At Least 1 Dead in Shooting at Texas Church

[Into the Night]

Mexico, US, and Guatemala. Great company, huh?

Yemen does not have it in their Constitution.

Of course, you could have looked up that information yourself.

The Constitution of Yemen is not the Constitution of the United States.
False equivalance fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

What is that supposed to mean? Our governments are obviously different, but culturally, we're becoming more like Mexico over time. In a few decades, we'll probably be a truly bilingual nation, with as many native speakers of Spanish as native speakers of English.

So even though our governments are different, culturally, we're not that far apart and will continue to become closer to them.

Nope. Not happening. Fake news.

 

[Into the Night]

For most of its history, Idaho has been one of the most conservative states in the union. I would assume that, at least until very recently, there aren't many progressives there.

There still aren't.

 

[domer76]

For most of its history, Idaho has been one of the most conservative states in the union. I would assume that, at least until very recently, there aren't many progressives there.

Both of my state reps are Democrats. My state senator is a Democrat. All females.

Politically, Idaho is very backward. My district is one of the few bastions of reason.

 

[Flash]

YES IT DOES!

It does not allow all restrictions, but it allows all those currently contained in the hundreds of federal and state regulations.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It does not allow all restrictions, but it allows all those currently contained in the hundreds of federal and state regulations.

what dictionary are you using that defines 'shall not be infringed' as 'allows some restrictions'??????

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

No, but the NRA makes life immensely easier for the criminals, and for every nutter who fancies shooting a few children.

Just the opposite. The NRA ensures that people can protect themselves.

It is clearly responsible for a very major party of the American sickness.

No such sickness.

The question is whether the world should let children be murdered in large numbers just to increase gun-makers profits.

If any foreign aggressor tries to deprive us of our freedom, our military will answer with any level of weaponry necessary to eliminate the aggressor.

Fucking stupid interpretation of a .... document.

Upholding our civil liberties is hardly stupid.

Spent much time in a militia lately? Or do you only do that to defend slavery?

Non-militiamen have the right to have weapons strong enough to be suitable for private self defense.

But I'd be happy to see the militia brought back. Militiamen would have the right to keep bazookas and machine guns at home.

It was designed to help treasonous slavers who had gone in for working for the French to dodge paying their taxes, and fixed things so they could still keep slaves and control mugs, as you know. As you also know, the only reason your treasonous ancestors ever paid for guns was to shoot escaped slaves.

What nonsense. There was no slavery in Massachusetts.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

And does not prohibit Congress or the state legislatures from making restrictions.

They can make restrictions if they can justify the restrictions as serving a compelling government interest.

They cannot make restrictions that cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

Volscock loves the fact that someone was murdered and supports the shooter.
Sad, really.

Self defense is not in any way murder.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

We ban nuclear missiles and no outlaws have them.

North Korea has them. They are outlaws.

There are steps we can take to greatly reduce the number of guns out there, like a meaningful economic stimulus gun buyback program, no questions asked, where anyone can take a gun and turn it into the police and receive a check or cash. Families can sell their guns at above market rates to the government, and use the cash as an economic stimulus. If the feds overpaid for the weapons and made the offer too good to refuse, I think you'd get most -if not all- of the guns out of circulation. The remaining holdouts will see their guns turned over to the police once they have died. In the end, pitting families against each other over guns vs. cash is exactly the conflict this country needs.

Preventing people from buying more guns would be unconstiututional.

What registers with me is that you lack the courage, ingenuity, and work ethic to come up with a solution, so your instinct is to just give up because you're a quitter by nature.

The solution is to prevent you from violating the Second Amendment.

That is not what the 2A says.

The Second Amendment protects people's right to have guns for private self defense (among other things).

But it doesn't matter. We've displayed that as a society, we are too irresponsible to own guns. That's just a fact. More gun deaths here than any other first world nation. And the people aren't any safer than they are anywhere else. In fact, no where else do people have to fear being shot in public places.

We have the right to own guns whether you like it or not.

No right is absolute.

That doesn't make it OK for you to violate any of our rights.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

Bottom line: You want a gun and you don't care about the INEVITABLE deaths that occur because you like your odds of not being a victim.
That is it, 100%. There is NO OTHER EXPLANATION with any meaning at all.

Except gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

Philosophical ethical question:
If you do something unnecessary and know for a fact 90 people per day will die because of it, are you a murderer?

Auto ownership is directly correlated to car accident deaths.

So I guess anyone who is not in favor of outlawing cars is a murderer.

I'm excluding cops, military and maybe some farmers protecting cattle... Guns are not strictly necessary, and if they were gone three football stadiums per year would be not dead.

That is incorrect. Gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

Say what you want, but the man who shot him works for the Tarrant County Sheriff's Department.
I don't have a problem if someone professionally trained to carry a firearm, and a professional trained police officer, carries his gun to church!
Do I think the choir or deacons should be armed? FUCK NO!

People have the right to carry guns for self defense if they so choose.

You may want to try and understand what "Well Regulated" means GOMER!
You better know it means there will be some regulations- so you better get used to it- THEY ARE A COMIN'!

The term "well regulated militia" means that the militia in question has trained well enough that they can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

More importantly though, it is related to the militia, and not to citizens carrying guns for private self defense.

EXCEPT you are talking about a well regulated militia- and you cannot have a well regulated militia without REGULATIONS!

I think that it is unlikely that he was talking about a militia. It looks to me like he was talking about private self defense.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

You know what laws have diminished and/or prevented access to fully automatic weapons? Strict regulations that make access quite difficult. Ones that were enacted years ago. Quite effective.

People can justify restrictions on full-auto weapons as serving a compelling government interest.

People cannot justify restricting pistol grips on semi-auto long guns as serving a compelling government interest.

The point being that no regulation will prevent ALL gun deaths. The idea is to decrease them from the highest gun death rate in the civilized world to something more normal for a western culture.

What does it matter whether someone is murdered with a gun verses with some other weapon?

Madison, the author, originally included a conscientious objector clause. What the fuck does that mean to you, moron?

The fact that part of the right to keep and bear arms involves the militia does not change the fact that it also protects the right of non-militiamen to have guns for private self defense.

If you'd like to bring back the militia though, I'm all for that. People who join the militia would have the right to own military weapons and keep them at home.

Not only do we have more mass shootings, we have the highest gun death rate in the civilized world. Year in and year out.
Try to figure out why that is and propose something that can reduce that rate. That is, unless you're satisfied with being #1 in that category.

I'm unbothered at being #1 in that category.

I think murder victims will be just as dead if any other weapon is used to kill them.

The always predictable “well, take out this or that....” bullshit.
Sorry punk. You don’t get to cherry pick until you get the answer you want.

Suicides and homicides are a bit different. It is reasonable to address them as separate problems.

GUN DEATH RATE, dumbfuck. Highest in westernized cultures.
Why is that? The answer is obvious except to you brain dead barrel strokers.

Speaking of cherry picking, why are you focusing on the gun death rate and not the overall death rate?

“Inherent” or universal rights are bunk.

You might want to read Leviathan. The right of self defense is the cornerstone of all lawful government.

The “inherent” right to self defense with a gun is a special kind of bunk.

All free people have an inherent right to carry weapons for private self defense.

Not all people are free of course. America is the last free country in the world.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

Three people were shot, now imagine how many wouldn't have been shot if the perk hadn't been able to get his hands on a gun?

The killer would just have used some other weapon.

Tough, of course, what is worth doing that isn't tough, and 30,000+ dead Americans every year make it worth doing

The American people are not going to allow you to violate their civil liberties.

Not to mention the fact that outlawing guns would save very few lives.

No one has to change the Constitution, no Constitutional right is absolute, even Scalia in his wacky "orginailaism" theory conceded regulation was Constitutional

The fact that rights are not absolute does not make it OK for you to violate our rights.

So yes, if you want to violate the Second Amendment, you need to first repeal it.

You don't have to eliminate all existing guns, an impossible task, but rather make access to guns more difficult,

The Constitution says no. You aren't allowed to make it difficult for people to exercise their rights.

when a high school kid or a person on a terror watch list legally has access to assault weapons something isn't right

Assault weapons have been highly restricted for some 85 years now. Neither of the groups that you named have ready access to such weapons.

Make it more difficult for anyone to get guns

No. Making it difficult for people to exercise their rights is unconstitutional.

does that mean we just give up and live with thirty thousand plus Americans a year dying from gun violence?

These people would be just as dead if they were killed with knives.

Arduous process?
Make it similar to autos, we all jump hurdles to get a car on the road, but that hasn't stopped those who really want one, anything is worth the effort unless you want to live with mass shootings, school shootings, and church shootings as routine

That would make guns easier to acquire, as autos are currently easier to acquire than guns.

So now you are telling us the supposed right to have a gun is an "inherent," certainly what you are implying with the deflection

Our rights are hardly supposed. Read the Constitution.

And the part of your "agreement" that you are overlooking is the prefatory clause, that which cites the purpose of the following operative clause

There is no prefatory clause. There are two independent operative clauses.

No one is denying you the right to defend yourself, how one defends themselves doesn't mean everyone should have a gun

All Americans have the right to have weapons that are suitable for self defense. This includes guns.

As I asked earlier, cite us hundreds of examples where box trucks were employed to kill people,

Is there any reason why one cite is not enough to show that such attacks are possible?

New York, with one of the biggest urban population in the US, has one of the lowest murder rates by guns in the country, think there might be a relationship

What does it matter whether their murder victims are killed with a gun or with a knife?

Are people who are killed with knives less dead?

As I said, the prefatory clause cites the purpose of the following operative clause, it common sense

Your common sense is wrong. There is no prefatory clause. There are two independent clauses.

"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," until you can define what the Founders meant by "well regulated Militia," which no Supreme Court has been able to do, the operative clause has no purpose

That is wrong in all sorts of ways.

First, everyone already knows what is meant by the term "well regulated militia". It means a militia that has trained to the extent that they can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

Second, neither operative clause in the Second Amendment depends on knowing what that term means.

That is true, they are still wrong, thirty thousand gun deaths a year in the developed country with the highest number of guns circulating prove it, more guns do not equal less shootings

So what?

Would they be any less dead if they were killed with knives?

Another one late to the party, ain't unconstitutional nor does anyone have to change the Constitution, and try to be more original next time

Wrong. Your proposal to make it difficult for people to exercise their rights is very unconstitutional.

Incorrect, until you can explain the prefatory clause the operative clause isn't relevant, it is common sense

Your common sense is wrong. There is no prefatory clause. And the operative clauses are quite relevant.

The self defense "argument" supposedly justifying guns is inane, just the fact that we now have more guns out there in circulation than any other developed nation and yet still have the highest gun violence statistics of developed nations proves it is bogus, more guns haven't made anyone safer

People have the right to have guns to protect themselves whether you like it or not.

Your gun violence statistics are not terribly relevant except for people who think it matters whether a crime is carried out with a gun or with a knife.

 

[domer76]

People can justify restrictions on full-auto weapons as serving a compelling government interest.

People cannot justify restricting pistol grips on semi-auto long guns as serving a compelling government interest.



What does it matter whether someone is murdered with a gun verses with some other weapon?



The fact that part of the right to keep and bear arms involves the militia does not change the fact that it also protects the right of non-militiamen to have guns for private self defense.

If you'd like to bring back the militia though, I'm all for that. People who join the militia would have the right to own military weapons and keep them at home.



I'm unbothered at being #1 in that category.

I think murder victims will be just as dead if any other weapon is used to kill them.

Only willfully ignorant gun nuts want to be #1 in gun deaths. Why do you wear that as a badge of honor? Are you an advocate of killing with guns?



Suicides and homicides are a bit different. It is reasonable to address them as separate problems.



Speaking of cherry picking, why are you focusing on the gun death rate and not the overall death rate?



You might want to read Leviathan. The right of self defense is the cornerstone of all lawful government.



All free people have an inherent right to carry weapons for private self defense.

Not all people are free of course. America is the last free country in the world.

I referred to gun deaths and the gun death rate, pal. Not the murder rate. Work on your literacy skills.

Death by a gun is still a gun death, whether it be homicide or suicide. Quit the cherry-picking.

Great, bring back militias as the basis for gun possession. As militias are defined by law, you have no right to bear a weapon if you are younger than 17, older than 40 or are female.

You can’t even define proper self defense, Jethro, much less use it as a justification to kill people.

No, Cletus, all free people do not have an inherent right to carry a weapon. Try to not be so stupid.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

I referred to gun deaths and the gun death rate, pal. Not the murder rate. Work on your literacy skills.

So what? What does it matter whether someone is killed with a gun versus some other type of weapon?

Death by a gun is still a gun death, whether it be homicide or suicide.

Again, so what? What does it matter whether someone is killed with a gun versus some other type of weapon?

Quit the cherry-picking.

You are the one who is cherry picking, with your focus only on gun deaths instead of looking at overall deaths.

Great, bring back militias as the basis for gun possession. As militias are defined by law, you have no right to bear a weapon if you are younger than 17, older than 40 or are female.

Militias are not the only basis for gun possession. People have the right to have guns for private self defense.

And I suspect that if we brought back militias, females would be welcome.

You can’t even define proper self defense, Jethro, much less use it as a justification to kill people.

You engage in name-calling because you lack the intelligence to make a proper argument.

No, Cletus, all free people do not have an inherent right to carry a weapon. Try to not be so stupid.

As above, you engage in name-calling because you lack the intelligence to make a proper argument.

 

[domer76]

So what? What does it matter whether someone is killed with a gun versus some other type of weapon?



Again, so what? What does it matter whether someone is killed with a gun versus some other type of weapon?



You are the one who is cherry picking, with your focus only on gun deaths instead of looking at overall deaths.



Militias are not the only basis for gun possession. People have the right to have guns for private self defense.

And I suspect that if we brought back militias, females would be welcome.



You engage in name-calling because you lack the intelligence to make a proper argument.



As above, you engage in name-calling because you lack the intelligence to make a proper argument.

I can’t fix your willful ignorance, cherry picker. I can only allow you to demonstrate it.

Tell ys the number of deaths caused by another weapon. I’ll wait.

Again, I see you can’t even define what proper self defense is, Jethro, mush less justify it. The same goes for your absurd and laughable claim that all free people have an inherent right to carry a weapon.

I hear your mommy calling, sonny. Come back when you have anything of value. Until then, just stay seated at the kids’ table.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

I can’t fix your willful ignorance, cherry picker. I can only allow you to demonstrate it.

You cannot point out any examples of ignorance on my end.

A good example of your ignorance would be your belief that free people do not have an inherent right to carry weapons.

You are also the one who is cherry picking, with your silly focus on gun deaths instead of overall deaths.

Tell ys the number of deaths caused by another weapon. I’ll wait.

I'm not terribly interested in irrelevant trivia. But feel free to look the data up yourself if you are curious.

Again, I see you can’t even define what proper self defense is, Jethro, mush less justify it.

You engage in childish name-calling because you lack the intelligence to make a proper argument.

The same goes for your absurd and laughable claim that all free people have an inherent right to carry a weapon.

That you find history and law to be absurd and laughable says a lot about you.

I hear your mommy calling, sonny. Come back when you have anything of value. Until then, just stay seated at the kids’ table.

You engage in childish name-calling because you lack the intelligence to make a proper argument.

 

[Terri4Trump]

It was an armed church member. Police weren’t even called at that point. Good guy gun with was on scene in the moment and ended the threat.

Another hero. Cool

 

[domer76]

You cannot point out any examples of ignorance on my end.

A good example of your ignorance would be your belief that free people do not have an inherent right to carry weapons.

You are also the one who is cherry picking, with your silly focus on gun deaths instead of overall deaths.



I'm not terribly interested in irrelevant trivia. But feel free to look the data up yourself if you are curious.



You engage in childish name-calling because you lack the intelligence to make a proper argument.



That you find history and law to be absurd and laughable says a lot about you.



You engage in childish name-calling because you lack the intelligence to make a proper argument.

Provide ANY proof that carrying weapons is an inherent right of free people. I’ll wait, cherry picker.

Still wsiting for you to provide a coherent definition if self defense, Jethro. So far, nothing.

The law, Cletus, says you do not have a right to possess just any gun, any where or any time. Your “inherent right” claim is proof of your ignorance.

I call a spade a spade, junior. You fail on every point, pally boy. Run off now, your mommy says it’s bed time for you.

Pretty typical of you RW tards. You bring up deaths by other weapons, yet when challenged to provide the numbers, you can’t respond.