School shooting at Texas Elementary school, several children reported dead

[BrawlMan]

Part of me thinks a lot of these shootings are unhappy, people with guns, that feel unnoticed and unwanted, so they decide to do something nightmarish for the attention and to be famous if even for something terrible.

So they should get off their lazy, pathetic, insecure "WOE IS ME!" asses and be useful and help people. Not kill them! Not trying to out monster another monster! And if they want to die that badly, then hang themselves or something. I don't advocate suicide, but I rather they do that to themselves then go out and take it on people who had nothing to do with anything!

We need to push for some of those extra laws in regards to gun control, and we need to get the politicans bought off by NRA and similar interests the fuck out of the decision making process in regards to these laws

So far that is the most useful and only useful advice you had on this thread. Instead of normal all or nothing bull crap you've been whistling earlier.

 

[CriticalGaming]

o they should get off their lazy, pathetic, insecure "WOE IS ME!" asses and be useful and help people.

I mean if people did things they SHOULD, we wouldn't have any problems in the world. People don't work that way sadly.

Instead of normal all or nothing bull crap you've been whistling earlier.

I don't know where you people get this "all or nothing" shit you claim I've been saying. I only spoke against background checks being the smallest thing to demand about gun control and we already have them for the most part.

 

[BrawlMan]

Fuck you! Killing people because you didn't graduate! How about you go ahead and retake the course you dumb monster! And he killed his grandmother, before killing the kids at the school.

Salvador Ramos Was 'Angry That He Did Not Graduate,' Texas Neighbor Says

The elementary school shooter is said to have been posting photos online of guns he'd bought for his 18th birthday to brag about the weapons and apparently hint at what was to come.

www.google.com

 

[BrawlMan]

only spoke against background checks being the smallest thing to demand about gun control and we already have them for the most part.

I'll take something over nothing any day of the week. Background checks wouldn't do help. Yes you're going to have people who slip by. Yes, you're going to have people who try to exploit the system. Similar to everyone else's feelings on a matter, it's better than just trying to think about how pointless it is for doing so. It would help regardless of how you feel about it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Apparently, intellectuals on the right have figured out the *true* causes of this horrific event: trans people and public schools existing

 

[Xprimentyl]

I only spoke against background checks being the smallest thing to demand about gun control and we already have them for the most part.

So you admit your point is pointless? Pointing out that having a fire extinguisher in the kitchen when every room but the kitchen is on fire affects nothing?

I say this: background checks. Substantial waiting periods. Weapons should be registered. No reselling of firearms by private citizens who purchased them through proper channels. Basically, if you want to own an arsenal, keep it in your name, and be willing to accept the consequences if they're misused. I think that's a reasonable expectation considering guns serve but one purpose and potential.

 

[Leg End]

How does an 18 year old have that kind of money?

Apparently he managed to hold down a day shift job at Wendy's, which is pretty surprising to me since I pegged him as someone who would have difficulty holding down a job involving the public. I figured initially it was likely financial gifts over a period of time from the very same grandmother he shot in a bit of tragic irony.

They're not paying that at hotdog on a stick.

Pardon my attempt to inject less depression here. Probably not going to help.

 

[immortalfrieza]

God bless the second amendment, right? If once, at least a little more frequently than mass shootings, we could hear a story about someone executing their second amendment rights in such a way that lives were saved, I'd be all for it. And before anyone posts "proof" that it's a thing that has happened, let me clarify that when it's the rule and not the exception, I'd be all for leaving it alone. As it stands, guns are rampant in this country to the extent that we can't go two days without a mass shooting, and by the way, where are the heroes preventing this kind of thing with their legally purchased and constitutionally protected firearms? This is just sad.

It's because people have long since forgotten what the point of the "Right to Bear Arms" actually was. We're obsessively handing on to a right that has long since lost any relevance to anyone.

The Second Amendment came into being for 2 reasons:

1. Most people still needed to go out and regularly kill animals for food to survive, so guns were a basic necessity of life. This is not true anymore and hasn't been for a long time.

2. So that "We the People" would be armed so we could rebel against the government when they inevitably overstepped their bounds and started oppressing the people. This was back when the weapons that the government had to bring against rebels weren't really any better than what the rebels themselves had. Now we exist in a time that, even without nukes, the government is able to kill thousands of people in the space of a few minutes with say... carpet bombing. If the government decided to oppress the people there wouldn't be jack we could do about it, it would be the government and the military turning against itself that would stop them, not a bunch of gun nuts with shotguns and pistols.

Most rights are still important, but the Second Amendment is one that is painfully clear lost relevance long LONG ago. However, as a result of over 2 centuries with this right countless people have built up this obsession with guns that they're too arrogant and ignorant to care about the real reason the right exists.

 

[Buyetyen]

It's because people have long since forgotten what the point of the "Right to Bear Arms" actually was. We're obsessively handing on to a right that has long since lost any relevance to anyone.

The Second Amendment came into being for 2 reasons:

1. Most people still needed to go out and regularly kill animals for food to survive, so guns were a basic necessity of life. This is not true anymore and hasn't been for a long time.

2. So that "We the People" would be armed so we could rebel against the government when they inevitably overstepped their bounds and started oppressing the people. This was back when the weapons that the government had to bring against rebels weren't really any better than what the rebels themselves had. Now we exist in a time that, even without nukes, the government is able to kill thousands of people in the space of a few minutes with say... carpet bombing. If the government decided to oppress the people there wouldn't be jack we could do about it, it would be the government and the military turning against itself that would stop them, not a bunch of gun nuts with shotguns and pistols.

Most rights are still important, but the Second Amendment is one that is painfully clear lost relevance long LONG ago. However, as a result of over 2 centuries with this right countless people have built up this obsession with guns that they're too arrogant and ignorant to care about the real reason the right exists.

There was a 3rd reason: putting down slave revolts. Not disagreeing with your assessment. Just thought I would add that there was another rationale for the second amendment that was just a sop to the slave-owners. And like all the other reasons behind the amendment it has long since lost its relevance.

These days, people who cling to their guns are among the more disempowered people in this society. The fantasy that they could be a sleeping giant is better to them than the reality.

 

[tstorm823]

2. So that "We the People" would be armed so we could rebel against the government when they inevitably overstepped their bounds and started oppressing the people. This was back when the weapons that the government had to bring against rebels weren't really any better than what the rebels themselves had. Now we exist in a time that, even without nukes, the government is able to kill thousands of people in the space of a few minutes with say... carpet bombing. If the government decided to oppress the people there wouldn't be jack we could do about it, it would be the government and the military turning against itself that would stop them, not a bunch of gun nuts with shotguns and pistols.

I don't think it was ever imagined that random civilians with hunting equipment would be able to defeat an organized military in direct combat. It's meant to prevent subjugation. If the goal is to subjugate people, carpet bombing and nukes aren't particularly useful. A military trying to control a population vs apopulation trying to kill that military is a different kind of asymmetry. Having a gun doesn't stop soldiers from killing you, but it certainly can stop them from ordering you around without threat of repercussion, which is ultimately what we're trying to avoid.

 

[SilentPony]

There was a 3rd reason: putting down slave revolts. Not disagreeing with your assessment. Just thought I would add that there was another rationale for the second amendment that was just a sop to the slave-owners. And like all the other reasons behind the amendment it has long since lost its relevance.

These days, people who cling to their guns are among the more disempowered people in this society. The fantasy that they could be a sleeping giant is better to them than the reality.

Also I should point out the second amendment doesn't actually give people the right to bear arms. That line is in there, but it was very specifically and deliberately removed from the entire amendment and misinterpreted to mean individual citizens get guns.
"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."
It is very specifically referring to the national guard and state militias. The States have a right to form a state militia and arm them. It has nothing to do with individuals. It was simply "misinterpreted" by Conservatives to give them tools to kill liberal politicians as needed.

Shocker of shocker, it was corrupt conservative Supreme court justices who changed the meaning of the 2nd Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

[immortalfrieza]

I don't think it was ever imagined that random civilians with hunting equipment would be able to defeat an organized military in direct combat. It's meant to prevent subjugation. If the goal is to subjugate people, carpet bombing and nukes aren't particularly useful. A military trying to control a population vs a population trying to kill that military is a different kind of asymmetry. Having a gun doesn't stop soldiers from killing you, but it certainly can stop them from ordering you around without threat of repercussion, which is ultimately what we're trying to avoid.

I don't think you understand the sheer orders of magnitude more capable of death and destruction the government of the USA is compared to "We the People". The threat of repercussion doesn't exist when you can carpet bomb or nuke anybody who decides to oppose you with an order or a push of a button. In this day and age it's entirely possible to murder individuals with orbital satellites and drones from half the planet away. If the American people decided to rebel against a unified government that wanted to oppress them, the rebels would never even see a government soldier until the rebels were already so beaten down by the bombings they'd rebels would be begging for the government to stop. It would go something like this:

US Government: Hi! We've decide we're going to burn the entire US Constitution on live television! There are no rights and you exist only at our whims and die at our whims.
Texas: Oh yeah? Come on guys! Now we justify all those guns we bought. We're rebelling!
US Government: Oh, okay. Pushes button and Houston is obliterated.
Texas: PLEASE STOP! We'll stop rebelling and do whatever you say!
US Government: Should've done that in the first place.

Florida: Those pathetic Texans might have given up, but we won't! We're rebelling.
US Government: Oh, okay Pushes button and Miami is obliterated.
Florida: PLEASE STOP! We'll stop rebelling and do whatever you say!

US Government: Anybody else? Hovers finger over button.
Other 47 states: Uh... no we're good.
Tennessee: Actually I...
Other 47 states: SHUT UP AND BOW TO OUR LORD AND MASTER!!!
Tennessee: Okay...

A military doesn't need boots on the ground to control the populace when they have such overwhelming power they can just make a few shows of force and then not only will the populace be controlled, the populace will control any dissenters that do appear for the military because of the fear of repercussions.

What would stop the government and the military is the rest of the government and military, and if whoever it was that decided to actually declare themselves absolute dictator chances are they would already have the government and military in their pocket anyway. Otherwise the senators, generals, mayors, etc. who want to keep their power would defy them and stop them. Let's be frank here, the only reason that this hasn't happened already is that everybody in the government and military is constantly working to keep and increase their own power at the expense of the rest of the government and military. The only thing holding this country together is that everybody is so selfish and power hungry they can't possibly work together to oppress the people... that much.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I don't think it was ever imagined that random civilians with hunting equipment would be able to defeat an organized military in direct combat. It's meant to prevent subjugation. If the goal is to subjugate people, carpet bombing and nukes aren't particularly useful. A military trying to control a population vs apopulation trying to kill that military is a different kind of asymmetry. Having a gun doesn't stop soldiers from killing you, but it certainly can stop them from ordering you around without threat of repercussion, which is ultimately what we're trying to avoid.

*Gestures vaguely to our current police state where not complying with obviously illegal commands is grounds for immediate execution*

 

[Xprimentyl]

It's because people have long since forgotten what the point of the "Right to Bear Arms" actually was. We're obsessively handing on to a right that has long since lost any relevance to anyone.

The Second Amendment came into being for 2 reasons:

1. Most people still needed to go out and regularly kill animals for food to survive, so guns were a basic necessity of life. This is not true anymore and hasn't been for a long time.

2. So that "We the People" would be armed so we could rebel against the government when they inevitably overstepped their bounds and started oppressing the people. This was back when the weapons that the government had to bring against rebels weren't really any better than what the rebels themselves had. Now we exist in a time that, even without nukes, the government is able to kill thousands of people in the space of a few minutes with say... carpet bombing. If the government decided to oppress the people there wouldn't be jack we could do about it, it would be the government and the military turning against itself that would stop them, not a bunch of gun nuts with shotguns and pistols.

Most rights are still important, but the Second Amendment is one that is painfully clear lost relevance long LONG ago. However, as a result of over 2 centuries with this right countless people have built up this obsession with guns that they're too arrogant and ignorant to care about the real reason the right exists.

All true. To that second point, whenever a rabid gun advocate brings it up, I always ask: "ok, so who's going to fire the first shot? Which of you is going to be the one to decide "we the people" are being oppressed and open fire on a government official or military branch in defense of "our rights" under the impression you're within your right to do so?" Never have gotten a clear answer. January 6th of last year is about as close as we've come, and it only landed a bunch of those nut jobs serious charges (deservedly) and an indictment of their leader, a pretend sycophant who was only egging them on for his own interests.

I say go for their guns. Pull up in Humvees and tanks, dozens in full body armor, armed to the teeth with the American flag waving in the background and take that shit from them. Oh, and take whatever politicians that lobby for lax gun control rights with them; toss them across the line to let Cletus and Earl protect them during the ensuing firefight. It'll never happen, but a boy can dream.

 

[Dreiko]

All true. To that second point, whenever a rabid gun advocate brings it up, I always ask: "ok, so who's going to fire the first shot? Which of you is going to be the one to decide "we the people" are being oppressed and open fire on a government official or military branch in defense of "our rights" under the impression you're within your right to do so?" Never have gotten a clear answer. January 6th of last year is about as close as we've come, and it only landed a bunch of those nut jobs serious charges (deservedly) and an indictment of their leader, a pretend sycophant who was only egging them on for his own interests.

I say go for their guns. Pull up in Humvees and tanks, dozens in full body armor, armed to the teeth with the American flag waving in the background and take that shit from them. Oh, and take whatever politicians that lobby for lax gun control rights with them; toss them across the line to let Cletus and Earl protect them during the ensuing firefight. It'll never happen, but a boy can dream.

I don't think the government can win such a hypothetical war because if it could then Vietnam would also have gone better too. The issue is that you won't really ever get a united population against an evil military but more like half the country and the evil military vs the other half, and sure, that fight is much less easy to win.

 

[Agema]

I don't think it was ever imagined that random civilians with hunting equipment would be able to defeat an organized military in direct combat.

They're not supposed to be random civilians, though. They're supposed to be a militia.

A militia might not have have the quality of a professional army, but by the standards of the 18th century, a militia certainly could be expected to take its place on a battlefield - and did, later even than the US War of Independence. The Americas had militias for defence long before independence, and it was a militia that the nascent US fought for its independence with.

Whilst generally outclassed by the professionals they might face all else being equal, they were easily good enough that they could make a fair go of it or win, especially with a defensive position, good generalship, etc. One then merely needs to note the long tradition that such "semi-professionals" could be expected to bring their own weaponry, or at least have and use weaponry in civilian life so that they are familiar with weaponry when they stepped onto a battlefield. This was often the case for citizen armies and militia (including many feudal levies) all the way back to the ancient era.

 

[Majestic_Manatee]

I don't think the government can win such a hypothetical war because if it could then Vietnam would also have gone better too. The issue is that you won't really ever get a united population against an evil military but more like half the country and the evil military vs the other half, and sure, that fight is much less easy to win.

70's Vietnam is vastly different from modern day America for an American military attack. I'll let you figure out why.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I don't think the government can win such a hypothetical war because if it could then Vietnam would also have gone better too. The issue is that you won't really ever get a united population against an evil military but more like half the country and the evil military vs the other half, and sure, that fight is much less easy to win.

It wouldn't be that cut and dry. There are a lot of us disaffected in the middle more focused on self-preservation than an ideology that "muh [arbitrary] freedom" is more important than a civil society. I maintain, and I hope I'm right, that the militant civilians are the few, the government (for all its flaws) has our best interest in mind (hopefully,) and such a "war" will never happen. My point is that civilians arming to the teeth under the guise of preparing for such a far-fetched eventuality is a piss-poor excuse for the proliferation of firearms that is causing more harm than good.

I don't feel safer knowing my neighbor could be sitting on enough weaponry to maintain a 7-hour standoff with police. I don't feel safer knowing Joe can buy an assault rifle, then sell it to Rufus with no paper trail tracing it to him. Throw enough fuel on a fire, and you lose the right to call it a "controlled burn;" at some point, you're just feeding the flames and ignoring the wildfire that has spread around you, i.e.: 19 children and 2 adults, all innocent, were killed yesterday because of our right be bear arms with abandon and without accountability.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Eh, can't fault people in the US for getting a gun to defend themselves, but the people who look forwards to when they get to use their gun to defend themselves worry me.

As a firearms enthusiast (not to be confused with gun nut), I have perused a small selection of firearms-oriented forums. To a one, they had posts containing gems such as "I can't wait to see the look in the perp's eyes before I put a bullet between them!".

These are just psychopaths waiting for an excuse to kill another human being without being punished for it.

Wish. Granted.

Fuck, I knew I shoulda wished for a pony instead.

Apparently, intellectuals on the right have figured out the *true* causes of this horrific event: trans people and public schools existing

Utter desperation to deflect attention from their own culpability.

All true. To that second point, whenever a rabid gun advocate brings it up, I always ask: "ok, so who's going to fire the first shot? Which of you is going to be the one to decide "we the people" are being oppressed and open fire on a government official or military branch in defense of "our rights" under the impression you're within your right to do so?"

Could just ask them how well that went in Ruby Ridge, when it was just Federal agents trying hard not to cause collateral damage.

 

[Agema]

"muh [arbitrary] freedom"

Arbitrary freedom indeed.

The point of liberalism is tolerance - to accept other people have freedoms even though you might not like what they do with it. Most people banging on about freedom want it for themselves, but are less than assiduous about supporting anyone else's. That's why you have the sorts of people who proclaim free speech and demand the right to preach fascism at universities, but then in their next breath demand that gender studies courses be banned.