Active shooter at Florida high school

[row_33]

just sitting here in my cozy office thinking about how silly it is for people to want guns, and we shouldn't kill, so why can't we just hand them all in and let peace prevail?

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

Libcuck? Nice. Did you type that out while vaping and oiling your neckbeard?

 

Except here's the part you are glossing over: a big reason that the government failed to save lives, is that with laws as written law enforcement had no ability to permanently take them away: https://www.npr.org/2018/04/23/605044996/why-the-waffle-house-shooting-suspect-had-access-to-guns-after-his-were-seized

 

I think there's a reasonable debate to be had whether citizens should have some form of compulsory military training to act as a militia in case of invasion, but there's a lot of untrained people out there with guns and none of the training to use them safely. Assuming that everybody packing in that Waffle House would have made things safer is crazy. I have BEEN to my share of Waffle Houses, and no one makes good decisions in them.

 

 

 

Translated :

 

"I believe that there is a good argument that the government should be able to compel individuals by force to fight and die for the things the government wishes them to, and I also think the government should be able to prevent people from opposing them from doing so."

 

Said every monarchist ever.

[3rdnlng]

3 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

Oh look, a person who had his guns taken away multiple times for clear instability, but kept having them returned to him because there was no legal recourse to prevent him from reclaiming them.

 

And oh look, he was stopped by an unarmed black man, who had the chance to wrestle it away because the shooter didn't have an expanded magazine. Clearly, we're going to see this man called a hero by the president and the evident value of limited magazine size should be screamed from the rooftops!

Do you have a link for this?

[Andrew in CA]

3 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Oh look, another libcuck who knows nothing about firearms or firearm laws.

 

James Shaw Jr. is a hero and deserves to be hailed as such.  You know what would have been better?  If James Shaw Jr. or another law-abiding citizen were carrying a firearm and smoked the tweaker as soon as they saw danger.  Maybe it would have saved a couple lives that the government, despite all their laws (that, again, failed), could not save.

 

Was that meant as parody?  

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

19 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Do you have a link for this?

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/23/605044996/why-the-waffle-house-shooting-suspect-had-access-to-guns-after-his-were-seized

[Teddy KGB]

1 minute ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/23/605044996/why-the-waffle-house-shooting-suspect-had-access-to-guns-after-his-were-seized

 

Crazy naked guy >>> the constitution 

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

49 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Translated :

 

"I believe that there is a good argument that the government should be able to compel individuals by force to fight and die for the things the government wishes them to, and I also think the government should be able to prevent people from opposing them from doing so."

 

Said every monarchist ever.

 

WOW. Way to sidestep the issue. 

 

You 2nd amendment wonks love the "right to bear arms" part while ignoring the "well regulated militia" part. Let's compromise and say "You want these guns? You have to sign up for proper regulation and training, solely for the purpose of functioning in your militia unit"

 

There, constitutional problem solved. Or do you just want to be a man baby?

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/23/605044996/why-the-waffle-house-shooting-suspect-had-access-to-guns-after-his-were-seized

That doesn't say what you think it does. Nowhere does it say his guns were taken away multiple times. You weaken your case by exaggerating.

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/23/605044996/why-the-waffle-house-shooting-suspect-had-access-to-guns-after-his-were-seized

 

The reason the suspect had access to guns is because guns had already been invented a few hundred years ago, and laws that criminalize guns only keep guns out of the hands of the law abiding.

 

!@#$s like this who seek to kill people aren't discouraged by the law. We know this because we have laws against killing people, and he broke them.

 

 

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

2 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

Crazy naked guy >>> the constitution 

Ahhh, my favorite subversive Ruskie.

 

As you are clearly unfamiliar in the American Constituion and its amendments, you would not know that the there are limits. You are not allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Free speech does not extend to telling an accomplice to murder someone. 

 

So, am I ok with banning certain weapons outside of a well regulated militia? Yes. If someone is a clear and present danger, is there an overwhelming public good to prevent immanent disaster? I am ok with it. But let's have some common sense **** here gentlemen.

 

 

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

The reason the suspect had access to guns is because guns had already been invented a few hundred years ago, and laws that criminalize guns only keep guns out of the hands of the law abiding.

 

!@#$s like this who seek to kill people aren't discouraged by the law. We know this because we have laws against killing people, and he broke them.

 

 

Or, maybe, or,  if he is clearly an imminent risk, we, oh I don't know MAKE IT HARDER FOR HIM TO GET AN AR-15

 

And again, his lack of an extended magazine saved lives. So how are we even debating this part? Oh, right, you didn't because you have no leg to stand on.

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Ahhh, my favorite subversive Ruskie.

 

As you are clearly unfamiliar in the American Constituion and its amendments, you would not know that the there are limits. You are not allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Free speech does not extend to telling an accomplice to murder someone. 

 

So, am I ok with banning certain weapons outside of a well regulated militia? Yes. If someone is a clear and present danger, is there an overwhelming public good to prevent immanent disaster? I am ok with it. But let's have some common sense **** here gentlemen.

 

 

 

And in your experience the government is a bastion of common sense? 

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

WOW. Way to sidestep the issue. 

 

You 2nd amendment wonks love the "right to bear arms" part while ignoring the "well regulated militia" part. Let's compromise and say "You want these guns? You have to sign up for proper regulation and training, solely for the purpose of functioning in your militia unit"

 

There, constitutional problem solved. Or do you just want to be a man baby?

 

Perhaps if you had any idea how the English language works, and knew how to diagram a sentence in order to understand the ideas being conveyed, you might understand the Second Amendment.

 

Instead you're demonstrating that you're functionally illiterate, and are making the same case for the powers of government that our Founders threw off.

 

I haven't side stepped the issue at all. Your lack of skill with the language has tricked you into thinking that I have.

[boyst]

14 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/23/605044996/why-the-waffle-house-shooting-suspect-had-access-to-guns-after-his-were-seized

What's your point, petunia?

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

2 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

What's your point, petunia?

That...the dude was asking for my sources that the defendant had his guns revoked before the incident...

 

That...I was asked for evidence to my claim and provided it?

[boyst]

1 minute ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

That...the dude was asking for my sources that the defendant had his guns revoked before the incident...

 

That...I was asked for evidence to my claim and provided it?

I'm asking what basis your citation has on the rights of the Constitution.

 

You also claim that the man was empowered to act without a gun against another man with a gun in order to promote the rights of the 2A

Edited April 24, 2018 by Boyst62

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

That...the dude was asking for my sources that the defendant had his guns revoked before the incident...

 

That...I was asked for evidence to my claim and provided it?

Don't call me "The Dude".  You were asked for evidence and you failed to provide it.

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

Don't call me "The Dude".  You were asked for evidence and you failed to provide it.

the read the !@#$ing article

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

the read the !@#$ing article

I guess TYTT was right about your deficiency with the English language. Not only can you not write very well you can't read and understand it either.

 

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

9 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

I'm asking what basis your citation has on the rights of the Constitution.

 

You also claim that the man was empowered to act without a gun against another man with a gun in order to promote the rights of the 2A

 

...what? 

 

The "dude" asked when people had previously taken his guns away.

 

If you want to press a constitutional issue, that's a deeper question, but let us at least state for the record that with the current laws, a man who, upon multiple occasions, had shown violent aberrant behavior, had his guns returned to him

 

I can did deep and debate the constituionality until I am blue in the face. We can circle on the role of government, and what force it can take and form all types of syllogisms

 

But lets get down to brass tacks. No BS

 

This is a man who a blind deaf and dumb moron could tell was dangerous. And with the laws, as they are, he was returned weapons of deadly force. Multiple times. And then, he went on a rampage.

 

He bought his weapons legally. They were returned to him, legally. Everything was legal until he walked up and shot a whole bunch of people.

 

If you think this is ok, I don't know how to debate with you, because you live in a fantasy world where that is ok.

28 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

That doesn't say what you think it does. Nowhere does it say his guns were taken away multiple times. You weaken your case by exaggerating.

Nice snow job.

 

You asked for evidence that the defendant had his weapons seized and returned to him. I have provided it. Not only are you ignoring that I have provided evidence that supports that the assailant had his weapons seized and returned to him, you change the subject to trying to attack my grammar. You try to seize upon one flaw to ignore the multitude of flaws in your argument. 

Shame. Shame on you.

[boyst]

6 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

...what? 

 

The "dude" asked when people had previously taken his guns away.

 

If you want to press a constitutional issue, that's a deeper question, but let us at least state for the record that with the current laws, a man who, upon multiple occasions, had shown violent aberrant behavior, had his guns returned to him

 

I can did deep and debate the constituionality until I am blue in the face. We can circle on the role of government, and what force it can take and form all types of syllogisms

 

But lets get down to brass tacks. No BS

 

This is a man who a blind deaf and dumb moron could tell was dangerous. And with the laws, as they are, he was returned weapons of deadly force. Multiple times. And then, he went on a rampage.

 

He bought his weapons legally. They were returned to him, legally. Everything was legal until he walked up and shot a whole bunch of people.

 

If you think this is ok, I don't know how to debate with you, because you live in a fantasy world where that is ok.

Nice snow job.

 

You asked for evidence that the defendant had his weapons seized and returned to him. I have provided it. Not only are you ignoring that I have provided evidence that supports that the assailant had his weapons seized and returned to him, you change the subject to trying to attack my grammar. You try to seize upon one flaw to ignore the multitude of flaws in your argument. 

Shame. Shame on you.

Yep. I'm perfectly fine with him owning a gun and all of that until he shot someone. So, Gloria, I guess we are at an impasse because you are scared of people and I am fearless and bench 700 lbs.

[Koko78]

6 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Yep. I'm perfectly fine with him owning a gun and all of that until he shot someone. So, Gloria, I guess we are at an impasse because you are scared of people and I am fearless and bench 700 lbs.

 

A mere 700 pounds?? Do you even lift, brah?

[boyst]

8 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

A mere 700 pounds?? Do you even lift, brah?

I do planet fitness and booty burn

[3rdnlng]

28 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

A mere 700 pounds?? Do you even lift, brah?

He thinks picking up a girl guy who weighs 700 pounds is lifting her him.

[DC Tom]

38 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

He bought his weapons legally. They were returned to him, legally. 

 

 

Since he had his Illinois firearms ID revoked in August of last year, both the transfer of the guns to him, and the possession of them by him, were illegal.  

[3rdnlng]

44 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

You asked for evidence that the defendant had his weapons seized and returned to him. I have provided it. Not only are you ignoring that I have provided evidence that supports that the assailant had his weapons seized and returned to him, you change the subject to trying to attack my grammar. You try to seize upon one flaw to ignore the multitude of flaws in your argument. 

Shame. Shame on you.

Move the goalposts often? You are equivocating and changing what you actually wrote. Nowhere in your article does it say that he had his guns taken away and returned several times. If you want honest discussion, then be honest.

[GG]

49 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

...what? 

 

The "dude" asked when people had previously taken his guns away.

 

If you want to press a constitutional issue, that's a deeper question, but let us at least state for the record that with the current laws, a man who, upon multiple occasions, had shown violent aberrant behavior, had his guns returned to him

 

 

Would you advocate preventing him from renting a Ryder truck?

[LeviF]

16 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

Libcuck? Nice. Did you type that out while vaping and oiling your neckbeard?

 

Except here's the part you are glossing over: a big reason that the government failed to save lives, is that with laws as written law enforcement had no ability to permanently take them away: https://www.npr.org/2018/04/23/605044996/why-the-waffle-house-shooting-suspect-had-access-to-guns-after-his-were-seized

 

I think there's a reasonable debate to be had whether citizens should have some form of compulsory military training to act as a militia in case of invasion, but there's a lot of untrained people out there with guns and none of the training to use them safely. Assuming that everybody packing in that Waffle House would have made things safer is crazy. I have BEEN to my share of Waffle Houses, and no one makes good decisions in them.

 

 

 

I don't vape!  I'm a real man, I smoke pole.

 

 

 

Unrelated: what are you up to tonight?

[row_33]

1 hour ago, LeviF91 said:

 

I don't vape!  I'm a real man, I smoke pole.

 

 

 

Unrelated: what are you up to tonight?

 

 

i trust that means something different (re: pole) in your colloquial habitat than it means in Toronto

 

Not that there's anything wrong with that.....

 

 

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

 

 

i trust that means something different (re: pole) in your colloquial habitat than it means in Toronto

 

Not that there's anything wrong with that.....

 

 

No, Boyst outed him along with himself the other day. Also called levi a "ballerina".

[row_33]

18 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

No, Boyst outed him along with himself the other day. Also called levi a "ballerina".

 

cool, whatever...

[Nanker]

20 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

Libcuck? Nice. Did you type that out while vaping and oiling your neckbeard?

 

Except here's the part you are glossing over: a big reason that the government failed to save lives, is that with laws as written law enforcement had no ability to permanently take them away: https://www.npr.org/2018/04/23/605044996/why-the-waffle-house-shooting-suspect-had-access-to-guns-after-his-were-seized

 

I think there's a reasonable debate to be had whether citizens should have some form of compulsory military training to act as a militia in case of invasion, but there's a lot of untrained people out there with guns and none of the training to use them safely. Assuming that everybody packing in that Waffle House would have made things safer is crazy. I have BEEN to my share of Waffle Houses, and no one makes good decisions in them.

 

 

 

 

[LeviF]

[B-Man]

Guess which students will and won’t appear on Nightline’s Parkland documentary

 

I'm sure you can do it......

 

 

 

[row_33]

Better to earn an honest existence than think working with media whores is worthwhile

 

 

[/dev/null]

Deplorable

[/dev/null]

[3rdnlng]

51 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

High capacity clips:

[B-Man]

‘LOL, no.’ David Hogg sees proof at #NRAAM18 that ‘the NRA is scared,’ trips HARD over reality

[LB3]

https://www.google.com/amp/fox5sandiego.com/2018/05/11/report-shots-fired-at-los-angeles-area-high-school/amp/

 

A shooter was reported at Highland High School in Palmdale, California Friday, and the LA County Sheriff’s Department confirmed that one person has now been detained near the school.

 

Also being reported that there might be a shooter at an elementary school 8 miles from this high school.

[Deranged Rhino]