Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Vance is correct.  School shootings are a fact of life.

The question is, what will we do about them?

Well, the Republican plan will be to bring in an expert, like Wayne LaPierre.  

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Imagine if what is going on here happened in Iran, for example. 

Iranian politicians running ads with their partner and children all proudly holding automatic weapons. Vigorously defending their gun rights while Iranian children get mowed down in schools by other Iranian students on a consistent basis.

You know exactly what Republicans and MAGA would call the Iranian people. "Animals."

People on the right have completely lost the plot. I don't know what can be done. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

There need to be more mass shootings at evangelical churches and meetings of politicians if anything is going to change. Sad and disgusting but true. They're such cowards that they care less about their and others' children than about themselves. Make them think they are at a reasonable risk of getting killed and they'll start thinking about doing something. 

Their dear leader was nearly assassinated (but they still want their guns)

Posted
22 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Imagine if what is going on here happened in Iran, for example. 

Iranian politicians running ads with their partner and children all proudly holding automatic weapons. Vigorously defending their gun rights while Iranian children get mowed down in schools by other Iranian students on a consistent basis.

You know exactly what Republicans and MAGA would call the Iranian people. "Animals."

People on the right have completely lost the plot. I don't know what can be done. 

 

Well, for one, we could start interpreting the Constitution as originalists and quickly determine that the 2nd amendment doesn't give people the right to bare arms, but rather militias (what constitutes a militia allowed to do so would make a compelling legal question, but I digress).  I'm just fucking certain the current originalists on the court will stay consistent on their originalist beliefs.  

Back in reality, we have to win elections, over and over and over.  We have to force compromise with the gun nuts.  This isn't going to be easy, and it's going to be a very long fight.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Vance is correct.  School shootings are a fact of life.

The question is, what will we do about them?

He should have completed his sentence: “school shootings are a fact of life, about which I am fully committed to doing absolutely nothing.”

Posted
1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

Well, for one, we could start interpreting the Constitution as originalists and quickly determine that the 2nd amendment doesn't give people the right to bare arms, but rather militias (what constitutes a militia allowed to do so would make a compelling legal question, but I digress).  I'm just fucking certain the current originalists on the court will stay consistent on their originalist beliefs.  

Back in reality, we have to win elections, over and over and over.  We have to force compromise with the gun nuts.  This isn't going to be easy, and it's going to be a very long fight.  

Again, this is incorrect. The second amendment as written does not require militia membership to bear arms. That's not how English works or worked then.

The real originalist argument would be that the second amendment guarantees the right to own flintlock pistols and muskets. That's what the founders understood arms to be when the amendment was written.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, BamaATL said:

Well, for one, we could start interpreting the Constitution as originalists and quickly determine that the 2nd amendment doesn't give people the right to bare arms, but rather militias (what constitutes a militia allowed to do so would make a compelling legal question, but I digress).  I'm just fucking certain the current originalists on the court will stay consistent on their originalist beliefs.  

Back in reality, we have to win elections, over and over and over.  We have to force compromise with the gun nuts.  This isn't going to be easy, and it's going to be a very long fight.  

We need a whole lot of black and brown people to start carrying military grade rifles around in public as is their right. It would help if some of the brown men wore turbans. The problem is that these citizens know better and that if they were to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights the way white right-wing gun nuts like to, they’d be likely to wind up getting shot by the police. 

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Vance is correct.  School shootings are a fact of life.

The question is, what will we do about them?

We’ll focus 100% on no longer manufacturing and importing the class of weapons used 2/3s of the time in 3% of annual gun deaths, while others will focus 100% on continuing to manufacture and import the the class of weapons used 2/3s of the time in 3% of annual gun deaths. Both groups will wave their arms furiously and make many mouth noises until we all forget about it, which should be by Monday.

Fuck getting a teenager some help though, right? 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

We’ll focus 100% on no longer manufacturing and importing the class of weapons used 2/3s of the time in 3% of annual gun deaths, while others will focus 100% on continuing to manufacture and import the the class of weapons used 2/3s of the time in 3% of annual gun deaths. Both groups will wave their arms furiously and make many mouth noises until we all forget about it, which should be by Monday.

Fuck getting a teenager some help though, right? 

While I don't align with you on assault weapons, I'm 100% with you on mental health.

The most infuriating thing about this is that time and again it seems we knew the perpetrator was struggling, but did nothing to help out.

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

While I don't align with you on assault weapons, I'm 100% with you on mental health.

The most infuriating thing about this is that time and again it seems we knew the perpetrator was struggling, but did nothing to help out.

I know, it’s almost like there’s a predictable pattern here and we’ve allowed the politics of the issue to focus on a frequent detail of that pattern rather  than opportunities to interrupt the pattern.

To be clear here: there is nothing about the manufacture and importation of AR-15’s that would interrupt the pattern at work in mass shootings. It’s a discourse that consumes a great deal of political capital, saves no lives and prevents nothing. At some point we have to recognize that the function of that discourse is to propel our political dynamic and channel effort away from action. Any benefit or harm it does is incidental.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
Again, this is incorrect. The second amendment as written does not require militia membership to bear arms. That's not how English works or worked then.
The real originalist argument would be that the second amendment guarantees the right to own flintlock pistols and muskets. That's what the founders understood arms to be when the amendment was written.

I disagree as did the framers. they believed well-trained and properly armed citizen militias were vital to defend against “natives, armed factions, and foreign invaders”. They’d even store arms and powder in an armory.

They were reacting to king restrictions against armed militias. Kings were wanting to control regions and allow arms to only the ones they trusted.

Other facts of the day:

>A citizen who refused to serve in a militia would have no gun rights.
>the constitution codifies calling up militias against armed insurrections (dispels the notion that they intended citizen arms to intimidate their politicians)
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Mo Horn said:

FUCK YOU doesn't even come close

He just threw a batting practice fastball.

When gun control comes up in the debate, Kamala should say something like, "You know, my opponent's running mate finally said something that was true.  School shootings are a fact of life.  But they're only a fact of life HERE.  Why is that?  And don't try to pin it on mental illness, because there are mentally ill people in England, and Japan, and Australia, and this doesn't happen there.  No, the 70% of Americans who want assault weapons banned know why it's only 'a fact of life' here.  And I'm going to work to make sure that the majority gets what it wants, the way it's supposed to work in a democracy.  Because unlike my opponents, I care more about this nation's children than I do about money from the NRA."

Edited by TexArcher
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted

I've come to be of the opinion that people clinging to and fetishizing military style weapons has to be the most bizarrely American thing ever.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
10 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:


The “fact of life” quip is drawing headlines. I am almost more disturbed that Vance describes a 14 year old as a “psycho” and implies that he understands the concept of a “soft target.”  This is the same party that pretends that better mental health care is the answer. 

Ya take the good, ya take the bad, but realize we are mad, about the facts of life the facts of life.  When an ar15 is emptied in a school, cause the governors a tool, well its plain to see, drag queens and books are not harming thee,  but someone's got to go pew pew, and imagine they're cool, the facts of life are all about you.  Fuck them kids.  The facts of life are all about YOU. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

I always go back to the stock reaction by the right after Sandy Hook was "Obama better not try to take our guns away". That's when I knew people valued guns over everything else in our society. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, mdmost said:

I always go back to the stock reaction by the right after Sandy Hook was "Obama better not try to take our guns away". That's when I knew people valued guns over everything else in our society. 

The pavlovian conditioning by right-wing propaganda for 20 years worked.  This was the point of the fear-mongering to protect a single industry over the welfare of society.   This is the way.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

If school shootings come up with my right leaning friends, I like to toss in that it appears that the cost of the unfettered 2nd amendment looks to be dead kids. I add that I feel for them sending their kids to schools these days.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Like clockwork


Interestingly, I heard last night that in his writings they found in his room, he was upset about the increased acceptance of trans people among other things.

Seeing his photo and knowing that, as well as hearing about what appears to be two horrific parents, it's an interesting dynamic.

A loving home and supportive family who was willing to get the mental help he needed would have likely prevented this. Instead, his dad gave him a gun.

I'm not going to speculate beyond that.
Posted
32 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Like clockwork
 

Typo in that dumbass's post.  That gives me a real "Trans Am" vibe.  Think of how much better we'd all be had his dad given him a vintage Trans Am and a Dio CD instead of an AR.

 

sgwcd20mwbc61.jpg

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
8 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If school shootings come up with my right leaning friends, I like to toss in that it appears that the cost of the unfettered 2nd amendment looks to be dead kids. I add that I feel for them sending their kids to schools these days.

I always say that if you want an unrestricted 2nd Amendment, it means that you care more about your big dick toys than you do about other people's kids making it home to dinner.  There's no rationalizing that fact away, so just own it.  Guns make you feel so powerful and safe that you're willing to live with the tiny chance that the worst happens to someone you know, and fuck everybody else.

This is an unwell country.  And I'm afraid we're still in the early days of the illness.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Typo in that dumbass's post.  That gives me a real "Trans Am" vibe.  Think of how much better we'd all be had his dad given him a vintage Trans Am and a Dio CD instead of an AR.

 

sgwcd20mwbc61.jpg

 

That ride just looks like it should be barring "Holy Diver" on repeat, sort of as a feature of the vehicle.  

Posted
9 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Vance is correct.  School shootings are a fact of life.

The question is, what will we do about them?

What will we do about them?  We will do what any great politician with a shred of backbone will do.  We'll ignore the bodies and calls for change while accepting special interest money to protect the gun market.

Posted
1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

I always say that if you want an unrestricted 2nd Amendment, it means that you care more about your big dick toys than you do about other people's kids making it home to dinner.  There's no rationalizing that fact away, so just own it.  Guns make you feel so powerful and safe that you're willing to live with the tiny chance that the worst happens to someone you know, and fuck everybody else.

This is an unwell country.  And I'm afraid we're still in the early days of the illness.

These gun nuts are mostly pussies that are terrified of their own shadows.  They are scared, small minded people.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

Don't forget the "argument" that gun nuts and Republicans try to make in these situations. 

If future AR-15 sales were banned, this kid could have "easily" purchased this weapon illegally. This 14 year old boy could have found an illegal arms dealer who would have sold him an AR-15. He could have rode his bike into some sketchy area, and met with an older stranger that would happily sell a weapon of war to an adolescent, for an amount of cash that the kid would obviously be able to afford. These transactions are pleasant and safe, and nothing would stop a child from trying to obtain one. 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
46 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

I always say that if you want an unrestricted 2nd Amendment, it means that you care more about your big dick toys than you do about other people's kids making it home to dinner.  There's no rationalizing that fact away, so just own it.  Guns make you feel so powerful and safe that you're willing to live with the tiny chance that the worst happens to someone you know, and fuck everybody else.

This is an unwell country.  And I'm afraid we're still in the early days of the illness.

I believe something like 70-80% of the country supports putting more restrictions and guardrails in place when it comes to the guns/firearms.  The challenge is that the fringe group of psychos have become the dominant voice being backed by industry and a corrupt lobby which is funded and manipulated by foreign actors whom are gleeful at the thoughts of more mass shootings and political instability.    Unfortunately, our limpdick approach to dealing with foreign agents and their co-conspirators makes this prospect more inviting.   

We need a certification process for defining what is NEWS and what is just propaganda entertainment and we need to hold platforms accountable for the passive spread of disinformation.   Maybe cutting off access to certain regions and/or levying sanctions would be a fucking start.   

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Don't forget the "argument" that gun nuts and Republicans try to make in these situations. 

If future AR-15 sales were banned, this kid could have "easily" purchased this weapon illegally. This 14 year old boy could have found an illegal arms dealer who would have sold him an AR-15. He could have rode his bike into some sketchy area, and met with an older stranger that would happily sell a weapon of war to an adolescent, for an amount of cash that the kid would obviously be able to afford. These transactions are pleasant and safe, and nothing would stop a child from trying to obtain one. 

 

The easy end-a-round to this is to prohibit the sale of ammo for those weapon systems.   Chamber it in .556 or .223 then that ammo is gone.  Chamber it in .308, bye Felicia.  Or restrict the ammo to be purchased by only people over 35 who cannot purchase more than 100 bullets per calendar year.   No fucking amendments about ammo. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Nivek said:

 No fucking amendments about ammo. 

The stupid thing is that there is also no amendment about GUNS.  Only one noun is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.  That noun is "arms."  That is the ONLY noun.

"Arms" (in this context) means "weapons and ammunition; armaments."  That means....everything.  From muskets to ARs to artillery to F-35s to Hellfire missiles to nuclear missiles.  That's the ultra-mega indefensibly stupid thing about the "reasoning" in Bruen.  IF you are to apply the reasoning of Bruen the way that Thomas wrote and plainly intended, then we have NO "historical practice" from back in 1789 of regulating or prohibiting the private ownership of a wing of jet fighters armed with cluster bombs.  Thus, any law purporting to regulate same is unconstitutional.

OR....they could have taken the sane approach, and realized that like any law written in 1789, it has to be interpreted through a lens that allows consideration of how things have changed.  In 1789, you could own a weapon that could fire one shot at a time and then required reloading, allowing a militia unit to engage another unit of combatants.  You could NOT own a weapon that allowed you to fire 30 rounds without reloading, then slap in another mag in 1.5 seconds and do it all over again (as just one example).  You also couldn't own an F-35, or a Hellfire missile because, again, they didn't exist.  The regulation of such "arms" was not contemplated by the 2nd amendment because they didn't exist.  And the balancing thought involved in allowing private ownership of firearms (that is, the risk that having firearms out and among the public) was much, much, MUCH lower in 1789, based on the "arms" tech of the time.

This is all so fucking dumb.  All of it. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The stupid thing is that there is also no amendment about GUNS.

<snip>

 

I agree with your interpretation of the founding fathers' perspective.  Beyond that, I don't think most modern 2A fanatics actually support wholly unfettered rights to possess any weapon imaginable.  Most would argue against the "right" to possess a dirty nuke, but God forbid anyone suggest we draw the line on the other side of high-capacity, high-rate weapons like the AR-15, etc.

Frankly, I am saddened when I see people I know to be thoughtful and intelligent failing to grasp the logic in disallowing such weapons.  It just further hints at the gun cult and how pervasive that attitude is.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Eskimohorn said:


I disagree as did the framers. they believed well-trained and properly armed citizen militias were vital to defend against “natives, armed factions, and foreign invaders”. They’d even store arms and powder in an armory.

They were reacting to king restrictions against armed militias. Kings were wanting to control regions and allow arms to only the ones they trusted.

Other facts of the day:

>A citizen who refused to serve in a militia would have no gun rights.
>the constitution codifies calling up militias against armed insurrections (dispels the notion that they intended citizen arms to intimidate their politicians)

You don't disagree with me on any of that. But the second amendment does not say that you have to be in a militia to bear arms. I've said it before, but it's very clear language even if written differently than we would today. 

Because militias are necessary for freedom, no laws can be made outlawing the right to bear arms.

That's what it says. And that sentence in no way requires militia membership. It's the same as this: 

Because reproduction is necessary for the continuance of society, no law outlawing sexual intercourse can be enacted.

That does not mean you have to be reproducing to have sex. Like I said, that's not how the language works. 

Posted
The stupid thing is that there is also no amendment about GUNS.  Only one noun is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.  That noun is "arms."  That is the ONLY noun.
"Arms" (in this context) means "weapons and ammunition; armaments."  That means....everything.  From muskets to ARs to artillery to F-35s to Hellfire missiles to nuclear missiles.  That's the ultra-mega indefensibly stupid thing about the "reasoning" in Bruen.  IF you are to apply the reasoning of Bruen the way that Thomas wrote and plainly intended, then we have NO "historical practice" from back in 1789 of regulating or prohibiting the private ownership of a wing of jet fighters armed with cluster bombs.  Thus, any law purporting to regulate same is unconstitutional.
OR....they could have taken the sane approach, and realized that like any law written in 1789, it has to be interpreted through a lens that allows consideration of how things have changed.  In 1789, you could own a weapon that could fire one shot at a time and then required reloading, allowing a militia unit to engage another unit of combatants.  You could NOT own a weapon that allowed you to fire 30 rounds without reloading, then slap in another mag in 1.5 seconds and do it all over again (as just one example).  You also couldn't own an F-35, or a Hellfire missile because, again, they didn't exist.  The regulation of such "arms" was not contemplated by the 2nd amendment because they didn't exist.  And the balancing thought involved in allowing private ownership of firearms (that is, the risk that having firearms out and among the public) was much, much, MUCH lower in 1789, based on the "arms" tech of the time.
This is all so fucking dumb.  All of it. 

Fair, but I didn’t want to dive into the weeds of it with a Lobo-like post, and took their silly argument at face value. Plus I don’t want to see gravy seals walking around with Bows, knives, and Swords, which are fucking regulated. Or maybe I do. Lightning bolt, lightning bolt, lightning bolt!
Posted
 
I agree with your interpretation of the founding fathers' perspective.  Beyond that, I don't think most modern 2A fanatics actually support wholly unfettered rights to possess any weapon imaginable.  Most would argue against the "right" to possess a dirty nuke, but God forbid anyone suggest we draw the line on the other side of high-capacity, high-rate weapons like the AR-15, etc.
Frankly, I am saddened when I see people I know to be thoughtful and intelligent failing to grasp the logic in disallowing such weapons.  It just further hints at the gun cult and how pervasive that attitude is.

Which is why I want to hold a gun give away of AR15s outside of Mosques and Black Greeks. It scared the shit out of Tahoes and got the first ban put in place.
Posted
35 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Just have to get over this fact of life.

 

Thank god we don't pay them very well, otherwise everyone would want that job!

  • Rage+1 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
56 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You don't disagree with me on any of that. But the second amendment does not say that you have to be in a militia to bear arms. I've said it before, but it's very clear language even if written differently than we would today. 

Because militias are necessary for freedom, no laws can be made outlawing the right to bear arms.

That's what it says. And that sentence in no way requires militia membership. It's the same as this: 

Because reproduction is necessary for the continuance of society, no law outlawing sexual intercourse can be enacted.

That does not mean you have to be reproducing to have sex. Like I said, that's not how the language works. 

That's not what it says though. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

I don't really disagree with your interpretation of the language using today's grammatical rules, but language then just didn't work the same way it does now. Grammar in colonial America was a mess. And it's very clear from the actual history of firearm regulation in America that nobody interpreted the 2nd Amendment that way.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

The gun is America’s Moloch….

ref Leviticus 18, 20
 

”The sacrifice referred to was of living children consumed in the fires of offering to Moloch”

https://www.nybooks.com/online/2012/12/15/our-moloch/

“Molochism is the one religion that can never be separated from the state. The state itself bows down to Moloch, and protects the sacrifices made to him. So let us celebrate the falling bodies and rising statues as a demonstration of our fealty, our bondage, to the great god Gun.”

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)

Starting from this, written during a time when we were a frontier nation without radios, telephones or the most powerful military in the history of the world:

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.


We have made it to this, just in 2024 and this is just a sampling from this year:

At least four people were killed and nine others were wounded in a shooting at Apalachee High School. A 14 year old male suspect was taken into custody.

A 20 year old man opened fire on former President of the United States Donald Trump during a rally from a nearby rooftop, killing an audience member and wounding Trump and two other audience members. The shooter was killed by Secret Service personnel.

A 42-year-old man from another county randomly shot nine people including two children at the Brooklands Plaza Splash Pad before driving to his home and shooting himself.

Gunfire erupted during a parade at Kansas City Union Station to celebrate the Kansas City Chiefs winning Super Bowl LVIII. At least one person was killed and more than twenty others were injured. Three male suspects were detained, two of whom are juveniles and one of whom was shot.

A 17-year-old male opened fire at Perry High School, killing one student and injuring seven others, including a school administrator, before committing suicide. The principal of the school, who was wounded during the incident, died from his wounds ten days later on January 14.

And on and on and on.   Militias everywhere it seems.  Well regulated.  It's all about securing our free state.  Thoughts and prayers.  Now is not the time.

Edited by Texas Jeff
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

I thought this NY Times comment was remarkably spot on:

Quote
trevorson
Melbourne, Australia23m ago
 

From a distance, and with all the limits of insight that come from being outside the culture, it seems to me from the other side of the world, that 2nd amendment rights are symbolic of a deep and ongoing distrust of the public institutions charged with running the country. The right to bear arms is held by many to be a form of ongoing vigilance against the kinds of perceived complacency that might make the people vulnerable to institutional corruption.
 

It's easy for this thinkingto develop, with some encouragement by parties who might benefit politically and economically, into an obsessive form of anxiety that rationalizes the ownership of military style weapons as just and righteous.
 

Gun cabinets in houses across the US will continue to be stocked with these weapons, accessible by children who are home schooled in this world view, for as long as significant numbers of the culture believe it's their duty to be "standing by", and that gun violence is a solution to an existential problem. Add the burgeoning mental health issues we're seeing in successive generations of young people and we have fertile conditions for these kinds of devastating mass shooting events.
 

The solutions are going to be as complex as the causes, and it's going to require extraordinary leadership to address and reform. I'm interested to see who has the courage to take it on. In the meantime, my thoughts are with the families of those caught quite literally in the crossfire.

 


 

 

  • Like 3
Posted

What kind of fucking moronic piece of shit idiot gives a gun to a 14-year-old kid?

God damn.  Kids using their own shirts to try to stop their teacher's bleeding, and failing.  How does anyone let this keep happening?

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Today Kemp gave the standard politician's answer about guns when he said this is not the time to talk about the politics of guns, yada, yada, yada. Then someone please tell me when the right time to talk about it, because it's never the right time. I wish some reporter would ask, every day, is today the day to talk about guns? Just so fucking frustrating. 

Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Don't forget the "argument" that gun nuts and Republicans try to make in these situations. 

If future AR-15 sales were banned, this kid could have "easily" purchased this weapon illegally. This 14 year old boy could have found an illegal arms dealer who would have sold him an AR-15. He could have rode his bike into some sketchy area, and met with an older stranger that would happily sell a weapon of war to an adolescent, for an amount of cash that the kid would obviously be able to afford. These transactions are pleasant and safe, and nothing would stop a child from trying to obtain one. 

 

Or, the kid could have done what Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did, operating a couple of 9mm semi-automatics and shotguns.

Keep in mind that this was during the period of the 94 assault weapons ban, and the AR-15 wasn't popular or widespread at that time.

 But - they were both understood to be mentally ill and violent by their families and local law enforcement, prior to the Columbine massacre and were nevertheless given access to the firearms they used to carry out the slaughter by adults. Sound familiar?

I don't care about the AR platform. But the AR-15 is involved in something around 2% of all gun deaths and pursuing the fantasy discourse about a ban actively prevents workable reforms that would save lives. It's just not worth the political capital.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Don't forget the "argument" that gun nuts and Republicans try to make in these situations. 

If future AR-15 sales were banned, this kid could have "easily" purchased this weapon illegally. This 14 year old boy could have found an illegal arms dealer who would have sold him an AR-15. He could have rode his bike into some sketchy area, and met with an older stranger that would happily sell a weapon of war to an adolescent, for an amount of cash that the kid would obviously be able to afford. These transactions are pleasant and safe, and nothing would stop a child from trying to obtain one. 

 

What gets me is that, had the Uvalde shooter been forced to find an illegal gun dealer at 18 years old (using Craigslist, I guess?), the gun dealing criminal probably would have said, "hell no, you're immediately going to do something stupid with these guns and bring heat onto me and my business." But the guy behind the counter at the gun store he walked into had no issue whatsoever selling to him.

Edited by aggie08
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Or, the kid could have done what Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did, operating a couple of 9mm semi-automatics and shotguns.

Keep in mind that this was during the period of the 94 assault weapons ban, and the AR-15 wasn't popular or widespread at that time.

 But - they were both understood to be mentally ill and violent by their families and local law enforcement, prior to the Columbine massacre and were nevertheless given access to the firearms they used to carry out the slaughter by adults. Sound familiar?

I don't care about the AR platform. But the AR-15 is involved in something around 2% of all gun deaths and pursuing the fantasy discourse about a ban actively prevents workable reforms that would save lives. It's just not worth the political capital.

Another thing about Harris and Klebold that the media intentionally ignored in the 90s is that they were very obviously Nazis. It’s wild that so much media coverage ended up being about what music they listened to and not about how they were obviously huge fans of Hitler.

Edited by wildcat09
  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...