Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, November 06, 2017

President Donald Trump said Monday that Sunday's mass shooting at a Texas church "isn't a guns situation" but instead "a mental health problem at the highest level." Asked at a joint press briefing with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe if he would consider pressing for gun control measures in the wake of America's second mass shooting in a month, Trump said "mental health is your problem here," calling the shooter a "very deranged individual" with "a lot of problems over a long period of time."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Trump dismissed guns as the root of the problem in Sunday's shooting, saying "we could go into [gun control policy], but it's a little bit too soon." Trump never says it's too soon to make political statements after an alleged act of Islamist terrorism, CNN noted last week: "When 58 people were killed last month by a white gunman in Las Vegas with no apparent ties to Islamist terrorism, the White House rejected a policy debate on gun control as inappropriate in the days following the tragedy. "But when eight people were mowed down in a terrorist attack by a man shouting 'Allahu akbar,' President Donald Trump pounced almost immediately, seizing on the tragedy to push his proposals for tightening immigration controls."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Whatever, losers.....

At this point, I feel safer around terrorists than i do around white christian wingnuts.

#1 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 08:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The fact that this piece of excrement could buy the weapon he used makes it a gun problem.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-06 08:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The fact that this piece of excrement could buy the weapon he used makes it a gun problem.

#2 | POSTED BY DANNI

no, that's a 'legislation' problem.

But, OTOH, when you build an impossible set of fake illusions, it is no wonder when they run afowl. Here is basically what stupid people are saying, 'we want to allow individuals to own guns, but only individuals who will never unjustifiably use them on other people'. Let's assume that there is some way to know who will and who will not develop 'mental problems', how can you know what they think is justified and what is not?

All three recent terror attacks were probably 'justifiable' in the minds of the three terrorists.

#3 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 08:27 AM | Reply

What a freaking idiot.

A "guns situation" is always evident whenever guns are permitted in the hands of "a mental health problem at the highest level."

This must not be permitted, just like machine guns and their aftermarket doubles should not be available to the general public.

It wouldn't hurt to invest more public resources into mental health. After all, we live in an insane asylum.

www.amazon.com

#4 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-06 08:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"A "guns situation" is always evident whenever guns are permitted in the hands of "a mental health problem at the highest level.""

Which this shooter had definitely exhibited previously in his life. Getting kicked out of the Air Force for beating up his wife and kid should have been a clue that he was deranged.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-06 08:45 AM | Reply

To me, the one single fact that proves that most 2nd amendment gun advocates are nucking futs is when they say, 'we want them for self defense'.

Self-defense against whom? The government? Sure, this made sense 100 years ago. But in this century, if the government wanted to neutralize you, all they would have to do is turn off your internet connection, your bank accounts, your on-star system on your car, your electricity, sewer and water service to your house.

I wonder how they think a gun can stop that?

So you want self-defense against the hoards of criminals that are trying to break into your house and kill you? Well, now we have slipped over into full-blown neurosis, which is a mental disorder.

So, the result is that if you think you should have a gun, you shouldn't.

#6 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 08:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He must have attacked the church with a car antenna.

One of the very serious people who we are told we should take very seriously who has a gun fetish and posts here informed me that they are very dangerous.

The biased MSM must be lying when they say he shot them with a rifle...

#7 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 08:55 AM | Reply

Kudzu,

I'm starting to think you don't deserve half the freedoms the constitution affords you.

#8 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-06 08:56 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"isn't a guns situation" but instead "a mental health problem at the highest level."

Yup. A mental health problem. The highest level being the President.

#9 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-06 09:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Just another loose cannon skittering across the well-regulated militia's playground.

#10 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-11-06 09:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Advertisement

Advertisement

I'm starting to think you don't deserve half the freedoms the constitution affords you.

#8 | POSTED BY BOAZ

there you have it sports fans,

the whole problem with wingnuts, all wrapped up in a nice neat little bundle.

#11 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 09:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I agree with Kudzu. I remember after the Newtown shooting one of my first thoughts was that more stringent gun control would not have prevented it. But, then the NRA opened their mouths. And they were talking about having guns in every classroom and that, basically, we needed to have a system based on force and threat of violence. And suddenly I was in favor of increased gun control. Not because I thought it would prevent a tragedy like Newtown in the future. The reaction of the gun nuts to the shooting (and their knee-jerk reaction to immediately politicize the situation in defense of their guns) made me realize that these people's views were CRAZY. So crazy that I was uncomfortable with people like that having guns in our society.

I know some people who exercise their right to carry a gun at all times. And, while I acknowledge this is a small sample size, every single one of them are people who don't have their lives together. It feels to me like they carry a gun to make themselves feel more important. They have pretty much failed at being successful in their personal and professional lives, so instead they boost their "self-esteem" with the constant weight of a deadly weapon on their hip. That is not a good reason to own a gun. In fact, it is a pretty scary reason to own a gun from the perspective of the rest of society.

So, people who fight tooth and nail to keep their guns... I want to take their guns away. Everyone else, I have no problem with them owning guns.

And to Kudzu's point, I want Boaz to tell me how effective his little .22 is going to be against a Hellfire missile fired from a Predator drone.

#12 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2017-11-06 09:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

White christian terrorist #1 - 'Hey Billy, did you shoot Bufford?'

White christian terrorist #2 - 'Yes, I did. He done did read a book and all of the sudden, he's mr. smartey-pants'

White christian terrorist #1 - 'You knew I was planning to shoot him next sunday, after the church social, his wife makes the best fried chicken.'

White christian terrorist #2 - 'I'm sorry Roy, I forgot ... it won't happen ag'in.'

White christian terrorist #1 - 'damn right it won't.' (Blam!)

#13 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 09:24 AM | Reply

I still like the Chris Rock solution, i.e., price bullets at $10,000 each. There could be a tax on each sold to raise them to that price, and the taxes collected could fund the $1.5T business tax cut at the same time. As for those who make their own--tax the components and tools...

#14 | Posted by catdog at 2017-11-06 09:28 AM | Reply

If only everyone at that church had been armed. And everyone at school. And everyone at the grocery store. And everyone at work. And everyone on the highways. And everyone at the local Little League and high school basketball games. And everyone at city council meetings.

THEN we would have a safe society.

#15 | Posted by cbob at 2017-11-06 09:30 AM | Reply

"Self-defense against whom? The government? Sure, this made sense 100 years ago. "

It never made sense. When you say you want defense against the government you're actually saying "I want to be able to shoot any cop that comes to arrest me."
For the most part, in this country, they don't come to arrest you unless you've broken a law, and if they do you have due process to defend yourself against charges. Them coming to arrest you is no excuse to shoot a cop so tell me, how are guns legitimately used to protect you against your government?

#16 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-06 09:30 AM | Reply

"Self-defense against whom? The government? Sure, this made sense 100 years ago. "

Taking over the government with guns is so yesterday.

Now we have the internet for that sort of thing.

-- Pooty Poot.

#17 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-06 09:40 AM | Reply

You people are sick.

Well, you aren't taking my RIGHT to own a weapon. So get over it.

So, people who fight tooth and nail to keep their guns... I want to take their guns away.

Whatever. The constitution says you cant. So there.

And you people don't know how much closer making stupid statements like the above is getting this nation to civil war.

And remember, as to your comment about a .22 against a hellfire, a military member would have to fire that hellfire and the last time I looked, those military members usually aren't liberal and probably wont open fire on fellow citizens.

#18 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-06 09:43 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

He must've stapled them to death.

#19 | Posted by 726 at 2017-11-06 09:47 AM | Reply

#15 "THEN we would have a safe society."

Don't forget movie theaters, shopping malls, post offices, doctors' offices, hospitals. Basically, everyone should carry a gun at all times or at least be accompanied by someone who has one. Then we would all truly be safe.

#20 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-06 09:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think we should eliminate sex education in schools and institute mandatory gun training instead. How young should we start?

#21 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-06 09:50 AM | Reply

"And you people don't know how much closer making stupid statements like the above is getting this nation to civil war."

Sorry Boaz, I don't like to say mean things to you, but that is simply stupid. We are simply not going to have a civil war. Take off your cowboy boots and hat and grow up.

#22 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-06 09:54 AM | Reply

how are guns legitimately used to protect you against your government?

#16 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-11-06 09:30 AM | FLAG:

Ask an Kurd.

#23 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-06 09:56 AM | Reply

"And remember, as to your comment about a .22 against a hellfire, a military member would have to fire that hellfire and the last time I looked, those military members usually aren't liberal and probably wont open fire on fellow citizens."

Sorry, but once again you say something stupid. When we had a draft you could make the point you just tried to make but with an all volunteer military don't count on it. They are paid mercenaries, they will do what they are told to do and if they won't another paid mercenary will shoot them and then do what they refused to do. Hey, this is what y'all wanted, I've been saying we should bring back the citizens army through the draft for years.

#24 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-06 09:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How young should we start?

#21 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

a gun could have helped me -------- in high school. (I had acne).

#25 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 09:57 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Ask an Kurd."

You mean the Kurds who just backed down to a superior show of force from the Iraqi Army? Don't get me wrong, I have tremendous sympathy and respect for the Kurds but they are no match for a modern military and they know it.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-06 09:57 AM | Reply

More must die so boaz can hump his guns. But we're the sick ones...

#27 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2017-11-06 09:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If it were not for the U.S. military and those same Kurds, Iraq would be the ISIS caliphate.

The Iraqi's are a weak military and full of corruption.

#28 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-06 09:59 AM | Reply

More must die so boaz can hump his guns. But we're the sick ones...

Actually, you are the sick ones. Thinking that a law is going to stop something like this when laws already exist.

It's not the weapon stupid, it's the person pulling the trigger, which NO liberal has addressed in this thread yet.

#29 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-06 10:01 AM | Reply

"those military members usually aren't liberal and probably wont open fire on fellow citizens."

thank heavens they're not like the loony-left cops.

#30 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2017-11-06 10:01 AM | Reply

We can't get mental health care in this country, boaz. Your precious republicans in charge don't care about you or us. Idiot.

#31 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2017-11-06 10:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You mean the Kurds who just backed down to a superior show of force from the Iraqi Army? Don't get me wrong, I have tremendous sympathy and respect for the Kurds but they are no match for a modern military and they know it.

#26 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-11-06 09:57 AM | FLAG:

Okay, then ask an Iraqi.

Here's the problem with people saying "you can't fight the US government with rifles." This is patently false, people around the world do it all the time. The outcome is not guaranteed. Is the 2nd Amendment only supposed to be a right if you can beat the government? No, of course not.

#32 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-06 10:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And to Kudzu's point, I want Boaz to tell me how effective his little .22 is going to be against a Hellfire missile fired from a Predator drone.

#12 | Posted by gtbritishskull

And THAT is the growing problem. We are headed to a time when relatively few from a "safe" place along with a small force can create control in this country by force even if the vast majority are against it.

#33 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-11-06 10:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I got this.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families of this atrocious attack.

Also, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families of the next atrocious attack.

Boom. Problem solved.

#34 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-06 10:06 AM | Reply

Here's the problem with people saying "you can't fight the US government with rifles." This is patently false, people around the world do it all the time. The outcome is not guaranteed. Is the 2nd Amendment only supposed to be a right if you can beat the government? No, of course not.

#32 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

You are talking about an invading force trying not to kill civilian targets. Little different here at home. US Troops would have to fight neighbors.

#35 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-06 10:08 AM | Reply

Worst mass shooting since the last mass shooting 30 days ago.

Too soon to start talking about gun control. The gun had nothing to do with it. Stop picking on the poor innocent gun.

You are offending BOAZ.

#36 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-06 10:12 AM | Reply

You are talking about

#35 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-06 10:08 AM | FLAG:

I didn't refer to any invasion. I just referred to the "US Government".

#37 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-06 10:13 AM | Reply

Doesn't matter. We have a right to bear arms, we have it for multiple reasons, one of those is to fight against abusive government, the outcome is not guaranteed.

#38 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-06 10:14 AM | Reply

Whatever. The constitution says you cant. So there.

The constitution does not protect you as much as you think it does. You right to bear arms is not absolute. Felons? Mentally ill? The constitution isn't the problem. It is society (and special interests) that preserve your right to bear arms. How many more mass shooting need to happen for society to change their minds?

And you people don't know how much closer making stupid statements like the above is getting this nation to civil war.

Bring it. I WILL NOT be bullied. I AM NOT going to submit to your anarchistic threats. Unlike the little snowflakes on your side, I will stand by my convictions. Threats of violence will not control me. Your side keeps saying that "Antifa" will overthrow the government (weren't they supposed to do it this past weekend, according to the r-wingnuts?). But, it is projection. YOU want and would try to get your way in the government with violence, so you assume that liberals must be as deranged as you are and would do the same thing.

Also... you have just proven my point. THIS is why people like you SHOULD NOT HAVE GUNS.

And remember, as to your comment about a .22 against a hellfire, a military member would have to fire that hellfire and the last time I looked, those military members usually aren't liberal and probably wont open fire on fellow citizens.

Then why do you need guns at all? Your side claims they need them to protect themselves against the government, but here you are saying the government wouldn't attack you. Which is it?

Ohhh... I see. You think that only the military can use drones and missiles. And they are all upstanding citizens that would NEVER do something untoward (like advocate abandoning one of their own to torture and death because of unproven allegations that he might have gotten captured because of his own idiocy). Sorry to burst your bubble, but ANYONE can use a drone. If your fantasy were to come true and the institutions of our government were to try to suppress the populace, then you can rest assured that they will be using drones and missiles.

#18 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You see... it was actually very helpful to liberals like me that you elected Trump. Now I can understand you because I can study Trump, and y'all are just like him. You don't understand soft power, or how to act in a society. All you understand is threats and violence, and you can't understand why anyone would do anything not in their direct self interest unless they had the threat of violence hanging over them. The need for guns arises from the fact that people like you don't feel constrained by our social contract, so you feel like everyone else must be the same way. And if someone hits at you, like a five year old you just hit back at them harder. You don't use your brains to resolve conflicts, you use your fists.

It is called being a sociopath. And I DO NOT WANT sociopath's to have guns. Regardless of how much they threaten me with violence. Threats of violence actually reinforce the idea that they are sociopaths so makes me MORE DETERMINED to take their guns away.

#39 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2017-11-06 10:14 AM | Reply

Doesn't matter. We have a right to bear arms, we have it for multiple reasons, one of those is to fight against abusive government, the outcome is not guaranteed.

#38 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Yes but WHAT guns. That's the issue.

The Framers only had in mind single shot muskets that took 30 seconds minimum to reload and could barely hit a barn door 50 yards.

#40 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-06 10:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Bring it. I WILL NOT be bullied. I AM NOT going to submit to your anarchistic threats. Unlike the little snowflakes on your side, I will stand by my convictions."

Translation. "If you pass legitimate laws limiting my right to won fire arms in any way then I will shoot down any law enforcement officer who comes to enforce such laws." Never mind that even Boaz already accepts other limits on his holy right like the right to own a 50 caliber machine gun or an ICBM. No logic to his thinking because his ideas are put in his head by NRA and other right wing media spokesmen.

#41 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-06 10:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So boaz, back to the starting point... (I don't want to chase you down all your weird rabbit holes, I want a straight answer).

You make a point that the problem is mental illness. Everyone, liberal and conservative, agrees that anyone who would blindly kill innocent people is mentally ill. You also make the point that the gun is innocuous, when it is not in someone's hands, especially someone with mental illness. Again, everyone can agree with that on the physical level.

So my question for you, and please try to make a valid point, is, 'How do you make the determination, using the fact that either current mental illness or future mental illness should disqualify one for gun ownership, of who can have a firearm and who can't'?

And, second question, 'If you cannot make that determination, are you okay with the continuation of civilian slaughters?'

#42 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 10:34 AM | Reply

And THAT is the growing problem. We are headed to a time when relatively few from a "safe" place along with a small force can create control in this country by force even if the vast majority are against it.

#33 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE

We are still safe. Yes, it is theoretically possible for a small minority to take over the US and control the majority by force. But, to what end? People would fight. People would die. Smart people, for example who have studied history (I'm talking professors, not preppers), who know how best to wage asymmetric warfare would start dusting off their books and implementing what they know (or educating people who are willing to take action). Engineers who designed Iphones and biochemists who cured diseases would go to designing bomb control circuits and explosives. IT security experts would go from protecting the systems to exploiting every flaw that they ever became aware of.

But more importantly, all of these smart people would no longer be concentrating their productive capacity on useful segments of the US economy. The GDP of the US would plummet. One of the primary benefits of the US economy is that the independence of the populace and their willingness to question authority. If someone tried to take over the country like in Boaz's wet dream, they would be killing the golden egg goose.

Look at what is happening with Trump. He was democratically elected (sort of) to the highest office in the country, but he tried to treat it as a dictatorship and now he has been completely marginalized. I am more concerned about Boaz's wingnuts and their "revolution" than I am about the government suppressing the populace, even though we have one of Boaz's wingnuts as the chief executive of our government.

#43 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2017-11-06 10:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why is the very confusing wording of the 2nd amendment ignored?

"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."

Why is the militia part ignored by gun nuts?

#44 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-06 10:36 AM | Reply

"Texas Church Shooter Was Kicked Out Of Air Force After Beating His Wife And Child"

taskandpurpose.com

So, should this lunatic have had the right to buy an assault rifle?

#45 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-06 10:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So, should this lunatic have had the right to buy an assault rifle?

#45 | POSTED BY DANNI

you won't get an answer to this question. Either a yes of a no is bad news for the gun nuts. They want the question to not be asked, until after the shooting.

#46 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 10:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So, should this lunatic have had the right to buy an assault rifle?

#45 | POSTED BY DANNI

In April 2016, Kelley purchased the Ruger AR-556 rifle he allegedly used in the shooting from a store in San Antonio, Texas, a law enforcement official said. There was no disqualifying information in the background check conducted as required for the purchase, a law enforcement official told CNN.
At one point, the shooter tried to get a license to carry a gun in Texas but was denied by the state, Abbott said, citing the director of Texas' Department of Public Safety.
"So how was it that he was able to get a gun? By all the facts that we seem to know, he was not supposed to have access to a gun," Abbott said. "So how did this happen?"

www.cnn.com

#47 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2017-11-06 10:56 AM | Reply

""So how did this happen?"

Seriously should be investigated and that gun store has some serious explaining to do. Perhaps they should lose their license to sell guns.

#48 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-06 11:00 AM | Reply

The NPR report I heard this morning said that a bystander went up to this guy and grabbed his gun away from him which caused him to flee. I don't know why but this real hero hasn't been mentioned in any of the other reports I've heard, I think his behavior should be recognized and encouraged in episodes such as this.

#49 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-06 11:04 AM | Reply

President Donald Trump said Monday that Sunday's mass shooting at a Texas church "isn't a guns situation" but instead "a mental health problem at the highest level."

That's why he and the GOP are working so hard to make sure all americans have access to good mental health care.

HAhahahaahahh get it?

They don't want to restrict guns, they don't want to pay for mental health care, what conclusion can you reach other than they don't care about people getting shot and killed?

#50 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 11:06 AM | Reply


Why is the militia part ignored by gun nuts?

#44 | Posted by Danni

Why do you ignore the the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed part?

#51 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-06 11:07 AM | Reply

I don't know why but this real hero hasn't been mentioned in any of the other reports I've heard, I think his behavior should be recognized and encouraged in episodes such as this.

why doesn't your story include the "the bystander engaged in a firefight with the assailant"? Because that what's happened..

Oh, it doesn't fit with your "the people should be disarmed" narrative...

#52 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-06 11:09 AM | Reply

The Framers only had in mind single shot muskets

#40 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-06 10:26 AM | FLAG:

This isn't even close to true. Repeating firearms pre-date the Constitution. Cookson Repeater, Kalthoff Repeater, and Puckle Guns had been around for over 100 years. They just couldn't afford to outfit the Continental Army with them.

#53 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-06 11:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Why do you ignore the the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed part?

#51 | POSTED BY BOAZ

so, you do think mentally ill people should have that right too? and felons too?

#54 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 11:11 AM | Reply

Also, during the Revolutionary War, our army was actually quite famous for its long range marksmen, sniping British generals at 250-300 yards. This was highly celebrated, so "barely hit a barn door at 50 yards" is empirically untrue. It just requires practice.

#55 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-06 11:13 AM | Reply

I've got an idea, let's give guns to people in prison too. Denying them guns is an 'infringement' on the absolutist idea.

#56 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 11:14 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

We can't get mental health care in this country, boaz. Your precious republicans in charge don't care about you or us. Idiot.

#31 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE AT 2017-11-06 10:02 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Well tax cuts for billionaires ain't gonna pay for themselves. The GOP Health(dont)care Act would have eliminated mental health coverage if it passed.

#57 | Posted by 726 at 2017-11-06 11:24 AM | Reply

I think we should eliminate sex education in schools and institute mandatory gun training instead. How young should we start? - #21 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-06 09:50 AM
Earliest possible gun safety courses would certainly save lives in the event that a child comes across an unsecured firearm. 1st grade?

We can't get mental health care in this country, boaz. - #31 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2017-11-06 10:02 AM
What exactly is preventing you from purchasing mental health care?

If you don't like the way the 2nd amendment works, the founding fathers helpfully left a method in the Constitution to allow you to amend it. Like backdoor abortion bans, warrantless searches, and voter suppression, attempting to use backdoor methods to abrogate rights of civilians to keep and bear arms are wrong.

#58 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 11:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

so, you do think mentally ill people should have that right too? and felons too?

No, but I don't think you should try to take my right because someone else went out and committed a crime.

#59 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-06 11:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


I've got an idea, let's give guns to people in prison too. Denying them guns is an 'infringement' on the absolutist idea. - #56 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 11:14 AM

Might want to check into the 5th amendment.
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

#60 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 11:33 AM | Reply

Still no answer on whether infringing on mentally ill persons and prisoners right to own guns is allowed....

After all, it is an infringement, is it not? Does the 2nd adm. not say, 'shall not be infringed'?

I am not trying to be absurd, I am trying to figure out how the wing-ding ideas are supposed to work.

#61 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 11:34 AM | Reply

Would you rather spend the night in a gun shop full of guns where you have the right to bear arms or a night in prison where no one has the right to bear arms?

#62 | Posted by HanoverFist at 2017-11-06 11:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What exactly is preventing you from purchasing mental health care?"

People can't afford it.

You're a ------.

#63 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2017-11-06 11:37 AM | Reply

#60 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

okay, so now we are getting somewhere.

so, we can infringe if there is due process? what due process would have stopped the vegas terrorist? What due process would have stopped this latest terrorist?

Should being charged with domestic assault be a qualifier? How about other misdemeanors?

#64 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 11:38 AM | Reply

A vast number of Americans worship guns, gold and God.

In that order of importance.

#65 | Posted by ExpectingReign at 2017-11-06 11:38 AM | Reply

Some of these guys just look frigging nuts.
He looks crazy, even in his yearbook photo.
The aurora shooter looked nuts too.

Screw a background check, just use you eyes.

#66 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-06 11:39 AM | Reply

I read the due was a diehard atheist.
It was his ex-inlaw's church.

#67 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-06 11:41 AM | Reply

Would you rather spend the night in a gun shop full of guns where you have the right to bear arms or a night in prison where no one has the right to bear arms?

#62 | POSTED BY HANOVERFIST

If the gun shop is full of Trump voters, I would take my chances in prison.

#68 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 11:41 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

It was his ex-inlaw's church.
#67 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE

I keep trying to find it but have not been able to.

Did he kill the in-laws?

Wouldn't it be weird if the in-laws decided not to go to church that day?

#69 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 11:44 AM | Reply


I am not trying to be absurd, I am trying to figure out how the wing-ding ideas are supposed to work.

#61 | Posted by kudzu

You need to understand your own stupid left wing ding policies first, because we know they don't work..

#70 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-06 11:44 AM | Reply

When seconds count....

The FBI and Homeland Security are only days away...

One of the few church that was a gun free zone.

Crazies in Texas now just drive around looking for those gun free signs.

Everyday in Texas... these signs are get harder and harder to find...

#71 | Posted by Pegasus at 2017-11-06 11:45 AM | Reply

#68

FF

#72 | Posted by HanoverFist at 2017-11-06 11:46 AM | Reply

BTW,

Are we going to ban cars because someone else went out and drove drunk? I think there's a law against that, but it doesn't stop people from doing it..

#73 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-06 11:47 AM | Reply

Kudzu,

www.dailymail.co.uk

#74 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-06 11:48 AM | Reply

"why doesn't your story include the "the bystander engaged in a firefight with the assailant"? Because that what's happened.."

Because that is not what they said on NPR this morning. If that happened I'm still glad he did what he did. He is still a hero but I heard only that he grabbed the gun away from the shooter.

#75 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-06 11:49 AM | Reply

So, lots of opinions and angles. My only opinion is that if there is a large group of Americans who believe that people should not have to prove their citizenship when included in civil duties because the Constitution doesn't explicitly say so (even though the inference is common sense but since when did leftist views contain common sense?), then what the poop are you fighting against when the Constitution DOES explicitly say, beyond any doubt or debate, that another right is not to be infringed?

That's why it's impossible to take the leftist views seriously when people are so blatantly willing to follow one train of thought because it supports their position but then completely go against it when it doesn't support their position. That is not a serious way to govern.

#76 | Posted by humtake at 2017-11-06 11:52 AM | Reply

Danni,
I heard it was a shotgun, and then I read an account from a guy that says they chased him in their car. He said the neighbor had a shootout with the guy, and that the neighbor had a rifle.
It's crazy all the different details the media are reporting. I don't blame them, but it is confusing to know what's true and what could be fog of war type facts.

#77 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-06 11:52 AM | Reply

What's the over/under on how many news reports will begin with this guy's religion?

#78 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-06 11:54 AM | Reply

Ex felons and guns don't mix.
Those convicted of domestic abuse and guns don't mix.
Mentally ill and guns don't mix.

That dude got fat in the time between his HS photo and yesterday.

#79 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-06 11:56 AM | Reply

Seriously should be investigated and that gun store has some serious explaining to do. Perhaps they should lose their license to sell guns.
#48 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-11-06 11:00 AM | FLAG:

The gun store acted appropriately. They ran the legally required federal check. Texas does not have any additional state requirements. To me, the question is why someone with a history of domestic abuse is not on the restricted list in the database.

The NPR report I heard this morning said that a bystander went up to this guy and grabbed his gun away from him which caused him to flee. I don't know why but this real hero hasn't been mentioned in any of the other reports I've heard, I think his behavior should be recognized and encouraged in episodes such as this.
#49 | POSTED BY DANNI

What I read was that he fled the scene when a neighbor fired a shot at him after he exited the church he then killed himself after crashing in the cornfield.

#80 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2017-11-06 11:56 AM | Reply

78
They may play the atheist angle, but "dishonorably discharged vet" will probably be the descriptor.

#81 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-06 11:57 AM | Reply

It's not the weapon stupid, it's the person pulling the trigger, which NO liberal has addressed in this thread yet.

#29 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Exactly, this is why we need more regulation. To keep the ones not pulling the trigger from selling the weapons to people like Boaz. If we make criminals of the people willing to sell guns to nutcases like Boaz, then the problem will stop.

#73 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Are cars designed to kill people efficiently or do OEMs strive to make them more and more safe each year?

Boaz is proof we need more strict firearm laws and educational reform.

#82 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-06 11:57 AM | Reply

Ex felons and guns don't mix.
Those convicted of domestic abuse and guns don't mix.
Mentally ill and guns don't mix.

#79 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE

exactly. So the idea that 'the right ... shall not be infringed' is not absolute.

#83 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 12:01 PM | Reply

The Framers only had in mind single shot muskets
#40 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-06 10:26 AM | FLAG:
This isn't even close to true. Repeating firearms pre-date the Constitution. Cookson Repeater, Kalthoff Repeater, and Puckle Guns had been around for over 100 years. They just couldn't afford to outfit the Continental Army with them.
#53 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

They were both garbage guns that also couldn't get dirty or wouldn't fire. They were also so insanely rare and expensive that virtually no one had them.

Are you trying to tell me the Framers had in mind everyone carrying around large guns like the Cookson and Kalthoff or Puckle guns?

The Framers had in mind single shot muskets. Accept it.

#84 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-06 12:02 PM | Reply

Because that is not what they said on NPR this morning.

There are other news sources out there reporting the truth, not just a liberalized version of it.

#85 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-06 12:03 PM | Reply

@therealdonaldtrump

I could stand in the middle of a church and shoot people and I wouldn't lose voters.

www.cnn.com

#86 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-06 12:04 PM | Reply


Boaz is proof we need more strict firearm laws and educational reform.

#82 | Posted by IndianaJones

You are proof that liberals like you need to be "educated".

#87 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-06 12:05 PM | Reply

They had paper in mind when crafting the 1st amendment so it doesn't apply to the internet.
Syco

#88 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-06 12:05 PM | Reply

I could stand in the middle of a church and shoot people and I wouldn't lose voters.

It's not a testament on Trump, it's a testament on how bad the candidates you Democrats would be putting up against a murderer who could still get elected.

#89 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-06 12:06 PM | Reply

Are we going to ban cars because someone else went out and drove drunk?

That is one stupid strawman you put there.

#90 | Posted by 726 at 2017-11-06 12:08 PM | Reply

it's a testament on how bad the candidates you Democrats

No, it's a testament to how stupid and gullible you trumpers are.

#91 | Posted by 726 at 2017-11-06 12:08 PM | Reply

They had paper in mind when crafting the 1st amendment so it doesn't apply to the internet.
Syco

#88 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE

Actually, yes. We had to modify how we interpret the Constitution to apply it to the internet.

Good point, 101.

Now why aren't we doing the same with guns?

#92 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-06 12:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#89

It's a testament to the blind loyalty to a billionaire who lies to you about, well, everything, including that he is on your side. He can get away with grabbing p... or feet... or shooting people, and his voters, like yourself, wouldn't care.

#93 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-06 12:11 PM | Reply

The Framers had in mind single shot muskets. Accept it.

#84 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-06 12:02 PM | FLAG:

You'd never even heard of them until I told you they existed. The Founding Fathers had person access to significantly more firepower than a single shot musket. They tried to purchase them for the Continental Army, they just couldn't afford them. They saw major advances in both personal firepower and combat warship construction in their time. They were familiar with technological change. The argument they only "had in mind single shot muskets" is empirically untrue and doesn't even hold up to casual review. You should let it go, it's never going to be a valid point of debate.

#94 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-06 12:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It's crazy all the different details the media are reporting. I don't blame them, but it is confusing to know what's true and what could be fog of war type facts."

They should get their facts straight before the report rumors.

"Are cars designed to kill people efficiently or do OEMs strive to make them more and more safe each year?"

The automatic braking feature probably could prevent cars and trucks from being used as weapons.

#95 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-06 12:12 PM | Reply

92
We did.
Background checks, licenses, restrictions, etc didn't exist back in the day.
There was no differentiation between conceal or open carry.

#96 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-06 12:15 PM | Reply

@#64 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 11:38 AM
so, we can infringe if there is due process? The constitution says so
what due process would have stopped the vegas terrorist? None
What due process would have stopped this latest terrorist? I don't know enough yet to answer that.
Should being charged with domestic assault be a qualifier? How about other misdemeanors? In my opinion, no.

#97 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 12:17 PM | Reply

#94 |

www.minnpost.com

#98 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-06 12:18 PM | Reply

That is one stupid strawman you put there. - #90 | Posted by 726 at 2017-11-06 12:08 PM
Point of order. He is neither assigning a position nor defeating it, the 2 parts of the strawman fallacy.

#99 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 12:22 PM | Reply

The Framers had in mind single shot muskets. Accept it.
#84 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-06 12:02 PM | FLAG:
You'd never even heard of them until I told you they existed. The Founding Fathers had person access to significantly more firepower than a single shot musket. They tried to purchase them for the Continental Army, they just couldn't afford them. They saw major advances in both personal firepower and combat warship construction in their time. They were familiar with technological change. The argument they only "had in mind single shot muskets" is empirically untrue and doesn't even hold up to casual review. You should let it go, it's never going to be a valid point of debate.

#94 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

And are you claiming the Framers thought people would be walking down the streets with these things? That they'd be prevalent?

They had in mind people having single shot muskets. They didn't have in mind these multi-shot weapons let alone Ak-47s.

By the way, there are volley guns dating back to the 15th Century. There's a reason people just carried multiple pistols if they needed multiple shots.

#100 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-06 12:40 PM | Reply

"Point of order."

Do you think you are in some sort of court or something? What planet are you from?

#101 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-06 01:05 PM | Reply

Why do you ignore the the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed part?

#51 | Posted by boaz

Why do you pretend the founders could have imagined what ARMS would be like in 200 years?

They thought arms were muskets that shot 50 yards and took 20 seconds to load.

#102 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 01:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#102,

So? That's why they put the convention process in our constitution. You don't like it? Change it.

But you cant, because most of the country disagrees with the type of gun control you want...

#103 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-06 01:08 PM | Reply

So? That's why they put the convention process in our constitution. You don't like it? Change it.

But you cant, because most of the country disagrees with the type of gun control you want...

Posted by boaz at 2017-11-06 01:08 PM | Reply

Ronald Reagan wanted gun control hell the NRA wanted gun control too.

#104 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-06 01:14 PM | Reply

So? That's why they put the convention process in our constitution. You don't like it? Change it.

But you cant, because most of the country disagrees with the type of gun control you want...

#103 | Posted by boaz

Actually most gun owners are fine with more gun control. It's only the NRA puppets and their morons in conservative media that scream about gun seizures.

The founders also didn't imagine a time when our government would function only for whoever pays it the biggest bribes. Nothing can be fixed or changed any more, except to benefit those who are already rich, and gun makers are rich.

#105 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 01:17 PM | Reply

They didn't have in mind these multi-shot weapons

if they needed multiple shots

#100 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-06 12:40 PM | REPLY

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

#106 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-06 01:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Actually most gun owners are fine with more gun control. It's only the NRA puppets and their morons in conservative media that scream about gun seizures. - #105 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 01:17 PM

Then you shouldn't have any problem at all getting the amendment ratified. Best of luck.

#107 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 01:44 PM | Reply

They thought arms were muskets that shot 50 yards and took 20 seconds to load.

#102 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-11-06 01:06 PM | FLAG:

Again, they tried to buy repeating rifles, had already seen a major technical advancement in those within their lifetime, and were leading a society where people were shooting 200+ yards in combat before they wrote the Constitution. As Sycophant noted, they already had high volumes of fire because people just used more than 1 gun. They chose not to limit any of this when writing the Constitution. Empirical history says your talking point is not fact based.

#108 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-06 01:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Then you shouldn't have any problem at all getting the amendment ratified. Best of luck.

#107 | Posted by Avigdore

I wouldn't if i could buy off half the government like the NRA does. Just as the founders intended right?

#109 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 01:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I wouldn't if i could buy off half the government like the NRA does.

Relative to other organizations, the NRA donates very little money to politicians.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 02:02 PM | Reply

Relative to other organizations, the NRA donates very little money to politicians.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ

They don't have to. When you own a bazooka, you don't have to shoot it in order to get people to do what you want.

You just have to THREATEN to use it, and you get what you want.

#111 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 02:08 PM | Reply

A bazooka?

Are you suggesting that members of the NRA are personally threatening members of congress with their weapons?

#112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 02:10 PM | Reply

Are you suggesting that members of the NRA are personally threatening members of congress with their weapons?

#112 | Posted by JeffJ

Wow you really missed that metaphor.

The NRA's money is a bazooka. They don't have to spend it in order to get republicans to obey them. They just have to threaten to fund a primary challenger against anyone who disobeys. Presto. Total obedience for zero money spent.

Stop making me explain simple things to you.

#113 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 02:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

They'll blow up your phones.

#114 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-06 02:14 PM | Reply

Why do we have to go through the process of changing the constitution? It is only conservative activist interpretations that expand its meaning and drop the part about a "Militia". The federal government has every right to regulate firearms under the constitution.

And stop ---- pretending that you give a crap about the constitution. You elected, and continue to support, Trump. That shows that the only value you place in the document is in how well it could possibly ----- the ---- off your -----.

#115 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2017-11-06 02:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

At some point in time, people have to ask themselves why this is an American thing that keeps happening.

You ain't gonna like the answer, no matter what party you favor.

#116 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 02:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#115 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL

I wish i had said that. Good job.

#117 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 02:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

At some point in time, people have to ask themselves why this is an American thing that keeps happening.

You ain't gonna like the answer, no matter what party you favor.

#116 | Posted by kudzu

It was also an australian thing that kept happening, so australia fixed it.

Lots of problems we can't fix are fixable in countries that don't have republicans.

#118 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 02:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

It was also an australian thing that kept happening, so australia fixed it.

#118 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

what's the short version of what they did to fix it.

#119 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-11-06 02:46 PM | Reply

Why is the militia part ignored ...

It's not ignored. It's a statement of purpose, a preamble or prefatory clause, that neither limits nor expands the express grant that follows. No different than the preamble to the constitution which neither limits nor expands the express grants in the Articles that follow.

So, should this lunatic have had the right to buy an assault rifle?

No, his domestic violence court martial and conviction precludes his buying or possessing any weapon. However, it appears that he lied on the background check form, a felony, and for some reason the conviction did not show up in the NICS database. Why did it not show up? Good question.

#120 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-06 02:53 PM | Reply

If I can't defend myself from a threat, I will not go there.

I don't believe in gun-free zones.

I don't believe that they deserve my money or my patronage.

Because quite frankly, there is not a single place in this country that is immune from criminal activity.

And while it may be a rare instance in which that place is targeted, the fact of the matter is I don't want to be a victim.

I will not go someplace that I can't defend myself or my family.

Of course, the police are there to protect you. They will show up hours later, just in time to give a press conference.

#121 | Posted by Pegasus at 2017-11-06 03:26 PM | Reply

#121 | Posted by Pegasus

You sound like a very fearful person. Like most gun lovers.

#122 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 03:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The NRA's money is a bazooka. - #113 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 02:14 PM
It is the membership of the NRA's votes, not their money, that drives their political power.

#123 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 03:46 PM | Reply

It is the membership of the NRA's votes, not their money, that drives their political power.

#123 | Posted by Avigdore

Nope. Most NRA members support more more gun control than we have today.
www.politifact.com

It's only the NRA leadership and their republican puppets who are absolutist on the matter.

#124 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 03:49 PM | Reply

You sound like a very fearful person. Like most gun lovers. - #122 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 03:42 PM
Do the fearful have less rights? Do their votes not count as much? Was their some purpose to the statement?

#125 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 03:50 PM | Reply

Nope. Most NRA members support more more gun control than we have today. - #124 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 03:49 PM
What does that non-sequitur have to do with my statement regarding money and votes? I didn't make any claim about how they chose to vote, only that it was their vote, not their money, that influenced politicians.

#126 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 03:53 PM | Reply

it's not guns, it's HEALTHCARE.

#127 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-11-06 04:05 PM | Reply

A "good guy with a gun" stopped a guy after he had slaughtered 27 people and that is viewed as a huge win for anyone who that argument ever sounded plausible to.

Congratulations, fellas.

#128 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 05:12 PM | Reply

And BTW, the shooter killed himself.

The "good guy with a gun" argument is still a myth.

#129 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 05:21 PM | Reply

Citation for that last part MSD?

#130 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 05:26 PM | Reply

Citation for that last part MSD?

#130 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT

Ummm,,,

Did the guy off himself?

#131 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 05:31 PM | Reply

Hmmm. Newest reports indicate he was shot by the good guy and he shot himself, autopsy will determine which caused his death. Or we can assume MSD knows more

#132 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 05:31 PM | Reply

nypost.com

Headline:

Church shooter called father before killing himself

#133 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 05:34 PM | Reply

So, here's your big win.

The guy killed 26 or 27 people and then himself.

A "good guy with a gun" "stopped" him though.

Big win for you guys.

Congratulations.

#134 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 05:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What does that non-sequitur have to do with my statement regarding money and votes? I didn't make any claim about how they chose to vote, only that it was their vote, not their money, that influenced politicians.

#126 | Posted by Avigdore

It has to do with the fact that it's not the votes of NRA members that politicians are afraid of, because NRA members are fine with increased background checks. It's the NRA-funded primary challenges that they're afraid of, which keep them from voting for background checks.

#135 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 05:44 PM | Reply

Do you read past the headline?
"Investigators "found evidence at the scene indicates that the subject may have died form a self-inflicted gunshot wound," Martin said."

Good job on the N.Y. post editors to let that 'form' slide through

#136 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 05:45 PM | Reply

* HOW TEXAS SHOOTER GOT HIS GUN: Devin Patrick Kelley, identified by police as the gunman who killed 26 people in a Texas church yesterday, was court-martialed from the Air Force over domestic assault. CNN also reports:

Kelley purchased the Ruger AR-556 rifle in April 2016 from an Academy Sports & Outdoors store in San Antonio, a law enforcement official told CNN. When Kelley filled out the background check paperwork at the store, he checked the box to indicate he didn't have disqualifying criminal history, the official said.

It's still unclear whether Kelley was actually disqualified from owning a gun, but regardless, Trump has already pronounced this a "mental health" problem, and not a "guns situation."

www.washingtonpost.com

#137 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-06 05:45 PM | Reply

27 people got killed.

My side wins!

#136 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT

Fixed.

#138 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 06:08 PM | Reply

"The NRA is a powerful political force -- but not because of its money"
The ultra conservatives at
www.vox.com

#139 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 06:35 PM | Reply

" the much bigger threat the gun rights group poses is its ability to mobilize and excite huge numbers of voters, Drutman says."

#140 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-06 06:39 PM | Reply

"Why is the militia part ignored ..."
It's not ignored. It's a statement of purpose, a preamble or prefatory clause, that neither limits nor expands the express grant that follows. No different than the preamble to the constitution which neither limits nor expands the express grants in the Articles that follow.

#120 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Oooh ooh ooh! I can do the same thing; the part that says "shall not be infringed" is just a rhetorical closing. It balances the sentence but it doesn't actually have meaning... "It is not ignored". Hahaha want an absurd claim.

#141 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-06 06:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nowhere in the 2nd does it say the right to keep and bear arms is limited to a well regulated militia.

#142 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 06:55 PM | Reply

#142 but it does say the militia is the raison d'etre for not abridging the right.

It's also demonstrably false.

Can anyone identify the militia that is necessary for the security of our free state? Nobody can; it's a silly concept.

#143 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 07:00 PM | Reply

Nowhere in the 2nd does it say the right to keep and bear arms is limited to a well regulated militia.

#142 | Posted by JeffJ

That's up to the interpreter.

One could argue if it wasn't meant to be limited to militia, why was the part about the militia even included?

www.law.cornell.edu

"The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita ... ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). "

So the court interpreted it one way, the NRA lobbies like hell to get it changed, and presto, suddenly the constitution has a different meaning, without a single word being re written.

#144 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 07:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#143

It wasn't a silly concept when the Constitution was written.

#145 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 07:05 PM | Reply

"It wasn't a silly concept when the Constitution was written."

Times change.
Conservatives don't.

#146 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 07:15 PM | Reply

"27 people got murdered?

WIN!!!"

-- the mouthbreathers in the NRA

#147 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 07:15 PM | Reply

You people are sick.
Well, you aren't taking my RIGHT to own a weapon. So get over it.
So, people who fight tooth and nail to keep their guns... I want to take their guns away.
Whatever. The constitution says you cant. So there.
And you people don't know how much closer making stupid statements like the above is getting this nation to civil war.
And remember, as to your comment about a .22 against a hellfire, a military member would have to fire that hellfire and the last time I looked, those military members usually aren't liberal and probably wont open fire on fellow citizens.

#18 | POSTED BY BOAZ

If that's not Section 8 material, I don't know what is.

#148 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2017-11-06 07:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"27 people got murdered?
WIN!!!"

It's literally favorable to a gun ban, in their hearts and minds.

I give Docnjo for actually saying it though.

All these other cucks just hem and haw and won't go on the record that they prefer mass shootings to repealing the Second Amendment.

They'll say something like "Repealing the Second Amendment is a political impossibility." Without acknowledgement that they're part of the body politic that makes it impossible.

#149 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 07:20 PM | Reply

And remember, as to your comment about a .22 against a hellfire, a military member would have to fire that hellfire and the last time I looked, those military members usually aren't liberal and probably wont open fire on fellow citizens.

#18 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-06 09:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Kent State proves you wrong.

#150 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-06 07:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I can do the same thing; the part that says "shall not be infringed" is just a rhetorical closing.

You can try but your attempt has no legal meaning. The construction of a preamble I presented does. legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

#151 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-06 07:46 PM | Reply

I hope the next time 30ish people get slaughtered no one says a ******* word.

The NRA mouth breathers can gloat about how they won because the guy shot himself at the end and all of the usual **** they always do, the normal people need to back away from it and allow them to look like the lunatics that they are.

#152 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 07:57 PM | Reply

I hope the next time 30ish people get slaughtered no normal person says a ******* word.

The NRA mouth breathers can gloat about how they won because the guy shot himself at the end and all of the usual **** they always do, the normal people need to back away from it and allow them to look like the lunatics that they are.

#152 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD AT

Fixed.

#153 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 07:58 PM | Reply

"It wasn't a silly concept when the Constitution was written."
----
Times change.

Conservatives don't.

#146 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Words mean what they mean.

Don't like the 2nd?

A process for change exists. Focus on that.

#154 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 07:59 PM | Reply

27 people got murdered.

My side won.

I am a sick ****.

#154 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT

Fixed.

#155 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 08:01 PM | Reply

"A process for change exists. Focus on that."

Many processes for change exist.

Heller was a change.

Gun lovers focused on using the courts to expand gun rights.

And they even used Senate rules to keep someone they saw as a threat off the Supreme Court.

Your rejoinder isn't reflective of how we got to where we are today.

#156 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 08:06 PM | Reply

#144

Have you read Miller, hell, for that matter have you read Heller? Miller is a jumbled mess as far as SC opinions go. As many scholars, if not more, read the case as supporting an individual rights theory as much as a collective rights theory. After all, the case, in dicta, says there is an individual constitutional right to bear arms that have a military purpose but that the sawed off shotgun Miller possessed had no military purpose. Thus Miller was not protected by the Second Amendment.

Miller's history reveals it a test case set up as nonadversarial litigation to approve the National Firearms Act taxation scheme.

#157 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-06 08:07 PM | Reply

"Words mean what they mean."

Even when they're not true, like the Second Amendment?

As a statement of fact, the sentence is not true.

A well regulated militia is simply not necessary for the security of a free state.

Now, who disagrees?

#158 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 08:08 PM | Reply

A process for change exists. Focus on that.

#154 | Posted by JeffJ

Stop acting like we have a functioning democracy.

Government works for the highest bidder, politicians draw their own districts, and the person who gets the most votes comes in 2nd place.

Focus on THAT.

#159 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 08:14 PM | Reply

Stop acting like we have a functioning democracy.

The US is not a democracy!!

~ the same idiots that always say that

#160 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-06 08:22 PM | Reply

#159

We have a functioning democracy.

Your beef is with how voters choose to vote.

#161 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 08:26 PM | Reply

27 people got murdered.
My side won.
I am a sick ****.
#154 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT
Fixed.

#155 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

That wasn't even remotely clever. Or funny.

#162 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 08:28 PM | Reply

A well regulated militia is simply not necessary for the security of a free state...

#158 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

In 1790, it was.

#163 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 08:29 PM | Reply

#153 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

If you weren't a lefty you would probably be looking at a 3-week vacation for spamming this site.

#164 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 08:31 PM | Reply

If you weren't a lefty you would probably be looking at a 3-week vacation for spamming this site.

#164 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT

Dry your eyes and explain to us why mental illness rarely ever massacres in Canada, Australia, or the UK.

#165 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 08:33 PM | Reply

If you weren't a lefty you would probably be looking at a 3-week vacation for spamming this site.

#164 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT

Dry your eyes and explain to us why mental illness rarely ever massacres anyone in Canada, Australia, or the UK.

#166 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 08:35 PM | Reply

Dry your eyes and explain to us why mental illness rarely ever massacres in Canada, Australia, or the UK.

#165 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

That deflection doesn't change the fact that you are spamming multiple threads with the same revisions of other posts and the only reason you are allowed to do so is that you espouse the proper politics.

#167 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 08:35 PM | Reply

We have a functioning democracy.

Your beef is with how voters choose to vote.

#161 | Posted by JeffJ

Nope. Voters rejected trump. Trump was still made president, by an undemocratic system.

If we had a functioning democracy, the drug war would be over. A majority of voters on both sides want it to end. It hasn't because rich donors profit from it.

We have a plutocracy - rule by the rich.

Anyone who denies that is a fool.

#168 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 08:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That deflection

#167 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT

Right.

The fact that mental illness only massacres people in the US is "a deflection."

#169 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 08:41 PM | Reply

That deflection doesn't change the fact that you are spamming multiple threads with the same revisions of other posts and the only reason you are allowed to do so is that you espouse the proper politics.

#167 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT

Why does your husband ROC get to have multiple screen names?

Is that because he's a left winger???

#170 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 08:42 PM | Reply

That deflection doesn't change the fact that you are spamming multiple threads with the same revisions of other posts and the only reason you are allowed to do so is that you espouse the proper politics.

#167 | Posted by JeffJ

That's not a deflection, it's a question you are dodging because you know the answer and you don't want to admit it.

All countries have crazy people. The US makes it easier for crazy people to commit mass murder than any other country.

The only 2 options for stopping crazy people from killing lots of people are:
A - get rid of crazy people
or
B - keep them from getting powerful weapons

Which of those is more realistic?

#171 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-06 08:42 PM | Reply

That deflection doesn't change the fact that you are spamming multiple threads with the same revisions of other posts and the only reason you are allowed to do so is that you espouse the proper politics.

#167 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT

By the way, dumpling, my account has probably been suspended 3 times in the last year.

Not for anything serious, like having more than one account or anything, more for disagreeing about what flavor of beer is the best.

You hit me up when you get banned over something that petty.

Until then rub some vagisil on it and get your **** together. The NRA needs you.

Only 27 people were slaughtered in this "win." They need more causalities and much better excuses for the next one.

#172 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-06 09:01 PM | Reply

The Air Force is supposedly owning up to not reporting his record to the Fed database. That would have flagged his attempted purchase and dq'd him.

#173 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-06 09:02 PM | Reply

Truth, and we all know it:

Scarborough: 'Washington would be melting down' if shooter was 'named Muhammad'

"Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough said Monday that Washington, D.C., "would be melting down" if the suspect in the Texas church shooting had been "named Muhammad."

"And now we have Southern Baptist churches getting shot up," Scarborough said.

"Again, had it been a radical Islamic terrorist with a beard named Muhammad, Washington would be melting down right now."

"We wouldn't put up with this with any other epidemic. We would not -- if this were terrorism, Islamic, radical terrorism, again, Washington would be on fire this morning," Scarborough said.

thehill.com

#174 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-06 09:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

In other news the flood in houston was not a rain event and the conflagration in california was not a fire event

#175 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-06 09:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"what the poop are you fighting against when the Constitution DOES explicitly say, beyond any doubt or debate, that another right is not to be infringed? "

Not fighting against, fighting for.

Specifically, the second and third words of the Second Amendment.

#176 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-06 09:24 PM | Reply

Every time there is a mass shooting like this the gun manufacturers and the executives of the NRA celebrate, because they know it means more gun sales. Winning!

#177 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-06 09:33 PM | Reply

Until then rub some vagisil on it and get your **** together. The NRA needs you.
Only 27 people were slaughtered in this "win." They need more causalities and much better excuses for the next one.

#172 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

I'm not a member of the NRA and I loathe guns and certainly don't own any.

None of that changes the fact that you are whiny and hyperbolic. And none of that certainly changes the fact that you were spamming this site.

#178 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 09:33 PM | Reply

Technically, MrSilenceDoGood was being parabolic, not hyperbolic; or, if you wish, hyperbolically paraboloid.

In order to envision exactly what a hyperbolic paraboloid looks like, imagine a Pringles potato chip or a saddle. Preferably an American Saddle. English saddles are smaller and have a smaller gullet, pommel and seat.

#179 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-06 10:01 PM | Reply

"In 1790, it was.
#163 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Since it's not true now, let'revisit the entire notion about security and guns that is communicated in the Second Amendment.

This gets to why mental illness rarely ever massacres anyone in Canada, Australia, or the UK.

#180 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-06 11:28 PM | Reply

Bearing arms is already regulated as to what kind and caliber of weapon is allowed - we just need to tighten up some loopholes that enable crazies to get and use near military guns.

#181 | Posted by grumpy_too at 2017-11-06 11:32 PM | Reply

Since it's not true now, let'revisit the entire notion about security and guns that is communicated in the Second Amendment.

Ah! More of the "living, breathing document" claptrap. Keep in mind, security was FAR from the only reason for the 2nd.

#182 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 11:33 PM | Reply

...we just need to tighten up some loopholes that enable crazies to get and use near military guns.

Not going to happen. 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about crazies.

Some states won't let "mentally ill" people buy guns, but you pretty much have to self-admit to a facility or have a court sent you before you qualify.

#183 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-06 11:36 PM | Reply

I bare my arms regularly. Sadly they look like big fat granny arms.

#184 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-06 11:47 PM | Reply

Laura,

My arms would have Frank Cotton cowering in fear!

#185 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 11:50 PM | Reply

My arms would have Frank Cotton cowering in fear!

#185 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-06 11:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

LMFAO That's funny right there.

#186 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-06 11:53 PM | Reply

If Mcveigh had had the brains of Kaczynski he could have blown up thousands at one time.

It should not be so difficult to severely curtail these low-effort creeps. They are being enabled by exploiting built-in weaknesses.

#187 | Posted by grumpy_too at 2017-11-06 11:57 PM | Reply

MADD had/has a critical impact on DUI laws. Okay now we need MAMS - Mothers Against Mass Shootings.

#188 | Posted by grumpy_too at 2017-11-07 01:16 AM | Reply

"Keep in mind, security was FAR from the only reason for the 2nd."

Have you read it?
One reason is stated.
If there are others, what do they matter?

#189 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 02:57 AM | Reply

But we still haven't gotten to why mental illness rarely ever massacres anyone in Canada, Australia, or the UK.

And we never will.

Because they can't acknowledge that gun control is effective.

So, until, the next massacre, just remember, guns keep us safe!

#190 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 03:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

spamming this site.

#178 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT

So, that's about the 6th post you've made about the same thing.

How do you get away with spamming this site?

#191 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-07 04:06 AM | Reply

"The U.S. president also said the suspect might not have been stopped if the "very brave person" attempting to "neutralize" the assailant was without a firearm."

So, per the president of the united states of america, if we enforce our existing gun laws good felons and good mentally ill people won't be able to buy assault rifles with 100 round magazines and unlimited ammo.

#192 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-07 04:57 AM | Reply

Air force clerical error is why the guy could buy a firearm. Government regulatory failure.

#193 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-07 06:37 AM | Reply

www.nytimes.com

SUTHERLAND SPRINGS, Tex. -- A day after a gunman massacred parishioners in a small Texas church, the Air Force admitted on Monday that it had failed to enter the man's domestic violence court-martial into a federal database that could have blocked him from buying the rifle he used to kill 26 people."

Government fails at gun control. Attacker shot by NRA instructor.

#194 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-07 07:18 AM | Reply

Attacker shot by himself.

27 people slaughtered. That's a big win for my team.

#194 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Fixed.

#195 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-07 07:30 AM | Reply

Team atheism? I didn't know we were that organized.

The guy shot himself, after being shot by the certified NRA instructor with an AR-15, after the government gun control effort failed due to paperwork error (Dylan Roof all over again?)

#196 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-07 07:36 AM | Reply

Team mass murder = freedom.

#197 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-07 07:52 AM | Reply

That's it? That's the best of your petty ad hominem? I'm let down.

#198 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-07 08:02 AM | Reply

We all choose sides.

I'm on the side that says 27 people dead is a tragedy, you and team mass murder are gloating and calling it a win.

#199 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-07 08:05 AM | Reply

Yeah I'm driving down today to dance at the site and celebrate this win for Atheism.

#200 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-07 08:11 AM | Reply

Yeah I'm driving down today to dance at the site and celebrate this win for the mass murder lobby.

#200 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Fixed.

#201 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-11-07 08:14 AM | Reply

Wrong. I'm there to express my support for Gun Free Zones.

#202 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-07 08:16 AM | Reply

Is a car accident a 'car situation'? Is a plane crash a 'plane situation'? Is a cancer tumor a 'cancer' situation? Trump is a moron!

#203 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-07 11:23 AM | Reply

www.nbcnews.com

Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses

If obama signed it, it's gotta be bad. Therefore helping wackjobs get guns must be GOOD, right trump chumps?

#204 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-07 12:58 PM | Reply

www.cnn.com

#205 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-07 01:54 PM | Reply

"Yeah I'm driving down today to dance at the site and celebrate this win for Atheism."

Fact is, you wouldn't trade this and all other massacres for a gun ban.

At least be honest about it.

#206 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 02:01 PM | Reply

#201 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

You're attempts at shaming are lame.

#207 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 02:26 PM | Reply

203
Yes to all, if said dryly.

I don't do social media, but how is it nobody that knew this guy reported him?
Surely his ex and her family kept tabs on this freak. Somebody in his own family or circle knew he got booted from the AF and that he cracked that kids skull.
He had the pictures of the weapon on facebook, right? No old AF acquaintances looking him up, even out of morbid curiouslity (anyone he worked with knows why he got discharged)

#208 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-07 02:37 PM | Reply

207
He's even dumber than northguy. He's been blocked for ages.

#209 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-07 02:38 PM | Reply

"after the government gun control effort failed due to paperwork error"

Government gun control effort that only exists to combat the government gun proliferation policy AKA the Second Amendment.

#210 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-07 03:00 PM | Reply

If more guns make us safer, why won't the GOP allow them in the Capitol?

#211 | Posted by 726 at 2017-11-08 09:47 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort