandt, based on the coverage of this story I have read, it seems the shooters were trying to clear the store and did not intend to harm anyone there. My impression is that the CC individual would have certainly survived had he NOT been armed, because then he would have exited the store with the other shoppers and left the gunplay to the police. In some cases, such as this one, doesn't carrying a weapon decrease the chance of survival for the average gun owner who is not trained in the tactics of an armed confrontation situation?


Yes, you're right about that. Had he not been armed he probably wouldn't have confronted the shooters. He also probably would have survived if he had been aware of the second shooter. That was probably a tactical error that someone with more training may not have made...but two highly trained and experienced police were killed too. Their guard was down while they ate lunch. Clearly it wasn't the couple's plan to simply commit suicide in a Wal-mart without hurting anyone else.

Having a gun was not what got any of the three victims killed. Thinking the gun made him invincible may have been a factor in the concealed carry guy's death, or perhaps it was just willing bravery. When lunatics with guns are running around, how can anyone know their intentions?

I would much rather have a gun than not have one when armed lunatics are on the loose. Whether I would use it or not depends on the circumstances.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

Jt, thanks for the response.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I should also add that I only occasionally carry a gun, but if I'm ever in a situation where people are shooting I expect that I will wish I had one. I hope it doesn't ever cause me great regret to not be able to save someone's life.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Just a thought here about reporting the killers to police before they did anything. Does anyone recall the Natl Geo Preppers Show involving Tyler Smith (the lunatic that said if the crap hit the fan he was going on a raiding and killing spree)? Smith was arrested after the show _but not for the comments he made on tv_. He was arrested because he was seen possessing a firearm which he was not allowed to own. It wasn't what he said that tipped off police. It was the sight of him committing a crime (possessing a firearm which he was not allowed to do) that tipped off police.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

From what I have seen, law enforcement did all that they could without infringing on free speech and such. Apparently even what little the couple made publically accessible did not quite pass the line of acceptable free speech or show possession of any illegal weapons.

I did see the police spokesman give due credit to a licensed for concealed carry citizen for minimizing the effect that the couple had when they crossed the line.

It is sad that the entire incident could not have been prevented however none on the right . left or in the middle would be happy living in a dystopia reminiscent of the Third Reich or influenced by images provided by Orwell's 1984 or Spielberg's adaptation of the Phillip K. Dick short story Minority Report.

Although some consider such dystopian societies utopian, the majority regardless their political views do not and as a society we have achieved the best balance to date weighing personal privacy, free speech, personal freedom and personal safety as best as possible.

Ironically we all witness a small scale model of the "best solution not all are satisfied with but all realize offers the most with the most of all things they value greatly" in motion right here within the discussion environment of HT as many perspectives interact and we moderators and admin monitor the interactions primarily based on posters public activities and how far they go over the acceptable limits of civil discussion.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> There's been a few generations since the Vietnam War!


Perhaps, but i (and others) generally consider a generation to span about 25-30 years, of just people.

If one define it by gen "x" gen "y" grunge, millenium, etc, it was not what i was referring to by generations. 

They are more decades.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=nw9UdH72k8gTw74tqpUJDg&bvm=bv.68693194,d.b2U


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Paumon said:


> Uummm ..... that's the problem. There are uncountable firearms that are sold without background checks in USA and all over the world.


I was asked what Universal background check means and I answered. I am aware we do not have them and desperately need them.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Shrek said:


> From what I have seen, law enforcement did all that they could without infringing on free speech and such. Apparently even what little the couple made publically accessible did not quite pass the line of acceptable free speech or show possession of any illegal weapons.
> 
> I did see the police spokesman give due credit to a licensed for concealed carry citizen for minimizing the effect that the couple had when they crossed the line.
> 
> ...


This has nothing to do with free speech. It is illegal for a felon to own firearms. They had legitimate grounds to arrest him.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

no really said:


> The other part of the story is they were asked to leave the Bundy ranch by the militia.


Yes they were but they should have been reported instead of just asked to leave.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

jtbrandt said:


> To give myself a fighting chance. As an armed person, I might not be successful in fighting back (as the CC holder in this case found out) but as an unarmed person I would barely have any chance of surviving if an armed lunatic wants to kill me.
> 
> BTW, I was with you until you derailed your own thread with that dig against armed people being killed. You took the bait of other posters and made it political.


I am not trying to make it political. If he hadn't had a gun then he would have exited with everyone else from Walmart. He would still be alive and the 2 shooters would still be dead. The shooters killed themselves. I am sorry that he is dead.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + + +
> Everybody seems to think if they watch an entire season
> of NCIS Los Vegas or better yet, a single episode of Criminal Minds,
> that they are an "instant expert" in all things related to criminal law.
> ...


I don't watch TV much at all and never crime shows. How's this for probable cause. Jerad Miller went to the Bundy Ranch as a defender. While he was there he showed people his gun and told them he was a convicted felon. When they told him to leave he then went and posted about it with pictures on the internet. Then he went home and told people at his apartment complex. How much more ironclad do you need for probable cause for a warrant? Any policeman worth his salt could have had a sheaf of paper with proof and pictures in about 5 minutes flat.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

again I will thread drift but hopefully just a little.. did any one notice the vehicles the cops had at the shooting scene? there was an article I just read about why the cops need all this military equipment and the conclusion was that something big is coming and Obama wants them able to over through the people of this country. Sorry for the drift I realize I do this a lot. thanks with putting up with the ramblings of and old man


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + +
> did as well.) The juries still out on that one.
> 
> Personally, I think she didn't like the analogy,
> ...


You might think so, but the reality is that people grow weary of picking thru the long, bloviating responses and trying make heads or tails of them. At least I did. Others mileage may vary.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> According to all of the interviews with his neighbors he was loudly vocal all over his apartment complex and town. Since he was a convicted felon all they had to do was call the police to let them know he claimed to have a pile of guns and planned some sort of attack and he would have been landed in prison for a good long time. He was seen with guns so the police would have had an easy time getting a warrant and locking him and his wife up.


They may not have known he was a convicted felon; they may simply have thought he and his wife were garden variety weirdos who somehow found each other.

I know a woman who's always bragging about her guns and her attitude about them on Facebook; she's a visiting nurse and a divorced mother, and I'm surprised this hasn't gotten her in trouble at work or with her ex-husband.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> This has nothing to do with free speech. It is illegal for a felon to own firearms. They had legitimate grounds to arrest him.


Some reports indicate that they apparently acquired some of their weapons via facebook . Maybe the FB owners should be charged as an accessory along with the FB members who supplied them with their illegal weapons since FB often claims to be policing its posted content and be in cooperation with government agencies which apparently they didn't. Of course any of that would send just FB further down the dystopian drain faster than it is currently circling it.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> I don't watch TV much at all and never crime shows. How's this for probable cause. Jerad Miller went to the Bundy Ranch as a defender. While he was there he showed people his gun and told them he was a convicted felon. When they told him to leave he then went and posted about it with pictures on the internet. Then he went home and told people at his apartment complex. How much more ironclad do you need for probable cause for a warrant? Any policeman worth his salt could have had a sheaf of paper with proof and pictures in about 5 minutes flat.


+ + + + + + + + + + + 
used to get said warrant issued? 

Not only do you not watch any tv crime shows,
you also fail to educate yourself in real life, on the
rules of law and exactly what is needed (necessary)
for a legal warrant to be issued. What you're proposing, 
appears to be more George Orwellian's BIG BROTHER in scope, 
where the authorities moniter the airwaves (and cyperspace) for any 
& all violations which could (and apparently should by your critique) 
be used against those who are deemed possibly dangerous to society. 
Hopefully you also realize that what you deem dangerous and what
TPTB deems as such, don't always match.

Hearsay after the fact, is just that and doesn't count for much.

THEY will always protect themselves first and foremost;
the rest on a case-by-case basis and when it best fits THEIR interests.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> You might think so, but the reality is that people grow weary of picking thru the long, bloviating responses and trying make heads or tails of them. At least I did. Others mileage may vary.


+ + + + + + + + + +
Some of us like to take off our rose-colored glasses to see the BIG PICTURE.

And when we do . . .


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

The police had already had contact with the Millers before they went on their rampage. Once was to check out threats that Jared Miller had made against the Indiana DMV.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/las-vegas-police-had-contact-shooters-days-ambush


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Shrek said:


> Some reports indicate that they apparently acquired some of their weapons via facebook . Maybe the FB owners should be charged as an accessory along with the FB members who supplied them with their illegal weapons since FB often claims to be policing its posted content and be in cooperation with government agencies which apparently they didn't. Of course any of that would send just FB further down the dystopian drain faster than it is currently circling it.


I can never tell with you but I suspect maybe you were attempting to be facetious when you wrote that?? - but I actually agree with it and think that's what needs to be done. 

In the past week FB and certain FB members have been accomplices in the murders of 5 good policemen - and who knows how many other people just in the past few months? (I have lost track)


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + + + + +
> used to get said warrant issued?
> 
> Not only do you not watch any tv crime shows,
> ...


Let me try this one more time and I will line it out step by step. 

Scenario 1. The people at the Bundy Rally are informed by Miller that he is armed and he is a felon. They walk over to the local law enforcement and tell them. Local law enforcement runs his name and license plate, sees he is indeed a convicted felon holding a gun and arrest him.

Scenario 2: Miller comes home and tells all of his neighbors what happened at the ranch and his intentions to start a revolt and kill as many cops as he can. One of the neighbors calls the cops. The cops run Miller's name and address through their system and it pops up he is a convicted felon. Since he claims to have been at Bundy Ranch and there is tons of footage they hit the Google. 5 minutes later they have a pile of pictures and footage and even an interview with him not to mention his whacko FB page. Plenty for a warrant. 

It's quite simple really if the people around him had reported him he could have easily been arrested on at least 2 different occasions. Nothing Orwellian required.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> I am not trying to make it political. If he hadn't had a gun then he would have exited with everyone else from Walmart. He would still be alive and the 2 shooters would still be dead. The shooters killed themselves. I am sorry that he is dead.


Sorry, I may have read into it the political tone. I didn't see any other reason to mention it, since it was irrelevant to the point about the shooters not being stopped beforehand. You're probably right about everything you said, but who knows...this guy might have confronted the shooters even without a gun and he would still be dead. It isn't having a gun that got him killed.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

jtbrandt said:


> It isn't having a gun that got him killed.


True. It's other people who shouldn't have guns that are getting people killed. I wonder how many of these tragedies could have been prevented if more people would pay attention to the red flags and report them.

US school shootings: Map shows 74 incidents on campuses since 2012 Sandy Hook massacre

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-school-shootings-map-shows-74-incidents-since-sandy-hook-massacre-9530356.html


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

Got a map for knives? Bats? Cars?

It's to a point that if someone wants to hurt/kill, they will. 

Why do we blame a bomber, not the bomb?

Why do we blame the driver, not the car?

BUT we blame the gun, and not the idiot using it?

Pretty petty IMO...and hypocritical.

Matt


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Roadking said:


> Got a map for knives? Bats? Cars?
> 
> It's to a point that if someone wants to hurt/kill, they will.
> 
> ...


I beg your pardon! Is that directed at me? Are you imagining things? :hrm: 

If your post above about maps is directed at me then I want to know exactly WHO said ANYTHING about blaming the guns and not the idiots using them?

Please show me because I sure haven't seen anybody say one word blaming guns in this thread and I know I didn't. This topic has been all about people.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> This topic has been all about people.


Not all about people. The point I jumped in about was where the OP made a point of saying all three of the people killed were armed...that wasn't about people, it was about guns.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Paumon said:


> True. It's other people who shouldn't have guns that are getting people killed. I wonder how many of these tragedies could have been prevented if more people would pay attention to the red flags and report them.


I also wonder about that, but I suspect if everyone starts reporting every red flag they see, all the red flags will be lost in the sea of red flags and the result will be no change.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

The first line was about your map Paumon, the rest was in general, and not directed at you.
Everything that comes up is about background checks, regulation...I can buy a car and be on the road (illegally if I don't do all the proper paperwork) in 5 minutes and do as much, if not more damage by driving thru a side walk cafÃ© than with a fire arm.
More vehicle regulation would not be the answer, is my point.

Matt


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> Let me try this one more time and I will line it out step by step.
> 
> Scenario 1. The people at the Bundy Rally are informed by Miller that he is armed and he is a felon. They walk over to the local law enforcement and tell them. Local law enforcement runs his name and license plate, sees he is indeed a convicted felon holding a gun and arrest him.
> 
> ...


+ + + + + + + + + + 
You have both blatant and subtle errors within each of the first (5) postings
on this page alone! Just wouldn't be prudent to go back further, but if we 
examine just one of these postings, where you stated that the pair committed
suicide and then compare it with the link below, we find that Jerad was actually
killed in the stand-off with police, while his wife then killed herself. I'm therefore
led to the inevitable conclusion, that you don't check your sources very well.


http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ve...s-gunman-jerad-miller-during-gunfight-n128546 


If you should so choose to read the article in the link (which should meet with
your approval as it comes from NSNBC) you will note that several other of your
assumptions concerning "if only someone had bothered to contact the police",
were actually addressed and nothing was found to jeopardize their liberties at
the time. I'm curious on where all these juicy videoes are or the facebook
accounts are which show him violating the law and law enforcement knowing
about it in REAL time. Searched the first three pages of google and found quite
a bit about stuff posted within the last (3) days, but precious little that would get
ANYONE arrested or have a judge grant a warrant. Again . . . no probable cause.

I did however find a number of left-leaning sources that seized the opportunity
to smear any who dared question THEIR perceived need for further gun control,
as well as painting the Millers' (and I quote) "TEA PARTY TERRORISTS!"

Of course there is no evidence that either of them were, but then the author of
the piece took as much care in other facts within the story by also claiming that
in additional to executing the two officers, they then killed an innocent WOMAN!



A little more fact-checking and a lot less 
rhetoric would serve your side so much better. ...


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Yes they were but they should have been reported instead of just asked to leave.


Apparently these nut jobs had been reported before for acting crazy, whether the Bundy group reported them are not is a mote point.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> It's not so strange though. Radical Sovereign Citizen plots aren't as isolated as you might think. There's a high-profile case coming up this fall that involves a chilling plot to kidnap, "convict" and execute Las Vegas Metro Police officers.
> 
> http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/sovereign-citizens-stand-trial-plot-kidnap-kill-cop
> 
> ...


 What about the Swatska? That is a Lefty symbol.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

copperkid3 said:


> + + + + + + + + + +
> Some of us like to take off our rose-colored glasses to see the BIG PICTURE.
> 
> And when we do . . .


which has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. Nada. Zip. Zilch.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

no really said:


> Apparently these nut jobs had been reported before for acting crazy, whether the Bundy group reported them are not is a mote point.


 ............moot point .


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

fordy said:


> ............moot point .


Sorry I sometimes goof up, English is second language.. :icecream:


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

no really said:


> Sorry I sometimes goof up, English is second language.. :icecream:


Yep, I make the same type of mistakes and English is my first language.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

no really said:


> Sorry I sometimes goof up, English is second language.. :icecream:


 English , WAS My foreign language !, lol , fordy


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

7thswan said:


> What about the Swatska? That is a Lefty symbol.


No it's not. Where do you get these nonsensical myths from?  

The swastika is a symbol adopted and corrupted by conservative white nationalists and by modern day neo-nazis. Before the Nazis of the 1930's adopted it, it had been an almost universally known symbol of good luck and well being throughout Europe, the Middle East and Asia. After the Nazi's corrupted its meaning it has become a symbol of bad luck, hatred, violence, death, and murder in the west.

That expression of hatred, violence, death, and murder is NOT a lefy symbol, it's a symbol of right fringe extremism.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

This whole thing would never have happened if police officers were not allowed to eat Pizza.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> which has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. Nada. Zip. Zilch.


+ +0+0+ +
Got a little busy trying to educate one of your cohorts.
What was it you were trying to communicate again?


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

7thswan said:


> What about the Swatska? That is a Lefty symbol.


Wow you haven't a clue do you??
Nazis were RIGHT WING. Nazis were fascists. Not commies.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Roadking said:


> Got a map for knives? Bats? Cars?
> 
> It's to a point that if someone wants to hurt/kill, they will.
> 
> ...


This one gets trotted out every time there is a shooting and it is an argument based on a fallacy. First of course we blame the person holding it. We would not be talking about reporting people or mental illness or all the other things we talk about when these shooting happen if we did not blame the person holding gun.

Let's look at your other 2 points though: knives and bombs. How many people make bombs and of those how many actually make bombs that work? Almost zero. As for knives in the right circumstances and in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing they are very dangerous. Knife wielders are very easy to take down by cops/security and the victims rarely die. 

Compare the recent school knife attack in PA with any of the shootings in schools. 21 injured and only 2 critically and no one died. All school shootings end in at least one death usually more. I would far rather see 21 injured than 6 dead and 13 injured wouldn't you?


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> This one gets trotted out every time there is a shooting and it is an argument based on a fallacy. First of course we blame the person holding it. We would not be talking about reporting people or mental illness or all the other things we talk about when these shooting happen if we did not blame the person holding gun.
> 
> Let's look at your other 2 points though: knives and bombs. How many people make bombs and of those how many actually make bombs that work? Almost zero. As for knives in the right circumstances and in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing they are very dangerous. Knife wielders are very easy to take down by cops/security and the victims rarely die.
> 
> Compare the recent school knife attack in PA with any of the shootings in schools. 21 injured and only 2 critically and no one died. All school shootings end in at least one death usually more. I would far rather see 21 injured than 6 dead and 13 injured wouldn't you?


 ............Building a pipe bomb is SO EASY you can't believe........all you need is pipe and .....................! , fordy


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

fireweed farm said:


> Wow you haven't a clue do you??
> Nazis were RIGHT WING. Nazis were fascists. Not commies.


They were socialists and despised capitalism and communism! Don't sound RIGHT WING to me! Sounds like the old democratic party!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> They were socialists and despised capitalism and communism! Don't sound RIGHT WING to me! Sounds like the old democratic party!


The Nazi party was extremely corporatist. I don't see how you can suggest they they despised capitalism. The Nazis were far right.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The Nazi party was extremely corporatist. I don't see how you can suggest they they despised capitalism. The Nazis were far right.


I got it from wiki! Google him and see for yourself! I'll post the link when I get to a computer! They were far more like today's democratic party than republicans! Many democrats aline themselves with the socialist party!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> I got it from wiki! Google him and see for yourself!


Here's the first sentence in the Nazi wiki page.

_Nazism, or National Socialism in full (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and state as well as other related far-right groups._
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

It goes on to say.

_A majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as a form of far-right politics. Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements._


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Here's the first sentence in the Nazi wiki page.
> 
> _Nazism, or National Socialism in full (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and state as well as other related far-right groups._
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
> ...


To bad those "far right" ideas don't jive with today's far right, socialism is the democratic parties mantra! And democrats are the ones who want to dominate everyone's lives! Let's not forget about Obama's youth core!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

*************************


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> *************************



Well, that's easy for you to say!


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

Patchouli said:


> This one gets *trotted* out every time there is a shooting and it is an argument based on a fallacy. First of course we blame the person holding it. We would not be talking about reporting people or mental illness or all the other things we talk about when these shooting happen if we did not blame the person holding gun.
> 
> Let's look at your other 2 points though: knives and bombs. *How many people make bombs and of those how many actually make bombs that work?*
> _Boston Marathon ring a bell?_
> ...


*Personally, the only death I could possibly find acceptable (possibly) is the shooter by an armed teacher or guard.*

Trotted??? I say it needs to be at full canter to balance the foaming at the mouth types in the media and elsewhere.

Just my $0.03, adjusted for the imaginary inflation that doesn't exist...

Matt


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Oggie said:


> Well, that's easy for you to say!


It was so much easier to say than it was to delete. IYKWIM.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Roadking said:


> *Personally, the only death I could possibly find acceptable (possibly) is the shooter by an armed teacher or guard.*
> 
> Trotted??? I say it needs to be at full canter to balance the foaming at the mouth types in the media and elsewhere.
> 
> ...


Thanks for proving my point there. You found one bombing in what the last decade? And a stabbing in China. We have had 74 school shootings just since Newton. No telling how many public ones there have been.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2014)

Patchouli said:


> Thanks for proving my point there. You found one bombing in what the last decade? And a stabbing in China. *We have had 74 school shootings just since Newton*. No telling how many public ones there have been.



Skewing statistics are even debunked by the liberal media sometimes

Even CNN Debunks Claim Of 74 School Shootings Since Newton
http://downtrend.com/71superb/even-cnn-debunks-claim-of-74-school-shootings-since-newton/

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us/school-shootings-cnn-number/index.html


----------



## Malamute (Sep 15, 2011)

There seems to be a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on, much of which is very mistaken. Very few if any of the recent shooting situations would have been stopped by any further background checks, as some of the shooters took guns from others. Some also passed background checks. It's a pretty empty promise. The whole mental health problems issue is mired down in privacy laws. Start there if you just "HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!". While you're wallowing in that mire, perhaps someone will figure out a way to make guns disappear from the face of the earth. If guns cant be bought, they are stolen. If they cant be stolen, they will be smuggled. Lets all jump up and tell how effective drug laws have been at keeping drugs out of the country and off the streets. If there's a market, there will be suppliers. Some may feel that's a defeatist attitude, I don't feel it is, just being realistic about how that works. I don't believe the gun is the problem, or supposedly how easy they are to obtain. I'd reckon that most that say how easy they are to get don't know what the current laws are. If they could be bought on any street corner as some seem to think Miller wouldn't have been begging for guns on facebook. So far, we don't seem to know where or how he got them, but it seems that more laws wouldn't likely have changed the fact that he could get some somehow. His wife could buy them in any event. His status as a felon would not have had any bearing on that.

Jared Miller was felon. He wasnt able to legally own a gun, but what so many seem to miss is his wife could. Unless he was seen in physical possession of a gun, there wasn't much law enforcement could do. That makes much of the hand wringing monday morning quarterbacking and finger pointing going on here pretty silly.

The police had talked to them, on referral of the Indiana police. They found no issue they could do anything further about. End of story. Please stop with the pointless and goofy comments about what should have been done. There are procedures for that, they were followed. So far, there is no Pre-Crime Bureau. People can't be arrested for what somebody thinks they _may _do in the future. 

I'm amazed at the politicization of this whole thing from both sides. Everybody wants to read so much into everything that happens, the media especially. There are some messed up people running around, sad but true. What "side" they lean to hardly makes a difference to me. I'm glad the Millers got what they deserved. I couldn't care less what their beliefs were, other than they were flakes and extremists.

I think a big part of the equation is the notoriety and aggrandizement of the people that do things like this. If the media would stop making them front page breathless, handwringing news, theyd be deprived of much of what they seek when the do stupid things. Having more of them piled up dead very quickly in the process of their crimes would also dampen their enthusiasm. Trying to make so called "gun free zones" only disarms the people that obey the laws, and give free reign to the freaks and monsters that would prey on innocents. When confronted by armed resistance, very few get very far, and most often seem to crawl in a corner and do themselves in.


----------

