Multiple people shot at church in Sutherland Springs

People lying about their criminal history wouldn't matter if the correct information was in the system. Other than that, I agree, heads need to roll in the Air Force over this because in many ways they are responsible for this.

 

BTW, when we talk about this incident, we should keep in mind, that we had the equivalent of 25 of these incidents in Chicago just last year, and have already had the equivalent of 21 of these events this year yet we never seem to talk about it all that much. Do those lives matter less because they way they died doesn't push the right narrative?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/07/florida-school-lets-parents-buy-bulletproof-panels-for-students-to-put-in-backpack

Florida Christian School in Miami put a few order forms on its website to make school supply shopping easier. Parents can purchase their children T-shirts bearing the school’s logo or some snugly winter wear. Or, for $120, they can buy them bullet-resistant panels designed to slip into their backpacks in case of a school shooting.

 

It would be cool if it also had a dry-erase surface.

 

Texas A.G.: Churches should consider armed worshipers or private security

WWJD?

 

How many people died of cancer last year? Do their lives matter any less?

 

Take your "sensible gun control" and shove it up your a$$.You have ZERO right to decide what I can and can't use to defend myself or my family. You and the rest of the "sensible gun control" crowd (a.k.a., the gun grabbing crowd) have NO IDEA what you're talking about when it comes to firearms. You don't understand how they work. You don't understand any of the terminology involved or the mechanics of their operation. You don't understand how they're supposed to be used. You don't understand the dynamics of UOF situations. Almost invariably, you also don't understand current laws relating to firearms or their ownership/purchase. You people LITERALLY don't understand what you're talking about when you weigh in on these things.

The most basic right of all is the right of self defense. The Founders talked about this in the Federalist Papers, nos. 10 and 54 (Madison) and no. 28 (Hamilton), among others. Hamilton termed the right of self defense as "original", meaning that it precedes the creation and authority of the government. That means that men have ZERO right to take it away from anyone else.

What these mass shootings invariably highlight is that the cops - the government - are never going to get there in time to save you. They'll get there after the damage is done to clean up the mess, and they'll put the bad guy down if he's still breathing or get to work on catching him. But you're on your own as far as defending yourself.

And if some a$$hole walks into the building you're in, or your home, and starts shooting the place up with an AR15 or other "assault style weapon" (another fiction dreamed up by ignorant people such as yourself), you expect me to fight back with nothing more than a pistol? Screw you, I'm going to use the best weapon I can get my hands on, which will be a semi-automatic long gun like an AR15 if I can help it. Why? Because it has a light and an optic, I have a great deal of both civilian and military training with it, and I will drop the bad guy lickety split with it in a dynamic situation, whereas with a pistol my odds of winning a fight are very low against a long gun-equipped attacker. I'll use a pistol if it's all I have (CCW), but I'll get a long gun if I can. Dynamic situations like gun fights are extremely stressful, and directing your fire accurately is extremely difficult when your heart's racing, you're moving, the other guy is moving, and he's shooting back at you. That's why cops often have to unload entire mags on bad guys to get them - shooting with a pistol is hard.

If you are REALLY interested in addressing the mass shooting issue, you'll be open to talking about how to identify likely shooters and keeping firearms out of their hands. But you don't do that, you go straight to "let's ban them from everyone!", or "let's neuter the mags!". Well, that's a nonstarter, and nothing will ever get done if that's your starting place. We can talk about a way to prevent crazy people from getting them, but as soon as you decide to start going after the constitutionally protected rights of law abiding citizens, you shut down all conversation. I've got nothing constructive to say to any a$$hole who wants to take my mags or rifles away.

So start over, or STFU, because you're not taking any of my stuff.

 

Heh.

I thought freeman was still looking for WMD's in Iraq.

 

Does everyone have a right to a rocket launcher or a tank, because "self defense"? No. The fundamental right to self defense is not being questioned, but everyone acknowledges there are limits to what should count as a valid weapon for self-defense. In particular, many weapons that are useful in a military context are not considered appropriate for civilian use because of the danger they pose to the public at large when they fall in the wrong hands. Deciding which weapons fall in that category is what is being debated, in addition to other things like more effective background checks.

 

treeman does. His paranoia knows no limit.

 

Guess what bud.

No matter how well you can perform a speed reload or clear out a double feed, a parent who had to bury their child 6 feet under because of gun violence has a better understanding of the impact of having 300 million firearms circulating amongst our streets than you do.

 

I get it.

As a guy who owns about 30 (8 that get actually used b/t 3 members of the family for hunting) guns, I totally understand that gun control, realistic or not, will never happen in the USofA in my lifetime.

I'll always be ok. Yall can live in the world you made. I find it incredibly depressing that people feel the need to carry a gun to feel safe.

 

Example of the Arrogance of the Democratic Party

Rocket River

 

QUESTION: Should Bill Gates be allowed to buy a battleship?
He has enough money to do . . . but should he be allowed too?

Rocket River

 

Take your meds crazy ass. Maybe you should be entitled to defend yourself with a rocket launcher as well huh? Or do you want to use it as your alternate oversized dildo.


Edit: durvasa beat me to the analogy, which isn't surprising given that it's a common sense argument.

 

Cant you just make private sales and gun show sales without doing all the bureaucracy a crime? Yes some people will still do it but I don't see why it should defeat a universal licensing requirement.

 

I'm beginning to understand why some of these microdicks are so opposed to mental health checks as a prerequisite to gun ownership.

 

Holy ****!?! People are talking to treeman again? He used to be reasonable and sharp, but he lost his ******* mind a long time ago.

 

Why settle for just a mere cruiser/destroyer ( there are no more battleships). With around $90 billion, he can get real creative. Using about 1/2 of his net worth, he can buy & arm 500 M1A1 Abram tanks + 50ish Patriot Pac-3 surface to air missile launchers & 500ish missiles & all the necessary radar systems + 30 Ah-64E Apache attack helicopters + 50 F-16V fighter jets. He can use the other 1/2 of his $90 billion to staff & maintain his army...... he might as well just team up with Jeff Bezos and double the army.