Active shooter situation in Maine, hospital says 'mass casualty, mass shooter' event

volsrock said:
If u blame a suicide on the gun

You can blame the rope when someone hangs themselves
Click to expand...
I blame suicide on mental illness.

Most of these mass murders are by narcissistic wackos who are committing suicide through mass murder. They should be identified and stopped before it gets that far. Unfortunately, the Democrats focus on banning guns for everyone over helping those with mental health issues and Republicans don't give a fuck about anything except their own bank account.

It's another reason why I refuse to vote for either party.
 
Obama_Phone said:
pre-crime is not something to get into as a civilized people.

that's the road to totalitarianism.

good people arming themselves would have stopped this fucker.

more guns really is the answer.

I propose mandatory gun ownership.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

the only reason for the government to say 'you cannot own a nuclear weapon even if you are Elon Musk and can afford one' is the threat of pre crime.

I am sure you also would not want any muslim groups, in the US, being allowed to own any weapon of mass destruction by simply buying it in the US, and you would want pre crime to prevent them getting it.

So i am not buying your view of not supporting a pre crime stance.
 
QP! said:
Bullshit.

the only reason for the government to say 'you cannot own a nuclear weapon even if you are Elon Musk and can afford one' is the threat of pre crime.

I am sure you also would not want any muslim groups, in the US, being allowed to own any weapon of mass destruction by simply buying it in the US, and you would want pre crime to prevent them getting it.

So i am not buying your view of not supporting a pre crime stance.
Click to expand...

I actually promote mandatory nuclear ownership for all citizens.

ounce of prevention, pound of cure......
 
QP! said:
Bullshit.

the only reason for the government to say 'you cannot own a nuclear weapon even if you are Elon Musk and can afford one' is the threat of pre crime.

I am sure you also would not want any muslim groups, in the US, being allowed to own any weapon of mass destruction by simply buying it in the US, and you would want pre crime to prevent them getting it.

So i am not buying your view of not supporting a pre crime stance.
Click to expand...

have you ever heard of the legal term 'prior restraint'? the constitution prevents the government from restricting an individuals right just because they MIGHT commit a crime.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you've been fed a line of bullshit. that is not governments role.
Click to expand...

And yet it often the number 1 reason a government can be voted out. A perception real or imagined that they failed to protect the country... they failed to protect the citizens.

Trump faced that post covid.

Netanyahu is expected to be done, in Israeli politics, as soon as the country switches from its war stance (where they have resolve to not point fingers) and into the analysis phase, where they do point fingers in an attempt to ensure it never happens again.

Local politicians like Mayors up to Governors get voted out based on the citizens perception of how well they protect them.


So it you who have bought in to bullshit.
 
QP! said:
And yet it often the number 1 reason a government can be voted out. A perception real or imagined that they failed to protect the country... they failed to protect the citizens.

Trump faced that post covid.

Netanyahu is expected to be done, in Israeli politics, as soon as the country switches from its war stance (where they have resolve to not point fingers) and into the analysis phase, where they do point fingers in an attempt to ensure it never happens again.

Local politicians like Mayors up to Governors get voted out based on the citizens perception of how well they protect them.

So it you who have bought in to bullshit.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

Following last February's shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, some students claimed local government officials were at fault for failing to provide protection to students. The students filed suit, naming six defendants, including the Broward school district and the Broward Sheriff’s Office , as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina.

On Monday, though, a federal judge ruled that the government agencies " had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody."

It seems to me that i'm not the one believing in things that do not exist.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
have you ever heard of the legal term 'prior restraint'? the constitution prevents the government from restricting an individuals right just because they MIGHT commit a crime.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

Elon Musk has the cash to get a nuke but no form of 'prior restraint' would force the government to allow him to get one, and not stop him, simply because they fear he MIGHT commit a crime or someone else might steal it from him and do so.

You derps think every right is without limits and you have been lied to by other derps. "RESTRAINT' is always allowed, to some degree.
 
QP! said:
And yet it often the number 1 reason a government can be voted out. A perception real or imagined that they failed to protect the country... they failed to protect the citizens.

Trump faced that post covid.

Netanyahu is expected to be done, in Israeli politics, as soon as the country switches from its war stance (where they have resolve to not point fingers) and into the analysis phase, where they do point fingers in an attempt to ensure it never happens again.

Local politicians like Mayors up to Governors get voted out based on the citizens perception of how well they protect them.


So it you who have bought in to bullshit.
Click to expand...

this is why we're a constitutional republic and not an "idocy of the mob" pure democracy.

awful things can become quite popular in the heat of idiocy.
 
QP! said:
And yet it often the number 1 reason a government can be voted out. A perception real or imagined that they failed to protect the country... they failed to protect the citizens.

Trump faced that post covid.

Netanyahu is expected to be done, in Israeli politics, as soon as the country switches from its war stance (where they have resolve to not point fingers) and into the analysis phase, where they do point fingers in an attempt to ensure it never happens again.

Local politicians like Mayors up to Governors get voted out based on the citizens perception of how well they protect them.


So it you who have bought in to bullshit.
Click to expand...

this is why we're a constitutional republic and not an "idocy of the mob" pure democracy.

awful things can become quite popular in the heat of idiocy.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

Following last February's shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, some students claimed local government officials were at fault for failing to provide protection to students. The students filed suit, naming six defendants, including the Broward school district and the Broward Sheriff’s Office , as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina.

On Monday, though, a federal judge ruled that the government agencies " had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody."

It seems to me that i'm not the one believing in things that do not exist.
Click to expand...

Oh yes you do and you just proved it.

You cannot even follow what we are discussing.

We are not arguing if law enforcement is Constitutionally obligated to protect you. That is a function of your piss poor reading comprehension.


You and I are arguing whether or not people EXPECT to be protected and if they punish elected officials when they do not feel so.

How many polls do you need me to cite showing that in Mayoral races that is often in the top, if not the #1 issue citizens want from a Mayor?


You are just delusional if you think local citizens do not want to be protected from violence of others, locally by police and globally by a military.
 
QP! said:
Bullshit.

Elon Musk has the cash to get a nuke but no form of 'prior restraint' would force the government to allow him to get one, and not stop him, simply because they fear he MIGHT commit a crime or someone else might steal it from him and do so.

You derps think every right is without limits and you have been lied to by other derps. "RESTRAINT' is always allowed, to some degree.
Click to expand...

1. those of us with logic and reason understand that the 2nd Amendment prohibits the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. It is logically understood that the weapons protected would only be those that the government would use against the citizenry. No sane person is going to believe that the US government, no matter how tyrannical, would use a nuke on it's own populace and on it's own soil.

2. those of us who truly understand the constitution, understand that it's a document that restricts and limits government power. It usually ends up with us having to lecture idiots like you about the impossibility that the founders would create a government with limitations, yet hand the power to define those limitations to that very government. So the only ones being lied to about the limits of rights is you, from those very derps.

this is what I mean by the uno reverse crap. you try to pull this all the time to cover up your own idiocy
 
QP! said:
Oh yes you do and you just proved it.

You cannot even follow what we are discussing.

We are not arguing if law enforcement is Constitutionally obligated to protect you. That is a function of your piss poor reading comprehension.


You and I are arguing whether or not people EXPECT to be protected and if they punish elected officials when they do not feel so.

How many polls do you need me to cite showing that in Mayoral races that is often in the top, if not the #1 issue citizens want from a Mayor?


You are just delusional if you think local citizens do not want to be protected from violence of others, locally by police and globally by a military.
Click to expand...

wanting to be protected by government and expecting to be protected by government are not the same thing. tell me who is the stupid one....one who believes that government is supposed to protect them, even in the face of judicial opinions that state they are not? or ones who understand that their protection is their own responsibility and not the governments because judicial opinion tells them that?

why would a reasonable person punish a government official for not doing something they are not constitutionally bound to provide?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
1. those of us with logic and reason understand that the 2nd Amendment prohibits the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. It is logically understood that the weapons protected would only be those that the government would use against the citizenry. No sane person is going to believe that the US government, no matter how tyrannical, would use a nuke on it's own populace and on it's own soil.

2. those of us who truly understand the constitution, understand that it's a document that restricts and limits government power. It usually ends up with us having to lecture idiots like you about the impossibility that the founders would create a government with limitations, yet hand the power to define those limitations to that very government. So the only ones being lied to about the limits of rights is you, from those very derps.

this is what I mean by the uno reverse crap. you try to pull this all the time to cover up your own idiocy
Click to expand...

Right so your entire premise is 'the Constitution does not allow the government to restrict our right to bear arms... for the weapons i think are reasonable to have'


but...

'...ya the the constitution does allow the government to restrict the right to own arms... for weapons i think are not reasonable to have'.


Can you quote for me what in the COnstitution backs that up and not just cite what you think 'makes sense'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top