Jake, I agree with just about everything stated but, who isn't allowed to legally possess a firearm? Felons are not normally allowed, maybe others in different states. Our Constitution states no infringement and although I do realize there are folks out there that can't handle the responsibility of possessing a firearm, what is the justification to not allow them to the same rights we all have?
I've seen no reason this 18-year-old shouldn't have been allowed to buy/own a firearm, right up to the point he shot his grandmother. At least nothing has been reported. There may be a history that we're not aware of yet. Please don't take this (in anyway) of supporting this evil person but, I can't see punishing every other 18-year-old for the acts of a few evil doers by taking their right to possess a firearm away. Not that you have suggested that.
From what has been reported, the school had a policy of locked doors while in operation. Obviously, the doors were not secured. According to the TX DPS, there was no security officer present at the school when this occurred. Lots of bad information being spread. I'm sure there will be legal consequences to the school district for not following their own policy but, this all comes down to one very troubled teen who obviously lacked responsible adult supervision at several points in his life. I am interested to learn more about this teenager and hope we all learn something from that knowledge.
Rams
This is exactly my opinion. Infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is exactly what got people in NY killed.
I underlined and highlighted a sentence near the end of your text. This is where our focus should be. This is the cause of the problem. Focusing on guns is only perpetuating the problem.
Patrick would rather insult an entire country than have a civil discussion about the facts.
It's rather difficult to have a "civil discussion" online with someone who apparently can't read. I've said nothing negative about the US anywhere in this thread.
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
I am fed up with leftists...
Oh, here we go. Knew that was coming. Yep, hang a label on someone, then dismiss anything they may have to say.
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
Yeah, I am pissed. If you cannot or will not help, get out of my face.
Good, stay that way. Write a tune about it.
Meanwhile, Todd has compared the US to any number of third world countries (and he's apparently okay with that ), and 2.5 wants me to watch yet another video. Good times in P&R!!!
Instead of claiming you are not being understood, one could try to rephrase, use other sources that people might understand, bring up history, facts, etc.
Most violent crime was declining for decades before the last few years. Guns haven't gotten easier to get. So it's not as simple as just "guns exist." Clearly there is a cultural/systemic issue at play. But that same access to social media, technology, education, mental health, culture, etc. is elsewhere, so it's not as simple as just "it's a culture problem" or "it's a mental health problem."
Here's the thing. We could probably drastically reduce mass shootings, or at least school shootings like this one, by limiting access to guns. That's a fairly simple deduction by looking at other countries. We're way out there. I do believe gun control would help resolve some of what we see...
Now that the Republicans are mad at me, here is where I piss off Democrats...
I don't think it's worth losing our second amendment rights over.
We shouldn't be so willing to give up our right to arm ourselves. I don't think there should be many restrictions on private property at all. Why shouldn't I be able to own a tank, as long as I don't kill someone with it? Obviously, it gets a little hairier when you ramp up to nuclear warheads, so there is a line somewhere, but in general we should not feel comfortable having a ton of rules around what weapons we can and can't own.
Practically? I guess something has to be in place. I am not that opinionated on what that small line should be, I just know I want it to be small.
Instead of claiming you are not being understood, one could try to rephrase, use other sources that people might understand, bring up history, facts, etc.
My opening post was written in plain English. It's the only language I know. If you have a problem understanding anything in particular that I've stated, quote it and ask me about it. I'm not "rephrasing" everything I've posted.
My opening post was written in plain English. It's the only language I know. If you have a problem understanding anything in particular that I've stated, quote it and ask me about it. I'm not "rephrasing" everything I've posted.
I do not, thus my responses, which you did not respond to .
Jake, I agree with just about everything stated but, who isn't allowed to legally possess a firearm? Felons are not normally allowed, maybe others in different states. Our Constitution states no infringement and although I do realize there are folks out there that can't handle the responsibility of possessing a firearm, what is the justification to not allow them to the same rights we all have?
I've seen no reason this 18-year-old shouldn't have been allowed to buy/own a firearm, right up to the point he shot his grandmother. At least nothing has been reported. There may be a history that we're not aware of yet. Please don't take this (in anyway) of supporting this evil person but, I can't see punishing every other 18-year-old for the acts of a few evil doers by taking their right to possess a firearm away. Not that you have suggested that.
From what has been reported, the school had a policy of locked doors while in operation. Obviously, the doors were not secured. According to the TX DPS, there was no security officer present at the school when this occurred. Lots of bad information being spread. I'm sure there will be legal consequences to the school district for not following their own policy but, this all comes down to one very troubled teen who obviously lacked responsible adult supervision at several points in his life. I am interested to learn more about this teenager and hope we all learn something from that knowledge.
Rams
If you've ever purchased a firearm, you're familiar with Form 4473 (the one submitted when performing the background check). The form contains a number of questions you're required to answer, and I'm reasonably certain he lied on one or more of these:
e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside. f. Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? k. Are you an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States?
We also know for certain he wasn't legally in possession of the pistol, you have to be 21 to purchase one.
Also for someone who just turned 18 and purchased the guns, he was highly effective with them, and familiar with their operation, AND had access to $5000 to purchase them. Something doesn't add up...
Originally posted by theBDub: Here's the thing. We could probably drastically reduce mass shootings, or at least school shootings like this one, by limiting access to guns.
Agreed to the point, if there is a threat identified then by all means limit their access to guns. Not by banning guns but by policing and making people responsible. How many times has there been red flags and they have been ignored. Protocols not followed? Absent parents? Biden said they were all his kids, well that includes the broken ones. Perhaps start there.
They need to help these kids, who knows how many of these incidents could have been prevented if someone was just paying attention.
They need to help these kids, who knows how many of these incidents could have been prevented if someone was just paying attention.
This is a step in the right direction. The gun grabbers are going down a dead end, literally. Fewer guns would stop some incidents and facilitate others. It is not the solution.
Well Patrick, while I'll agree you didn't attack America, you are attacking American values. The vast majority of us do value our Constitution and you have attacked our Constitution somewhat indirectly but attack you did. When the 2nd Amendment is attacked, most of us don't appreciate it very much, especially from an outsider. But, it's your opinion and nothing says you can't speak it loud and clear. Just don't be surprised when you get unflattering responses.
I just wanted to check in again, here. I haven't looked at any of what's been said since I checked out, back on Page Two.
Seems like the news media accounts are changing. About the perp, and about his first encounters with local police. Be that as it may, I think, at the end of the day (rhyme intended), I am still drawn to the idea of the Age21 Act, which would make 21 years the minimum age, across all 50 states, for anyone to legally purchase an AR-15 style, semiautomatic rifle.
In Texas, it's only 18. Perhaps there would be some exceptions, as there are in Florida's law, for law enforcement, corrections officers and military who are 18 or older, but not 21. But that's all very hypothetical, in terms of the political realities. Nevertheless, it represents my state of mind about it.
Before I last checked out, back on Page Two, I was chattering about the M14 rifle. But then, just a few minutes ago, it hit me. It's the M16 rifle that is the most singularly emblematic U.S.-issued military rifle of the Vietnam era. (Is it not?) And the verse that I was trying to remember was "The M16 is a marvelous gun..." Not the M14.
So, a correction, issued in the nick of time. Before the error was compounded any further. Whatever was I thinking.
Actually, when I tried to find that verse online, I started by zeroing in on U.S.-issued military rifles of the Vietnam era, and the first one I hit on was the M14.
That's how it happened.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-26-2022).]
Well Patrick, while I'll agree you didn't attack America...
Perhaps a small step in the right direction...
quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
...you are attacking American values.
...and then a stumble.
What are "American values"? I know for a fact that Americans are not one large homogenized population. "American values" will differ from person to person, family to family, income level to income level, etc. There are citizens of your country who are every bit as American as you or Willie or Todd who's values do not include firearms in any way, shape or form.
Okay, back to what I may or may not have done. Ron, help me out here. Did RWDPLZ "attack" your Constitution by posting what he did Here? No? Why not? He was posting rules and regulations... you know, limitations... on who can legally purchase a firearm. Isn't he another sonofabitch, just like that BDub dude?
I'm not going to bother quoting my entire first post from this thread again, but in the relevant part at the end of it, how have I attacked American values? Is it because I agree with the rules and regulations posted by RWDPLZ, and would like to see them enforced?
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
It's well past time to be addressing the elephant in the room... far too easy access to firearms in the US.
No, I'm not suggesting that your gun(s) be taken away... but damn, at least have the rules and regulations tightened up in regards to who can legally purchase them.
Despite never owning a firearm, I'm not against ownership of them, as some here have tried to imply over the years. Heck, I even posted about my experiences at the gun range Here.
Someone please tell me... how have I "attacked" "American values"?
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 05-26-2022).]
My opening post was written in plain English. It's the only language I know. If you have a problem understanding anything in particular that I've stated, quote it and ask me about it. I'm not "rephrasing" everything I've posted.
Your post is predicated on a lie.
You ask: "Why are these school massacres only occurring in the US?"
These massacres do not happen only in the US. I posted plenty of proof of that.
Your libelous contention was intended to disparage my country. This is detestable.
Originally posted by Patrick: Okay, back to what I may or may not have done. Ron, help me out here. Someone please tell me... how have I "attacked" "American values"?
Patrick, My intent was not to attack or insult you. Just gave you my opinion of what you did. I'll only say this, I try to stay away from Canadian policies and values.
OK, I'm not exactly trying to browbeat or even entice anyone to view it. But let me describe it.
First, he goes back to 1934, when Congress made sawed-off shotguns illegal, and made automatic weapons (like the Tommy guns wielded by the likes of the original Machine Gun Kelly) a restricted class of firearms, with special licensing requirements, in terms of how they could be sold to the general public.
Then he recounts the story of what Warren E. Burger, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1969 to 1986, said in 1991—five years after he retired from that office.
The former Chief Justice Burger said (in 1991) that if he were creating the Bill of Rights again, there would not be a Second Amendment.
The venerable MSNBC anchor observes that Burger was nominated by President Nixon to become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1969, and describes Burger as a "life-long Republican."
It includes the video of Burger making that statement.
"Keep it right here, if you appreciate this kind of 'sidebar' commentary."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-26-2022).]
As a culture and as a national community, our values are clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence. They are explicitly defined in the articles within our Constitution of the United States and in the Bill of Rights (which is defined by the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution).
These are literally our values. They are not arbitrary, and they are not defined by the changing wind of politics who whomever is in charge of the media, or whatever the kids think is cool. They are explicit, and they belong to all of us in the United States. Our rights and our values are inalienable, and they cannot be removed simply because someone believes it to be politically expeditious.
bDub, Rinse, Willie, etc... I did read the responses. I'll respond, just caught this in passing and had to respond to this.
At least you are predictable Mr Toad My videos differ,
No, they don't. They are, at base all the same. Parrotting someone else's thoughts and opinions and now, they are even telling you how to arrive at their thought processes.
You've been around PFF long enough to be able to go back into OT Archives and see what you were like when you used your own thought process and life experiences. You were much better informed then, much more interesting and much more articulate. I've womndered more than once, how did you ever function, much less survive in the pre Youtube era.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-26-2022).]
Most violent crime was declining for decades before the last few years. Guns haven't gotten easier to get. So it's not as simple as just "guns exist." Clearly there is a cultural/systemic issue at play. But that same access to social media, technology, education, mental health, culture, etc. is elsewhere, so it's not as simple as just "it's a culture problem" or "it's a mental health problem."
Here's the thing. We could probably drastically reduce mass shootings, or at least school shootings like this one, by limiting access to guns. That's a fairly simple deduction by looking at other countries. We're way out there. I do believe gun control would help resolve some of what we see...
Now that the Republicans are mad at me, here is where I piss off Democrats...
I don't think it's worth losing our second amendment rights over.
We shouldn't be so willing to give up our right to arm ourselves. I don't think there should be many restrictions on private property at all. Why shouldn't I be able to own a tank, as long as I don't kill someone with it? Obviously, it gets a little hairier when you ramp up to nuclear warheads, so there is a line somewhere, but in general we should not feel comfortable having a ton of rules around what weapons we can and can't own.
Practically? I guess something has to be in place. I am not that opinionated on what that small line should be, I just know I want it to be small.
Adam Kinzinger explains to "Morning Joe" why he thinks firearms sales should be restricted to buyers that are at least 21 years of age, and he also discusses... well, you probably don't want to see or hear any of that. The part you might want to see (about firearms) is at the beginning of this 11-minute YouTube video segment. A theoretical possibility that you might want to see it. A possibility that is almost zero—but not quite. Quantum theory forbids that. There's at least a Planck length's possibility that you might want to see it. And that's as close to zero that you could ever be.
This is not true. It has been shown to you already but you don't seem to care.
School shootings, school massacres... whatever these horrible events are called... where exactly are they listed in the links that Willie provided? I'll make this real easy for you. Here are the links. Where are they?
For all the ones clamoring for gun control ... I guess you never heard of 3D printers ....BUT, in a country like Canada (or England, or Australia or...) that still leaves an ammo acquisition problem.
For about $40-$50 bucks in materials, and a weeks print time, anybody can make something that will put 6 broadheads (just as lethal as a bullet) out as fast as the weapon can be pumped. Same as a shotgun. With a laser on it, it is just as accurate as any firearm out to 30 yards or more. You can even make quick-change loaders so they load just as fast as a pistol or a big-scary-looking AR.
Bolts come from Amazon, or just make them too.....
USA has no restrictions on them period, and in Canada the only restriction is they have to be 60cm or longer (no pistols) to stay legal. Throw a buffer tube and brace on it and the condition is met.
So, now how are you gonna regulate something JUST as lethal as that "aaSSAAUUULLLttttt rifle" (and silent to boot) that any kid can cook up in his bedroom on a $250 printer with a $30 roll of filament ? Repeating crossbows are nothing new, they have been around for 1,000 years and kill just as effectively now as they did then. Except now they are lighter, stronger and more powerful thanks to modern materials.
Prohibition and the "War on Drugs" should prove to anybody just how well "laws" and "bans" work. If somebody wants something, they are going to get it (or a very close substitute) one way or another. "Laws" cant stop them from cooking up meth in the kitchen, so how is it going to stop weapons in the bedroom (or dining room table)
Something different is needed. in the 80's we all had guns and bows in our cars and trucks at school and went hunting when we cut class. Nobody and nothing got shot up except a few trees, rabbits and squirrels. The odd deer in season. AND gun control was non-existent. You got an FAC (it was called) which was a basic background check, bought whatever you wanted, took it home from the gun store on the spot, and there WERE no "safe storage" laws. Those didn't come around until the Liberal stupidity in 1996. 70's and 80's the YMCA ran a pellet rifle range in the gym on Saturdays. Pump action Crossmans. Most of us "shooters" were 10-12 and under. I was about 7 when I started going.
Yet there were no mass shooting. The guns haven't changed and responsible gun owners haven't changed. 99.9999999% of gun owners will never go on a shooting spree.
So, you need to find out what DID change (liberalism) between 1982 and 2022.
(Oh, you want "less than lethal" for home defence ?) 1/2" steel ball to the forehead wont kill ya, but it will sure as hell knock you cold and put a nice fracture in your skull doing it.
School shootings, school massacres... whatever these horrible events are called... where exactly are they listed in the links that Willie provided? I'll make this real easy for you. Here are the links. Where are they?
I told you about the largest school shooting in history, in Russia. Even Kamala Harris knows that is a big country in Europe.
I told you about the the killings in Norway where the murderer shot 67 children. He took his time because he was the only one on the whole island with a gun. I was sitting next to a lady who was born and raised in Bergen, as that story unfolded throughout the day.
Randy's post above lists five more.
I am through spoon feeding you. Either open your eyes, or live in the dark. It's your choice.
), and 2.5 wants me to watch 
My videos differ, your response doesnt seem to. 
