Another school shooting

[dubbsco]

you're definitely not going to do anything to them if you're unarmed - which is the whole purpose of the second amendment.

people don't need a lot of things that other people abuse or misuse. I personally don't have those fears and I also don't own a gun. But I don't feel it's my right to tell responsible gun owners they can't have an AR-15 or another semi-automatic just because they've been misused by someone. There are already restrictions on automatic and other weapons (you can't own grenades, tanks, etc) and there is no "gun show loophole."

If you want to get serious about stopping these tragedies, talk about reforms that might actually have an impact like the mental health issues and screening for that during background checks. Banning a particular gun isn't going to do anything to stop these things from happening.

I have a background in working with mental health, even though my career has taken a more academic turn. I have a Counseling degree. There's nothing, reform wise, that will ever prevent someone who has these issues to carry this out. Simply because there are TOO many people that battle things similar to the shooter. That is the knee-jerk reaction to people who are staunch 2nd amendment defenders. No amount of mental health legislation (even though I do think we need more) will ever stop this stuff.

Yeah, banning a particular gun will stop these things from happening, or seriously limit the amount of damage that can be done. Other countries have done it, and it has been FACTUALLY EVIDENT that this stuff has gone down drastically. America is not special or unique from other nations, we just close our ears when this stuff happens and assume it will go away because... Time passes?

Sorry man, the 2nd Amendment is the biggest bunch of bullshit that is constantly fed throughout our society. It was in the 1700s. It's 2018. Time to update shit. Your AR-15 or stockpile of ammo will not stop the government from getting you. But here's a little secret: the government is not now, or not ever will be out to get you. They don't have time or the need to get people as small as us.

This fear they will "run over us" because we can't defend ourselves is the biggest bunch of antiquated bull shit that I've ever heard.

Unfortunately, those responsible gun owners will have to deal with it. We can't all get what we want. If we could, people would be driving 250 on the freeway, smoking crack in their cars, and kicking people in the balls at work. I've accepted that we have laws for a reason. If gun owners have to give up their grenade launchers and AR-15s to save little kids, then tough shit.

 

[Spartanmack]

I have a background in working with mental health, even though my career has taken a more academic turn. I have a Counseling degree. There's nothing, reform wise, that will ever prevent someone who has these issues to carry this out. Simply because there are TOO many people that battle things similar to the shooter. That is the knee-jerk reaction to people who are staunch 2nd amendment defenders. No amount of mental health legislation (even though I do think we need more) will ever stop this stuff.

Yeah, banning a particular gun will stop these things from happening, or seriously limit the amount of damage that can be done. Other countries have done it, and it has been FACTUALLY EVIDENT that this stuff has gone down drastically.

Sorry man, the 2nd Amendment is the biggest bunch of bullshit that is constantly fed throughout our society. It was in the 1700s. It's 2018. Time to update shit. Your AR-15 or stockpile of ammo will not stop the government from getting you. But here's a little secret: the government is not now, or not ever will be out to get you. They don't have time or the need to get people as small as us.

This fear they will "run over us" because we can't defend ourselves is the biggest bunch of antiquated bull shit that I've ever heard.

Unfortunately, those responsible gun owners will have to deal with it. We can't all get what we want. If we could, people would be driving 250 on the freeway, smoking crack in their cars, and kicking people in the balls at work. I've accepted that we have laws for a reason. If gun owners have to give up their grenade launchers and AR-15s to save little kids, then tough shit.

are you saying that mental health screening during background checks wouldn't be effective? why? I need a better answer than "I have a background in working with mental health."

and it's virtually impossible that the gov't will turn against the populace, forever? Your statement about the government not caring about us seems at odds with these pronouncements. Also, it's pretty inconsistent with the accusations your side is constantly throwing around about the current President. Is he or is he not a fascist dictator in the making? They better stop with the rhetoric or get on board with the second amendment.

What's more likely unfortunate is that you will have to deal with responsible gun owners owning AR-15s legally because the truth is, Americans don't give a shit about gun control. This tragedy won't change that, nor will your declaration that things which clearly aren't facts, are facts.

Finally, are you saying people who support the second amendment don't support laws like those against speeding, smoking crack and kicking people in the balls at work? Gun rights advocates are now anarchists? You learn something new everyday. Seems odd though that none of these mass shooters have been NRA members or outspoken gun rights advocates. Also, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to own a grenade launcher - although it may or may not be for no good reason.

 

[dubbsco]

are you saying that mental health screening during background checks wouldn't be effective? why? I need a better answer than "I have a background in working with mental health."

and it's virtually impossible that the gov't will turn against the populace, forever? Your statement about the government not caring about us seems at odds with these pronouncements. Also, it's pretty inconsistent with the accusations your side is constantly throwing around about the current President. Is he or is he not a fascist dictator in the making? They better stop with the rhetoric or get on board with the second amendment.

What's more likely unfortunate is that you will have to deal with responsible gun owners owning AR-15s legally because the truth is, Americans don't give a shit about gun control. This tragedy won't change that, nor will your declaration that things which clearly aren't facts, are facts.

No. They won't be effective. As long as the guns are in circulation, people who want to get them, will get them. What's your criteria on a mental health screening? What type of people can/can't buy these guns? It's an incredibly massive spectrum of issues. And Trump has already rolled back regulations on this, making it easier for people with problems to get guns.

Do you honestly think, at any point in the next 10 years, the government will say "We need to take over the country, let's start bombing our own people?" I would like to think that this nation is sophisticated and far enough along in society that we won't return to 1500.

Are you serious with the facts stuff? Do you want me to link you 50 websites or studies that show other countries that reduced gun ownership and how they have a direct connection to fewer gun deaths?

That's one thing we agree on. We don't care about gun control, because the gun lobbies own our government. So nothing will ever stop this from happening until we actually seek other advice from countries that have gone through the same steps.

 

[turok]

I have a background in working with mental health, even though my career has taken a more academic turn. I have a Counseling degree. There's nothing, reform wise, that will ever prevent someone who has these issues to carry this out. Simply because there are TOO many people that battle things similar to the shooter. That is the knee-jerk reaction to people who are staunch 2nd amendment defenders. No amount of mental health legislation (even though I do think we need more) will ever stop this stuff.

Yeah, banning a particular gun will stop these things from happening, or seriously limit the amount of damage that can be done. Other countries have done it, and it has been FACTUALLY EVIDENT that this stuff has gone down drastically. America is not special or unique from other nations, we just close our ears when this stuff happens and assume it will go away because... Time passes?

Sorry man, the 2nd Amendment is the biggest bunch of bullshit that is constantly fed throughout our society. It was in the 1700s. It's 2018. Time to update shit. Your AR-15 or stockpile of ammo will not stop the government from getting you. But here's a little secret: the government is not now, or not ever will be out to get you. They don't have time or the need to get people as small as us.

This fear they will "run over us" because we can't defend ourselves is the biggest bunch of antiquated bull shit that I've ever heard.

Unfortunately, those responsible gun owners will have to deal with it. We can't all get what we want. If we could, people would be driving 250 on the freeway, smoking crack in their cars, and kicking people in the balls at work. I've accepted that we have laws for a reason. If gun owners have to give up their grenade launchers and AR-15s to save little kids, then tough shit.

The Second Amendment never was intended to permit private individuals the right to become a weaponized offensive/defensive force unto themselves. It was created during the cannon, musket, and flintlock era, so that "well regulated" state militias in each state could be organized as a deterrent and defense against invaders and tribal uprisings.

 

[dubbsco]

The Second Amendment never was intend to permit private individuals the right to become a weaponized offensive/defensive force unto themselves. It was created during the cannon, musket, and flintlock era, so that "well regulated" state militias in each state could be organized as as a deterrent and defense against invaders and tribal uprisings.

This country is far enough along where tribal uprisings and the militarization of our government to "take back" the country will not happen. There's too many people involved and we are sophisticated enough to not return to that era.

We'll always be scared to make any changes. That's what this nation is. If a bunch of elementary children being killed doesn't do anything, nothing ever will.

But I want to make sure that my fellow neighbors can carry their lethal firearms. That's more important than kids trying to go to school and be happy.

 

[turok]

are you saying that mental health screening during background checks wouldn't be effective? why? I need a better answer than "I have a background in working with mental health."

and it's virtually impossible that the gov't will turn against the populace, forever? Your statement about the government not caring about us seems at odds with these pronouncements. Also, it's pretty inconsistent with the accusations your side is constantly throwing around about the current President. Is he or is he not a fascist dictator in the making? They better stop with the rhetoric or get on board with the second amendment.

What's more likely unfortunate is that you will have to deal with responsible gun owners owning AR-15s legally because the truth is, Americans don't give a shit about gun control. This tragedy won't change that, nor will your declaration that things which clearly aren't facts, are facts.

Finally, are you saying people who support the second amendment don't support laws like those against speeding, smoking crack and kicking people in the balls at work? Gun rights advocates are now anarchists? You learn something new everyday. Seems odd though that none of these mass shooters have been NRA members or outspoken gun rights advocates. Also, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to own a grenade launcher - although it may or may not be for no good reason.

I highly doubt that a renegade POTUS willl have the full cooperation of the entire US Armed Forces in the event that he or she would invoke Martial Law and order them to begin imprisoning or killing innocent US citizens.

And in this particular mass shooting, I have read rumors that the whackjob's Facebook was filled with pro-gun/NRA/MAGA rhetoric, but we shall see if that holds up.

 

[Spartanmack]

The Second Amendment never was intended to permit private individuals the right to become a weaponized offensive/defensive force unto themselves. It was created during the cannon, musket, and flintlock era, so that "well regulated" state militias in each state could be organized as as a deterrent and defense against invaders and tribal uprisings.

that's one interpretation. Yes, it was created during the cannon, musket and flintlock era but it wasn't given an expiration date. It's not really reasonable for you or anyone else to say that the anti-gun control founders would say or do anything differently based on how weapons have evolved the last 200 plus years.

 

[Spartanmack]

I highly doubt that a renegade POTUS willl have the full cooperation of the entire US Armed Forces in the event that he or she would invoke Martial Law and order them to begin imprisoning or killing innocent US citizens..

ok, maybe this one won't but lets say we gradually become accustomed to more and more renegade POTUS in the future or perhaps congress or the military take power away from the other branches of government. It's impossible that the government and/or the military leaders could ever be corrupted by power? As our rights are chipped away more and more and government reaches further and further into our personal lives and rights - is it really impossible that our government could never become tyrannical? The lack of a clear and present threat isn't a good justification for scrapping the second amendment, neither are the odds of successfully defending your freedoms, sorry I know you prefer freedumbs.

And in this particular mass shooting, I have read rumors that the whackjob's Facebook was filled with pro-gun/NRA/MAGA rhetoric, but we shall see if that holds up.

so we finally get one, now we can paint everyone who opposes their rights being infringed with the same broad brush.

 

[sggatecl]

is he going to go massacre a bunch of people? I hear they're pretty great for that.

I hope not. When we go up to the range this weekend to try it out, I'll ask him for you.

 

[dubbsco]

ok, maybe this one won't but lets say we gradually become accustomed to more and more renegade POTUS in the future or perhaps congress or the military take power away from the other branches of government. It's impossible that the government and/or the military leaders could ever be corrupted by power? As our rights are chipped away more and more and government reaches further and further into our personal lives and rights - is it really impossible that our government could never become tyrannical? The lack of a clear and present threat isn't a good justification for scrapping the second amendment, neither are the odds of successfully defending your freedoms, sorry I know you prefer freedumbs.



so we finally get one, now we can paint everyone who opposes their rights being infringed with the same broad brush.

Yeesh. Talk about fear.

I have no fear that our government will suddenly become tyrannical and take over our lives.

And if that 0.00001 percent chance happens and they DO, there's no stopping it.

But we are too far along as a nation and a country that this won't happen.

 

[turok]

that's one interpretation. Yes, it was created during the cannon, musket and flintlock era but it wasn't given an expiration date. It's not really reasonable for you or anyone else to say that the anti-gun control founders would say or do anything differently based on how weapons have evolved the last 200 plus years.

I think that it is pretty clear-cut and dried as to what an 18th century, well regulated, single-shot cannon, musket, and flintlock pistol equipped militia meant, as opposed to what a 21st century semi-auto assault rifle armed populace means.

 

[turok]

so we finally get one, now we can paint everyone who opposes their rights being infringed with the same broad brush.

He isn't the first, Dylann Roof was also into white supremacist rhetoric. The late Charles Manson wanted to start a race war, and the Hutaree militia here in MI had begun practicing and plotting for one as well.

 

[Spartanmack]

I think that it is pretty clear-cut and dried as to what an 18th century, well regulated, single-shot cannon, musket, and flintlock pistol equipped militia meant, as opposed to what a 21st century semi-auto assault rifle armed populace means.

and I think what's pretty clear cut is the purpose of the second amendment was to make sure private citizens could defend themselves against tyranny in every era in perpetuity

 

[Spartanmack]

He isn't the first, Dylann Roof was also into white supremacist rhetoric. The late Charles Manson wanted to start a race war, and the Hutaree militia here in MI had begun practicing and plotting for one as well.

Wasn't Dylan Roof a registered Democrat? I don't recall the late Charles Manson being associated with the NRA, conservative politics, gun rights, etc.

I know you're trying to associate racism with conservatism, but the racism of the left is the far better established link.

 

[turok]

Wasn't Dylan Roof a registered Democrat? I don't recall the late Charles Manson being associated with the NRA, conservative politics, gun rights, etc.

I know you're trying to associate racism with conservatism, but the racism of the left is the far better established link.

Sure it is...thats why the majority of minorities in the US have consistently voted Republican, b/c they are no one's fools.

 

[turok]

Trump and Sessions typically dodge and deflect from the gun control problem and instead focus again on these maniacs' mental health. They quite obviously do not know or more likely pretend to have forgotten that reactive jails and prisons have replaced proactive federal and state mental institutions by Saint Ronnie and Republican governors in the 20th century.

 

[sggatecl]

Wasn't Dylan Roof a registered Democrat?

Maybe according to someone like Alex Jones.

 

[Michchamp]

So the shooter was a member of a extreme-right, white supremacist hate group the "Republic of Florida." link

they gave him a gun (not the one used in a shooting) and some sort of combat training, according to the group's leader, who didn't really seem all that troubled by this. the group and its leaders should be sued into oblivion like the SPLC did to the KKK after they bombed African American churches.

Cruz wore the Trump hat in a photo on an Instagram account the company said belonged to him. Over his face he wore a red, white, and blue bandana. On that account and another one, Cruz posted photos of guns, knives, anti-Muslim slurs, and a picture of a toad he killed.​

white supremacy...

 

[Michchamp]

after the shooting Infowars published articles claiming the shooter was a "registered democrat" who was "influenced by ISIS" ... to support their claims they apparently photoshopped a voter registration form, and included a pic of a kid in a hammer and sickle bandanna who was not the shooter. all articles have been taken down.

that site is a complete scum factory.

 

[sggatecl]

Maybe according to someone like Alex Jones.

after the shooting Infowars published articles claiming the shooter was a "registered democrat" who was "influenced by ISIS"

For fuck's sake, I said that in jest...:lmao:

That's amazing.