Gun Violence, Mass Shootings & Gun Reform

[AtticaFlinch]

I think she deserves more than that.

This woman is about to get mythologized. I just read something that said she single-handedly thwarted a would-be burglar from entering her home while her two-year-old kid was in another room.

To resurrect a tired interweb meme, I think we may have found the first person on Earth who makes Chuck Norris wet his pants in fear.

In all seriousness though, Munley just answered that age old question, "what would you do if..." with about the most definitive badass response possible. I'm sad for the 13 people that bum murdered, but think about the number it could have been had Munley not been so quick and resolute in her response.

[JLWM8609]

I think she deserves more than that.

I think it's a given that she'll receive this one at the least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Safety_Officer_Medal_of_Valor

The Presidential Medal of Freedom wouldn't be bad either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom

[AtticaFlinch]

I've got the news on right now too. For about the last hour or two, I've continually heard about how Hasan's actions may have been partially motivated by the stories he heard as a psychiatrist from soldiers he counseled. Apparently, war is hell (and... duh), and that weighed so heavily on his mind he decided to go out and kill people.... He protested killing people by killing people....

What a dipflurf.

I hope they nurse this guy back to perfect health and then resurrect ol' sparky or put a noose around his neck. He doesn't even have a lifetime of oppression to cite as a reason for his actions. He was raised in middle-class America, and the worst thing to happen to him personally was he faced a handful of slurs against his religion. And that makes him go postal?! He counseled some people who had difficulty adjusting to the reality of being a soldier so he murders innocent people?! Did this guy live in a land of make believe before he was assigned to Killeen?

Sorry for my anger, but this asshat's actions are so completely unjustifiable and reprehensible, even his family has disavowed him.

[Amlaham]

10 minutes ago, Ross said:

Spending money on roads is "socialism" and leads straight to communism according to some folks. If you want good roads, you need to build them yourself and quit stealing from the productive members of society

Those people legit baffle me, they're so quick to gas light the "socialism" agenda. Based on their standards, Europe/ Canada/ pretty much all of the western countries would be considered socialist. Also, a little off topic, but the gun topic is what really infuriates me. Those same people complain about crime, yet when something is trying to be done with gun control, they cry second amendment, gas lighting hypocrites. If you follow the law, use your gun responsibly, WHY ON EARTH do you care about having stricter background checks/raising the age limit to buy a gun. The whole point of gun reform is to make sure bad people don't have guns... and they have a problem with that?? Those people are sooo naive and are brainwashed to think that ANY kind of gun control means the government is going to personally knock on their door and confiscate their bazooka, those people are sheep and the gas lighting politicians are their shepherds. 

[august948]

5 hours ago, Amlaham said:

Those people legit baffle me, they're so quick to gas light the "socialism" agenda. Based on their standards, Europe/ Canada/ pretty much all of the western countries would be considered socialist. Also, a little off topic, but the gun topic is what really infuriates me. Those same people complain about crime, yet when something is trying to be done with gun control, they cry second amendment, gas lighting hypocrites. If you follow the law, use your gun responsibly, WHY ON EARTH do you care about having stricter background checks/raising the age limit to buy a gun. The whole point of gun reform is to make sure bad people don't have guns... and they have a problem with that?? Those people are sooo naive and are brainwashed to think that ANY kind of gun control means the government is going to personally knock on their door and confiscate their bazooka, those people are sheep and the gas lighting politicians are their shepherds. 

 

There may be some overlap, but I think you'll find that people who put a high priority on the second amendment are the ones arming themselves against crime rather than moaning about it.  The primary reason you'll find second amendment advocates opposing gun control is the belief that the end goal is abridgement of the second amendment and complete confiscation of all firearms (see Australia et al.)

 

[august948]

17 hours ago, Amlaham said:

So we should just not do anything about the mass/school shootings? And the answer is just to supply everyone with MORE guns? All because we're worried about the "what if" instead of worrying about the crime thats currently going on?

Our founding fathers were worried enough about it to put it in the Bill of Rights, second only to freedom of speech.  Abridging fundamental rights in the hopes of fixing discrete events is myopic at best.

[Amlaham]

3 hours ago, august948 said:

Our founding fathers were worried enough about it to put it in the Bill of Rights, second only to freedom of speech.  Abridging fundamental rights in the hopes of fixing discrete events is myopic at best.

The founding fathers weren't dealing with school/mass shootings and the crime we're dealing with today, it was to prevent the need of the US to have a professional army. It doesn't make sense to compare 1789 issues with 2023 issues. The bill of rights was literally written 234 years ago.... to say that those same issues are prevalent today is very stone-age thinking. Sorry to break it to you but, you're being gas lit by politicians funded by the NRA and other gun lobbyist groups, they have you in the palm of their hand. They could tell you that Washington is going to destroy the constitution and the only way to protect it was to bring your guns and start a war....and you guys would 😂. You previously brought up Australia about how they banned guns, but ironically, you didn't mention how they no longer have mass shootings. Its kind of weird, its like the main issue is altering a 234 year old bill instead of the general public's safety. Worrying about crime but not willing to do anything about, THEN blame the other party. America is very selfish.

[august948]

7 minutes ago, Amlaham said:

The founding fathers weren't dealing with school/mass shootings and the crime we're dealing with today, it was to prevent the need of the US to have a professional army. It doesn't make sense to compare 1789 issues with 2023 issues. The bill of rights was literally written 234 years ago.... to say that those same issues are prevalent today is very stone-age thinking. Sorry to break it to you but, you're being gas lit by politicians funded by the NRA and other gun lobbyist groups, they have you in the palm of their hand. They could tell you that Washington is going to destroy the constitution and the only way to protect it was to bring your guns and start a war....and you guys would 😂. You previously brought up Australia about how they banned guns, but ironically, you didn't mention how they no longer have mass shootings. Its kind of weird, its like the main issue is altering a 234 year old bill instead of the general public's safety. Worrying about crime but not willing to do anything about, THEN blame the other party. America is very selfish.

Uh...no.  The Bill of Rights was ratified by three-fourths of the states on 15 December 1791.  The US Army was founded on 14 June 1775, a bit over 16 years prior. 

While I agree with you that politicians try to gaslight the public all the time, as does the media, it applies to both sides of the aisle.  Careful you don't fall into that trap as well.  It's in the best interests of the wealthy and powerful that the average citizen be disarmed (and silenced).  It should really come as no surprise that our ruling elites try to manipulate us into giving up any chance of opposing their rule.  The Bill of Rights was specifically enacted to prevent the abuses our forefathers suffered at the hands of European tyrants.

To tie it back to the thread topic, I've heard much chatter since 2016 about how Trump is a nazi tyrant and wants to sweep away our democracy in favor of a dictatorship.  If that is truly so, then why would you want to disarm the citizenry?

[Amlaham]

28 minutes ago, august948 said:

Uh...no.  The Bill of Rights was ratified by three-fourths of the states on 15 December 1791.  The US Army was founded on 14 June 1775, a bit over 16 years prior. 

While I agree with you that politicians try to gaslight the public all the time, as does the media, it applies to both sides of the aisle.  Careful you don't fall into that trap as well.  It's in the best interests of the wealthy and powerful that the average citizen be disarmed (and silenced).  It should really come as no surprise that our ruling elites try to manipulate us into giving up any chance of opposing their rule.  The Bill of Rights was specifically enacted to prevent the abuses our forefathers suffered at the hands of European tyrants.

To tie it back to the thread topic, I've heard much chatter since 2016 about how Trump is a nazi tyrant and wants to sweep away our democracy in favor of a dictatorship.  If that is truly so, then why would you want to disarm the citizenry?

So who are these elites and wealthy people that we're going into war with? Jeff Bezos? Why do they want to disarm us? You really think the elites are worried about a bunch of citizens that are fighting and killing themselves? By your logic, they're already winning. 

[august948]

1 hour ago, Amlaham said:

So who are these elites and wealthy people that we're going into war with? Jeff Bezos? Why do they want to disarm us? You really think the elites are worried about a bunch of citizens that are fighting and killing themselves? By your logic, they're already winning. 

It's not the who that matters.  History is replete with examples of those in power doing whatever they can to stay in power.  It's human nature for this to occur, so it's eminently logical to put safeguards in place to prevent it.  What's exceptional about America is not our people, it's the checks and balances of our system that keep the train on the rails.  Start removing those checks and balances in the name of fixing this problem or that problem and you'll end up paving the way for an actual tyrant.

[Ross]

9 hours ago, Amlaham said:

The founding fathers weren't dealing with school/mass shootings and the crime we're dealing with today, it was to prevent the need of the US to have a professional army. It doesn't make sense to compare 1789 issues with 2023 issues. The bill of rights was literally written 234 years ago.... to say that those same issues are prevalent today is very stone-age thinking. Sorry to break it to you but, you're being gas lit by politicians funded by the NRA and other gun lobbyist groups, they have you in the palm of their hand. They could tell you that Washington is going to destroy the constitution and the only way to protect it was to bring your guns and start a war....and you guys would 😂. You previously brought up Australia about how they banned guns, but ironically, you didn't mention how they no longer have mass shootings. Its kind of weird, its like the main issue is altering a 234 year old bill instead of the general public's safety. Worrying about crime but not willing to do anything about, THEN blame the other party. America is very selfish.

For those who see the 2nd Amendment as an impediment to public safety, the only option is to repeal it. That's not going to happen. It's pretty clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right, just like speech, religion, etc. Now, that doesn't mean that well crafted limits can't be imposed, like limiting the purchase of semi-automatic firearms to those over 21, but there will not be any widespread broad bans on firearms.

[mkultra25]

On 5/1/2023 at 10:26 AM, Amlaham said:

The founding fathers weren't dealing with school/mass shootings and the crime we're dealing with today, it was to prevent the need of the US to have a professional army. It doesn't make sense to compare 1789 issues with 2023 issues. The bill of rights was literally written 234 years ago.... to say that those same issues are prevalent today is very stone-age thinking. Sorry to break it to you but, you're being gas lit by politicians funded by the NRA and other gun lobbyist groups, they have you in the palm of their hand. They could tell you that Washington is going to destroy the constitution and the only way to protect it was to bring your guns and start a war....and you guys would 😂. You previously brought up Australia about how they banned guns, but ironically, you didn't mention how they no longer have mass shootings. Its kind of weird, its like the main issue is altering a 234 year old bill instead of the general public's safety. Worrying about crime but not willing to do anything about, THEN blame the other party. America is very selfish.

I would encourage you to check out the liberalgunowners subreddit. It might disabuse you of the notion that everyone that's a 2A defender is a right-wing NRA stooge.

[Amlaham]

On 5/1/2023 at 7:51 PM, Ross said:

For those who see the 2nd Amendment as an impediment to public safety, the only option is to repeal it. That's not going to happen. It's pretty clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right, just like speech, religion, etc. Now, that doesn't mean that well crafted limits can't be imposed, like limiting the purchase of semi-automatic firearms to those over 21, but there will not be any widespread broad bans on firearms.

Thats what I stated in my previous comments, there will never be a complete ban on guns, however, there needs to be some kind of regulation. It seems that whenever someone brings up any kind of gun regulation, gun activist always try to gas light the idea that the other side is trying to completely ban guns, limited any kind of progress to be done. In fact, I'm sure that we've all noticed gun laws have become looser and looser. There was already an AR ban in the US that ended in 2004, that ended and now states have been pushing other pro gun reforms like open carry and not needed to have a permit on hand. Like I suggested before, for law abiding citizens this does nothing, all it does is help criminals freely and openly carry guns :) 

Again, most of us can agree that crime is one of the biggest issues in the US right now, so if laws could be passed to make it harder for criminals and mentally ill citizens from carrying weapons, whats the problem? 

[mattyt36]

On 5/1/2023 at 10:49 AM, august948 said:

To tie it back to the thread topic, I've heard much chatter since 2016 about how Trump is a nazi tyrant and wants to sweep away our democracy in favor of a dictatorship.  If that is truly so, then why would you want to disarm the citizenry?

Do you really have to ask that question?  The right-wing has made it clear by implicitly threatening for years that they'll kill us all if anyone tries to touch their guns ("Come and take it" and "Over my cold, dead body").  Your "armed citizenry" is the army of foot soldiers for the "Nazi tyrant" (your words) who has made it all but crystal clear that if he returns to power he won't be leaving.

[august948]

3 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Do you really have to ask that question?  The right-wing has made it clear by implicitly threatening for years that they'll kill us all if anyone tries to touch their guns ("Come and take it" and "Over my cold, dead body").  Your "armed citizenry" is the army of foot soldiers for the "Nazi tyrant" (your words) who has made it all but crystal clear that if he returns to power he won't be leaving.

I shouldn't have to ask whether or not it's a good idea to abridge the second amendment, but clearly some fall for the media and political hype around it.  And for the fairy tale of nazi's and white supremacists hiding under every bed.  American democracy is a loud and messy thing.  Lot's of sh_t gets said but in the end the system endures.

[august948]

4 hours ago, Amlaham said:

Thats what I stated in my previous comments, there will never be a complete ban on guns, however, there needs to be some kind of regulation. It seems that whenever someone brings up any kind of gun regulation, gun activist always try to gas light the idea that the other side is trying to completely ban guns, limited any kind of progress to be done. In fact, I'm sure that we've all noticed gun laws have become looser and looser. There was already an AR ban in the US that ended in 2004, that ended and now states have been pushing other pro gun reforms like open carry and not needed to have a permit on hand. Like I suggested before, for law abiding citizens this does nothing, all it does is help criminals freely and openly carry guns :) 

Again, most of us can agree that crime is one of the biggest issues in the US right now, so if laws could be passed to make it harder for criminals and mentally ill citizens from carrying weapons, whats the problem? 

Federal law already prohibits convicted criminals and those found to be mentally ill from possessing a firearm.  Are you aware of that, or has that point been glossed over by left-leaning media accounts and political gaslighting?

[Amlaham]

1 hour ago, august948 said:

Federal law already prohibits convicted criminals and those found to be mentally ill from possessing a firearm.  Are you aware of that, or has that point been glossed over by left-leaning media accounts and political gaslighting?

Seems like you have been affecting by the right-leaning media accounts :) Maybe try doing research somewhere other than the media? Like actual research not what some guy mentioned on TV 

 

 

[mollusk]

The actual Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The first part only lost its significance in 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller erased 200 years of jurisprudence.

[august948]

12 minutes ago, Amlaham said:

Seems like you have been affecting by the right-leaning media accounts :) Maybe try doing research somewhere other than the media? Like actual research not what some guy mentioned on TV 

 

 

I'm going to guess you've never purchased a firearm.  The background check requirement is federal, not state.  And, regardless of the background check, it's still illegal for convicted criminals and someone who's been certified as mentally ill to posses one. 

[august948]

7 minutes ago, mollusk said:

The actual Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The first part only lost its significance in 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller erased 200 years of jurisprudence.

And that case happened because DC attempted to really overreach in order to ban handguns.  Very similar in philosophy to how Texas stretched in the recent past in attempts to ban abortions.

[mollusk]

In the past the Supreme Court generally tried to make its rulings as narrow as possible, if it couldn't somehow sidestep the issue.  Things are different now.

[Highrise Tower]

How bad is tonight's mass shooing at the bowling alley and restaurant?

[Naviguessor]

So bad that the republicans will insist that our gun laws are too restrictive and figure out a way to blame the slaughter on anyone else other than themselves or their core constituency. "We need more guns, to stop the gun violence."-type of logic.   The American bloodbath continues.... Disgraceful and sad.  

[Highrise Tower]

Robert Card. Police say the body was found around 7:45 p.m. in Lisbon Falls.