Today's Mass Shooting

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Most likely his hatred of the paper never really abated.

That seems pretty obvious at this point, doesn't it? But for the past few years it wasn't enough to push him to this point. That's why the question, "Why now," is so interesting.

My statement was about people denying what they said on camera, and suffering few, if any consequences, in general. I believe it is an ongoing general trend.

Say something silly/stupid/wrong/bad, have it pointed out by the public, deny that you said it, and just move on like nothing happened.

No one seems to care any more.

Honestly, I care, but your reference to Maxine Waters in this context is making no damn sense anymore.

 

[lobosrul5]

True, but the point still stands, that a pump-action shotgun is a pretty effective close-quarters weapon.

Again, it raises the question as to what the valid civilian uses are for such a weapon.

Well... this is the USA. Killing people at short range is considered perfectly valid. In some jurisdictions you only need to show your property was in danger after dark. Bear in mind that pump action shotguns are legal almost everywhere, including the UK. Limit of 3 rounds though if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Maxine made no calls for violence at all. To say otherwise is an outright lie.

LTC8K6 says that's not the thing he claims she's denying, but he seems unwilling to tell us what he's actually referring to.

 

[johnny karate]

This is why people who don't know **** about firearms shouldn't be making decisions about them.

Then it looks like you've just removed yourself from the conversation:

Or look up the trench broom and how they were so effective nazis wanted them banned.

You have the wrong war. Germany wanted the Model 1897 banned during WW1, when Hitler was just a corporal and there was no Nazi party.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

The Founding Fathers wrote into our Bill of Rights that we should have enough guns to fight off enemies as needed. That means guns more powerful than those we have now. We need select-fire rifles and hopefully Trump will get enough wise justices on the Supreme Court to get them for us. There is no way our Founding Fathers intended for us to be outgunned by every other militia and cartel in the world. We should have M16A4 rifles right now, to use when called on. AR15s just won't cut the mustard when it comes to suppressive fire.

 

[johnny karate]

The Founding Fathers wrote into our Bill of Rights that we should have enough guns to fight off enemies as needed.

No, they didn't.

 

[smartcooky]

The Founding Fathers wrote into our Bill of Rights that we should have enough guns to fight off enemies as needed. That means guns more powerful than those we have now. We need select-fire rifles and hopefully Trump will get enough wise justices on the Supreme Court to get them for us. There is no way our Founding Fathers intended for us to be outgunned by every other militia and cartel in the world. We should have M16A4 rifles right now, to use when called on. AR15s just won't cut the mustard when it comes to suppressive fire.

I'm trying to work out if this is a Poe.

 

[smartcooky]

Then it looks like you've just removed yourself from the conversation:

Haha.... oops!

I wonder if sadhatter wants petards banned.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The more I hear about this shooter's incessant threats and stalking, the more I wonder why it is people are so reluctant to address these guys before they shoot. There should have been a big red flag that went straight to the FBI and the local police when this guy bought that shotgun.

And there needs to be a way to make regular status checks on people like this.

But here again is another one that had all the warning signs and no one acted.

And by the way, if there's a guy harassing your workplace currently, get your bosses to do something to secure the building a little better. Every city building here requires one have a pass to get anywhere except to the front desk during business hours.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

No, they didn't.

Of course they did. We all have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right cannot be infringed. No rational person could possibly believe they meant we could only be armed with weapons inferior to those of our potential enemies.

 

[johnny karate]

Of course they did. We all have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right cannot be infringed. No rational person could possibly believe they meant we could only be armed with weapons inferior to those of our potential enemies.

You can interpret what they wrote in any goofball way you'd like, but you don't get to claim they wrote something they didn't.

 

[Sherman Bay]

The more I hear about this shooter's incessant threats and stalking, the more I wonder why it is people are so reluctant to address these guys before they shoot. There should have been a big red flag that went straight to the FBI and the local police when this guy bought that shotgun.

And there needs to be a way to make regular status checks on people like this.

But here again is another one that had all the warning signs and no one acted.

Isn't hindsight wonderful?

 

[BrooklynBaby]

You can interpret what they wrote in any goofball way you'd like, but you don't get to claim they wrote something they didn't.

It's simply common sense. They never even considered there would be a group of people in the country who would insist our militias have inferior weapons to guarantee we would would lose the next war. They assumed the people reading the Bill of Rights would be sane.

 

[Babbylonian]

Isn't hindsight wonderful?

It is a severe misuse of the word "hindsight" (with its implication of a desire to blame) to apply it to identifying mistakes and correcting them going forward.

 

[smartcooky]

Isn't hindsight wonderful?

Its only "hindsight" is we haven't seen it before... we have seen it before.

I have a firearms licence; I don't know how things like this are done in 'Merica, but if I had a conviction for criminal harassment, and had threatened people the way this guy had threatened people in the newspaper office, I would find a couple of LEOs on my doorstep in very short order, with a warrant to take all of my firearms and ammunition, and a court order suspending my firearms licence ufn.

 

[johnny karate]

It's simply common sense. They never even considered there would be a group of people in the country who would insist our militias have inferior weapons to guarantee we would would lose the next war. They assumed the people reading the Bill of Rights would be sane.

Again, you're entitled to your own goofball interpretation. But you're not entitled to your own facts regarding the text of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Of course they did. We all have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right cannot be infringed. No rational person could possibly believe they meant we could only be armed with weapons inferior to those of our potential enemies.

In the 1770's, they were right. Both sides had muzzle-loading single-shot ball-and-powder muskets. I highly recommend all new US gun owners be sold only exactly this weapon. Because that's what the Founding Fathers were thinking of.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's simply common sense. They never even considered there would be a group of people in the country who would insist our militias have inferior weapons to guarantee we would would lose the next war. They assumed the people reading the Bill of Rights would be sane.

When the US Constitution was written, the Continental Army was not much of a large standing army as other countries had, but rather a group of men trained in other armies formed together to be the core of the revolution, and so Regulated State Controlled Militias were needed so they could be called on to fight. Those Militias were made up by conscripting civilians who owned guns and would bring them to the fight (kind of like how Britain required all able bodied men to own a longbow so that when conscripted they didn't have to be provided with one.) There is now a very large standing US Military, the Regulated State Militias have become the National Guard. Both are furnished with the weapons they require to do the job and those that made up their ranks are given those weapons rather than having to provide their own.

Unless you are also advocating for a return to where all gun owners can be conscripted into a State Militia, where they would have to provide their own weapons, before being sent off to War for the US, then your claims are of no value.

 

[Babbylonian]

When the US Constitution was written, the Continental Army was not much of a large standing army as other countries had, but rather a group of men trained in other armies formed together to be the core of the revolution, and so Regulated State Controlled Militias were needed so they could be called on to fight. Those Militias were made up by conscripting civilians who owned guns and would bring them to the fight (kind of like how Britain required all able bodied men to own a longbow so that when conscripted they didn't have to be provided with one.) There is now a very large standing US Military, the Regulated State Militias have become the National Guard. Both are furnished with the weapons they require to do the job and those that made up their ranks are given those weapons rather than having to provide their own.

Unless you are also advocating for a return to where all gun owners can be conscripted into a State Militia, where they would have to provide their own weapons, before being sent off to War for the US, then your claims are of no value.

It does make one wonder how many hundreds of billions of dollars we have to spend per year before we can finally set aside an amendment intended to arm a well-regulated militia.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It does make one wonder how many hundreds of billions of dollars we have to spend per year before we can finally set aside an amendment intended to arm a well-regulated militia.

I'm actually kinda for the idea of going with the Founding Fathers original vision. It'd be interesting to see the reaction of a lot of the 2nd Amendment people when they realised that by owning a gun they were volunteering to not only become part of the US Military, but that in doing so they were going to be responsible for buying and maintaining all of the gear that they would use while deployed to whatever corner of the Earth the Government was sending them off to fight.

Think of the saving in taxpayer money, it'd be win win.