Active shooter now 20 plus injured in Florida school
- Thread starter osuhoops316
- Start date
Your explanation is lacking, IMO. For multiple reasons. As I have already explained to you in multiple threads.
I posted this earlier "Our founding fathers wrote the constitution when weapons could only fire one projectile before having to be reloaded."
You claimed that it was "incorrect". How so? I just did some research and it appears that the first repeating rifle was invented in 1892. The first Revolver- 1836. What am I missing?
I do actually believe the founding fathers had this in mind, and there is ample evidence of such in historical research.
And as divided as our country is today, it is actually possible (never thought I'd say this) that an overreaching gov't could fall into dictatorial martial law in the near future, trampling on our constitution as if it didn't exist.
When the founding fathers provided a deterrent to an overreaching government, the Army had single shot muskets. The possibility of an overreaching government today (vs the late 1700's) would involve fighting the government's fully automatic weapons with less than fully automatics.
Not suggesting we are going straight into martial law or civil war here, but providing food for thought as to possible outcomes if it did.....AFTER we just removed all of the citizen's weapons other than hunting rifles.
Here's your mass murderer. Nicholas Cruz, a registered Democrat.
I don't really care one way or another what the kid's political views are if they didn't have anything to do with what he did. That being said he was part of a white supremacy group and was most definitely a Trump supporter. I'm guessing he wasn't exactly down with the party of Obama.
The The Kalthoff Repeater was invented in 1540. Could fire 5 shots without reloading.
Thomas Jefferson himself gave Meriweather Lewis a Girandoni air rifle. It should shoot 22 rounds in under a minute.
In a letter to the Continental Congress in April 1777, inventor Joseph Belton describes the gun:
May it Please your Honours, I would just informe this Honourable Assembly, that I have discover’d an improvement, in the use of Small Armes, wherein a common small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five or three seconds of time.
Research the repeating 'Puckle Gun'.
They very well knew about repeating arms when they drafted the 2nd amendment.
Their use wasn't common by any stretch. But to say they were unaware of them and could never anticipate their eventual use is total crap in order to justify your position.
http://www.jonathanmetzl.com/stop-blaming-mentally-ill-for-mass-shootings/
Mentally ill folks are of no higher risk of perpetrating violence than the general population.
"Mentally ill" includes things such as Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, Schizoaffective Disorder etc...the majority of mass shooters do not have these diagnoses. They are *ssholes. That's not a treatable mental illness.
Thanks for the reference from a liberal University psychiatry professor MD.
In his own words:
"Certainly, mental health histories are important for mass shooters"
He then goes on to make the hypothesis that violence as a percentage of all mentally unhealthy people is very low.
OK, I believe that.
But NEVER does he state that the population of people who do commit mass murders are not mentally ill or even that a small percentage of them are. In the Psych world, he would get CRUCIFIED for making such a hypothesis.
Mentally unstable goes WAY BEYOND your severe list above
Do you think they could envision/imagine yesterday's tragedy, or the Las Vegas shooting? If you want to argue that they could have imagined similar weapons existing, I would argue that the idea of someone taking such actions would have never occurred to them.
If the founding fathers could have time traveled to today, I think it is very possible that the 2nd amendment might not be worded the same as it was. If you can't admit that possibility then you are just being obtuse.
I have an answer to school shootings. YOU! If you see a kid that is troubled; help the kid. If you see a facebook page of kids holding guns, or threatening violence; say something. If a child, yours or someone else's, comes to you and says I am scared of this person; say something. if a kid is in a high risk living situation; do something. Become a mentor, join Big Brothers and Sisters, volunteer at the local boys club, DO SOMETHING. Personal responsibility and empathy for others is the ONLY thing that will stop this.
I think there's a lot of people in this country that like these mass shootings. Here's how I come to that conclusion:
1. "There's no solution." As if the solutions in Australia, France, England, Spain, Germany, etc. don't count. Various solutions could not be more apparent.
2. They ask for solutions to veto (like Poke2001) but offer nothing. THer's no concern -- their energy and concern is defending the violent status quo. I fought w @MegaPoke to the point we're both exhausted over it. To his credit, he at least said at some point ( I paraphrase), "We gotta get some serious mental health stuff going on and restrict who can own these guns." I think he's wrong about a lot, but at least some people can advocate some type of solution. A large number of these people don't and won't advocate for any solution beyond hopes and prayers.
3. They demand that the least among us -- the simple, the insane, the incompetent -- are guaranteed them the ability to easily obtain the power of life and death over lots and lots of people. Any fool can pull a trigger. We literally make sure that the dumbest people have the ability to kill their betters in a flash, without any training or particular creativity or intelligence required. I think lots of people kind of like knowing, and kind of enjoy, watching their fellow mouth breathing morons assume that kind of destructive power. There's just no other explanation, imo. These people literally demand that simple, violent morons have the ability to kill us very easily.
4. The "laws don't work" schtick. So don't have laws then? On what level does that even make sense? That's such a frivolous argument I don't think it's made in good faith.
5. Biff just signed a GOP sponsored law to relax firearm restrictions on Social security recipients with mental health issues. Joila -- 17 kids instantly killed.
1. "There's no solution." As if the solutions in Australia, France, England, Spain, Germany, etc. don't count. Various solutions could not be more apparent.
2. They ask for solutions to veto (like Poke2001) but offer nothing. THer's no concern -- their energy and concern is defending the violent status quo. I fought w @MegaPoke to the point we're both exhausted over it. To his credit, he at least said at some point ( I paraphrase), "We gotta get some serious mental health stuff going on and restrict who can own these guns." I think he's wrong about a lot, but at least some people can advocate some type of solution. A large number of these people don't and won't advocate for any solution beyond hopes and prayers.
3. They demand that the least among us -- the simple, the insane, the incompetent -- are guaranteed them the ability to easily obtain the power of life and death over lots and lots of people. Any fool can pull a trigger. We literally make sure that the dumbest people have the ability to kill their betters in a flash, without any training or particular creativity or intelligence required. I think lots of people kind of like knowing, and kind of enjoy, watching their fellow mouth breathing morons assume that kind of destructive power. There's just no other explanation, imo. These people literally demand that simple, violent morons have the ability to kill us very easily.
4. The "laws don't work" schtick. So don't have laws then? On what level does that even make sense? That's such a frivolous argument I don't think it's made in good faith.
5. Biff just signed a GOP sponsored law to relax firearm restrictions on Social security recipients with mental health issues. Joila -- 17 kids instantly killed.
This has to be the stupidest thing I have read in a very long time and I have been reading your posts on the 24x7 board a while. I think I may be stupider for reading it.
I agree it would be worded differently. They didn't have a standing army and used the militia as the line of defense for the individual states. If they were writing it today, I think they'd omit the Militia language and leave the part about the right to bear arms shall not be infringed exactly as originally worded.
They were brilliant men. Of course I think they could anticipate the mass killings of civilians. That has been a fact of life for time immemorial.
Is there any blame for those that bullied him? What about the parents of bullies? Any consequences? I big difference I’ve seen in my local school is teachers want to be cool. Principals have Instagram and are friends with students. No one, adult or kid wants to be with the weirdos.
@Been Jammin do you realize your stances are open borders for criminals and to take guns away from legalized citizens? That is just simply remarkable to me.
I don't believe in open borders.
I don't want to take guns away from legalized citizens. I just want to make it more difficult for citizens to get their hands on them. Especially the ones that kill 10 people (or more) per minute.
I have a 1949 Remington semi automatic 22 rifle that holds 14 rounds. Are you coming for that or no? Just future purchases?
Bullied the shooter?
99 + % of kids who are bullied never end up being the perpetrator of a mass shooting.
You are really reaching for places to affix blame other than that maybe his weapon of choice was too readily available to him.
Hmmm. Tough question. I'd be happy with just future purchases. I guess a 22 doesn't worry me as much as something with more power, so I could be talked out of even that
Sorry. Accidentally posted prematurely.
Hmmm. Tough question. I'd be happy with just future purchases. I guess a 22 doesn't worry me as much as something with more power, so I could be talked out of even that.
As far as more efficient killing machines, just eliminating/regulating future purchases would be better than doing nothing. I'd be happier with the owner needing to jump through some hoops (definition of hoops open for debate) in order to keep their weapon (legally). I'd be even happier with a buyback program designed to significantly reduce the number of them that are floating around (in combination with the hoops point above).
Hmmm. Tough question. I'd be happy with just future purchases. I guess a 22 doesn't worry me as much as something with more power, so I could be talked out of even that.
As far as more efficient killing machines, just eliminating/regulating future purchases would be better than doing nothing. I'd be happier with the owner needing to jump through some hoops (definition of hoops open for debate) in order to keep their weapon (legally). I'd be even happier with a buyback program designed to significantly reduce the number of them that are floating around (in combination with the hoops point above).
Last edited:
To me this supports the idea that there are waaaaaay too many guns floating around this country. How many do you own? How many can you use, at one time, to keep you and your family safe.
I think we already have a relatively secure border. It is never going to be perfectly secure, but it is not nearly as porous as many say it is.
As far as amnesty for DACA, I am not sure. I think there is probably a compromise out there if we try hard enough to find it.
Lunacy. What evidence do you have? Can you please google the border patrol endorsing their first presidential candidate ever and why they did it? What they had to say about Obama’s policies? This is what happens when you follow the news for two of your fifty five years.
I don’t own any guns other than that one I mentioned and it doesn’t shoot. Nothing to see here.
I'm totally fine with a buy back program. If people want to volunteer to give up their guns, that's their prerogative.
But where do you draw the line? Again, not from a practical standpoint but from a Constitutional one? Why 10 rounds? Why 22 caliber? If brought before the USSC, how would you defend that position? How are you NOT infringing on my right to bear arms?
Is what you are asking to ban going to reduce our collective ability to limit an oppressive government?
Jump through hoops? You party says it is racist to have a freaking id to vote because blacks can’t find the dmv. So basically you are preventing poor minorities from participating in gun ownership.
Here's your mass murderer. Nicholas Cruz, a registered Democrat.
And just FYI ... this isn't even the shooter. I'm shocked Infowars got it wrong but they did.
This is a false equivalency. That's not what the constitution says. It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Done. It doesn't say the types of arms can only be ones designed to keep you and your family safe.
Let's say that Trump institutes a brown shirt type militia that goes around snatching up dissenters. Say a group of 200 of them surround your house and are intent on taking your children away from you for indoctrination. How many firearms do you think you need to defend yourself and your family? How fast do you think you need to be able to fire? What's reasonable in a 'when the sh!t hits the fan' scenario?
Because I guarantee you that the founders were exactly in that mindset after fighting a war for independence.
I have no problem making it onerous to legally own a semi-automatic weapon. I think it would be a great thing. The more hoops that have to be jumped through the better.
That way, when a poor person, or person with a questionable mental state wants to get their hands on one, they are likely going to have to take the black market route, which makes it easier for the Feds to set up sting operations and catch them before they kill.
Most likely, they will end up using a weapon that is not as efficient at killing. There will be fewer shot and fewer who die.
I,honestly, have no problem with you or @Ostatedchi owning semi-automatic weapons as long as you take the proper steps to keep them out of the hands of your kids and of criminals who break into your homes.
I think there are relatively simple things that could have been done to make it tough for Cruz to get his hands on an assault rifle and buckets of ammo. Had he opted to use a sawed off shotgun and a 9 mm handgun, I doubt he would have done nearly as much damage.
Not worried about it. The only gun I own is a Red Rider BB gun with a compass on the stock and a thing that tells time. In your scenario, an AR-15 isn't going to do anything other than kill a few brown shirts before they find a way to kill me and my entire family. Either way I am effed. I will have to trust that enough people in this country have enough common sense, morals, and empathy to prevent your doomsday scenario.
Lol oh my. Fvck them poor people. You do know it’s poor people who are more often in need of self defense right? Crimes are committed by people who will be ignoring every single legal argument you’ve made here against people you just lumped in with mental cases. The rest of that is just Clinton scott stupid. Feds are looking under every rock for ruskies! They are busy my friend! The same feds who were made aware of mr. Cruz in September! Save us feds with your stingz!
So, they need semi-automatic weapons? That is what we have been talking about right?
Hell yes they are the ones who need them more than anybody. Go live a month in east St. Louis with a grandma raising her kids and grandkids with no male over ten in the house and Post up with your pew pew red rider when the neighborhood gangs hear a rich vet is visiting from Dallas.
Similar threads
