Just read the following:
"Denying someone the right to own a firearm by a psych evaluation would be very unconstitutional."
"Denying someone the right to own a firearm by a psych evaluation would be very unconstitutional."
19 children and 2 teachers killed in Texas school shooting (24 May 2022)
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
If it were to go to this Supreme Court, they may agree to that statement. It's fecked up.
When I was eight we got a couple of days off school. "Great" I thought, completely unaware of why we had been given time off. The next week we came back and instead of lining up at two secondary entrances like we usually did, all of the classes went through what was a new main door with a security lock. This was 1996 in Scotland, not long after the Dunblane massacre where an armed gunman walked into a primary school unobstructed and killed 16 children under the age of 6.
And what else happened? People were told to bring any guns that they owned to their nearest police station. And they did. Because fecking children had just been massacred. There hasn't been a massacre since.
I refuse to accept that some US citizens NEED guns. I'm not talking about people who go hunting and whatnot, but the NRA types who say that they have guns because of their "constitutional rights". They don't need guns. They just like guns, but they're too chicken shit to just come out and say it. Just like the dipshits who say that the solution is just to have more guns available.
Then we eventually get to the bizarre solution of arming teachers. If the police - those folk who are actually trained frequently to use guns and operate in dangerous situations - weren't willing to go in and stop this killer then why the feck should your geography teacher be expected to?! It's a fecking farce.
And what else happened? People were told to bring any guns that they owned to their nearest police station. And they did. Because fecking children had just been massacred. There hasn't been a massacre since.
I refuse to accept that some US citizens NEED guns. I'm not talking about people who go hunting and whatnot, but the NRA types who say that they have guns because of their "constitutional rights". They don't need guns. They just like guns, but they're too chicken shit to just come out and say it. Just like the dipshits who say that the solution is just to have more guns available.
Then we eventually get to the bizarre solution of arming teachers. If the police - those folk who are actually trained frequently to use guns and operate in dangerous situations - weren't willing to go in and stop this killer then why the feck should your geography teacher be expected to?! It's a fecking farce.
I just read something on this point...
"Imagine if we weren't armed during covid 19, we would have faced lockdowns like Australia."
They genuinely believe them being armed, protects them from government over resch.
Yup. That is the mentality. It's so deeply ingrained it will take generations to change I reckon.
Backwards nation.
That happens when a huge part of a population has lived through decades of propaganda. But yeah, it’s scary to see in action. Just pure, unhinged, brainwashed lunacy. Unfolding right in front of us.
Why are some Americans so tied to a stupid document that was written by +200 years ago? I mean, what good is the constitution, when it serves to maintain the status quo and produce results like Sandy Hook and Uvalde?
I can't think of any other population that are so heavily invested in their constitution. Here, we have an annual Constitution Day as well, but it's mostly remembered for being on the same day as Father's Day.
In fairness the article Eboue posted that you & Carolina Red were dismissing as violent ends was talking about large scale civil disobedience & properly damage. Not things I would personally consider violence. Or at least not the same form of violence… And as even eminently sensible posters like Frosty have pointed out, the GOP have gamed the system for 50 years, so watching people seemingly happy to combat that by playing by the rules for what, another 50 years? seems like a losing strategy and at best a waiting game at the expense of women, minorities and children.
I’m not calling you an appeaser, or saying you need to be out there sinking yachts… more saying that there might have to come a point where you and people like you at least tacitly condone that kind of thing, or some other form of aggressive chicanery, or risk just flat out losing…and whether you’ve ever considered what point you’d consider… that point!
Fair, and I wasn’t dismissing the article Eboue posted. He alluded before the link that what he really wanted he could not write and that is what I was addressing. I do not consider large scale civil disobedience or protesting as problematic strategies at all. They need to be part of any strategy to try and affect change, along with the election of representatives that can also affect change.
As to your second paragraph I really don’t have an answer. Over the last decade or so I have had to grapple with where my moral compass points and all I can say is that in a theoretical sense, because I have never had to chose between death (of myself or another person) and committing an act of violence, I could not participate in the use of violence for any reason. This does not mean I would not support fighting for a just cause (ie, Ukraine), only that I could not be a part of it.
Someone please remind me, just why America is considering a first World developed country?
As there is nothing 1st World, or developed about a country which is fine to see children killed so that they can keep hold of their killing machines....
As there is nothing 1st World, or developed about a country which is fine to see children killed so that they can keep hold of their killing machines....
We have and develop 1st world things, but we have medieval principles.
Being in Scotland this week has been, as it always is when in Europe, how fecked up America is.
‘Safe? Hell no. Have you seen all the (others) streaming across our borders, taking our jobs, and terrorising? Not to mention the Dems trying to install communism from within because they’ve forsaken Jesus. That’s why I need muh guns.’
This may seem like a parody but it is uncomfortably close to the response you might get from an unfortunately influential minority.
So in Texas an 18 year old can legally buy two assault rifles ….but he’s not allowed to buy a beer or cigarettes until he’s 21.
Madness.
Madness.
I never commented on that article.
The best ideas that FDR had for improving the lives of Americans (i.e. the Second Bill of Rights) were exported to Europe and to Japan after WW2, unfortunately.
Right to smoke and drink isn't in the Constitution.
Not true, there are literally 2 amendments related to drinking.
It's obviously not mental wellness to want to kill complete strangers, far less actually going out and doing it. So here' are my questions:
Since it's not mental wellness, does that make the motivation a form of mental illness? Or if not, then what sort of illness is it? Emotional illness? An illness of the psyche? And if either of these latter two, how do they differ from what's called mental illness?
Or do posters believe that some people are simply "evil" and that this involves no form of illness?
Since it's not mental wellness, does that make the motivation a form of mental illness? Or if not, then what sort of illness is it? Emotional illness? An illness of the psyche? And if either of these latter two, how do they differ from what's called mental illness?
Or do posters believe that some people are simply "evil" and that this involves no form of illness?
Emotions are a product of brain chemistry, right? So those 2 would basically be the same.
I don't believe in evil, maybe it comes from my secular outlook. Peoples brains make them what they are so I think there is something misfiring or chemically imbalanced that leads to this. The Austin clock tower shooter had a brain tumor that may have lead to his behavior is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
Bizarre enough that they think that temporary restrictions to prevent mass death is actually government overreach.
Often said but worth repeating.
In the US healthcare is a privilege and guns are a right.
In the US healthcare is a privilege and guns are a right.
Curious how the Caf resident LEOs feel about the local coppers not doing their job?
They want freedom to bear arms but when it was time to use it to defend the innocent they became a bunch of pussies.
But apparently got their kids out of harm’s way first.
One thing I don't get is that banning ARs won't stop anything. If it's not that, it's a shotgun, rifle or a pistol. And I think it's too late for psych evaluation since all the psychopaths own guns already. Even just normal people own them. They can't stop the son from picking a gun out of the safe and start shooting randomly. Yeah you can prevent future gun owners to an extent but I feel nearly everyone and there uncle already have guns.
I disagree. That's like saying it's no different getting stabbed with a pocket knife or getting stabbed with a sword. The amount of damage an AR-15 can do is far greater than a hand gun. The Las Vegas shooting would not have been nearly as bad if all he had was a regular rifle (he got off over 1,000 rounds).
Ridiculous post. The force projection of a rifle, a shotgun, & a pistol would end up being magnitudes of order less than an AR platform. Limiting their availability might not stop mass shootings, but it would lessen the body count.
Isn’t that reason enough?
Becoming a PR disaster…
Errrr.........isn't it their job to be shot at in these situations?? To be willing to take a shot to save a life??
The picture is starting to come together. They rescued their own kids first as they knew what was the likely scenario, didn't want to risk their lives, so it became an "active investigation scene" where they could justify standing around and not risking themselves.
"feck you i've got mine" seems to be the takeaway from this.
I just cringe at the existence of anything semi-automatic or automatic being sold to the civilian market because it makes killing too easy for whatever noob out there. ARs are way too destructive in terms of power. If you ban ARs, you easily decrease the destructive power that a mad shooter has. Shooting a bolt action rifle or a shotgun (akin to bird-hunting rifles) requires patience and a cool head. But like most mass shooters, the Uvalde shooter was everything but patient or cool-headed.
Hunters usually hate ARs, of which they see them as a gun for noobs. Unless one shows enough mental fitness and profiency at using an old school hunting rifle, they don't deserve any gun.
That is brilliant.