Massive Casualty Response - Minnesota Church shooting

[CaughtInThe]

Those are only the symptoms of gun related deaths. The facts are clear. America is very much crazy. The solution is simple.

Open Carry ! Some nut job needs to be stopped by a bullet from time to time.

You just proved my list.

 

[PopMartian]

The Shooter in MN had Serious Mental Issues

We know he/she was in a crisis due to environmental reasons. Reality had become blurred. IMO, this was a crime against authority.

 

[braindrain]

Of course it matters.

There are millions of people who don’t I tend to cause damage with their cars. There are millions who never will, even accidentally.

There are zero people who shoot guns hoping no holes get put into anything. Except on comparatively exceedingly rare instances such as a salute.

The horror of putting holes in paper targets.

And you do realize that people doing salutes with a rifle are using blanks right?


You are embarrassing yourself here.

 

[braindrain]

So silly…


Pro-choice, eh? Noted.



That IS its function, period.



Everything about a car’s design except for sheet looks is intended to *precent* harming anyone.

So is every law and restriction around using a car.



Is that the intention? Is everything about a car’s design intended to most effectively put holes in things?

Yes your argument is silly.
So are drill bits evil as well. After ash their only purpose is putting holes in things as well.

So tell me do you think the did you eat involves no killing. You can’t be that naive.

Again there is nothing inherently wrong with with putting holes in things. Period.

Care to try again in English.

Automobile deaths could be greatly reduced by lowering speed limits. Yet I never see you demanding that happen. I wonder why.

Again with the stupid holes in things bit. Do you honestly think that is some winning argument lol.

 

[eohrnberger]

I am

I am not.

I am including the RW smear propaganda media. Something you excluded.

I am excluding it because I don't consume any RW wing smear propaganda media.

The Dems, Libs and Progs see anything which doesn't align to their demanded LW smear propaganda media take it as RW wing smear propaganda media, and demand its censorship, suppression, and marginalization.

Partisans do that. That is why they are partisan.
Which makes neither side partisan any better than the other

It should matter not what sex the shooter was. It changes nothing.

The point isn't the shooters mental illness, enabled by leftist ideologically infected institutions, the point was the politically driven decisions as to the content of that reportage.
Do please try to focus and pay attention.

Men by a large margin. Commit the most crimes.

 

[rahl]

“Ended the threat”?

Yes

Do those dead kids know the threat was ended?

This is a retarded question.

Meanwhile, a good guy with a gun ended the threat. The cops, the ones charged with actually ending the threat, were ******s and didn’t even attempt to end it.

 

[rahl]

You should tell it to my avatar.

Ok. Very rarely.

And since "one is too many" these days maybe that should apply to children being gunned down with their backpacks at school.

It’s an extremely rare occurrence.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Ok. Very rarely.

Did that make the dead people in my avatar feel better?

How about their families?

 

[rahl]

Did that make the dead people in my avatar feel better?

Why do you ask such stupid questions?

How about their families?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Why do you ask such stupid questions?

You're the one showing you care not for the kids/adults gunned down in schools.

That's not stupid. There's a different word for it.

 

[Mika-El]

That the left has committed atrocities against the American people does not make it okay. It merely means that we need to keep blocking all new gun laws until the left pays us reparations.

Your accusation that leftists made atrocities against the American people without specifics as to what atrocities you refer to is meaningless. I have never on this forum argued its ok for anyone whether they be a leftist or rightist to commit an atrocities so for you to respond as if I did is misleading. As for your comment that gun laws must be blocked until "the left pays us reparations" makes no sense. Your comment presumes gun laws give you a legal right to sue "leftists" for reparations. That is illogical babble. In law reparations would be dependent on you as a Plaintiff showing a court an individual (Defendant) caused you bodily harm or property damage of some kind. If anything a person who uses a gun to shoot someone could face a civil law suit for a tort of property, bodily injury or wrongful death against the person discharging the weapon. As for your reference to "leftists" iits ironic because most persons charged in the US with both criminal actions and law suits are in fact right wing extremists.

A gun regulation would not cause you property damage or bodily injury. If anything it would prevent it. The inconvenience for you of having to do something procedurally or not being able to buy a specific weapon again would not cause you damage other than in your mind for your sense of inconvenience. Its also rather idiotic and absurd considering you live in a country where each day children die needlessly because of defective gun laws that allow instable people to get their hands on semi and full autos. In fact reading your response I hope the hell you do not own any as your distorted sense of entitlement when so many people especially children die in your country is deeply worrisome. Its also remarkably ignorant considering if anything the history of your country founded on using guns to slaughter native peoples and rob their land would if anything lead me to ask how is your sense of inconvenience a ground for reparation but their treatment not grounds for reparation?

I am fully educated. That is why everything I say is true.

If you were fully educated you would know what you state is subjective opinion not truth as you are inherently like all of us humans not divine and infallible. In fact the closest you could get to telling "truth" is if you used logic and objective methodology to prove a fact or facts and so far you do not do this, you merely state subjective opinions that make no sense as I have shown and are clearly not based on reasoning or fact.

You probably will not be able to understand freedom because you do not live in a free country.3

Again the above is an irrational assumption. The country I live in Canada in many more ways is more "free" than the US particularily when it comes to being free of the same rate of gun crime as the US or medical expenses.

Free people do not go buy a gun because they "need" that gun.

Free people go buy a gun because they have chosen to do so.

Your above two statements contradict one another. If someone chooses to buy a gun the word "choiice" means they did so based on a reason to make that choice. That choice we hear each day is made because you Americans say you feel unsafe and want to protect yourselves. That is not a decision based on freedom but on feeling unfree from the threat of being shot by others.

Need is irrelevant.

When someone makes a choice, they do so based on a need, Using your reasoning, people buy guns for no reason. In fact the very reason you try argue with me is to show you have a need for a gun.

"Why laws are created" is not relevant to the discussion.

Again your comment makes no sense. Laws created to prevent unstable people from getting access to guns are created precisely to prevent mass killings.

 

[Mika-El]

Why do you ask such stupid questions?

The fact you with to ignore the issue he raises with his question does not make it stupid, it makes you rude and indifferent to the consequences he refers to which one could argue is also a stupid thing to do but like your initial accusation of stupidity would be pointless as it does not address the issue he raised and you avoid.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Then that is its intended purpose. The user determines the purpose.

All that about intended purposes is bunk. People just try artful ways to describe what guns are used for vs what vehicles are used for. Things are used for purposes for which they are suited by their design qualities. If someone wishes to use...oh...say a Ford Lightning truck to run over people, it is well suited for that. Better than many other trucks. It is heavier, for more kinetic energy. It accelerates faster, to increase the kinetic energy and lower the chances of anyone escaping from the path. It is quieter than an ICE truck, allowing the driver to more likely catch his intended victims unaware.

I've never seen the manufacturers or distributors of any gun claim it is intended for murder. But I've seen the Gun Control Industry make that claim. At times sounding like they are writing advertising copy directed at potential mass murderers.

The poster I responded to was along the lines of what an object is designed to do argument. A car intended for transportion doesn’t matter if you use it to run over people.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Of course it matters.

There are millions of people who don’t I tend to cause damage with their cars. There are millions who never will, even accidentally.

There are zero people who shoot guns hoping no holes get put into anything. Except on comparatively exceedingly rare instances such as a salute.

There are millions more who don’t buy guns to intentionally shoot people without a good rational reason, like self Defense.

 

[dairyair]

So

Ok

https://www.gunbroker.com/browning-m1919/search?keywords=browning%20m1919&s=f

Walmart isn’t a class 3 dealer. My local gun shop is, where I can walk in and buy a fully automatic rifle tomorrow.

So. There's more infringement to access full automatic rifles.
As I said. And you just confirmed.

There's more hoops to go through. Meaning more infringements.

...

By the end of this article, you will have a clearer understanding of what it takes to legally own an automatic rifle, the challenges involved, and the different avenues available for enthusiasts. We will explore the following key aspects:

Can I Buy an Automatic Rifle? Understanding the Legalities and Options | Crate Club

Table of Contents Introduction Definition of Automatic Rifles and Legal Classifications The Evolution of Gun Laws and the National Firearms Act (NFA) Purchasing Automatic Rifles: Requirements and Processes Costs Involved in Owning an Automatic Rifle State-Specific Regulations and Limitations...

crateclub.com

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Correct. We also saw zero good guys with guns saving the kids.

What DID we see of guns at Uvalde?

Kids and teachers being shot to death.

That’s not a good guy. It was a bad guy who got paid to protect children who didn’t. We had police and school resource officer who had guns, but did nothing. They are all bad guys.

 

[JMB1911A1]

So

So. There's more infringement to access full automatic rifles.
As I said. And you just confirmed.

There's more hoops to go through. Meaning more infringements.

...

By the end of this article, you will have a clearer understanding of what it takes to legally own an automatic rifle, the challenges involved, and the different avenues available for enthusiasts. We will explore the following key aspects:

Can I Buy an Automatic Rifle? Understanding the Legalities and Options | Crate Club

Table of Contents Introduction Definition of Automatic Rifles and Legal Classifications The Evolution of Gun Laws and the National Firearms Act (NFA) Purchasing Automatic Rifles: Requirements and Processes Costs Involved in Owning an Automatic Rifle State-Specific Regulations and Limitations...

crateclub.com

It actually isn’t a challenge much other than the cost (due to the unconstitutional Hughes Amendment). ATF e-Form 4s are coming back in days or even hours. It is slightly more onerous but not that much.

 

[dairyair]

So y

I am excluding it because I don't consume any RW wing smear propaganda media.

The Dems, Libs and Progs see anything which doesn't align to their demanded LW smear propaganda media take it as RW wing smear propaganda media, and demand its censorship, suppression, and marginalization.




The point isn't the shooters mental illness, enabled by leftist ideologically infected institutions, the point was the politically driven decisions as to the content of that reportage.
Do please try to focus and pay attention

So you use LE propaganda media? Why?

The point is, you have a biased point of view.
And do exactly what you claim the left does.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

When seconds count, police are only minutes (or hours) away. They are also under no obligation to protect you. You are your own first responder. You, and only you, are responsible for your life and the lives of your family.

Yep, Supreme Court said police officers have no duty to protect you, leaving you, the victim to do it yourself, in situations like that.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Yep, Supreme Court said police officers have no duty to protect you, leaving you, the victim to do it yourself, in situations like that.

I miss our resident Brit who argued that it was safer to beg a criminal for your life than to defend your self.

 

[dairyair]

M

It actually isn’t a challenge much other than the cost (due to the unconstitutional Hughes Amendment). ATF e-Form 4s are coming back in days or even hours. It is slightly more onerous but not that much.

More infringement.
And less suppliers are available. Due to dealer license.
All against the 2A

And it appears that added infringement isn't a big concern.
So there's different infringements and people are ok with that it appears

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Because one is intended and indeed, built to *avoid* causing damage to anyone or anything.

The other is specifically designed to cause damage.

I really don’t care that a baseball bat is designed to hit a baseball, when someone is hitting me over the head with one.

 

[JMB1911A1]

M

More infringement.
And less suppliers are available. Due to dealer license.
All against the 2A

Well. I am glad you support repeal of the NFA.

 

[dairyair]

Well. I am glad you support repeal of the NFA.

M

More infringement.
And less suppliers are available. Due to dealer license.
All against the 2A

And it appears that added infringement isn't a big concern.
So there's different infringements and people are ok with that it appears

Ok. I am glad you don't support repeal of NDA.

 

[Mika-El]

Militia =/= Military


I think there is a keyboard symbol for "not equal to". Not sure if it will show up on all screens though.
Militia ≠ Military

Well for someone who stated they are and I quote" fully educated" you seem to have some basic education issues.

The definition of "military" relates to or suggests characteristics of soldiers or armed forces. The definition does not require that armed force to be a state armed force.

The definition "militia" as it is used in American history referred to a civilian military force other than a conventional army that was raised from the civil population to fight the British army and supplement theregular army in an emergency.

So to say the militia and military were different misleads. When both were started they had he same purpose, use their military (weapons) or armed force to defeat the British army.

The militia if we want to play with words was a civilian military force as opposed to being state army and in your constitution the two did mean two types of military force in the context of your original war to defeat the British and become free of King George.

In the context of the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the term "militia" was defoined to then mean the general body of the people, armed and capable of bearing arms, serving as a defensive force for the state, rather than a standing army.

The key to the definition is that the militia would serve as a defensi8ve force for the state not simply anyone with guns. Members of such militias would be ordinary citizens not in a regular armed force unit but trained to use weapons for the preservation of a free state to guarantee that the military or regular armed forces remain under civil authority so as to prevent military officers using the armed forces to rule the country.

However and which you have trouble understanding that term militia changed. Specifically in 1903 pursuant to the Militia Act the definition was amended to mean two types or classes:

1- an organized militia – consisting of the National Guard and Naval Militia which are in fact part of the US Army and UorS Navy;

and

2. an unorganized militia – comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. These are militia that are under control of the State Governors.

So either way they are either part of the regular federal armed forces or state armed forces.

So this concept you and others have that a militia in its American legal context under the constitution is anyone with guns who forms more than 1 person is inaccurate.

Civilians who create self appointed armed militias to enforce the law are in fact illegal-they are vigilantes or unauthorized armed forces committing crimes in that they disturb the peace, obstruct justice, engage in criminal assault and battery and other crimes against public order. They are in slang known as street gangs.