BREAKING: Mass school shooting multiple victims

[Brain357]

the only thing we need to ask ourselves and when deciding who to vote for. Is WHY IS mass shootings UP under this Obama/Democrat Regime?

I don't want to hear about anything else.

The answer is obvious. Under BOBO many cities and places where the pubic goes have been designated 'Gun Free Zones' by fucking LIBERALS! These are the places thugs and lunatics choose to commit mass murder.
People who are law abiding respect these 'Zones'. Only the thugs and crazies ignore these laws.

Really? What new laws did he pass?

 

[Asclepias]

Australia had a mass shooting, got rid of the guns and hasn't had one since.

The bottom line is, here in America most of us are willing to put up with these occasional tragedies, but we're not willing to give up our 2nd Amendment rights.
There will be more and more laws and restrictions, but a roundup is off the table.

Glad you have made that decision for everyone. The dead have no constituency.

Said it once, said it a hundred times; what has to happen is that a powerful rightwing lawmaker, unfortunately, will have to lose a child in one of these senseless acts to awaken the rest of the nation to the needless slaughter.

And then what ? Again, you can have all the restrictions for new purchases you want, but that won't put a dent in the hundreds of millions of guns already out among the general population.

True but thoughtless.

Consider:

1. Put aside the Second Amendment for a moment.
2. License anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm.
3. Require everyone of those guns to be registered.
4. Allow those who choose not to apply for a license and own guns to surrender them to local LE.
5. Require gun safes and /or trigger locks on all guns in the home or business unless actually under the custody and control of a licensed person.

It can be done, but there is no will to do so. The NRA and many gun owners care only about their right not be infringed, and have a who cares attitude for those who lost their lives yesterday, and their family and friends.

I'd bet some of them would support 2 & 3 in a moment if it would save the life of one of their children; the rest probably wouldn't since it's all about them.

Responsible gun owners wouldnt have an issue with any of this. Its the yahoos that would claim the government was taking away their rights and you would see a rise in more mass shootings until they were all caught.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, what makes you think he tolerates evil? Doc is a great guy. He gives me no reason to think he does.

His posts, particularly his ire when one criticizes Islamic terrorism,

To make assumptions about the proclivities of the shooter as a "liberal Democrat Muslim" as someone else referred to him as, is within itself a character defect. As is making a blanket assumption about Doc that he tolerates evil by disagreeing with your viewpoints.

I said IF and emphasized it. We have had many instances of Muzzie Beasts engaging in these kinds of acts. Whether Mercer was an ISIS boi or not is still unknown

 

[Wry Catcher]

Laws do not prevent crime, crimes are punished and that is what keeps society relatively safe.

Okay. Laws do not prevent crime, ergo gun control laws do not stop gun violence from happening. Therefore gun control laws, and gun free zones are pointless. If laws are pointless, it doesn't matter how many times someone is punished.

Thanks for making my case.

By that logic, laws against murder are pointless too. After all, people still commit murder, even though it's illegal.

It's not logic, it's a talking point only stupid people or liars echo. Laws do not stop crime, they punish those who commit crimes!

The opinion expressed by TK is too foolish to even offer a rebuttal. People obey the laws for two reasons:

• They believe it is the right thing to do
• They fear the punishment

Yes... Laws punish people who act in unsound ways, which is to say ways that a viable culture forbids.

And how cool is it that these cranks are in here touting the punishing effect of laws, while both of them would have the Reader believe that Abortion must be legal, because laws forbidding such... 'would not stop all women from having abortions...' ?

So what they're saying is that Gun-Free Zones are designed to punish people who carry guns... . Guns which the US Constitution lists as the 2nd enumerated priority in the list of protections for the exercise of essential individual rights, that assures the RIGHT to do just THAT!

Therefore, that 'law' is as foolish and counter productive as any other law that comes as a result of Relativism.

It takes LAW... the ONLY purpose for which is the service of Justice, which can ONLY be done where THE LAW is objectively written and objectively ENFORCED... and they write a SUBJECTIVE LAW that is SUBJECTIVELY ENFORCED.

And THAT is why a viable culture can NEVER tolerate Relativism. Because it is IDIOCY that breeds IDIOTS!

Your sophistry is too wordy to parse, other than to use the cliche "baffle them with bullshit".

 

[M14 Shooter]

More nonsense from anti-gun loons who happily use the blood of innocents to push their mindless, bigoted agenda.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Australia had a mass shooting, got rid of the guns and hasn't had one since.

The bottom line is, here in America most of us are willing to put up with these occasional tragedies, but we're not willing to give up our 2nd Amendment rights.
There will be more and more laws and restrictions, but a roundup is off the table.

Glad you have made that decision for everyone. The dead have no constituency.

Said it once, said it a hundred times; what has to happen is that a powerful rightwing lawmaker, unfortunately, will have to lose a child in one of these senseless acts to awaken the rest of the nation to the needless slaughter.

And then what ? Again, you can have all the restrictions for new purchases you want, but that won't put a dent in the hundreds of millions of guns already out among the general population.

True but thoughtless.

Consider:

1. Put aside the Second Amendment for a moment.
2. License anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm.
3. Require everyone of those guns to be registered.
4. Allow those who choose not to apply for a license and own guns to surrender them to local LE.
5. Require gun safes and /or trigger locks on all guns in the home or business unless actually under the custody and control of a licensed person.

It can be done, but there is no will to do so. The NRA and many gun owners care only about their right not be infringed, and have a who cares attitude for those who lost their lives yesterday, and their family and friends.

I'd bet some of them would support 2 & 3 in a moment if it would save the life of one of their children; the rest probably wouldn't since it's all about them.

Responsible gun owners wouldnt have an issue with any of this. Its the yahoos that would claim the government was taking away their rights and you would see a rise in more mass shootings until they were all caught.

If such laws were to be promulgated it would make sense to allow the States to develop and enforce gun control methods. In fact allowing the states to do so would be a good test on the efficacy of various gun control methods.

 

[ChrisL]

Australia had a mass shooting, got rid of the guns and hasn't had one since.

The bottom line is, here in America most of us are willing to put up with these occasional tragedies, but we're not willing to give up our 2nd Amendment rights.
There will be more and more laws and restrictions, but a roundup is off the table.

Glad you have made that decision for everyone. The dead have no constituency.

Said it once, said it a hundred times; what has to happen is that a powerful rightwing lawmaker, unfortunately, will have to lose a child in one of these senseless acts to awaken the rest of the nation to the needless slaughter.

And then what ? Again, you can have all the restrictions for new purchases you want, but that won't put a dent in the hundreds of millions of guns already out among the general population.

True but thoughtless.

Consider:

1. Put aside the Second Amendment for a moment.
2. License anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm.
3. Require everyone of those guns to be registered.
4. Allow those who choose not to apply for a license and own guns to surrender them to local LE.
5. Require gun safes and /or trigger locks on all guns in the home or business unless actually under the custody and control of a licensed person.

It can be done, but there is no will to do so. The NRA and many gun owners care only about their right not be infringed, and have a who cares attitude for those who lost their lives yesterday, and their family and friends.

I'd bet some of them would support 2 & 3 in a moment if it would save the life of one of their children; the rest probably wouldn't since it's all about them.

Responsible gun owners wouldnt have an issue with any of this. Its the yahoos that would claim the government was taking away their rights and you would see a rise in more mass shootings until they were all caught.

The government has no right to infringe upon our rights. Period. Why on earth would you want to give the government any kind of power over our rights? It's not going to stop the nuts from being nuts.

 

[Asclepias]

The bottom line is, here in America most of us are willing to put up with these occasional tragedies, but we're not willing to give up our 2nd Amendment rights.
There will be more and more laws and restrictions, but a roundup is off the table.

Glad you have made that decision for everyone. The dead have no constituency.

Said it once, said it a hundred times; what has to happen is that a powerful rightwing lawmaker, unfortunately, will have to lose a child in one of these senseless acts to awaken the rest of the nation to the needless slaughter.

And then what ? Again, you can have all the restrictions for new purchases you want, but that won't put a dent in the hundreds of millions of guns already out among the general population.

True but thoughtless.

Consider:

1. Put aside the Second Amendment for a moment.
2. License anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm.
3. Require everyone of those guns to be registered.
4. Allow those who choose not to apply for a license and own guns to surrender them to local LE.
5. Require gun safes and /or trigger locks on all guns in the home or business unless actually under the custody and control of a licensed person.

It can be done, but there is no will to do so. The NRA and many gun owners care only about their right not be infringed, and have a who cares attitude for those who lost their lives yesterday, and their family and friends.

I'd bet some of them would support 2 & 3 in a moment if it would save the life of one of their children; the rest probably wouldn't since it's all about them.

Responsible gun owners wouldnt have an issue with any of this. Its the yahoos that would claim the government was taking away their rights and you would see a rise in more mass shootings until they were all caught.

If such laws were to be promulgated it would make sense to allow the States to develop and enforce gun control methods. In fact allowing the states to do so would be a good test on the efficacy of various gun control methods.

I dont think the well funded NRA lobby would allow that. They arent going to give up their power.willingly. They know fear is a powerful persuader.

 

[ChrisL]

Guns don't make people kill people or commit mass shootings. These nuts seek out ways to kill people. If it wasn't a gun, it would be something else. In the ME, where they probably can't afford to get guns, they use bombs instead. Also very effective way to kill a lot of people at once.

 

[Wry Catcher]

the only thing we need to ask ourselves and when deciding who to vote for. Is WHY IS mass shootings UP under this Obama/Democrat Regime?

I don't want to hear about anything else.

Hope and change was a LIE folks. vote them out of office come 2016

Well curious people, even the willfully ignorant, wonder about things. Your hate is so deep and your ignorance so great that thinking is beyond your capability.

 

[Asclepias]

The bottom line is, here in America most of us are willing to put up with these occasional tragedies, but we're not willing to give up our 2nd Amendment rights.
There will be more and more laws and restrictions, but a roundup is off the table.

Glad you have made that decision for everyone. The dead have no constituency.

Said it once, said it a hundred times; what has to happen is that a powerful rightwing lawmaker, unfortunately, will have to lose a child in one of these senseless acts to awaken the rest of the nation to the needless slaughter.

And then what ? Again, you can have all the restrictions for new purchases you want, but that won't put a dent in the hundreds of millions of guns already out among the general population.

True but thoughtless.

Consider:

1. Put aside the Second Amendment for a moment.
2. License anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm.
3. Require everyone of those guns to be registered.
4. Allow those who choose not to apply for a license and own guns to surrender them to local LE.
5. Require gun safes and /or trigger locks on all guns in the home or business unless actually under the custody and control of a licensed person.

It can be done, but there is no will to do so. The NRA and many gun owners care only about their right not be infringed, and have a who cares attitude for those who lost their lives yesterday, and their family and friends.

I'd bet some of them would support 2 & 3 in a moment if it would save the life of one of their children; the rest probably wouldn't since it's all about them.

Responsible gun owners wouldnt have an issue with any of this. Its the yahoos that would claim the government was taking away their rights and you would see a rise in more mass shootings until they were all caught.

The government has no right to infringe upon our rights. Period. Why on earth would you want to give the government any kind of power over our rights? It's not going to stop the nuts from being nuts.

Of course they have the right. They do it all the time. Its called amendments and laws.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Glad you have made that decision for everyone. The dead have no constituency.

Said it once, said it a hundred times; what has to happen is that a powerful rightwing lawmaker, unfortunately, will have to lose a child in one of these senseless acts to awaken the rest of the nation to the needless slaughter.

And then what ? Again, you can have all the restrictions for new purchases you want, but that won't put a dent in the hundreds of millions of guns already out among the general population.

True but thoughtless.

Consider:

1. Put aside the Second Amendment for a moment.
2. License anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm.
3. Require everyone of those guns to be registered.
4. Allow those who choose not to apply for a license and own guns to surrender them to local LE.
5. Require gun safes and /or trigger locks on all guns in the home or business unless actually under the custody and control of a licensed person.

It can be done, but there is no will to do so. The NRA and many gun owners care only about their right not be infringed, and have a who cares attitude for those who lost their lives yesterday, and their family and friends.

I'd bet some of them would support 2 & 3 in a moment if it would save the life of one of their children; the rest probably wouldn't since it's all about them.

Responsible gun owners wouldnt have an issue with any of this. Its the yahoos that would claim the government was taking away their rights and you would see a rise in more mass shootings until they were all caught.

If such laws were to be promulgated it would make sense to allow the States to develop and enforce gun control methods. In fact allowing the states to do so would be a good test on the efficacy of various gun control methods.

I dont think the well funded NRA lobby would allow that. They arent going to give up their power.willingly. They know fear is a powerful persuader.

I'm sure you're correct; that's why I consider the NRA a Terrorist Organization.

 

[ChrisL]

Glad you have made that decision for everyone. The dead have no constituency.

Said it once, said it a hundred times; what has to happen is that a powerful rightwing lawmaker, unfortunately, will have to lose a child in one of these senseless acts to awaken the rest of the nation to the needless slaughter.

And then what ? Again, you can have all the restrictions for new purchases you want, but that won't put a dent in the hundreds of millions of guns already out among the general population.

True but thoughtless.

Consider:

1. Put aside the Second Amendment for a moment.
2. License anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm.
3. Require everyone of those guns to be registered.
4. Allow those who choose not to apply for a license and own guns to surrender them to local LE.
5. Require gun safes and /or trigger locks on all guns in the home or business unless actually under the custody and control of a licensed person.

It can be done, but there is no will to do so. The NRA and many gun owners care only about their right not be infringed, and have a who cares attitude for those who lost their lives yesterday, and their family and friends.

I'd bet some of them would support 2 & 3 in a moment if it would save the life of one of their children; the rest probably wouldn't since it's all about them.

Responsible gun owners wouldnt have an issue with any of this. Its the yahoos that would claim the government was taking away their rights and you would see a rise in more mass shootings until they were all caught.

The government has no right to infringe upon our rights. Period. Why on earth would you want to give the government any kind of power over our rights? It's not going to stop the nuts from being nuts.

Of course they have the right. They do it all the time. Its called amendments.

Why would you want to give the "man" that kind of power over you? What about all those "racists" who want to hold you down. You know, the man, whitey.

 

[Asclepias]

And then what ? Again, you can have all the restrictions for new purchases you want, but that won't put a dent in the hundreds of millions of guns already out among the general population.

True but thoughtless.

Consider:

1. Put aside the Second Amendment for a moment.
2. License anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm.
3. Require everyone of those guns to be registered.
4. Allow those who choose not to apply for a license and own guns to surrender them to local LE.
5. Require gun safes and /or trigger locks on all guns in the home or business unless actually under the custody and control of a licensed person.

It can be done, but there is no will to do so. The NRA and many gun owners care only about their right not be infringed, and have a who cares attitude for those who lost their lives yesterday, and their family and friends.

I'd bet some of them would support 2 & 3 in a moment if it would save the life of one of their children; the rest probably wouldn't since it's all about them.

Responsible gun owners wouldnt have an issue with any of this. Its the yahoos that would claim the government was taking away their rights and you would see a rise in more mass shootings until they were all caught.

The government has no right to infringe upon our rights. Period. Why on earth would you want to give the government any kind of power over our rights? It's not going to stop the nuts from being nuts.

Of course they have the right. They do it all the time. Its called amendments.

Why would you want to give the "man" that kind of power over you? What about all those "racists" who want to hold you down. You know, the man, whitey.

What power am I giving them? What about the racists? I still have my gun to kill them should they attack me in my home.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. Put aside the Second Amendment for a moment.

Why? Because you know your "ideas", noted below, violate the constitution.
That, of course, does not matter to you, as you only seek to impose mindless, unnecessary and unconstitutional limits on the rights of the law abiding, to no soundly demonstrable effect.

2. License anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm.
3. Require everyone of those guns to be registered.

Requirements you know you cannot soundly illustrate the necessity for, or how they will prevent criminals from getting guns.
Still waiting for your response:
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

5. Require gun safes and /or trigger locks on all guns in the home or business unless actually under the custody and control of a licensed person.

A requirement you know you cannot soundly illustrate the necessity for, or how it will prevent criminals from getting guns.

It can be done, but there is no will to do so.

As you know, there is no will to do so because there is no sound argument for doing so.

 

[ChrisL]

True but thoughtless.

Consider:

1. Put aside the Second Amendment for a moment.
2. License anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm.
3. Require everyone of those guns to be registered.
4. Allow those who choose not to apply for a license and own guns to surrender them to local LE.
5. Require gun safes and /or trigger locks on all guns in the home or business unless actually under the custody and control of a licensed person.

It can be done, but there is no will to do so. The NRA and many gun owners care only about their right not be infringed, and have a who cares attitude for those who lost their lives yesterday, and their family and friends.

I'd bet some of them would support 2 & 3 in a moment if it would save the life of one of their children; the rest probably wouldn't since it's all about them.

Responsible gun owners wouldnt have an issue with any of this. Its the yahoos that would claim the government was taking away their rights and you would see a rise in more mass shootings until they were all caught.

The government has no right to infringe upon our rights. Period. Why on earth would you want to give the government any kind of power over our rights? It's not going to stop the nuts from being nuts.

Of course they have the right. They do it all the time. Its called amendments.

Why would you want to give the "man" that kind of power over you? What about all those "racists" who want to hold you down. You know, the man, whitey.

What power am I giving them? What about the racists? I still have my gun to kill them should they attack me in my home.

You want the government to be able to "control" people's rights. The only people that such controls effect are the people that care about the law. Do you really think people who would commit mass murder care or would not find some other way to do as much damage as possible?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sure you're correct; that's why I consider the NRA a Terrorist Organization.

You consider the NRA a terrorist organization because you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
The NRA: A terrorist organization? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[ChrisL]

Do gun control laws lessen the frequency of mass shootings??? Have any of these measures been effective whatsoever in preventing gun homicides? That is an important question that you need to ask yourself. If the answer is no, then obviously it is NOT the answer to the problem. Of course we are always going to have whackos around. There always have been whackos, but we have a LOT more of them today than ever before because there are more people living in the US than ever before. Why not look at Hollywood which glorifies violence and gore and desensitizes us? Perhaps THAT is the culprit because guns have ALWAYS been a part of American culture.

 

[Asclepias]

Responsible gun owners wouldnt have an issue with any of this. Its the yahoos that would claim the government was taking away their rights and you would see a rise in more mass shootings until they were all caught.

The government has no right to infringe upon our rights. Period. Why on earth would you want to give the government any kind of power over our rights? It's not going to stop the nuts from being nuts.

Of course they have the right. They do it all the time. Its called amendments.

Why would you want to give the "man" that kind of power over you? What about all those "racists" who want to hold you down. You know, the man, whitey.

What power am I giving them? What about the racists? I still have my gun to kill them should they attack me in my home.

You want the government to be able to "control" people's rights. The only people that such controls effect are the people that care about the law. Do you really think people who would commit mass murder care or would not find some other way to do as much damage as possible?

Your strawman has been noted and I will address it. The government already controls your rights. How did you not know that? Who said people determined to commit mass murder would not find another way?

 

[ChrisL]

The government has no right to infringe upon our rights. Period. Why on earth would you want to give the government any kind of power over our rights? It's not going to stop the nuts from being nuts.

Of course they have the right. They do it all the time. Its called amendments.

Why would you want to give the "man" that kind of power over you? What about all those "racists" who want to hold you down. You know, the man, whitey.

What power am I giving them? What about the racists? I still have my gun to kill them should they attack me in my home.

You want the government to be able to "control" people's rights. The only people that such controls effect are the people that care about the law. Do you really think people who would commit mass murder care or would not find some other way to do as much damage as possible?

Your strawman has been noted and I will address it. The government already controls your rights. How did you not know that? Who said people determined to commit mass murder would not find another way?

You blaming the tool and trying to gain control over a tool. It's never going to work. It's just delusional and avoidance of what the ACTUAL problem might be with society.