Trump: Deadly Texas Shooting Isn’t A Guns Issue, It’s A Mental Health Problem

[Crixus]

What was he difference between the two?

Was it a semi automatic car?

Smart shift. It gives the illusion of driving an automatic, but you still have to shift gears.

 

[OldLady]

They let the law against some of those semi's expire.

Those particular laws were stupid. They banned some weapons not based on caliber or rate of fire, but on cosmetic features.

However, I fully endorse Democrats taking a radical stand on gun control in the forthcoming election. It should work out well for them.

I know what you're thinking, but I believe you are wrong. If it were actually about the will of the people, fruitcakes would not be able to buy an AR anything at Walmart.

 

[NightFox]

First you explain why the fact that murder is illegal doesn't stop murderers, or take a stab at explaining why the fact heroine is illegal doesn't stop people from selling it and buying it.

All you want to do is take law abiding gun owners and turn them into criminals, while at the same time infringing on their right to self defense.

Nope. I want law abiding people going about their business at school, church, shopping, enjoying a concert to be safe from people with rifles designed to shoot dozens of bullets in one minute.

So a rifle that would hit from 200 yards off ? Maybe something along the lines of an old bolt action rifle ? That’s what got Kennedy. Reagon was hit with a .22 revolver, or here, dude could have just bought an AMC gremlin, waited for noon, pointed it at the front door and hit the gas. Or just made a bomb.

Nothing will stop every maniac. Your argument is old and I'm yawning. There is no need of us having semiautomatic rifles that shoot dozens of bullets per minute. Crazy people can do too much damage in too short a time.

LOL, yeah maybe we should pass a law that psychopaths can only use pump action shotguns (sawed off barrels optional) and semi automatic pistols while performing their "duties", I'm sure that'll make them think twice before going on killing sprees.

Does imposing restrictions on the natural rights of peaceful people pursuant to stopping the violent ones from being violent actually work in the fantasy world that you inhabit?

I'm not fantasizing, but if you care at all about the innocent lives lost in the past month to semiautomatic massacres, you'l listen. These mass shootings in LasVegas and yesterday in Texas were not related to our war against terrorism, but were just plain homegrown crazy people who think they can scratch their itch by grabbing a lethal weapon and opening fire on people they don't even know to feel powerful.

Uh-huh and how does your proposal in any way deal with the "crazy people who think they can scratch their itch by grabbing a lethal weapon" ? I never ceases to amaze me how those that claim to "care" can never muster the intellectual fortitude to look past the symptoms for the root cause while at the same time waving around their pom-poms for government to "solve the problem" by stomping all over everybody's individual rights, the intellectual laziness it takes to behave in that fashion is just stupefying.

Without the weapon, a lot of those people would not be dead today.

So what are you proposing ? a complete ban on weapons?

Do you care?

As a proponent of the non-aggression principle I'm the only one of the two of us that cares, I care about the advancement of non-aggression AND individual liberty, you don't appear to care about either one, since all you want to do is impose restrictions on the individual liberty of peaceful citizens at the point of a government gun.

 

[Crixus]

They let the law against some of those semi's expire.

Those particular laws were stupid. They banned some weapons not based on caliber or rate of fire, but on cosmetic features.

However, I fully endorse Democrats taking a radical stand on gun control in the forthcoming election. It should work out well for them.

I know what you're thinking, but I believe you are wrong. If it were actually about the will of the people, fruitcakes would not be able to buy an AR anything at Walmart.

Again, the Brady act was supposed to fix that. It did not.

 

[Weatherman2020]

“This is a mental health problem at the highest level.”

President Donald Trump responded to the deadliest mass shooting in Texas history by saying the attack was a result of “a mental health problem” and not due to lax gun control laws.

“This isn’t a guns situation,” Trump said, noting that a person in the crowd with a gun shot at the attacker and caused him to flee. “This is a mental health problem at the highest level. It’s a very, very sad event.”

More: Trump: Deadly Texas Shooting Isn’t A Guns Issue, It’s A Mental Health Problem

Actually, it's both a guns issue and a mental health problem - and the NRA is protecting both.

NRA Wants Mentally Ill To Have Gun Rights

TEXAS CHURCH SHOOTER WAS ATHEIST WHO DESPISED CHRISTIANS

Atheism is a mental disease.

Texas church shooter Devin Kelley was an 'outcast' | Daily Mail Online

 

[ColonelAngus]

If it was a gun problem, we would have 300millon mass shootings every day...right?

Somehow, must gun owners are responsible, just like most automobile owners.

 

[OldLady]

Nope. I want law abiding people going about their business at school, church, shopping, enjoying a concert to be safe from people with rifles designed to shoot dozens of bullets in one minute.

So a rifle that would hit from 200 yards off ? Maybe something along the lines of an old bolt action rifle ? That’s what got Kennedy. Reagon was hit with a .22 revolver, or here, dude could have just bought an AMC gremlin, waited for noon, pointed it at the front door and hit the gas. Or just made a bomb.

Nothing will stop every maniac. Your argument is old and I'm yawning. There is no need of us having semiautomatic rifles that shoot dozens of bullets per minute. Crazy people can do too much damage in too short a time.

LOL, yeah maybe we should pass a law that psychopaths can only use pump action shotguns (sawed off barrels optional) and semi automatic pistols while performing their "duties", I'm sure that'll make them think twice before going on killing sprees.

Does imposing restrictions on the natural rights of peaceful people pursuant to stopping the violent ones from being violent actually work in the fantasy world that you inhabit?

I'm not fantasizing, but if you care at all about the innocent lives lost in the past month to semiautomatic massacres, you'l listen. These mass shootings in LasVegas and yesterday in Texas were not related to our war against terrorism, but were just plain homegrown crazy people who think they can scratch their itch by grabbing a lethal weapon and opening fire on people they don't even know to feel powerful.

Uh-huh and how does your proposal in any way deal with the "crazy people who think they can scratch their itch by grabbing a lethal weapon" ? I never ceases to amaze me how those that claim to "care" can never muster the intellectual fortitude to look past the symptoms for the root cause while at the same time waving around their pom-poms for government to "solve the problem" by stomping all over everybody's individual rights, the intellectual laziness it takes to behave in that fashion is just stupefying.

Without the weapon, a lot of those people would not be dead today.

So what are you proposing ? a complete ban on weapons?

Do you care?

As a proponent of the non-aggression principle I'm the only one of the two of us that cares, I care about the advancement of non-aggression AND individual liberty, you don't appear to care about either one, since all you want to do is impose restrictions on the individual liberty of peaceful citizens at the point of a government gun.

Today I am proposing a ban on semiautomatic rifles that shoot dozens of bullets per minute.
I care about individual liberty, but with rights come responsibilities, and sometimes our responsibilities include curbing our rights for the sake of the common good.
You can keep your deer rifle for killing animals, your shotgun for chasing off intruders, your handgun for personal protection on the iffy streets of your hometown. AR anythings are excessive and extreme and do not belong in the hands of civilians.

 

[Kosh]

I read the full statememt and believe President Trump is correct. Mental Health is the issue and let us encourage Trump to woork with LEGISLATIVE bodies on the issue. Someone on a "social media" page wrote something I know to be correct:
DV convictions/findings remove firearm riights.

Yes you far left drones do not want such things as you are the party of NO!

Now can any far left drone point to any law that would have stopped this?

Not far left but I cannot.As I wrote, I do not believe any firearm law will prevent actions these, and it may have been the type of illness thatt masks the symptoms in large part. BPD, PD.

Yes you are far left! Do not pretend you are not!

Having gun control laws with open borders is not smart no matter how the far left wants to spin it.

Criminals do not obey the laws, so making laws that they will not obey will not help matters. It comes to enforcement and penalties. But even then that is not a deterrent. But the far left does not want the police to enforce. So what will be acceptable to the far left?

Law enforcement, properly funded and trained.

No the far left does not want that! They want only the criminals to have guns..

However show where even this would have prevented this shooting!

 

[OldLady]

They let the law against some of those semi's expire.

Those particular laws were stupid. They banned some weapons not based on caliber or rate of fire, but on cosmetic features.

However, I fully endorse Democrats taking a radical stand on gun control in the forthcoming election. It should work out well for them.

I know what you're thinking, but I believe you are wrong. If it were actually about the will of the people, fruitcakes would not be able to buy an AR anything at Walmart.

Again, the Brady act was supposed to fix that. It did not.

I believe I already said the legislature hasn't done anything of use, yet. It is past time they did.

 

[Weatherman2020]

So a rifle that would hit from 200 yards off ? Maybe something along the lines of an old bolt action rifle ? That’s what got Kennedy. Reagon was hit with a .22 revolver, or here, dude could have just bought an AMC gremlin, waited for noon, pointed it at the front door and hit the gas. Or just made a bomb.

Nothing will stop every maniac. Your argument is old and I'm yawning. There is no need of us having semiautomatic rifles that shoot dozens of bullets per minute. Crazy people can do too much damage in too short a time.

LOL, yeah maybe we should pass a law that psychopaths can only use pump action shotguns (sawed off barrels optional) and semi automatic pistols while performing their "duties", I'm sure that'll make them think twice before going on killing sprees.

Does imposing restrictions on the natural rights of peaceful people pursuant to stopping the violent ones from being violent actually work in the fantasy world that you inhabit?

I'm not fantasizing, but if you care at all about the innocent lives lost in the past month to semiautomatic massacres, you'l listen. These mass shootings in LasVegas and yesterday in Texas were not related to our war against terrorism, but were just plain homegrown crazy people who think they can scratch their itch by grabbing a lethal weapon and opening fire on people they don't even know to feel powerful.

Uh-huh and how does your proposal in any way deal with the "crazy people who think they can scratch their itch by grabbing a lethal weapon" ? I never ceases to amaze me how those that claim to "care" can never muster the intellectual fortitude to look past the symptoms for the root cause while at the same time waving around their pom-poms for government to "solve the problem" by stomping all over everybody's individual rights, the intellectual laziness it takes to behave in that fashion is just stupefying.

Without the weapon, a lot of those people would not be dead today.

So what are you proposing ? a complete ban on weapons?

Do you care?

As a proponent of the non-aggression principle I'm the only one of the two of us that cares, I care about the advancement of non-aggression AND individual liberty, you don't appear to care about either one, since all you want to do is impose restrictions on the individual liberty of peaceful citizens at the point of a government gun.

Today I am proposing a ban on semiautomatic rifles that shoot dozens of bullets per minute.
I care about individual liberty, but with rights come responsibilities, and sometimes our responsibilities include curbing our rights for the sake of the common good.
You can keep your deer rifle for killing animals, your shotgun for chasing off intruders, your handgun for personal protection on the iffy streets of your hometown. AR anythings are excessive and extreme and do not belong in the hands of civilians.

Today I am proposing a ban that no Muslim or Atheist can own a gun.

 

[Peach]

I read the full statememt and believe President Trump is correct. Mental Health is the issue and let us encourage Trump to woork with LEGISLATIVE bodies on the issue. Someone on a "social media" page wrote something I know to be correct:
DV convictions/findings remove firearm riights.

Yes you far left drones do not want such things as you are the party of NO!

Now can any far left drone point to any law that would have stopped this?

Not far left but I cannot.As I wrote, I do not believe any firearm law will prevent actions these, and it may have been the type of illness thatt masks the symptoms in large part. BPD, PD.

Yes you are far left! Do not pretend you are not!

Having gun control laws with open borders is not smart no matter how the far left wants to spin it.

Criminals do not obey the laws, so making laws that they will not obey will not help matters. It comes to enforcement and penalties. But even then that is not a deterrent. But the far left does not want the police to enforce. So what will be acceptable to the far left?

Law enforcement, properly funded and trained.

No the far left does not want that! They want only the criminals to have guns..

However show where even this would have prevented this shooting!

When I learned the Sheriff's Department released the fact the kiiler's former in laws attended church there, it struck that one out.

 

[Kosh]

Yes you far left drones do not want such things as you are the party of NO!

Now can any far left drone point to any law that would have stopped this?

Not far left but I cannot.As I wrote, I do not believe any firearm law will prevent actions these, and it may have been the type of illness thatt masks the symptoms in large part. BPD, PD.

Yes you are far left! Do not pretend you are not!

Having gun control laws with open borders is not smart no matter how the far left wants to spin it.

Criminals do not obey the laws, so making laws that they will not obey will not help matters. It comes to enforcement and penalties. But even then that is not a deterrent. But the far left does not want the police to enforce. So what will be acceptable to the far left?

Law enforcement, properly funded and trained.

No the far left does not want that! They want only the criminals to have guns..

However show where even this would have prevented this shooting!

When I learned the Sheriff's Department released the fact the kiiler's former in laws attended church there, it struck that one out.

So you see nothing short of confiscation and eliminating the 2nd amendment will make the far left happy!

So let us stop pretending that the far left wants anything else.

As no new law or existing law could have stopped this!

 

[Brain357]

So a rifle that would hit from 200 yards off ? Maybe something along the lines of an old bolt action rifle ? That’s what got Kennedy. Reagon was hit with a .22 revolver, or here, dude could have just bought an AMC gremlin, waited for noon, pointed it at the front door and hit the gas. Or just made a bomb.

Nothing will stop every maniac. Your argument is old and I'm yawning. There is no need of us having semiautomatic rifles that shoot dozens of bullets per minute. Crazy people can do too much damage in too short a time.

LOL, yeah maybe we should pass a law that psychopaths can only use pump action shotguns (sawed off barrels optional) and semi automatic pistols while performing their "duties", I'm sure that'll make them think twice before going on killing sprees.

Does imposing restrictions on the natural rights of peaceful people pursuant to stopping the violent ones from being violent actually work in the fantasy world that you inhabit?

I'm not fantasizing, but if you care at all about the innocent lives lost in the past month to semiautomatic massacres, you'l listen. These mass shootings in LasVegas and yesterday in Texas were not related to our war against terrorism, but were just plain homegrown crazy people who think they can scratch their itch by grabbing a lethal weapon and opening fire on people they don't even know to feel powerful.

Uh-huh and how does your proposal in any way deal with the "crazy people who think they can scratch their itch by grabbing a lethal weapon" ? I never ceases to amaze me how those that claim to "care" can never muster the intellectual fortitude to look past the symptoms for the root cause while at the same time waving around their pom-poms for government to "solve the problem" by stomping all over everybody's individual rights, the intellectual laziness it takes to behave in that fashion is just stupefying.

Without the weapon, a lot of those people would not be dead today.

So what are you proposing ? a complete ban on weapons?

Do you care?

As a proponent of the non-aggression principle I'm the only one of the two of us that cares, I care about the advancement of non-aggression AND individual liberty, you don't appear to care about either one, since all you want to do is impose restrictions on the individual liberty of peaceful citizens at the point of a government gun.

Today I am proposing a ban on semiautomatic rifles that shoot dozens of bullets per minute.
I care about individual liberty, but with rights come responsibilities, and sometimes our responsibilities include curbing our rights for the sake of the common good.
You can keep your deer rifle for killing animals, your shotgun for chasing off intruders, your handgun for personal protection on the iffy streets of your hometown. AR anythings are excessive and extreme and do not belong in the hands of civilians.

If only we had kept the magazine limits and assault weapons ban. After years of gun owners telling us it doesn't matter we are really seeing how fast lots of people can and are killed with these things. They are arming the crazies.

 

[Peach]

And some blame ANTIFA, the evidence is arriving, may have been PERSONAL, not in any way y political

 

[Brain357]

Not far left but I cannot.As I wrote, I do not believe any firearm law will prevent actions these, and it may have been the type of illness thatt masks the symptoms in large part. BPD, PD.

Yes you are far left! Do not pretend you are not!

Having gun control laws with open borders is not smart no matter how the far left wants to spin it.

Criminals do not obey the laws, so making laws that they will not obey will not help matters. It comes to enforcement and penalties. But even then that is not a deterrent. But the far left does not want the police to enforce. So what will be acceptable to the far left?

Law enforcement, properly funded and trained.

No the far left does not want that! They want only the criminals to have guns..

However show where even this would have prevented this shooting!

When I learned the Sheriff's Department released the fact the kiiler's former in laws attended church there, it struck that one out.

So you see nothing short of confiscation and eliminating the 2nd amendment will make the far left happy!

So let us stop pretending that the far left wants anything else.

As no new law or existing law could have stopped this!

Only mass killers need these weapons for mass killing. Why make it easy to legally buy them?

 

[Kosh]

Yes you are far left! Do not pretend you are not!

Having gun control laws with open borders is not smart no matter how the far left wants to spin it.

Criminals do not obey the laws, so making laws that they will not obey will not help matters. It comes to enforcement and penalties. But even then that is not a deterrent. But the far left does not want the police to enforce. So what will be acceptable to the far left?

Law enforcement, properly funded and trained.

No the far left does not want that! They want only the criminals to have guns..

However show where even this would have prevented this shooting!

When I learned the Sheriff's Department released the fact the kiiler's former in laws attended church there, it struck that one out.

So you see nothing short of confiscation and eliminating the 2nd amendment will make the far left happy!

So let us stop pretending that the far left wants anything else.

As no new law or existing law could have stopped this!

Only mass killers need these weapons for mass killing. Why make it easy to legally buy them?

Show how it is easy for them to buy? Show what law would fix this?

Show how having an open border will stop such acts?

 

[Brain357]

Law enforcement, properly funded and trained.

No the far left does not want that! They want only the criminals to have guns..

However show where even this would have prevented this shooting!

When I learned the Sheriff's Department released the fact the kiiler's former in laws attended church there, it struck that one out.

So you see nothing short of confiscation and eliminating the 2nd amendment will make the far left happy!

So let us stop pretending that the far left wants anything else.

As no new law or existing law could have stopped this!

Only mass killers need these weapons for mass killing. Why make it easy to legally buy them?

Show how it is easy for them to buy? Show what law would fix this?

Show how having an open border will stop such acts?

Go to any gun store and buy them. Very easy.
What does the border have to do with it?

 

[Brain357]

Machine guns are heavily regulated because they can kill lots of people really fast. Obviously the same can be said about semi-autos with high capacity magazines. They should also be heavily regulated.

 

[Kosh]

No the far left does not want that! They want only the criminals to have guns..

However show where even this would have prevented this shooting!

When I learned the Sheriff's Department released the fact the kiiler's former in laws attended church there, it struck that one out.

So you see nothing short of confiscation and eliminating the 2nd amendment will make the far left happy!

So let us stop pretending that the far left wants anything else.

As no new law or existing law could have stopped this!

Only mass killers need these weapons for mass killing. Why make it easy to legally buy them?

Show how it is easy for them to buy? Show what law would fix this?

Show how having an open border will stop such acts?

Go to any gun store and buy them. Very easy.
What does the border have to do with it?

See how the far left can not defend their religious narratives?

They can not defend their stance, just run the same old debunked religious narratives..

So you got anything that would prevent this? or will you continue run the debunked far left narrative?

Must have missed this man was dishonorable discharged which means he can not buy..

Another far left drone post fail!

 

[Kosh]

Machine guns are heavily regulated because they can kill lots of people really fast. Obviously the same can be said about semi-autos with high capacity magazines. They should also be heavily regulated.

Look at Chicago gun laws and how many people are killed, then you would not make such horrid analogies!