Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Mass Shooting at Texas Church


No Excuses

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

What is a greater loss of freedom? Not being able to buy as many mass murdering weapons as you want or the apparent alternative which is a metal detector at every retail, restaurant, worship, school, bank etc 

The former obviously. The latter is an individual business decision which is often attacked by NRA cultists for creating gun free zones or intentional soft targets. “Shall not be infringed” is an absolute, but then all of the cultists ignore the fact that the 2nd Am. specifically relates to the 18th century necessity for militias to be involved in the national defense, especially considering that the Founding Fathers specifically opposed a standing army, and considering that the United States in the 1700’s had no industrial means to create the military hardware in the event of a threat to national security.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

You said ANY, there remains many.

 

Just now, Elessar78 said:

I think the biggest loss of freedom is the loss of life. The dead literallly can’t do anything or choose anything.

 

 

 

Contemplating writing my church council about stationing someone at the entrance to just watch. Doesn’t even have to be armed security-just someone watching our backs while everyone is facing forward.

 

 

 

True, which is why we have so many laws forbidding taking most life.

 

A good idea we instituted long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, twa said:

 

You said ANY, there remains many.

 

 

True, which is why we have so many laws forbidding taking most life.

 

A good idea we instituted long ago.

There it is the twabot has just admitted that he’s willing to accept these shootings because the laws agaibst taking life are sufficient for punishing the murderers.

 

As far as the laws and mentally ill, I’m sure the NRA has gutted those and rendered them toothless. All so the gun indistry can protect the rights of gun manufacturers to sell lots and lots of guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twa said:

I hear they don't let you carry guns on planes, they can do that for some reason.

 

wanna guess

My first instinct would be to save lives but then when I consider that you're allowed to own a killing machine that can spray 9 rounds a second into a crowd of thousands, it becomes a puzzlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, twa said:

he was also prohibited since it was a domestic violence conviction.

This has been reported. When he bought the gun, he checked the box that said he had nothing in his background that would prevent him from owning one. So there you go. Nothing we can do about it. Criminals are still going to check the box that says that it's ok to sell them guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

This has been reported. When he bought the gun, he checked the box that said he had nothing in his background that would prevent him from owning one. So there you go. Nothing we can do about it. Criminals are still going to check the box that says that it's ok to sell them guns.

What can you do? Criminals will get guns. I mean, some are so devious that they will go so far as to check a box, and the backround check is so complete that it didn’t catch that he filled out a form incorrectly.

 

Oddly enough that’s the same crime Flynn is accused of, filling out forms incorrectly...must be an epidemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

If somebody invented a gun that could shoot an airplane out of the sky, would it be legal?

Barrett 50 cal. 

Can shoot through 4 ft of concrete. 

One of my coworkers bought this thing for like 4 grand. 

If you could actually hit the plane in a vital spot you'd have no problem bringing it down. 

1610934_423374417824614_371493710124454508_n.jpg

 

10698034_342534489241941_507515129_n.mp4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he wasn't dishonorably discharged.  He was a bad conduct discharge.  It was the result of abusing his spouse, but who knows what level they actually tried him for.  I believe a bad conduct discharge can be for  misdemeanor crime.

 

**EDIT**
Reading more at least attempted assault, which is treated as assault in the military so not a midermeanor, but still not a DD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

You're reading that incorrectly. You have to look at "White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)". So that's 61.3% white folks. Doesn't say anything about male or female though.

missed the initial male portion of the comment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, mistertim said:

Well, there you have it. It's not a guns problem, its a mental health and box checking problem.

 

Unless you're an immigrant or a muslim, then it's a totally different issue.

 

Immigrants and Muslims don't have to worry about boxes. They've got the color of their skin to solve that problem. 

 

Sadly this incident won't impact people's thoughts on guns. It's just going to entrench them further. Sadly, this incident will reinforce the mantra of, "Enforce the laws on the books." While there is some truth to that, solving issues like these are much more nuanced than the conversation after a tragedy. The problem is after a few days of spouting off talking points, the discussion will move to something much more important like tax reform and Hillary's emails. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is there agreement in principle that if a portion of the population- whether its white males committing more apparent random mass shootings or radical islamists committing a disproportionate amount of acts (or via body count, either/or), that we as a society have a responsibility to ask why, and proceed to find a solution?

 

or are we just taking political shots?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You telling me checking the box means they don't check records?

 

1 hour ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

The one that engaged him deserves major props and probably saved lives.

Ya wait around for the police and it would be awhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...