OT: Uvalde
- Thread starter Willence
- Start date
The right to bare arms would not be infringed.
respectfully … that is a bullshit argument.
for the record I own 4 firearms that I believe civilians should t be allowed to have.
It's not just police unions. It is all of Joe's union buddies. 90+% of their donations go to dems. Why do you think they get such strong support from that side of the aisle? Hint: it's not due to some altruistic notion that workers actually need to be protected in this day and age. The eeoc, osha, dhec, etc provide pretty much every protection unions were formed to address.
Laws absolutely deter crime, no one is arguing that they do not. What is arguable is to what extent they deter crime. It is all a matter of motivation by the person committing the crime. Example: I would bet most of the parents there were law abiding citizens, right? Why then did they have to be handcuffed for not obeying the police(law)? Because they were greatly motivated to break the law- to try and save their child. Most people obey orders from the police bc they respect the law. There are instances, however, where people are highly motivated and the law is not a deterrent anymore. This is the case with likely all mass murders and why new laws are very unlikely to have an impact.
And like people like Joe Biden who knew his mentally deranged drug addict son was in possession of a firearm.
How many kids play and delight in playing video games where "winning" involves killing people in an almost virtual reality? Is this a red flag? How many people listen to and sing songs about murdering people? How many people, kids/teens in particular draw pictures/cartoons that show killing? How many people are depressed and see therapist/psychologist and have ever mentioned just wanting to die or not have to deal with it anymore? Do you red flag all these people? Do you red flag the kid in kindergarten who is suspended due to "zero tolerance" for guns bc he mad a gun shape out of his pop tart at breakfast?
I would be willing to bet a high percentage of people on this board have gotten mad at some point in their life and threatened to kill someone. Maybe not to that persons face, and likely with no real intention/capacity to do it, but the words were spoken none the less. If someone had heard you, should you be red flagged? Should you/will you go report yourself? How many times on social media have you seen someone say they wished someone else would die? Are they all red flagged?
There is no way I would support any red flag law without seeing the specific language and knowing exactly how it would be applied.
Finally, when you consider the number of people who have committed mass murder compared to the population of the country, you have gone way beyond trying to find a needle in a haystack, so to speak.
(19 Kids)100,000+ drug overdoses with a large part of those from fentanyl and other drugs coming across the border.
"the border is secure" nothing the see here. 19 vs 100,000+. Which do you think is the bigger problem? Which one should we be focusing on?
Not incompetent, EVIL…. This was planned out! The NWO is behind most Mass Shootings. They’re executing these Mass Shootings so they can create gun control laws to take our guns away. It’s done through mind control. It’s the Fourth Goal of the NWO. They’ll start out with what looks like practical gun control laws, they’ll cause the shootings to continue & the laws will become more stringent, they’ll cause the shootings to continue & when there’s enough outcry from the public, they’ll finally say, “no more guns.” This way it looks like they tried to deal with gun control practically.
Does it bother me? No….but my life would be better if I never saw some of these threads.
Kind of like an awful accident on the highway I can’t help but look at. Wish I had not even been on that road
Last edited:
They already have that in the California Compliant AR-15’s. It doesn’t stop crime. We’re forgetting here that someone who wants to kill will get what they want legally or illegally. Cocaine is still illegal but can be picked up quite easily. Firearms legislation would be the same way. The only people impacted will be the law abiding citizens.
Please show me in the language where cannons were banned for everyday citizens. It doesn’t stipulate types of weaponry because an average citizen could own whatever they wanted. Every firearm used in the military was owned by the citizenry as well.
I'm glad you think it's bs, that means you've lived a very blessed and easy life. Apparently, you can't even fathom a situation where someone would NEED a 30 round magazine, and that's not a difficult thing to do at all, especially after the summer of 2020 and the defund police nonsense.
I've lived a very blessed life as well, but I'm too knowledgeable of history to let other people's ignorance deprive me of my right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and to bear arms.
The actual bullshit argument comes from the idiots who talk about "why do you need an AR-15". Ha, rights are not need based. Why do you need liberty? The answer is you don't, people have lived for thousands of years without that right. I don't need an AR-15, but one thing is for certain, if you want to keep your freedom, you want me to keep my rifles.
When you boil it all down and get to the bottom line, you can stand beside me, or you can stand behind me, but you won't stand in front of me.
Why is anything illegal then?
A lot of things shouldn’t be. Drugs being one. If you’re stupid enough to use drugs and overdose then that is on you not me. Having every drug in America made illegal has made the number of deaths associated with overdose rise not fall. I despise drugs but I’m not a user so that doesn’t impact me. We also have a government system that believes we can decree our way out of poverty, racial injustice and crime.
i feel the same way about abortion reporting hotlines, but we managed those.
i think keeping one fetus safe is more important than a bunch of school children though.
Being for abortion and worrying about children in the same sentence comes off as a tad hypocritical
So if I say them in separate sentences it’s fine? Just trying to figure out what your line is.
No. I’m referring to you specifically being worried about a child’s life and referring to a child as a fetus at the same time. I’m completely assuming here that you support abortion. Correct me if I’m wrong.
You’re not wrong, but you’re still not getting it. Maybe start all over and think of it again.
Please explain it as if I’m an idiot. You want more laws to protect children? But at the same time you believe in abortion?
So, what you’re saying is on the one hand it’s important to protect kids but on the other hand who gaf about the kids?
Keep thinking, you’re almost there.
If life definitively begins at conception, then God has killed a million more 'children' than abortion ever has.
Man, you have a very depressing view of the future of America.
Also, did you just threaten to shoot someone who stands in front of you?
This is exactly why the red flag laws should not be passed. Some anti gun moron who just happens to be a psychologist/law enforcement/etc whose title give them some form of credibility reports someone for threatening to kill someone over a statement like that. That person now can not own a gun.
No thank you. You can not open that door. Similar to nil in college football recruiting, once the door is opened, someone will drive a bulldozer through it and there will be nothing you can do to stop it. Dems have already told you what many of them want- no more guns. Red flag laws will be used to try and make that happen.
We need criminal to have less guns, not law abiding citizens. What if I need a gun in every room in case someone breaks in my house. If I have a gun in every room it does not matter what room I get trapped in, I can defend myself if someone is trying to harm me or my family.
I absolutely do, and never thought you were serious - which is exactly my point. I know you meant nothing by it, but if there is someone looking for a reason to deny a gun purchase/permit how do you prove that statement is not meant to be an actual threat? Gun activist. maybe even white nationalist(whatever that is ) if he is a white male, makes threatening statement. In black and white on a piece of paper, it could be used against you.
too many people with main character syndrome thinking they're going to quickdraw some intruder and not actually whiff the shot and shoot their kid in the next room
Those are two are not the same thing. One involves some subjective observation about an individual possibly based on unreliable information impacting individual people on a case by case basis. The other applies to all people seeking abortions within that territory. However, as I have told you before, I am against anything that forbids all abortion in any state. Therefore, I would be against reporting possible abortions. I am for limits on abortion, but not against ALL abortion. Also, the idea that one state can tell you what you can do in another state will not happen. See gun laws as an example. It will not/can not happen.
Just like NYC could not tell residents they could not buy large cokes outside the city even though they banned large sodas in the city - bc who NEEDS a large soda, right?
There is some speculation that this was the case with the police and a child was accidentally shot by police
yeah it's really the only explanation i can think of for why they're fighting tooth and nail to prevent the release of bodycam footage.
or the footage is going to show the cops exhibiting extreme cowardice and fear and other things that ruin the narrative they spun in the immediate aftermath of the shooting
ME? Nothing. Could it stop future adults if there are not guns available? Yes. However, I am not forming opinions based on feelings involving recent events. I from opinions based on facts and impact on citizens both now and in the future.
It's ironical, you have a group of people on this board who have insinuated Jan6 could have led to some sort of civil war or civil unrest due to the possibility of coup. If this had happened, maybe you may need to defend yourself against those crazy people, right? You have the same people that also say nothing like that could ever happen where you MAY need to defend yourself from either a tyrannical govt or those in support of OR against said govt. Which is it? Was there ever really any danger to the country as whole on Jan6 no matter the outcome of the day? Is it all just fabricated hype/exaggeration/BS for political gain, or was there some possibility that anything could have happened that would lead to mass civil unrest or disobedience?
This was a state agency, which is surprising considering it's Texas.
The head of the Texas Department of Public Safety - which includes the Texas Rangers (the real ones, not the baseball team), pretty much ripped the School District Police Chief (???) a new one over the response. His quote was "I don't care if you're in Bermuda shorts and flip flops, you go in there.
Personally my plan would be:
First LEO gathers as much info as they can - how many shooters, where etc.
Second one shows up, get the heavy stuff from the car (shotgun, rifle, whatever) and go find the bastard.
And the shooter leaves in a bodybag.
funny, you make a false equivalency for why they're not the same. they're both subjective unless someone tells you directly they're getting an abortion.
also, you might want to tell the lawmakers in Louisiana they can't regulate their residents going outside their state for an abortion. they're already working on it now.
The two ARE NOT THE SAME. In the case of abortion, it is one person reporting the actions/possible actions of someone doing something illegal. The abortion laws will apply equally to everyone in the territory. No one is deciding who can have an abortion and who can not based on what their neighbor says.
In the case of the red flag law, you are deciding which people can buy guns and which can not. They are not even close to the same thing.
As to LA, I don't need to tell them anything, the courts would do that if it actually get that far.
I see debates on the second amendment here. To clarify stuff, the actual text is, "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.
A few points on this - mainly for the general audience:
1) It is obvious that the idea is for the 'people' (that's us, BTW) should have the right to own weapons for defense, not just for hunting, etc. That is what the first part tells us.
2) There is no type of weapon mentioned, and while ARs, etc did not exist when the constitution was written, cannons did. I can't say how many were in private hands though.
3) Nothing in the language suggests that the first statement ('A well regulated militia...') places any modification or restriction on the second statement ('the right of the people......').
4) The right to 'bare arms' would be more about wardrobe choices than weapons.
The real issue with any restriction is that nobody trusts the government to go a certain distance and stop. Once they take ARs, then it will be all semi autos. Then anything that can fire multiple rounds without reloading. Then everything. Lack of trust is the issue there. And this has been an issue since we've had a government.
And there are real reasons to own an AR. Remember the riots after the George Floyd thing? LA riots? Rooftop Koreans? The chances of needing it for defense are indeed remote, but they are not zero.
A few points on this - mainly for the general audience:
1) It is obvious that the idea is for the 'people' (that's us, BTW) should have the right to own weapons for defense, not just for hunting, etc. That is what the first part tells us.
2) There is no type of weapon mentioned, and while ARs, etc did not exist when the constitution was written, cannons did. I can't say how many were in private hands though.
3) Nothing in the language suggests that the first statement ('A well regulated militia...') places any modification or restriction on the second statement ('the right of the people......').
4) The right to 'bare arms' would be more about wardrobe choices than weapons.
The real issue with any restriction is that nobody trusts the government to go a certain distance and stop. Once they take ARs, then it will be all semi autos. Then anything that can fire multiple rounds without reloading. Then everything. Lack of trust is the issue there. And this has been an issue since we've had a government.
And there are real reasons to own an AR. Remember the riots after the George Floyd thing? LA riots? Rooftop Koreans? The chances of needing it for defense are indeed remote, but they are not zero.
Should I be able to keep an RPG-7 in the back of my truck without jumping through various regularity hurdles, background checks, registering the weapon, in this case the weapon’s munitions too, etc?
I’ve never understood these slippery slope arguments. Guns, explosive devices, and whatnot are already regulated to varying degrees. If further restrictions are claimed to be too onerous as to comply with the 2nd Amendment, courts will listen and then reach a decision.
Last edited:
