School shooting @ Great Mills Md high school today

[DeslotlCL]

I'm glad the shooter was stopped. I just hope nobody dies.

And I really hope liberals will not start calling for guns to be banned again...

I could say im a liberal even if im not an us citizen, but even then, im not calling for guns to be banned, i think the US needs stricter guns control and mental check backgrounds, just like @the_randomizer said in page 3 or 4 i cant even check cuz im getting lazy right now.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I never blamed fate, nor am I against any of those ideas.

I think he quoted the wrong guy

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I could say im a liberal even if im not an us citizen, but even then, im not calling for guns to be banned, i think the us meeds stricter guns control and mental check backgrounds, just like @the_randomizer said in page 3 or 4 i cant even check cuz im getting lazy right now.

Strictly speaking, if you're not a US citizen you most likely ARE liberal by our standards

 

[DeslotlCL]

I think he quoted the wrong guy

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


Strictly speaking, if you're not a US citizen you most likely ARE liberal by our standards

lmao, but still, there are good conservatives, so it all depends on the person and if they have good values and respect for the others.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

lmao, but still, there are good conservatives, so it all depends on the person and if they have good values and respect for the others.

There are no more good conservatives left, if they voted for and supported Donald Trump and allowed for the current political climate. I know I'm going to catch a lot of flack for that, but what used to be conservative is now middle right; the alt-right pulled our entire political spectrum over with it, which now makes it more dangerous to say "the correct answer is somewhere in the middle!" than it previously was

 

[deinonychus71]

But I find it crazy how you don't see why "gun folk" are so passionate about this issue, we all want to fix the issue at hand but "gun folk" don't want to restrict the rights of the many for the acts of the few, in direct response to what you drew you would ban people from writing books because Hitler wrote mein kampf, why punish and make people have done nothing wrong and potentially start something bigger that will be hard if not impossible to turn back from, start holding the law enforcement agents that continue to fail to do what they are supposed to do to enforce and ensure that the laws that are already in place can be enforced properly. So many of these shooters shouldn't have been able to get the guns that they "legally" got. By adding all these "common sense gun laws"(which just don't make sense to many many people so where you get common sense from is beyond me) you just restrict and endager people who have done nothing wrong and when those people lose their lives by the hands of criminals who will always find a way who did you actually save? I just want to know why there is this instant "blame the gun" response when we should really be looking at how this happened eg. Why wasn't the Florida mad man put into the NICS database when they had plenty of chances to do it??? Why wasn't the Sutherland springs shooters name put into the NICS system when it should have been? People say they want "universal background checks" what good is that going to do when our government doesn't keep the database updated like they should be, it's like trying to use the no fly list pre911 to keep new terrorist attacks from happening without adding anyone new to it(don't completely agree with the way the no fly list works either but that's a different subject lol)

Do we all want to fix it though?
Like, what EXACTLY is done beside praying and calling out the fatality?
I'll believe in the "we all want to fix it" when these NRA people will be willing to meet half way. You want to respect the constitution? Fine, you don't need semi-autos for that. You don't need guns that are capable of mass murder.
If you want to push things to a ridiculous degree, why not allowing people to own bombs or nukes? Responsible people would never use them to kill, right? Ah right, cause a centuries old constitution said so.

Being THAT protective of guns for the sake of preserving the manhood of the gun addicts versus potentially saving lifes is indecent.
Also common sense doesn't have to be the one of many, just the one of the most. I can't tell if it's the "most" when it comes to the US, since the NRA voice is loud, but it's certainly not worldwide.

And regarding background checks: If you want to fix things long term, don't incite people for more violence. Instead promote universal knowledge, add some safety nets in life (that'd be health care) and generally make the society more fair.
There is no better way of fighting violence than having a society less divided.

The US applies a systematic brainwashing of its people when it comes to guns, I assure you that for all of us originating from other parts of the world, this is truly insane.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I never blamed fate, nor am I against any of those ideas.

Didn't say you did, but you can't double post. My first sentence was basically me agreeing with you.

 

[DeslotlCL]

There are no more good conservatives left, if they voted for and supported Donald Trump and allowed for the current political climate. I know I'm going to catch a lot of flack for that, but what used to be conservative is now middle right; the alt-right pulled our entire political spectrum over with it, which now makes it more dangerous to say "the correct answer is somewhere in the middle!" than it previously was

Eh, politics dont always represent the true nature of a person. See for example a few ones arround here, certain fox dude is a pretty good person, he shows respect and tolerance, why would something about trump makes me think that one fox guy is the reincarnation of the devil itself?

 

[Jayro]

I expect crisis child actor David Hogg was there too, practicing his anti-gun lines for the cameras.

 

[CallmeBerto]

There are no more good conservatives left, if they voted for and supported Donald Trump and allowed for the current political climate. I know I'm going to catch a lot of flack for that, but what used to be conservative is now middle right; the alt-right pulled our entire political spectrum over with it, which now makes it more dangerous to say "the correct answer is somewhere in the middle!" than it previously was

That is stupid and you know it's stupid. There are plenty of good conservatives who hold his feet to the fire agro Ben Shapiro.

 

[Mark McDonut]

We need a much better mental health system in the U.S. I'm only a somewhat troubled 36 year old and I have a hell of a time navigating it, I can't imagine the stress of parents trying to treat teenagers who don't even want the help while having to navigate the maze of doctors, insurance plans, and finances.

 

[Noctosphere]

Funny, how the US has dozens of school shootings a year and Europe barely has any ;')
You sure gun laws aren't to blame?




Europe is full.
We don't need anymore people here.

a dozen a year?
you must be kidding me right?
by february they had like over 15 shooting in school since the beginning of the year

 

[vinstage]

Ironically those are exactly the efforts the British government undertook in the 1760-70's, along with taxation without representation, that resulted in a war here. And why we have those exact rights guaranteed 1st and 2nd in our Bill of Rights. Not to be enabled to commit crime, but to be enabled to defend oneself against it. Thanks for the reminder.

How many people do you think take advantage of the protection right?
In all honesty there’s nothing to protect yourself against if it’s restricted, unfortunately it’s probably too late for the US to restrict anything.
Gun’s are now a culture.

But I find it crazy how you don't see why "gun folk" are so passionate about this issue, we all want to fix the issue at hand but "gun folk" don't want to restrict the rights of the many for the acts of the few, in direct response to what you drew you would ban people from writing books because Hitler wrote mein kampf, why punish and make people have done nothing wrong and potentially start something bigger that will be hard if not impossible to turn back from, start holding the law enforcement agents that continue to fail to do what they are supposed to do to enforce and ensure that the laws that are already in place can be enforced properly. So many of these shooters shouldn't have been able to get the guns that they "legally" got. By adding all these "common sense gun laws"(which just don't make sense to many many people so where you get common sense from is beyond me) you just restrict and endager people who have done nothing wrong and when those people lose their lives by the hands of criminals who will always find a way who did you actually save? I just want to know why there is this instant "blame the gun" response when we should really be looking at how this happened eg. Why wasn't the Florida mad man put into the NICS database when they had plenty of chances to do it??? Why wasn't the Sutherland springs shooters name put into the NICS system when it should have been? People say they want "universal background checks" what good is that going to do when our government doesn't keep the database updated like they should be, it's like trying to use the no fly list pre911 to keep new terrorist attacks from happening without adding anyone new to it(don't completely agree with the way the no fly list works either but that's a different subject lol)

It’s a similar argument to terrorism (why blame Muslims for the few, however it’s a part of their religion in which they publically take it upon themselves to solve the issues with their own “kind” which is completely unfair and not their fault but different argument) however, it runs risks having rights enabled. Like anything really. The whole pen idea was simply a metaphor and nothing but that. Something I’d probably tell my younger siblings in fact. It’s a dumbed down version of my opinion, like I said, I know it runs deeper I really am not THAT dumb (ouch, if you really do take me for retarded kek). However, I’m not sure what you’d rather, the media reporting shootings in short spans of time as devastating incidents (which they are) yet cannot or will not act upon it, or making a big sacrifice for a greater good. Just my opinion is all.

 

[Hanafuda]

You want to respect the constitution? Fine, you don't need semi-autos for that. You don't need guns that are capable of mass murder.

Why do you think the 2nd Amendment exists? To shoot squirrels and rabbits? The people who wrote and voted for it had recently started, and won, a revolution against their government. The shooting started when soldiers marched on a town with an order to confiscate the peoples' weapons. So the 2nd Amendment exists to ensure there is never a day in this country when the State holds all power over the people. (see, e.g. Chairman Mao, 'all political power flows from the barrel of a gun.')

I'm not arguing the merits of the philosophy, just that if you think depriving the populace of the means of meaningful resistance through force is respecting the Constitution, then you don't understand why the 2nd Amendment is there.

If you want to push things to a ridiculous degree, why not allowing people to own bombs or nukes? Responsible people would never use them to kill, right? Ah right, cause a centuries old constitution said so.

Once again, just to clarify that your suggestion is not uncovered ground. The Supreme Court addressed the argument of whether the 2nd Amendment covers dangerous explosives, artillery pieces and such in US v. Miller, in 1939. It was an appeal of the 1934 National Firearms Act, which didn't 'ban' full-auto and short-barreled long guns, but did place them under a permit/registy system. Defendant in the case was charged with violating the NFA for having a short-barreled shotgun. The Supreme Court ruled that the NFA did not violate the 2nd Amendment, and that the defendant's short-barreled shotgun was not the 'ordinary military equipment' as would be protected by the 2nd Amendment for use in the common defense. This is taken to mean the average infantryman's issue weapon. I find this interesting because one of the common things heard in this debate, such as in your post, is that people "don't need semi-autos" or "don't need military type weapons." But there is already a Supreme Court case that says that is exactly what the government cannot ban.

 

[DinohScene]

a dozen a year?
you must be kidding me right?
by february they had like over 15 shooting in school since the beginning of the year

Dozens.
Plural.

Learn to read.

 

[the_randomizer]

There are no more good conservatives left, if they voted for and supported Donald Trump and allowed for the current political climate. I know I'm going to catch a lot of flack for that, but what used to be conservative is now middle right; the alt-right pulled our entire political spectrum over with it, which now makes it more dangerous to say "the correct answer is somewhere in the middle!" than it previously was

It's sure is nice to be so loved and respected, not to mention generalized for having different political opinions in the US. I should share my political views more often. Heaven forbid people didn't vote for Hillary back in 2016.

Edit: Discussing politics hasn't solved a bloody thing, it's only made me cynical, so yeah, appreciated. I never went around and berated people or generalized people for voting Hillary, so what gives you the right to go all out on those who didn't vote for her?

Both candidates are assclowns


The gist of this thread is "Express your views, er, only if they align with the democratic views!"

Politics can eff off

 

[deinonychus71]

Why do you think the 2nd Amendment exists? To shoot squirrels? The people who wrote and voted for it had recently started, and won, a revolution against their government. The shooting started when soldiers marched on a town with an order to confiscate the peoples' weapons. So the 2nd Amendment exists to ensure there is never a day in this country when the State holds all power over the people. (see, e.g. Chairman Mao, 'all political power flows from the barrel of a gun.')

I'm not arguing the merits of the philosophy, just that if you think depriving the populace of the means of meaningful resistance through force is respecting the Constitution, then you don't understand why the 2nd Amendment is there.

You're right, I don't understand how it is relevant today. And people on the gun side are doing a particularly poor job at demonstrating its relevance as of today.
It's a democracy, the government in place gets elected just like any other democracy in the world (minus all the lobby corruptions...). If you want a revolution, you're basically marching against democracy and something is inherently wrong about the system in general.

Once again, just to clarify that your suggestion is not uncovered ground. The Supreme Court addressed the argument of whether the 2nd Amendment covers dangerous explosives, artillery pieces and such is US v. Miller, in 1939. It was an appeal of the 1934 National Firearms Act, which didn't 'ban' full-auto and short-barreled long guns, but did place them under a permit/registy system. Defendant in the case was charged violating the NFA for having a short-barreled shotgun. The Supreme Court ruled that the NFA did not violate the 2nd Amendment, and that the defendant's short-barreled shotgun was not the 'ordinary military equipment' as would be protected by the 2nd Amendment for use in the common defense. This is taken to mean the average infantryman's issue weapon. I find this interesting because the one of the common things heard, such as in your post, is that people "don't need semi-autos" or "don't need military type weapons." But there is already a Supreme Court case that says that is exactly what the government cannot ban.

And here lies the whole issue. A decision was made, and so in the eyes of some people, it can't be discussed anymore.
Constitutions and decisions aren't set in stone, they change with time as society evolves. Yesterday's decision might no longer be valid tomorrow. It's a democracy and we fight with words (and not guns :-) ) for what we believe should change.

 

[Hanafuda]

democracy.

The United States is a representative republic. Not a democracy.

 

[deinonychus71]

The United States is a representative republic. Not a democracy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...public-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.27e63612e665

And beside, that does not nullify the points.

 

[Noctosphere]

You're right, I don't understand how it is relevant today. And people on the gun side are doing a particularly poor job at demonstrating its relevance as of today.
It's a democracy, the government in place gets elected just like any other democracy in the world (minus all the lobby corruptions...). If you want a revolution, you're basically marching against democracy and something is inherently wrong about the system in general.




And here lies the whole issue. A decision was made, and so in the eyes of some people, it can't be discussed anymore.
Constitutions and decisions aren't set in stone, they change with time as society evolves. Yesterday's decision might no longer be valid tomorrow. It's a democracy and we fight with words (and not guns :-) ) for what we believe should change.

well, here in quebec, few years ago, an ex-mayor got arrested for gangsterism, corruption, and because he rigged election
if that simple mayor managed to rig election for 23 years, what makes you think any country really have democracy

 

[Windaga]

Every time a shooting happens, my phone (both desk and personal) go beserk - parents want to know their kids are safe. I had today off, but the last school shooting prompted a very uncomfortable seminar by the police and our school board district for our students and their parents. One of my kids asked why the Sargeant was crying; the man fought through tears to tell us he lost his nephew three weeks prior in a school shooting. That news filled the entire room with tears.

Something needs to change. Some are pushing for banning assault weapons; some are pushing for stricter background and mental health checks; some are lashing against society and the media, ignoring the firearm angle altogether. We need to stop smashing our heads against each other and figure something out collectively. These kids didn't have to die, and every second we waste throwing smartass comments at each other is another moment we fail to protect our kids.

I'm not saying it's easy, or even possible: this country is built on opposing opinions, after all. But someone is going to have to swallow their pride and try techniques outside of their comfort zone to stop this from happening. I've lost 4 students this past year because their parents are afraid to send their kids to a public/private school. Those are parents that have stopped working to home school their kids. It's absolutely insane.

 

[deinonychus71]

well, here in quebec, few years ago, an ex-mayor got arrested for gangsterism, corruption, and because he rigged election
if that simple mayor managed to rig election for 23 years, what makes you think any country really have democracy

That's why in the US there are many investigations about the past elections.
A president doesn't have all the powers. Even if that one would love to have them all, he doesn't, he can't and he won't. There's always gonna be counter-powers in a democracy.

So yes one corrupt guy can try to rig elections, maybe even succeed, but then it won't be the people only that rise against that guy if they find out, but justice itself.