Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[Slade3200]

Another mass killing by a white supremacist. You must be disappointed. You were hoping for a Hispanic or better yet an illegal Hispanic

White supremacist /Antifa what different does it make?

Your right there, both groups seem to be on the payroll of CNN

you caught me in mid post
leftist have no problem defending Antifa you will not find right wingers defending White supremacist

Why would anybody from the right defend white supremasists? There’s good people on that side right? ;-)

Dear Slade3200
bigrebnc1775 is right.
Fine people referred to historic preservationists
and others on both sides of the Confederate history debate
that were focused on historic issues not on white supremacists, nationalists or race.

More information came out later, after the liberal spin in the media was already established as predominant,
that diverse groups of people (some in SUPPORT of PRESERVING HISTORIC STATUES and some OPPOSED who believed such statues should be removed) came out to that protest, including Asian and Black participants from Texas on BOTH sides of the debate.

This fuller explanation and context was conveniently left out in the media hype.

NOTE: So was the REST of Trump's more recent statement where he referred to Omar going BACK to her country of origin,
and FIX THE PROBLEMS IN THOSE PLACES.

In other words, show you can fix the problems before trying to tell other people and govt how to fix them.

Hi Emily, I understand that and am fine with preserving statues. I’m not a supporter of destroying statues... but that’s besides the point. I’ve explained in my last few posts

 

[NotYourBody]

The term "cherokee" here refers to the LOCATION, Cherokee County, not the Cherokee tribe
It's a BAD look. The Cherokee name belongs to Native Americans.

The name "French's mustard" and "French fries" don't "belong" to the French people? Or do they?

Do the Germans have any control over"German measles"?

How about the Thais over people who are "Siamese twins"?

Just because "Cherokee" also applies to a tribe of Indians doesn't mean it can't be used by anyone else.

It doesn't ALSO apply to Native Americans of the Cherokee tribe (not Indians). It is the name if these people.

 

[Slade3200]

Next time time formulating am actual counter argument and explain yourself. That’s how debates work

Next time don't use a stupid example to make your point

Well there you go again, coming up empty on making a substantive argument. Let me help. Why is my example stupid? What is false or wrong about what I said?

WHo here is going to bring a fully automatic machine gun to a football game?

No one that's who

Ergo it was a stupid example

The two guys I was speaking to in this thread both said that they feel we have the constitutional right to do being a machine gun to a school. Do you agree with that?

So no it wasn’t a stupid example it was defining the boundaries of where we draw the line in regulation. So where do you stand?

I don't care if people own machine guns

I have no problem with the owners of any property setting the rules on what is permissible on their property.

That said there is no reason to stop anyone who can legally carry a concealed weapon from doing so anywhere

Well there you ago, another who is fine with anybody taking a machine gun into schools... this is why it’s not a dumb question. It gets right to the heart of the issue and shows how far somebody will go.

To somebody like myself it is obviously dangerous and inappropriate to have guns in schools like that. I just don’t trust my fellow citizens to be cool calm and responsible all the time and I’d prefer to limit, not openly allow mass killing machines around my kids. People are over emotional idiots in general. If they want to carry they better damn well prove that they are knowledgeable in gun safety and show that they are stable/responsible people.

 

[Polishprince]

Next time don't use a stupid example to make your point

Well there you go again, coming up empty on making a substantive argument. Let me help. Why is my example stupid? What is false or wrong about what I said?

WHo here is going to bring a fully automatic machine gun to a football game?

No one that's who

Ergo it was a stupid example

The two guys I was speaking to in this thread both said that they feel we have the constitutional right to do being a machine gun to a school. Do you agree with that?

So no it wasn’t a stupid example it was defining the boundaries of where we draw the line in regulation. So where do you stand?

I don't care if people own machine guns

I have no problem with the owners of any property setting the rules on what is permissible on their property.

That said there is no reason to stop anyone who can legally carry a concealed weapon from doing so anywhere

Well there you ago, another who is fine with anybody taking a machine gun into schools... this is why it’s not a dumb question. It gets right to the heart of the issue and shows how far somebody will go.

To somebody like myself it is obviously dangerous and inappropriate to have guns in schools like that. I just don’t trust my fellow citizens to be cool calm and responsible all the time and I’d prefer to limit, not openly allow mass killing machines around my kids. People are over emotional idiots in general. If they want to carry they better damn well prove that they are knowledgeable in gun safety and show that they are stable/responsible people.

Well, what are you willing to do about it?

Are you ready for all government schools to follow those in Urban areas and have metal detectors and body cavity searches for the students?

 

[OldLady]

My thoughts and prayers go out to the 18 to 21 year old white supremacists in California who, because of a new CA law, must drive to Nevada to buy their semi-automatic rifles.

So much for gun control laws eh? Apparently the park's gun-free zone did absolutely 0 to stop this human excrement. If the park-goers were armed and guns were ubiquitous and open-carry, this little fuck would have been taken down sooner than a few minutes. Don't get me wrong, the cops did a great job but, they are only capable of doing so much in a crowd. If everyone was allowed to carry arms this guy would have been snuffed sooner IMO. In fact, the little piss-pants coward probably would have been too afraid to do what he did.

You have no idea how often a gun free zone prevents gun violence.

In this case, it forced the shooter to sneak into the area making it more likely to be caught & arrested. Otherwise, they could just walk in & nothing could be done until people died.

If he wasn't carrying a rifle he could have just walked in with 4 or 5 handguns concealed on his person and done even more damage

He cut through the fence to avoid the metal detector.

If the organizers of the event had electrified the fence. the perp would have never been able to breach the perimeter.

Sounds like they have some responsibility here too.

An electrified fence? With all the kids there? Are you serious?

 

[Slade3200]

Next time time formulating am actual counter argument and explain yourself. That’s how debates work

Next time don't use a stupid example to make your point

Well there you go again, coming up empty on making a substantive argument. Let me help. Why is my example stupid? What is false or wrong about what I said?

WHo here is going to bring a fully automatic machine gun to a football game?

No one that's who

Ergo it was a stupid example

The two guys I was speaking to in this thread both said that they feel we have the constitutional right to do being a machine gun to a school. Do you agree with that?

So no it wasn’t a stupid example it was defining the boundaries of where we draw the line in regulation. So where do you stand?

Dear Slade3200
Having a local agreement on school policy within a district is LOCAL.
That's different from FEDERAL REGULATIONS trying to ban or regulate guns for everyone across states and the nation.

Why don't you get that these are different?

Schools can decide democratically on their own if students can give invocations or speeches
referencing things that the local admin can approve or disapprove, or the students can vote on.

Why can't you and other liberals understand that's totally DIFFERENT from
judges or Congress in DC "mandating a policy for the entire nation" where nobody has a say otherwise!

By common sense, schools would not allow weapons that disrupt or threaten to breach the peace in
the classroom and school setting.

Why would you think that "federal legislation or regulation" is needed for something simple
like that which just requires common sense school policies, such as not bringing pets to school
unless approved by the teachers or administration. Does that require Congress to pass federal laws?

This is one area that really separates liberals from conservatives.

Just because a local law or state law on safety or on car insurance is democratically
voted on by people on that level,
suddenly the LIBERAL mind makes a huge leap that this means it's okay for
FEDERAL GOVT to mandate such laws FOR THE ENTIRE NATION.

That's not people voting on it or having a say through their local district reps for their own
district or state.

Going through Congress means 400 million people across 50 states are all
competing to be represented, and that's why the Constitution was set up to
LIMIT what duties and decisions authorized to Federal Govt so it DOESN'T
involve individual rights that should be decided democratically on state and local levels.

Like Duh.

Why don't Liberals get this?
There is a HUGE difference between local policies that only affect that district or
a state at most, vs. nationalized policies that attempt to make ONE LAW for the
entire population across all 50 states through a central Congressional vote.

Can you not grasp the difference in representation that different
issues require that are better decided LOCALLY vs. NATIONALLY?

The constitutionalists here don’t think states have the rights to limit or regulate the second amendment.

 

[OldLady]

There are also thousands of incidents of people being shot with their own guns..so it evens out just a bit.

You are absolutely correct. But that doesn’t “even” it out. A person who shoots themselves is an accident (and often times the result of supreme stupidity / irresponsibility). It’s not one-billionth as tragic as people being slaughtered simply because left-wing representatives unconstitutionally prevented their constituents from defending themselves.

Assuming that that was the reason. I would place the blame on the shooter..where it belongs. The first to act in a violent situation always has the advantage. Even if every person is armed...the shooter will still kill several..this guy..was shot in minutes..still he hit 11.

Blaming the left is absurd...I live in a Constitutional carry state....we can carry concealed without a permit. Does everyone carry/ No.Do the majority carry..no. Most of us have a gun around...in the car...in the house....maybe in the backpack. But in a mass shooting scenario....I doubt that the outcome would be anything but tragic.
At best, an armed citizenry would limit the damage..and lead to a quick resolution. But the danger of friendly fire..is there. My point? The political polemic has little to do with the real-life horror of a mass shooting..and that armed or no--people are going to die.

All deaths are tragic..to someone.

Perhaps if the Democrat party would stop demonizing guns (inanimate objects) more people would be comfortable owning, learning to shoot and would carry. We constantly hear how we should wait for law enforcement but, even where cops can get to the perp right away (as with the Garlic Festival) still people had to die and be injured. My contention is that if guns were acceptable for people to open-carry, this little punk would have been put down quickly and efficiently.

Of course it allows for more rapid shooting. It is easy to handle. It is a mass shooters dream, which is why it is the preferred rifle. But did he use an AR? Did I read here that he bought an AK47 out of state? What did he use?

The Ar 15 just happens to be one of the most popular rifle frames in the country

There are over 8 million of them in the hands of civilians and 99.9999% of those civilian will never shoot anyone

And no it does not shoot faster than any other semiautomatic rifle

Are they as easy to spray fire into a crowd of garlic festival goers? AR 15 is a copy of a weapon developed for WAR. It is designed to kill as quickly and easily as possible.

All my rifles but 1 are semiautomatic. I'm more of a hand gun person myself. I don't have as much use for rifles as some do so I only have a few but all of them are in a much larger caliber than an Ar 15.

But why don;t you answer my earlier question to you

What other of your guaranteed rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes?

You are looking at this all wrong. As I read it, and many others do as well, the Second Amendment is for keeping the citizenry ready to call up in case of attack. They did not have a standing army and the Founding Fathers did not want one. Even before the Revolutionary War, the local militias were called up to train on a regular basis. All adult males except the very oldest were required to participate and they needed to bring their own weapon.

We now have the largest standing army in the world. The Second Amendment no longer applies. Since it keeps standing in the way of getting rid of the majority of guns in this country, I say ditch it.

The US military is barred from acting on US soil.

And the second was not conceived for the possibility of an attack by a foreign power. It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.

So what other rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes>\?

How about your 4th or 5t amendment rights? I mean if you're innocent you shouldn't care if the police search your home whenever they want or if they arrest and innterrogste you for hours on end right?

It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.
Maybe they had both reasons on their minds. Considering what they had just been through with the King of England, can you blame them? That is no longer a valid argument either, though, since we would have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting the US military with our personal collections of AR's, AK's and SKS's should a despotic government try to overthrow our democracy.

Interesting how's Vietnam going?

Explain?

 

[pismoe]

Tell me, tard - which of the following is an "assault rifle"?

View attachment 271777

View attachment 271778

Both are effective in slaughtering first graders

Progressive government power, like what you want, has murdered over 100,000,000 people in the last 100 years.

YOUR political ideology is the most violent, vile, and murderous philosophy ever created. Our Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so that we would be able to keep murderous swine, like you, from committing your crimes.

So lets arm crazy people & allow them to roan the streets.

No, we identify the crazy people, give them their due process, then place them where they can't hurt people.

It seems like in this country we only identify the crazy people after they've already shot up a bunch of people. Does that seem effective?

------------------------------------- think it unAmerican and unethical for 'head doktors' to go around labeling people as being Crazy isn't it 'NYBod .

 

[OldLady]

There are also thousands of incidents of people being shot with their own guns..so it evens out just a bit.

You are absolutely correct. But that doesn’t “even” it out. A person who shoots themselves is an accident (and often times the result of supreme stupidity / irresponsibility). It’s not one-billionth as tragic as people being slaughtered simply because left-wing representatives unconstitutionally prevented their constituents from defending themselves.

Assuming that that was the reason. I would place the blame on the shooter..where it belongs. The first to act in a violent situation always has the advantage. Even if every person is armed...the shooter will still kill several..this guy..was shot in minutes..still he hit 11.

Blaming the left is absurd...I live in a Constitutional carry state....we can carry concealed without a permit. Does everyone carry/ No.Do the majority carry..no. Most of us have a gun around...in the car...in the house....maybe in the backpack. But in a mass shooting scenario....I doubt that the outcome would be anything but tragic.
At best, an armed citizenry would limit the damage..and lead to a quick resolution. But the danger of friendly fire..is there. My point? The political polemic has little to do with the real-life horror of a mass shooting..and that armed or no--people are going to die.

All deaths are tragic..to someone.

Perhaps if the Democrat party would stop demonizing guns (inanimate objects) more people would be comfortable owning, learning to shoot and would carry. We constantly hear how we should wait for law enforcement but, even where cops can get to the perp right away (as with the Garlic Festival) still people had to die and be injured. My contention is that if guns were acceptable for people to open-carry, this little punk would have been put down quickly and efficiently.

Of course it allows for more rapid shooting. It is easy to handle. It is a mass shooters dream, which is why it is the preferred rifle. But did he use an AR? Did I read here that he bought an AK47 out of state? What did he use?

The Ar 15 just happens to be one of the most popular rifle frames in the country

There are over 8 million of them in the hands of civilians and 99.9999% of those civilian will never shoot anyone

And no it does not shoot faster than any other semiautomatic rifle

Are they as easy to spray fire into a crowd of garlic festival goers? AR 15 is a copy of a weapon developed for WAR. It is designed to kill as quickly and easily as possible.

All my rifles but 1 are semiautomatic. I'm more of a hand gun person myself. I don't have as much use for rifles as some do so I only have a few but all of them are in a much larger caliber than an Ar 15.

But why don;t you answer my earlier question to you

What other of your guaranteed rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes?

You are looking at this all wrong. As I read it, and many others do as well, the Second Amendment is for keeping the citizenry ready to call up in case of attack. They did not have a standing army and the Founding Fathers did not want one. Even before the Revolutionary War, the local militias were called up to train on a regular basis. All adult males except the very oldest were required to participate and they needed to bring their own weapon.

We now have the largest standing army in the world. The Second Amendment no longer applies. Since it keeps standing in the way of getting rid of the majority of guns in this country, I say ditch it.

The US military is barred from acting on US soil.

And the second was not conceived for the possibility of an attack by a foreign power. It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.

So what other rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes>\?

How about your 4th or 5t amendment rights? I mean if you're innocent you shouldn't care if the police search your home whenever they want or if they arrest and innterrogste you for hours on end right?

It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.
Maybe they had both reasons on their minds. Considering what they had just been through with the King of England, can you blame them? That is no longer a valid argument either, though, since we would have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting the US military with our personal collections of AR's, AK's and SKS's should a despotic government try to overthrow our democracy.

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

 

[Olde Europe]

Nope. But had that 6-year old boy not lived in an unconstitutional shit-hole like California, the people with him would have had a gun on them and prevented the shooting.

But hey, like all leftists, you prefer ideology over reality. And that’s why people die.

Yeah, nobody knows what's really going on, and upon hearing shots everybody brandishes a gun, and the "good guys with a gun" but without much by way of training are killing each other off, not to mention scores of kids and other bystanders because they couldn't hit a garage door from 20 feet away while hearing shots fired in anger.

You are a first rate know-nothing idiot - the NRA propaganda microwaved your brain into a peanut-sized lump of grease.

Oh snowflake....there are thousands and thousands and thousands of instances over the last century of law abiding citizens preventing crimes with their own firearm.

You’re a typical leftist...all raw emotion and devoid of all facts. So you just scream the fairytale emotional scenarios that run through your limited intellect.

Gawd...

2,000 folks, densely packed, take 200 of them "packing heat". None of them ever heard a shot fired in anger, none of them with the extensive training and discipline of professionals, a good bunch of them in all states of inebriation, and then they hear a few rounds shot from ... somewhere. Everyone running around in panic, one out of ten with a gun, lots of others with things in their hands easily confused with guns, no one could pick the shooter out of a line-up, and no one even knows how many shooters there are. You find would-be "good guys with a gun" in all states of mind, from wetting their pants to proving their manliness by "I got him! I got the shooter!", and shooting at everything that moves.

Then the police arrive, all-out carnage still ongoing, putting down everyone with a gun, or moving suspiciously, just to save their own arses from being caught in the multiple lines of crossfire.

If you cannot see that would result in carnage not seen up to now outside war zones, you sure are the dumbest blockhead not named bigrebnc1775. Truly, solving the puzzle how you learned to breathe would be worthy a Nobel Prize.

 

[Slade3200]

Well there you go again, coming up empty on making a substantive argument. Let me help. Why is my example stupid? What is false or wrong about what I said?

WHo here is going to bring a fully automatic machine gun to a football game?

No one that's who

Ergo it was a stupid example

The two guys I was speaking to in this thread both said that they feel we have the constitutional right to do being a machine gun to a school. Do you agree with that?

So no it wasn’t a stupid example it was defining the boundaries of where we draw the line in regulation. So where do you stand?

I don't care if people own machine guns

I have no problem with the owners of any property setting the rules on what is permissible on their property.

That said there is no reason to stop anyone who can legally carry a concealed weapon from doing so anywhere

Well there you ago, another who is fine with anybody taking a machine gun into schools... this is why it’s not a dumb question. It gets right to the heart of the issue and shows how far somebody will go.

To somebody like myself it is obviously dangerous and inappropriate to have guns in schools like that. I just don’t trust my fellow citizens to be cool calm and responsible all the time and I’d prefer to limit, not openly allow mass killing machines around my kids. People are over emotional idiots in general. If they want to carry they better damn well prove that they are knowledgeable in gun safety and show that they are stable/responsible people.

Well, what are you willing to do about it?

Are you ready for all government schools to follow those in Urban areas and have metal detectors and body cavity searches for the students?

I think I schools have the right to make whatever rules and policy that they see fit. Same for counties and states.

 

[pismoe]

You are absolutely correct. But that doesn’t “even” it out. A person who shoots themselves is an accident (and often times the result of supreme stupidity / irresponsibility). It’s not one-billionth as tragic as people being slaughtered simply because left-wing representatives unconstitutionally prevented their constituents from defending themselves.

Assuming that that was the reason. I would place the blame on the shooter..where it belongs. The first to act in a violent situation always has the advantage. Even if every person is armed...the shooter will still kill several..this guy..was shot in minutes..still he hit 11.

Blaming the left is absurd...I live in a Constitutional carry state....we can carry concealed without a permit. Does everyone carry/ No.Do the majority carry..no. Most of us have a gun around...in the car...in the house....maybe in the backpack. But in a mass shooting scenario....I doubt that the outcome would be anything but tragic.
At best, an armed citizenry would limit the damage..and lead to a quick resolution. But the danger of friendly fire..is there. My point? The political polemic has little to do with the real-life horror of a mass shooting..and that armed or no--people are going to die.

All deaths are tragic..to someone.

Perhaps if the Democrat party would stop demonizing guns (inanimate objects) more people would be comfortable owning, learning to shoot and would carry. We constantly hear how we should wait for law enforcement but, even where cops can get to the perp right away (as with the Garlic Festival) still people had to die and be injured. My contention is that if guns were acceptable for people to open-carry, this little punk would have been put down quickly and efficiently.

The Ar 15 just happens to be one of the most popular rifle frames in the country

There are over 8 million of them in the hands of civilians and 99.9999% of those civilian will never shoot anyone

And no it does not shoot faster than any other semiautomatic rifle

All my rifles but 1 are semiautomatic. I'm more of a hand gun person myself. I don't have as much use for rifles as some do so I only have a few but all of them are in a much larger caliber than an Ar 15.

But why don;t you answer my earlier question to you

What other of your guaranteed rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes?

You are looking at this all wrong. As I read it, and many others do as well, the Second Amendment is for keeping the citizenry ready to call up in case of attack. They did not have a standing army and the Founding Fathers did not want one. Even before the Revolutionary War, the local militias were called up to train on a regular basis. All adult males except the very oldest were required to participate and they needed to bring their own weapon.

We now have the largest standing army in the world. The Second Amendment no longer applies. Since it keeps standing in the way of getting rid of the majority of guns in this country, I say ditch it.

The US military is barred from acting on US soil.

And the second was not conceived for the possibility of an attack by a foreign power. It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.

So what other rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes>\?

How about your 4th or 5t amendment rights? I mean if you're innocent you shouldn't care if the police search your home whenever they want or if they arrest and innterrogste you for hours on end right?

It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.
Maybe they had both reasons on their minds. Considering what they had just been through with the King of England, can you blame them? That is no longer a valid argument either, though, since we would have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting the US military with our personal collections of AR's, AK's and SKS's should a despotic government try to overthrow our democracy.

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

 

[iceberg]

Next time don't use a stupid example to make your point

Well there you go again, coming up empty on making a substantive argument. Let me help. Why is my example stupid? What is false or wrong about what I said?

WHo here is going to bring a fully automatic machine gun to a football game?

No one that's who

Ergo it was a stupid example

The two guys I was speaking to in this thread both said that they feel we have the constitutional right to do being a machine gun to a school. Do you agree with that?

So no it wasn’t a stupid example it was defining the boundaries of where we draw the line in regulation. So where do you stand?

I don't care if people own machine guns

I have no problem with the owners of any property setting the rules on what is permissible on their property.

That said there is no reason to stop anyone who can legally carry a concealed weapon from doing so anywhere

Well there you ago, another who is fine with anybody taking a machine gun into schools... this is why it’s not a dumb question. It gets right to the heart of the issue and shows how far somebody will go.

To somebody like myself it is obviously dangerous and inappropriate to have guns in schools like that. I just don’t trust my fellow citizens to be cool calm and responsible all the time and I’d prefer to limit, not openly allow mass killing machines around my kids. People are over emotional idiots in general. If they want to carry they better damn well prove that they are knowledgeable in gun safety and show that they are stable/responsible people.

that isn't what he said, now is it?
he has no problem with people owning machine guns. i would disagree but his opinion, his right.
he has no problem with people who own property setting the rules for what is allowed in on it. this would include schools and the like. if you don't want guns on there you can be a gun free zone. your call has he said.

he said he feels IF YOU ARE LICENSED you should be able to carry a concealed weapon anywhere. while i could think this contradicts his previous statement of letting someone set the rules for their property - he never said a thing about carrying machine guns around schools.

last i checked, a machine gun is NOT a concealed weapon so to link that to a school is you doing it for emotional impact and misconstruing what he did in fact say, twisting it to a loose interpretation you'd not allow someone to do to you. in essence you took what he said and slammed it to an extreme "machine guns in schools" statement OF WHICH HE NEVER SAID was cool. you said it for him then went on a rant about his views you just gave him.

i'd ask why you do that but i'm more afraid you'd tell me.

 

[Vandalshandle]

So much for gun control laws eh? Apparently the park's gun-free zone did absolutely 0 to stop this human excrement. If the park-goers were armed and guns were ubiquitous and open-carry, this little fuck would have been taken down sooner than a few minutes. Don't get me wrong, the cops did a great job but, they are only capable of doing so much in a crowd. If everyone was allowed to carry arms this guy would have been snuffed sooner IMO. In fact, the little piss-pants coward probably would have been too afraid to do what he did.

You have no idea how often a gun free zone prevents gun violence.

In this case, it forced the shooter to sneak into the area making it more likely to be caught & arrested. Otherwise, they could just walk in & nothing could be done until people died.

If he wasn't carrying a rifle he could have just walked in with 4 or 5 handguns concealed on his person and done even more damage

He cut through the fence to avoid the metal detector.

If the organizers of the event had electrified the fence. the perp would have never been able to breach the perimeter.

Sounds like they have some responsibility here too.

An electrified fence? With all the kids there? Are you serious?

Yes, they are serious, and no amount of common sense is going to penetrate this kind of insane thinking. A room full of gun nuts is about as rational as a room full of conspiracy theorists who are totally convinced that the CIA, FBI, LBJ, Cuba, and the mob all conspired together to kill JFK, and got away with it. You would make more profitable use of your time teaching physics to your dog.

 

[Brain357]

Assuming that that was the reason. I would place the blame on the shooter..where it belongs. The first to act in a violent situation always has the advantage. Even if every person is armed...the shooter will still kill several..this guy..was shot in minutes..still he hit 11.

Blaming the left is absurd...I live in a Constitutional carry state....we can carry concealed without a permit. Does everyone carry/ No.Do the majority carry..no. Most of us have a gun around...in the car...in the house....maybe in the backpack. But in a mass shooting scenario....I doubt that the outcome would be anything but tragic.
At best, an armed citizenry would limit the damage..and lead to a quick resolution. But the danger of friendly fire..is there. My point? The political polemic has little to do with the real-life horror of a mass shooting..and that armed or no--people are going to die.

All deaths are tragic..to someone.

Perhaps if the Democrat party would stop demonizing guns (inanimate objects) more people would be comfortable owning, learning to shoot and would carry. We constantly hear how we should wait for law enforcement but, even where cops can get to the perp right away (as with the Garlic Festival) still people had to die and be injured. My contention is that if guns were acceptable for people to open-carry, this little punk would have been put down quickly and efficiently.

You are looking at this all wrong. As I read it, and many others do as well, the Second Amendment is for keeping the citizenry ready to call up in case of attack. They did not have a standing army and the Founding Fathers did not want one. Even before the Revolutionary War, the local militias were called up to train on a regular basis. All adult males except the very oldest were required to participate and they needed to bring their own weapon.

We now have the largest standing army in the world. The Second Amendment no longer applies. Since it keeps standing in the way of getting rid of the majority of guns in this country, I say ditch it.

The US military is barred from acting on US soil.

And the second was not conceived for the possibility of an attack by a foreign power. It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.

So what other rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes>\?

How about your 4th or 5t amendment rights? I mean if you're innocent you shouldn't care if the police search your home whenever they want or if they arrest and innterrogste you for hours on end right?

It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.
Maybe they had both reasons on their minds. Considering what they had just been through with the King of England, can you blame them? That is no longer a valid argument either, though, since we would have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting the US military with our personal collections of AR's, AK's and SKS's should a despotic government try to overthrow our democracy.

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

The 2nd amendment was clearly for defending the country, not self defense. Militias aren’t for self defense. Now that we have the worlds strongest military, the 2nd has no point.

 

[NotYourBody]

So much for gun control laws eh? Apparently the park's gun-free zone did absolutely 0 to stop this human excrement. If the park-goers were armed and guns were ubiquitous and open-carry, this little fuck would have been taken down sooner than a few minutes. Don't get me wrong, the cops did a great job but, they are only capable of doing so much in a crowd. If everyone was allowed to carry arms this guy would have been snuffed sooner IMO. In fact, the little piss-pants coward probably would have been too afraid to do what he did.

You have no idea how often a gun free zone prevents gun violence.

In this case, it forced the shooter to sneak into the area making it more likely to be caught & arrested. Otherwise, they could just walk in & nothing could be done until people died.

If he wasn't carrying a rifle he could have just walked in with 4 or 5 handguns concealed on his person and done even more damage

He cut through the fence to avoid the metal detector.

If the organizers of the event had electrified the fence. the perp would have never been able to breach the perimeter.

Sounds like they have some responsibility here too.

An electrified fence? With all the kids there? Are you serious?

It's how people think when they live in constant fear.

 

[Defiant1]

So much for gun control laws eh? Apparently the park's gun-free zone did absolutely 0 to stop this human excrement. If the park-goers were armed and guns were ubiquitous and open-carry, this little fuck would have been taken down sooner than a few minutes. Don't get me wrong, the cops did a great job but, they are only capable of doing so much in a crowd. If everyone was allowed to carry arms this guy would have been snuffed sooner IMO. In fact, the little piss-pants coward probably would have been too afraid to do what he did.

You have no idea how often a gun free zone prevents gun violence.

In this case, it forced the shooter to sneak into the area making it more likely to be caught & arrested. Otherwise, they could just walk in & nothing could be done until people died.

If he wasn't carrying a rifle he could have just walked in with 4 or 5 handguns concealed on his person and done even more damage

He cut through the fence to avoid the metal detector.

If the organizers of the event had electrified the fence. the perp would have never been able to breach the perimeter.

Sounds like they have some responsibility here too.

An electrified fence? With all the kids there? Are you serious?

They would only have to touch it once to learn their lesson...

 

[OldLady]

Assuming that that was the reason. I would place the blame on the shooter..where it belongs. The first to act in a violent situation always has the advantage. Even if every person is armed...the shooter will still kill several..this guy..was shot in minutes..still he hit 11.

Blaming the left is absurd...I live in a Constitutional carry state....we can carry concealed without a permit. Does everyone carry/ No.Do the majority carry..no. Most of us have a gun around...in the car...in the house....maybe in the backpack. But in a mass shooting scenario....I doubt that the outcome would be anything but tragic.
At best, an armed citizenry would limit the damage..and lead to a quick resolution. But the danger of friendly fire..is there. My point? The political polemic has little to do with the real-life horror of a mass shooting..and that armed or no--people are going to die.

All deaths are tragic..to someone.

Perhaps if the Democrat party would stop demonizing guns (inanimate objects) more people would be comfortable owning, learning to shoot and would carry. We constantly hear how we should wait for law enforcement but, even where cops can get to the perp right away (as with the Garlic Festival) still people had to die and be injured. My contention is that if guns were acceptable for people to open-carry, this little punk would have been put down quickly and efficiently.

You are looking at this all wrong. As I read it, and many others do as well, the Second Amendment is for keeping the citizenry ready to call up in case of attack. They did not have a standing army and the Founding Fathers did not want one. Even before the Revolutionary War, the local militias were called up to train on a regular basis. All adult males except the very oldest were required to participate and they needed to bring their own weapon.

We now have the largest standing army in the world. The Second Amendment no longer applies. Since it keeps standing in the way of getting rid of the majority of guns in this country, I say ditch it.

The US military is barred from acting on US soil.

And the second was not conceived for the possibility of an attack by a foreign power. It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.

So what other rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes>\?

How about your 4th or 5t amendment rights? I mean if you're innocent you shouldn't care if the police search your home whenever they want or if they arrest and innterrogste you for hours on end right?

It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.
Maybe they had both reasons on their minds. Considering what they had just been through with the King of England, can you blame them? That is no longer a valid argument either, though, since we would have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting the US military with our personal collections of AR's, AK's and SKS's should a despotic government try to overthrow our democracy.

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

No, it's not an opinion, Pismoe.
Article 5
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

 

[Slade3200]

Well there you go again, coming up empty on making a substantive argument. Let me help. Why is my example stupid? What is false or wrong about what I said?

WHo here is going to bring a fully automatic machine gun to a football game?

No one that's who

Ergo it was a stupid example

The two guys I was speaking to in this thread both said that they feel we have the constitutional right to do being a machine gun to a school. Do you agree with that?

So no it wasn’t a stupid example it was defining the boundaries of where we draw the line in regulation. So where do you stand?

I don't care if people own machine guns

I have no problem with the owners of any property setting the rules on what is permissible on their property.

That said there is no reason to stop anyone who can legally carry a concealed weapon from doing so anywhere

Well there you ago, another who is fine with anybody taking a machine gun into schools... this is why it’s not a dumb question. It gets right to the heart of the issue and shows how far somebody will go.

To somebody like myself it is obviously dangerous and inappropriate to have guns in schools like that. I just don’t trust my fellow citizens to be cool calm and responsible all the time and I’d prefer to limit, not openly allow mass killing machines around my kids. People are over emotional idiots in general. If they want to carry they better damn well prove that they are knowledgeable in gun safety and show that they are stable/responsible people.

that isn't what he said, now is it?
he has no problem with people owning machine guns. i would disagree but his opinion, his right.
he has no problem with people who own property setting the rules for what is allowed in on it. this would include schools and the like. if you don't want guns on there you can be a gun free zone. your call has he said.

he said he feels IF YOU ARE LICENSED you should be able to carry a concealed weapon anywhere. while i could think this contradicts his previous statement of letting someone set the rules for their property - he never said a thing about carrying machine guns around schools.

last i checked, a machine gun is NOT a concealed weapon so to link that to a school is you doing it for emotional impact and misconstruing what he did in fact say, twisting it to a loose interpretation you'd not allow someone to do to you. in essence you took what he said and slammed it to an extreme "machine guns in schools" statement OF WHICH HE NEVER SAID was cool. you said it for him then went on a rant about his views you just gave him.

i'd ask why you do that but i'm more afraid you'd tell me.

You missed my original question that he was responding to. I was talking to two others yesterday (patriot and bigrebnc) and asked if they supported any citizens ability to walk into a store and buy a machine gun as easy as buying a slurpy and then take it to a high school football game and hold it as they watched. Both posters I was talking to said yes they supported it. Schools and states don’t have the right to infringe on the second amendment. Blues man called it a stupid question and we went from there.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Any minute 2AGuy will be showing up telling us how we don't need any more gun laws and swimming pools are more dangerous.

You and lying filth like you are asked repeatedly how more gun laws will stop this, and like the no-good lying scum you are, you never provide an answer. Why is that my six-legged parasite?

This has been answered multiple times.

Banning assault type rifles would at the least reduce the carnage.

The truth is most of you deplorables are chicken shits.

If you did not have access to such a powerful weapon, would you even consider one of these killings?

We should alsi ban tactical gear.

A rifle can assault someone!??? What do you have video evidence??

a Baseball bat is a bat typically used in Baseball.

Am assault rifle of a rifle typically used in military assaults.

An Asaault type rifle is a rifle that resembles an assault rifle.

A Maga hat is a hat worn by dumbasses.

Tell me, tard - which of the following is an "assault rifle"?

View attachment 271777

View attachment 271778

Typical rightwing sophistry.