Sensible Gun Safety

[Farfromgeneva]

72 should have said right wing, self-annointed "Christians" rather than simply Christians.

His point was valid. So was Kismet's.

I read youth's post as a sneer; feel free to correct that impression if you'd like, youth.

If you are wondering whether gender identity struggles had anything to do with the shooter's motivation, so am I. We likely will learn more from the manifesto left by the shooter. Meanwhile, I think we can wait a heartbeat.

What we do know, apparently, is that the shooter had a bunch of high capacity rapid fire weapons, "legally obtained", and used them to kill children and adults at a "Christian" school they had attended as a child. Fortunately, the killing was stopped by the police before the massacre was even worse.

No sneer at all. This IS the age we live in, when I read it was reported that it was a female my spidey senses went up, as I noted.

I am also looking forward to learning more, but will guess that we will not learn anything IF it goes against the grain of the LGBTQ+ community...it most certainly will go against Christianity, they are always a target, and know this.

Wonder if they will announce if the shooter was on any meds, short and/or long term....also a tox report should be mandatory information shared to the public for all criminals post autopsy.

... the majority of US so-called Christians bring it on themselves. Christianity atleast in the US has been in an advantaged position since forever. Today we have a large number of those folks who believe it is their position to bully and rule over those who don't follow their religion. They feel a loss of position in the pecking order, it is their GOD GIVEN RIGHT. These people aren't targets, until they make themselves targets. They would do better if they behaved like real Christians.

By " real Christians" you must mean Christians that vote strait line democRAT?

I can see why you say that. It is certainly difficult to find a real Christian that is voting for republiCONs these days.

I don't even know how you define a real Christian? IMO a real Christian wouldn't have anything to do with organized religion. Organized religion is where the bastardization of Christianity begins.

This professor at Wayne State, reminds me of JHU72: https://www.yaf.org/news/wayne-state-pr ... rees-with/

First, this egghead ain't claiming to any level of Christian belief, not sure he was raised Christian at all, could well be Jewish or atheist. I looked at his wiki, personal blog and vitae...no claims of acting on behalf of Christ or any other religion that I saw on quick review.

Second, he was trying to make an argument that shouting down people with whom one disagrees vehemently is ineffective...he tries to make his point with an extreme statement about morality, and misses the mark badly IMO.

I think what '72 is saying that, in his view, "real" Christians are far more charitable and tolerant and loving of their neighbors, as Christ taught his followers, than what we see from self-acclaimed "Christians". And yes, that latter crowd is largely in the GOP these days, as the GOP has actively courted them based on their bigotries...that said, I know a bunch of evangelicals who are not associating with the GOP...disgusted by what they see. As am I.

The spin doctor keeps on playing the hits. Does the good doctor need you to extrapolate his logic for him? Maybe the good doctor can chime in to clear up what it is you think he meant to say.

Nope he’s right you’re wrong

[cradleandshoot]

72 should have said right wing, self-annointed "Christians" rather than simply Christians.

His point was valid. So was Kismet's.

I read youth's post as a sneer; feel free to correct that impression if you'd like, youth.

If you are wondering whether gender identity struggles had anything to do with the shooter's motivation, so am I. We likely will learn more from the manifesto left by the shooter. Meanwhile, I think we can wait a heartbeat.

What we do know, apparently, is that the shooter had a bunch of high capacity rapid fire weapons, "legally obtained", and used them to kill children and adults at a "Christian" school they had attended as a child. Fortunately, the killing was stopped by the police before the massacre was even worse.

No sneer at all. This IS the age we live in, when I read it was reported that it was a female my spidey senses went up, as I noted.

I am also looking forward to learning more, but will guess that we will not learn anything IF it goes against the grain of the LGBTQ+ community...it most certainly will go against Christianity, they are always a target, and know this.

Wonder if they will announce if the shooter was on any meds, short and/or long term....also a tox report should be mandatory information shared to the public for all criminals post autopsy.

... the majority of US so-called Christians bring it on themselves. Christianity atleast in the US has been in an advantaged position since forever. Today we have a large number of those folks who believe it is their position to bully and rule over those who don't follow their religion. They feel a loss of position in the pecking order, it is their GOD GIVEN RIGHT. These people aren't targets, until they make themselves targets. They would do better if they behaved like real Christians.

By " real Christians" you must mean Christians that vote strait line democRAT?

I can see why you say that. It is certainly difficult to find a real Christian that is voting for republiCONs these days.

I don't even know how you define a real Christian? IMO a real Christian wouldn't have anything to do with organized religion. Organized religion is where the bastardization of Christianity begins.

This professor at Wayne State, reminds me of JHU72: https://www.yaf.org/news/wayne-state-pr ... rees-with/

First, this egghead ain't claiming to any level of Christian belief, not sure he was raised Christian at all, could well be Jewish or atheist. I looked at his wiki, personal blog and vitae...no claims of acting on behalf of Christ or any other religion that I saw on quick review.

Second, he was trying to make an argument that shouting down people with whom one disagrees vehemently is ineffective...he tries to make his point with an extreme statement about morality, and misses the mark badly IMO.

I think what '72 is saying that, in his view, "real" Christians are far more charitable and tolerant and loving of their neighbors, as Christ taught his followers, than what we see from self-acclaimed "Christians". And yes, that latter crowd is largely in the GOP these days, as the GOP has actively courted them based on their bigotries...that said, I know a bunch of evangelicals who are not associating with the GOP...disgusted by what they see. As am I.

The spin doctor keeps on playing the hits. Does the good doctor need you to extrapolate his logic for him? Maybe the good doctor can chime in to clear up what it is you think he meant to say.

Nope he’s right you’re wrong

Right on cue, the peanut gallery chimes in.. . Don't you have a multimillion dollar business deal to worry about?

[cradleandshoot]

72 should have said right wing, self-annointed "Christians" rather than simply Christians.

His point was valid. So was Kismet's.

I read youth's post as a sneer; feel free to correct that impression if you'd like, youth.

If you are wondering whether gender identity struggles had anything to do with the shooter's motivation, so am I. We likely will learn more from the manifesto left by the shooter. Meanwhile, I think we can wait a heartbeat.

What we do know, apparently, is that the shooter had a bunch of high capacity rapid fire weapons, "legally obtained", and used them to kill children and adults at a "Christian" school they had attended as a child. Fortunately, the killing was stopped by the police before the massacre was even worse.

No sneer at all. This IS the age we live in, when I read it was reported that it was a female my spidey senses went up, as I noted.

I am also looking forward to learning more, but will guess that we will not learn anything IF it goes against the grain of the LGBTQ+ community...it most certainly will go against Christianity, they are always a target, and know this.

Wonder if they will announce if the shooter was on any meds, short and/or long term....also a tox report should be mandatory information shared to the public for all criminals post autopsy.

... the majority of US so-called Christians bring it on themselves. Christianity atleast in the US has been in an advantaged position since forever. Today we have a large number of those folks who believe it is their position to bully and rule over those who don't follow their religion. They feel a loss of position in the pecking order, it is their GOD GIVEN RIGHT. These people aren't targets, until they make themselves targets. They would do better if they behaved like real Christians.

By " real Christians" you must mean Christians that vote strait line democRAT?

I can see why you say that. It is certainly difficult to find a real Christian that is voting for republiCONs these days.

I don't even know how you define a real Christian? IMO a real Christian wouldn't have anything to do with organized religion. Organized religion is where the bastardization of Christianity begins.

This professor at Wayne State, reminds me of JHU72: https://www.yaf.org/news/wayne-state-pr ... rees-with/

First, this egghead ain't claiming to any level of Christian belief, not sure he was raised Christian at all, could well be Jewish or atheist. I looked at his wiki, personal blog and vitae...no claims of acting on behalf of Christ or any other religion that I saw on quick review.

Second, he was trying to make an argument that shouting down people with whom one disagrees vehemently is ineffective...he tries to make his point with an extreme statement about morality, and misses the mark badly IMO.

I think what '72 is saying that, in his view, "real" Christians are far more charitable and tolerant and loving of their neighbors, as Christ taught his followers, than what we see from self-acclaimed "Christians". And yes, that latter crowd is largely in the GOP these days, as the GOP has actively courted them based on their bigotries...that said, I know a bunch of evangelicals who are not associating with the GOP...disgusted by what they see. As am I.

Yes of course that’s what 72 was saying and of course one person missed it like a Rocky Wild Thing Vaughn fastball. Though his point about houses of worship fall into the faux religious camp often from me view.

Have said this before, it’s piety vs religious.

I would rather hear it from the good doctor. Your opinions become more worthless and inane everyday. When 72 authorizes you to speak for him then get back to me. Anytime YOU infer I " missed" it only verifies my perspective as being valid. It's a nice day for a bike ride. Why don't you check the air in your tires and go out for a fun ride? The fresh air might do you a world of good.

[RedFromMI]

From Steve Rattner this morning:
(with the comment: It's the guns)

[cradleandshoot]

From Steve Rattner this morning:
(with the comment: It's the guns)

With no opinion concerning the crazy people behind the guns.

[Farfromgeneva]

From Steve Rattner this morning:
(with the comment: It's the guns)

Notwithstanding the pay for play w the NY pension fund administrator while owning quadrangle I generally trust earners views.

[Farfromgeneva]

72 should have said right wing, self-annointed "Christians" rather than simply Christians.

His point was valid. So was Kismet's.

I read youth's post as a sneer; feel free to correct that impression if you'd like, youth.

If you are wondering whether gender identity struggles had anything to do with the shooter's motivation, so am I. We likely will learn more from the manifesto left by the shooter. Meanwhile, I think we can wait a heartbeat.

What we do know, apparently, is that the shooter had a bunch of high capacity rapid fire weapons, "legally obtained", and used them to kill children and adults at a "Christian" school they had attended as a child. Fortunately, the killing was stopped by the police before the massacre was even worse.

No sneer at all. This IS the age we live in, when I read it was reported that it was a female my spidey senses went up, as I noted.

I am also looking forward to learning more, but will guess that we will not learn anything IF it goes against the grain of the LGBTQ+ community...it most certainly will go against Christianity, they are always a target, and know this.

Wonder if they will announce if the shooter was on any meds, short and/or long term....also a tox report should be mandatory information shared to the public for all criminals post autopsy.

... the majority of US so-called Christians bring it on themselves. Christianity atleast in the US has been in an advantaged position since forever. Today we have a large number of those folks who believe it is their position to bully and rule over those who don't follow their religion. They feel a loss of position in the pecking order, it is their GOD GIVEN RIGHT. These people aren't targets, until they make themselves targets. They would do better if they behaved like real Christians.

By " real Christians" you must mean Christians that vote strait line democRAT?

I can see why you say that. It is certainly difficult to find a real Christian that is voting for republiCONs these days.

I don't even know how you define a real Christian? IMO a real Christian wouldn't have anything to do with organized religion. Organized religion is where the bastardization of Christianity begins.

This professor at Wayne State, reminds me of JHU72: https://www.yaf.org/news/wayne-state-pr ... rees-with/

First, this egghead ain't claiming to any level of Christian belief, not sure he was raised Christian at all, could well be Jewish or atheist. I looked at his wiki, personal blog and vitae...no claims of acting on behalf of Christ or any other religion that I saw on quick review.

Second, he was trying to make an argument that shouting down people with whom one disagrees vehemently is ineffective...he tries to make his point with an extreme statement about morality, and misses the mark badly IMO.

I think what '72 is saying that, in his view, "real" Christians are far more charitable and tolerant and loving of their neighbors, as Christ taught his followers, than what we see from self-acclaimed "Christians". And yes, that latter crowd is largely in the GOP these days, as the GOP has actively courted them based on their bigotries...that said, I know a bunch of evangelicals who are not associating with the GOP...disgusted by what they see. As am I.

The spin doctor keeps on playing the hits. Does the good doctor need you to extrapolate his logic for him? Maybe the good doctor can chime in to clear up what it is you think he meant to say.

Nope he’s right you’re wrong

Right on cue, the peanut gallery chimes in.. . Don't you have a multimillion dollar business deal to worry about?

Do you presume and infer whatever you want? Do you realize that a multimillion pipeline of business isn’t s**t come probability of closing plus overhead comes into play?

Critical thought isn’t a crime.

[Farfromgeneva]

72 should have said right wing, self-annointed "Christians" rather than simply Christians.

His point was valid. So was Kismet's.

I read youth's post as a sneer; feel free to correct that impression if you'd like, youth.

If you are wondering whether gender identity struggles had anything to do with the shooter's motivation, so am I. We likely will learn more from the manifesto left by the shooter. Meanwhile, I think we can wait a heartbeat.

What we do know, apparently, is that the shooter had a bunch of high capacity rapid fire weapons, "legally obtained", and used them to kill children and adults at a "Christian" school they had attended as a child. Fortunately, the killing was stopped by the police before the massacre was even worse.

No sneer at all. This IS the age we live in, when I read it was reported that it was a female my spidey senses went up, as I noted.

I am also looking forward to learning more, but will guess that we will not learn anything IF it goes against the grain of the LGBTQ+ community...it most certainly will go against Christianity, they are always a target, and know this.

Wonder if they will announce if the shooter was on any meds, short and/or long term....also a tox report should be mandatory information shared to the public for all criminals post autopsy.

... the majority of US so-called Christians bring it on themselves. Christianity atleast in the US has been in an advantaged position since forever. Today we have a large number of those folks who believe it is their position to bully and rule over those who don't follow their religion. They feel a loss of position in the pecking order, it is their GOD GIVEN RIGHT. These people aren't targets, until they make themselves targets. They would do better if they behaved like real Christians.

By " real Christians" you must mean Christians that vote strait line democRAT?

I can see why you say that. It is certainly difficult to find a real Christian that is voting for republiCONs these days.

I don't even know how you define a real Christian? IMO a real Christian wouldn't have anything to do with organized religion. Organized religion is where the bastardization of Christianity begins.

This professor at Wayne State, reminds me of JHU72: https://www.yaf.org/news/wayne-state-pr ... rees-with/

First, this egghead ain't claiming to any level of Christian belief, not sure he was raised Christian at all, could well be Jewish or atheist. I looked at his wiki, personal blog and vitae...no claims of acting on behalf of Christ or any other religion that I saw on quick review.

Second, he was trying to make an argument that shouting down people with whom one disagrees vehemently is ineffective...he tries to make his point with an extreme statement about morality, and misses the mark badly IMO.

I think what '72 is saying that, in his view, "real" Christians are far more charitable and tolerant and loving of their neighbors, as Christ taught his followers, than what we see from self-acclaimed "Christians". And yes, that latter crowd is largely in the GOP these days, as the GOP has actively courted them based on their bigotries...that said, I know a bunch of evangelicals who are not associating with the GOP...disgusted by what they see. As am I.

Yes of course that’s what 72 was saying and of course one person missed it like a Rocky Wild Thing Vaughn fastball. Though his point about houses of worship fall into the faux religious camp often from me view.

Have said this before, it’s piety vs religious.

I would rather hear it from the good doctor. Your opinions become more worthless and inane everyday. When 72 authorizes you to speak for him then get back to me. Anytime YOU infer I " missed" it only verifies my perspective as being valid. It's a nice day for a bike ride. Why don't you check the air in your tires and go out for a fun ride? The fresh air might do you a world of good.

Keep on being yourself. It’s going well clearly.

[cradleandshoot]

72 should have said right wing, self-annointed "Christians" rather than simply Christians.

His point was valid. So was Kismet's.

I read youth's post as a sneer; feel free to correct that impression if you'd like, youth.

If you are wondering whether gender identity struggles had anything to do with the shooter's motivation, so am I. We likely will learn more from the manifesto left by the shooter. Meanwhile, I think we can wait a heartbeat.

What we do know, apparently, is that the shooter had a bunch of high capacity rapid fire weapons, "legally obtained", and used them to kill children and adults at a "Christian" school they had attended as a child. Fortunately, the killing was stopped by the police before the massacre was even worse.

No sneer at all. This IS the age we live in, when I read it was reported that it was a female my spidey senses went up, as I noted.

I am also looking forward to learning more, but will guess that we will not learn anything IF it goes against the grain of the LGBTQ+ community...it most certainly will go against Christianity, they are always a target, and know this.

Wonder if they will announce if the shooter was on any meds, short and/or long term....also a tox report should be mandatory information shared to the public for all criminals post autopsy.

... the majority of US so-called Christians bring it on themselves. Christianity atleast in the US has been in an advantaged position since forever. Today we have a large number of those folks who believe it is their position to bully and rule over those who don't follow their religion. They feel a loss of position in the pecking order, it is their GOD GIVEN RIGHT. These people aren't targets, until they make themselves targets. They would do better if they behaved like real Christians.

By " real Christians" you must mean Christians that vote strait line democRAT?

I can see why you say that. It is certainly difficult to find a real Christian that is voting for republiCONs these days.

I don't even know how you define a real Christian? IMO a real Christian wouldn't have anything to do with organized religion. Organized religion is where the bastardization of Christianity begins.

This professor at Wayne State, reminds me of JHU72: https://www.yaf.org/news/wayne-state-pr ... rees-with/

First, this egghead ain't claiming to any level of Christian belief, not sure he was raised Christian at all, could well be Jewish or atheist. I looked at his wiki, personal blog and vitae...no claims of acting on behalf of Christ or any other religion that I saw on quick review.

Second, he was trying to make an argument that shouting down people with whom one disagrees vehemently is ineffective...he tries to make his point with an extreme statement about morality, and misses the mark badly IMO.

I think what '72 is saying that, in his view, "real" Christians are far more charitable and tolerant and loving of their neighbors, as Christ taught his followers, than what we see from self-acclaimed "Christians". And yes, that latter crowd is largely in the GOP these days, as the GOP has actively courted them based on their bigotries...that said, I know a bunch of evangelicals who are not associating with the GOP...disgusted by what they see. As am I.

Yes of course that’s what 72 was saying and of course one person missed it like a Rocky Wild Thing Vaughn fastball. Though his point about houses of worship fall into the faux religious camp often from me view.

Have said this before, it’s piety vs religious.

I would rather hear it from the good doctor. Your opinions become more worthless and inane everyday. When 72 authorizes you to speak for him then get back to me. Anytime YOU infer I " missed" it only verifies my perspective as being valid. It's a nice day for a bike ride. Why don't you check the air in your tires and go out for a fun ride? The fresh air might do you a world of good.

Keep on being yourself. It’s going well clearly.

To quote Popeye... I am what I am and that's all that I am. Being yourself has worked out so well for you after all... I certainly hope you don't own any firearms. Thanks for your advise, being myself is working out very nicely for me. I hope being yourself is working out as well for you

[Farfromgeneva]

Many mass shooters acquire guns legally

Erin Doherty

Gun control activists rally in Nashville. Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP vis Getty Images
The suspected shooter who killed six people at a Nashville school on Monday is believed to have bought seven guns legally, including three used in the attack.

The big picture: From 1966 to 2019, 77% of mass shooters purchased at least some of the weapons used in the shootings legally, per data compiled by the National Institute of Justice, a research agency of the Department of Justice.

Many mass shootings in the U.S. after 2019 have also underscored the same reality.
Illegal purchases were made by just 13% of mass shooters, per the data, which also notes that 32.5% of mass shooting cases could not be confirmed.
More than 80% of the assailants responsible for K-12 shootings stole their guns from family members, per the National Institute of Justice.
President Biden on Tuesday called on Congress to pass a ban on assault weapons, a similar call in the wake of a tragedy, but one that is unlikely to pass the Republican-led House.

He said he had exhausted his options "to do on my own, anything about guns," but reiterated his plea for Congress to act.
"I can't do anything except plead with the Congress to act reasonably," he said.
Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett (R) said that Congress does not have a role in preventing future mass shootings. "We're not going to fix it, criminals are going to be criminals," he said.
Driving the news: The suspected shooter who opened fire at the Covenant School, a few miles south of downtown Nashville, on Monday was armed with two "assault-type guns" and a pistol, the police said.

Police said Tuesday that the shooter legally bought seven firearms from five different local gun stores. The shooter hid the firearms around their parents' house.
"Three of those weapons were used yesterday during the horrific tragedy," police said.
In Buffalo, New York, the 18-year old accused of a mass shooting at a supermarket last year is believed to have legally obtained an AR-15 style rifle from a federally licensed gun dealer in New York, he purchased a shotgun previously and he received a rifle as a gift, the Associated Press reports.

The massacre killed 10 people, most of whom were Black.
In Uvalde, Texas, the gunman legally bought two AR-style rifles just days before the massacre at Robb Elementary School last year, including one that he brought with him to the elementary school, per the Texas Tribune.

Nineteen children and two adults were killed in the shooting in Uvalde.
And in Parkland, Florida, the shooter at the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where 17 people died, purchased the AR-15-style rifle used in the attack legally, authorities said.

Go deeper... Failed gun legislation is the norm after mass shootings

[Farfromgeneva]

72 should have said right wing, self-annointed "Christians" rather than simply Christians.

His point was valid. So was Kismet's.

I read youth's post as a sneer; feel free to correct that impression if you'd like, youth.

If you are wondering whether gender identity struggles had anything to do with the shooter's motivation, so am I. We likely will learn more from the manifesto left by the shooter. Meanwhile, I think we can wait a heartbeat.

What we do know, apparently, is that the shooter had a bunch of high capacity rapid fire weapons, "legally obtained", and used them to kill children and adults at a "Christian" school they had attended as a child. Fortunately, the killing was stopped by the police before the massacre was even worse.

No sneer at all. This IS the age we live in, when I read it was reported that it was a female my spidey senses went up, as I noted.

I am also looking forward to learning more, but will guess that we will not learn anything IF it goes against the grain of the LGBTQ+ community...it most certainly will go against Christianity, they are always a target, and know this.

Wonder if they will announce if the shooter was on any meds, short and/or long term....also a tox report should be mandatory information shared to the public for all criminals post autopsy.

... the majority of US so-called Christians bring it on themselves. Christianity atleast in the US has been in an advantaged position since forever. Today we have a large number of those folks who believe it is their position to bully and rule over those who don't follow their religion. They feel a loss of position in the pecking order, it is their GOD GIVEN RIGHT. These people aren't targets, until they make themselves targets. They would do better if they behaved like real Christians.

By " real Christians" you must mean Christians that vote strait line democRAT?

I can see why you say that. It is certainly difficult to find a real Christian that is voting for republiCONs these days.

I don't even know how you define a real Christian? IMO a real Christian wouldn't have anything to do with organized religion. Organized religion is where the bastardization of Christianity begins.

This professor at Wayne State, reminds me of JHU72: https://www.yaf.org/news/wayne-state-pr ... rees-with/

First, this egghead ain't claiming to any level of Christian belief, not sure he was raised Christian at all, could well be Jewish or atheist. I looked at his wiki, personal blog and vitae...no claims of acting on behalf of Christ or any other religion that I saw on quick review.

Second, he was trying to make an argument that shouting down people with whom one disagrees vehemently is ineffective...he tries to make his point with an extreme statement about morality, and misses the mark badly IMO.

I think what '72 is saying that, in his view, "real" Christians are far more charitable and tolerant and loving of their neighbors, as Christ taught his followers, than what we see from self-acclaimed "Christians". And yes, that latter crowd is largely in the GOP these days, as the GOP has actively courted them based on their bigotries...that said, I know a bunch of evangelicals who are not associating with the GOP...disgusted by what they see. As am I.

Yes of course that’s what 72 was saying and of course one person missed it like a Rocky Wild Thing Vaughn fastball. Though his point about houses of worship fall into the faux religious camp often from me view.

Have said this before, it’s piety vs religious.

I would rather hear it from the good doctor. Your opinions become more worthless and inane everyday. When 72 authorizes you to speak for him then get back to me. Anytime YOU infer I " missed" it only verifies my perspective as being valid. It's a nice day for a bike ride. Why don't you check the air in your tires and go out for a fun ride? The fresh air might do you a world of good.

Keep on being yourself. It’s going well clearly.

To quote Popeye... I am what I am and that's all that I am. Being yourself has worked out so well for you after all... I certainly hope you don't own any firearms. Thanks for your advise, being myself is working out very nicely for me. I hope being yourself is working out as well for you

Clown shoes in demand!

[MDlaxfan76]

From Steve Rattner this morning:
(with the comment: It's the guns)

With no opinion concerning the crazy people behind the guns.

OBVIOUSLY, we have hugely more "crazy people" as a percent of our population than all of these other countries...

Last night someone was blaming it on social media...well, mebbe there's some 'viral' effect of copycatting...but social media is worldwide, so it's not specific to the US...

It's the guns.

[Farfromgeneva]

From Steve Rattner this morning:
(with the comment: It's the guns)

With no opinion concerning the crazy people behind the guns.

OBVIOUSLY, we have hugely more "crazy people" as a percent of our population than all of these other countries...

Last night someone was blaming it on social media...well, mebbe there's some 'viral' effect of copycatting...but social media is worldwide, so it's not specific to the US...

It's the guns.

And black teenagers! Don't forget those rascals.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Interesting that there's been a recent groundswell of gun control rhetoric from right wing media on certain minority groups. They're gonna use any and every opportunity to disarm the disenfranchised like they did decades ago.

They'll abandon recent cornerstone policy stances the second it benefits them gaining power or "owning the libs".

2nd for me, not for thee...

That really stinks. Those FRC fanatics are disenfranchising black people so they can't vote. Then those rascals want to deny black people their right to own firearms. Here in my little corner of Upstate NY owning a firearm is as simple as the guy your friend knows who has a 9mm for sale. No need for a background check, just bring cold hard cash. You made a slanderous accusation without providing one iota of proof. You should have prefaced your post with IMO. I'm giving you the opportunity to put your money where your mouth is. If you can make your case that those radical FRC maniacs are violating anyones right to own a firearm put up or shutup...

Put up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

Put up: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 234705347/

[MDlaxfan76]

The other argument is that "I need a loaded AR-15 beside my door or bed because them (blacks and Mexicans) gonna come with their illegal guns to rob me, rape my wife, etc...if we could just take away all their "illegal" guns, I wouldn't need mine so much...except I still think it's cool that I have several...unlocked, and ready to kill...

[Seacoaster(1)]

This could fit in the SCOTUS thread for sure. But I thought I would park it in the "let's let us murder one another" thread:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/opin ... court.html

"How much further will the Supreme Court go to assist in the arming of America? That has been the question since last June, when the court ruled that New York’s century-old gun licensing law violated the Second Amendment. Sooner than expected, we are likely to find out the answer.

On March 17, the Biden administration asked the justices to overturn an appeals court decision that can charitably be described as nuts, and accurately as pernicious. The decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit invalidated a federal law that for almost 30 years has prohibited gun ownership by people who are subject to restraining orders for domestic violence.

The Fifth Circuit upheld the identical law less than three years ago. But that was before President Donald Trump put a Mississippi state court judge named Cory Wilson on the appeals court. (As a candidate for political office in 2015, Wilson said in a National Rifle Association questionnaire that he opposed both background checks on private gun sales and state licensing requirements for potential gun owners.)

Judge Wilson wrote in a decision handed down in March that the appeals court was forced to repudiate its own precedent by the logic of the Supreme Court’s decision in the New York licensing case. He was joined by another Trump judge, James Ho, and by Edith Jones, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan; Judge Jones has long been one of the most aggressive conservatives on the country’s most conservative appeals court.

Now it is up to the justices to say whether that analysis is correct.

Fifteen years after the Supreme Court’s Heller decision interpreted the Second Amendment to convey an individual right to own a gun, there is no overstating the significance of the choice the court has been asked to make. Heller was limited in scope: It gave Americans a constitutional right to keep handguns at home for self-defense. The court’s decision last June in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen was on the surface also quite limited, striking down a law that required a showing of special need in order to obtain an unrestricted license to carry a concealed gun outside the home. New York was one of only a half-dozen states with such a requirement, as the court put it in the Bruen decision.

What was not limited about the New York decision — indeed, what was radical — was the analysis that Justice Clarence Thomas employed in his opinion for the 6-3 majority. Following Heller, courts had evaluated gun restrictions by weighing the personal Second Amendment claim against the government’s interest in the particular regulation, a type of balancing test that has long been common in constitutional adjudication. The Bruen decision rejected that approach, instead placing history above all else.

“The government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms,” Justice Thomas wrote.

As a result of that decision, Shawn Hubler, a national correspondent for The Times, reported earlier this month, “gun historians across the country are in demand like never before as lawyers must now comb through statutes drafted in the Colonial era and the early years of the Republic to litigate modern firearms restrictions.”

She noted that “cases now explore weapons bans in early saloons, novelty air rifles on the Lewis and Clark expedition, concealed carry restrictions on bowie knives and 18th-century daggers known as ‘Arkansas toothpicks,’ and a string-operated ‘trap gun’ that may or may not be comparable to an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle.”

Judge Wilson, in his opinion for the Fifth Circuit, said the prohibition on gun ownership by a person under a court-ordered restraining order for domestic violence failed “the historical tradition” test crafted by Justice Thomas. While there were laws at the time of the country’s founding that disarmed people who were deemed “disloyal” or “unacceptable,” Judge Wilson asserted that the purpose of those laws was to safeguard the “political and social order” rather than to protect individuals from violence. Consequently, he said, the old laws were not sufficiently “relevantly similar” to the modern law, known as Section 922(g)(8) of the U.S. code, to meet the Supreme Court’s history test.

The defendant in this case, Zackey Rahimi, was under a restraining order after he allegedly assaulted and threatened to shoot his ex-girlfriend, the mother of his child, when he went on a shooting spree, firing a weapon on five different occasions around Arlington, Texas. He pleaded guilty to violating Section 922(g)(8) while at the same time challenging the law’s constitutionality.

Mr. Rahimi, “while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless among ‘the people’ entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees,” Judge Wilson wrote. Noting that a court-ordered restraining order is civil rather than criminal in nature, Judge Wilson asked rhetorically whether, if Mr. Rahimi’s civil offense was enough to disqualify him from owning a gun, as the law required, a similar disqualification might apply to those who violate a speed limit or fail to recycle.

Clearly, the question now for the Supreme Court is not only the validity of one statute but how the Bruen decision’s newly minted “historical tradition” requirement will apply to any and all gun regulations. The Fifth Circuit offered a lazy and cherry-picked history that “missed the forest for the trees,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in the government’s Supreme Court petition.

While it was clear that “dangerous individuals could be disarmed” at the time of the Constitution’s framing, she wrote, the Fifth Circuit treated “even minor and immaterial distinctions between historical laws and their modern counterparts as a sufficient reason to find modern laws unconstitutional.” Under such an analysis, she argued, “few modern statutes would survive judicial review.” (While the Supreme Court is not obliged to hear the government’s appeal, United States v. Rahimi, the court almost never declines to review a decision that has invalidated a federal statute.)

In a forthcoming article, Professors Joseph Blocher of Duke Law School and Reva B. Siegel of Yale point out that there is a reason for the failure of early American lawmakers to consider domestic violence a reason to take away an abuser’s gun: The very concept of domestic violence was alien to the Constitution’s framers because wives were completely subordinate to their husbands and wife beating was widely tolerated.

In enacting Section 922(g)(8) in 1994, they write, “Congress acted to alter the government’s historical refusal to intervene in intimate partner violence — a failure that was rooted in the belief that a man had authority to ‘correct’ subordinate members of the household, including his wife.” They note that “government response to violence between intimates only began to shift in the 1970s as this system of gender hierarchy began slowly to break down.” Protecting women from intimate partner violence is thus inherent in, and not — as the Fifth Circuit assumed — different from protecting the “political and social order.”

There is no doubt that under the old interest-balancing test, the government would prevail. The interest in keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers is that obvious, as even the Fifth Circuit found in 2020. “The parties agree,” the court noted then, “that reducing domestic gun abuse is not just an important government interest, but a compelling one. They only dispute whether §922(g)(8) is reasonably adapted to that interest. We hold that it is.”

The government’s petition points out that there are more than one million acts of domestic violence in the United States every year “and the presence of a gun in a house with a domestic abuser increases the risk of homicide sixfold.”

Will a fact like that matter to the Supreme Court? Do facts still matter at all? That may now be the most urgent question this case presents, not only to the court but to the country."

[jhu72]

72 should have said right wing, self-annointed "Christians" rather than simply Christians.

His point was valid. So was Kismet's.

I read youth's post as a sneer; feel free to correct that impression if you'd like, youth.

If you are wondering whether gender identity struggles had anything to do with the shooter's motivation, so am I. We likely will learn more from the manifesto left by the shooter. Meanwhile, I think we can wait a heartbeat.

What we do know, apparently, is that the shooter had a bunch of high capacity rapid fire weapons, "legally obtained", and used them to kill children and adults at a "Christian" school they had attended as a child. Fortunately, the killing was stopped by the police before the massacre was even worse.

No sneer at all. This IS the age we live in, when I read it was reported that it was a female my spidey senses went up, as I noted.

I am also looking forward to learning more, but will guess that we will not learn anything IF it goes against the grain of the LGBTQ+ community...it most certainly will go against Christianity, they are always a target, and know this.

Wonder if they will announce if the shooter was on any meds, short and/or long term....also a tox report should be mandatory information shared to the public for all criminals post autopsy.

... the majority of US so-called Christians bring it on themselves. Christianity atleast in the US has been in an advantaged position since forever. Today we have a large number of those folks who believe it is their position to bully and rule over those who don't follow their religion. They feel a loss of position in the pecking order, it is their GOD GIVEN RIGHT. These people aren't targets, until they make themselves targets. They would do better if they behaved like real Christians.

By " real Christians" you must mean Christians that vote strait line democRAT?

I can see why you say that. It is certainly difficult to find a real Christian that is voting for republiCONs these days.

I don't even know how you define a real Christian? IMO a real Christian wouldn't have anything to do with organized religion. Organized religion is where the bastardization of Christianity begins.

This professor at Wayne State, reminds me of JHU72: https://www.yaf.org/news/wayne-state-pr ... rees-with/

First, this egghead ain't claiming to any level of Christian belief, not sure he was raised Christian at all, could well be Jewish or atheist. I looked at his wiki, personal blog and vitae...no claims of acting on behalf of Christ or any other religion that I saw on quick review.

Second, he was trying to make an argument that shouting down people with whom one disagrees vehemently is ineffective...he tries to make his point with an extreme statement about morality, and misses the mark badly IMO.

I think what '72 is saying that, in his view, "real" Christians are far more charitable and tolerant and loving of their neighbors, as Christ taught his followers, than what we see from self-acclaimed "Christians". And yes, that latter crowd is largely in the GOP these days, as the GOP has actively courted them based on their bigotries...that said, I know a bunch of evangelicals who are not associating with the GOP...disgusted by what they see. As am I.

Hell, Atheists have more Christ like characteristics than the bulk of today's GOP "Christians".

[cradleandshoot]

The other argument is that "I need a loaded AR-15 beside my door or bed because them (blacks and Mexicans) gonna come with their illegal guns to rob me, rape my wife, etc...if we could just take away all their "illegal" guns, I wouldn't need mine so much...except I still think it's cool that I have several...unlocked, and ready to kill...

Holy moly MD, you have regurgitated alot of stupid chit on this forum. You have finally outdid yourself. You are the drama queen of this forum hands down. Those white supremacists are living in your oversized brain totally rent free.

[Seacoaster(1)]

The other argument is that "I need a loaded AR-15 beside my door or bed because them (blacks and Mexicans) gonna come with their illegal guns to rob me, rape my wife, etc...if we could just take away all their "illegal" guns, I wouldn't need mine so much...except I still think it's cool that I have several...unlocked, and ready to kill...

Holy moly MD, you have regurgitated alot of stupid chit on this forum. You have finally outdid yourself. You are the drama queen of this forum hands down. Those white supremacists are living in your oversized brain totally rent free.

His posts tend to be polite, on point and informed. He has a point of view, with which you disagree a lot -- that's all. Oceans away from "stupid chit." C'mon man; do better.

[cradleandshoot]

The other argument is that "I need a loaded AR-15 beside my door or bed because them (blacks and Mexicans) gonna come with their illegal guns to rob me, rape my wife, etc...if we could just take away all their "illegal" guns, I wouldn't need mine so much...except I still think it's cool that I have several...unlocked, and ready to kill...

Holy moly MD, you have regurgitated alot of stupid chit on this forum. You have finally outdid yourself. You are the drama queen of this forum hands down. Those white supremacists are living in your oversized brain totally rent free.

His posts tend to be polite, on point and informed. He has a point of view, with which you disagree a lot -- that's all. Oceans away from "stupid chit." C'mon man; do better.

He tries very hard to be polite. Maybe he tries just a little bit too hard? I know if your a white supremacist evangelical Christian there is no politeness in him at all. That is where IMO the vast amount of the stupid chit he says emanates from. IMO there are a lot of bad people that exist on a very broad spectrum. MD has his own particular personal vendetta against one particular group for reasons known only to him.
I'm just as guilty. I still have a lot of personal contempt for people who supported Nixon back in the day...