Jump to content

Don

Moderators
  • Posts

    5133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

Don last won the day on May 5

Don had the most liked content!

About Don

  • Birthday January 26

Recent Profile Visitors

8157 profile views

Don's Achievements

Rising Star

Rising Star (9/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges

41

Reputation

  1. ABC: "A bipartisan group of senators is considering how Congress should respond to the horrific shooting of 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas, restarting gun control talks that have broken down many times before. Aware of the difficulty of their task, the Democrats and Republicans say they hope to find agreement on legislation that could help reduce the number of mass shootings in the United States. The Uvalde shooting came 10 days after a gunman opened fire in a racist attack killing Black people at a Buffalo, New York, supermarket. Senators have narrowed the discussion to a few ideas, some of them based on legislation they have been working on for years, such as expanded background checks or red flag laws that keep guns away from people who could do harm." abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senators-talk-expanded-gun-background-checks-red-flag OK hopefully these politicians have something additional up their sleeves since neither "expanded background checks" nor "red flag laws" would have prevented the Uvalde school shooting nor would have prevented the shooter from purchasing his weapons... So far this looks like just another smoke-and-mirrors fluff legislative attempt to try to convince the American public Washington politicians are on the job, when it appears what's currently being proposed - wouldn't have prevented the Texas shooter from purchasing weapons or using them to kill 21 people and will probably be just as effective as those "No Gun Zone" signs hanging outside the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. Some Republican members of Congress are proposing alternative solutions such as armed guards and other safety protections at public venues as well as expanded mental health services and of course some Democrat members of Congress are proposing another assault weapons ban or taking steps to make it even more difficult for law abiding people to keep and bear arms... One thing I think just about everyone agrees with is something SHOULD be done. On a side note, 5-years after former president Bill Clinton signed the assault weapons ban in 1994 that then Senator Joe Biden claimed he pushed through Congress before it arrived on Clinton's desk. We had Columbine shooting occurred on April 20, 1999. The shooters used handguns, a pistol caliber carbine and shotguns - luckily their homemade propane bombs didn't go off... One would think if anyone would know that banning assault weapons is not the answer to stopping school shootings it would be one of the self professed architects and promoters of the original assault weapons ban, but what would anyone want to bet one of the main campaign topics for the 2022 midterm elections this year will be president Biden and the Democrats claiming they need to pass another assault weapons ban to keep people safe and stop school shootings?
  2. Obviously you have your posting style confused with mine... I blame the shooter... period. But the fact remains if someone hadn't blocked open a door that was supposed to shut and lock automatically it would have been more difficult for the shooter to enter the school - no blame just fact. Actually doors are designed and constructed to automatically close for several reasons, one of course being to limit ingress that's why so many doors have push bars on the inside but can only be opened from the outside with a key. Another reason being they are designed to do so to cut down on drafts, in the event of a fire in the building the flames aren't fed by flows of air coming in from the outside. It is a safety feature built into many public buildings and they have been using these safety doors even before mass shootings or school shooting became so commonplace and this isn't the only country that uses this type of safety door. Yeah, there was an armed school safety officer assigned to be at the school but for some as yet unexplained reason he was "off campus" that was part of the incomplete and incorrect information information Abbott was given... but then you'd know that if you did more reading and less attacking. Looks like you still haven't read any of the The Police Response to Active Shooter Incidents document I provided, yes it's an 8-year-old link but one from research and recommendations after the Columbine mass shooting but I believe it is still the basis for recommendation for school active shooter/barricaded shooter training. Now I have to backtrack and apologize I still believe officers shouldn't throw themselves in front of a bullet needlessly but there is a section in the Police Response to Active Shooter's publication that says law enforcement should engage and "attempt to neutralize an active shooter as quickly as possible", which appears wasn't done. The guide does make a distinction between active shooter and a barricaded shooter though and in an active shooter situation shots are still being fired and people are in imminent danger and law enforcement should respond aggressively - in a barricaded shooter incident there are no shots fired, people don't appear to be in imminent danger and law enforcement should not respond aggressively to avoid encouraging the suspect to actively shoot hostages again. Much of what I read from local Texas news sources indicated the suspect was in a barricaded situation shortly after entering the building and not an active shooter, now from local sources there seems to be some confusion as to that point so I'll just say for the record as more information is released I believe there were some missed opportunities and obvious bad calls, but I still firmly believe a cop has the same right to consideration to not throw their lives away as anyone else, badge or not and rushing into a situation where someone can fire on you with impunity and you don't have the proper protection and can't fire back because you don't want to hit an innocent the shooter has around them is as close to suicide as a person would care to get and I still don't think anyone is required to do that. I don't recall saying anything about "solo" is that something else you just made up? As a matter of fact I mentioned several times there were "officers", plural - in the building four minutes after the shooter entered and there were "officers", plural - in the building the whole time the shooter was there. Yes there were 19 officers outside the building... Some of them were breaking out windows rescuing children and staff from other classrooms, some were guarding other exits to make sure the shooter didn't get away and others were keeping back crowds and preventing distraught people from running into the building... what's your point with more of your bad mouthing cops for doing what they were supposed to do instead of as you say - "just standing around"? And yet another DonF diatribe against cops and Republicans without a single word of condemnation for the shooter who actually pulled the trigger killing 19 children and 2 teachers.
  3. Shot gunning again I see, on to a completely different subject since you previous one has been shown to be indefensible... I don't consider myself as defending anyone, what I do believe I'm doing is combating lies and misinformation seemingly based purely on a political bias, with publicly documented fact to point out the falseness of statements offered by those without any documented support (or fact) to back up their claims. The United State didn't reach a million deaths until May of 2022 and that was nearly 2-years after Donald Trump left office and Joe Biden became president and implemented his plans to address the COVID pandemic. At the Oct. 22, 2020, debate against then-President Donald Trump, Joe Biden said anyone who is responsible for 220,000 deaths from COVID should not be president. Perhaps he should take his own advice? More people died of COVID during Biden's presidency, despite mask mandates, despite vaccine mandates, despite lockdowns, school and business closures and recommendations of booster after booster than have died while Trump was president... The fentanyl overdose deaths since Biden became president are higher than the same period of the Trump presidency, the mental, scholastic and behavioral health of students have declined under the lockdowns of schools recommended by the Biden administration... How many people in the Biden administration and from the left, those champions of mask and vaccine mandates, have contracted COVID after all of their recommended precautions? WAPO: November 30, 2021 The United States passed yet another grim coronavirus milestone in November: We have now seen more deaths from the virus in 2021 than we did in all of 2020 — despite the advent of vaccines. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/30/biden-trump-compare-covid-deaths/ Even after all the hub-bub, mandates, regulation and vaccines COVID cases are once again on the rise across the nation so how effective have all those imposed regulations, harsh mandates and mandatory restrictions really been? Again I could just take your word for it when you say Trump didn't create jobs with nothing to back it up or I can read articles from publications like Forbes, Business insider, ATR, statistics from the Department of Labor - not that tough a call ~ Yeah, I remember those bad inflation times back when Trump was president... Gasoline $2 to $3 cheaper, groceries about 6% less expensive, energy bills about two thirds what they are now and most Americans had more money in their pockets - If those were the bad old days, I kind of wish they were still around instead of these 'build back better', good days of the Biden administration. I've already posted facts and references about the real reason the price of gasoline is higher than it's been since Obama was in office and ample documentation from various industries and publications to substantiate my statements. You've just keep repeating the same tired old TDS politically partisan rhetoric... Who should anyone believe? Again not that tough a call in my opinion.
  4. According to the timeline I posted the shooter entered the building at 11:40 am and at 11:44 am officers "move inside the building", were fired on and took cover... Your original statement is entirely false - First of all there were officers in the building being fired on within 4 minutes of the shooter entering the building... Secondly officers remained in the building with the shooter occasionally stepping into the hallway firing at them the entire time... About an hour later the Border Patrol Special Weapons and Tactics made entry and engaged the shooter. The first officers on the scene had neither the training nor the equipment to engage what they suspected was a barricaded suspect, that's like expecting a school nurse to preform open heart surgery because they both have 'medical training'. That you can't see that or won't admit that just goes to show me how tenuous a grasp on reality you have. I still maintain that without the necessary equipment, like ballistic shields and the training to single out and target the shooter in a room full of other people about the best the common patrolman could do would be burst in and spray the room with bullets possibly killing more innocents or dying themselves because by the time the shooter was located they would have been shot... which by the way is not their job, despite you repeatedly falsely claiming it is. See there it is again, the WOKE definition or I should say differentiation of lies... If a Democrat makes a false statement Like the Biden administration falsely claiming there was no vaccine before Joe was elected, Hillary falsely claiming she landed under fire in Bosnia, AOC's, Harris's and Biden's false claims of Border Patrol agents "whipping" people crossing the border and more lately Biden's exaggerated claims about the number of times he visited Iraq and Afghanistan at the Naval Academy - and it either isn't mentioned or someone tries to excuse those lies as being "misspoken", it was a "passionate statement" or whatever. A Republican is handed inaccurate information after a tragic crisis and passes that information along in the best of faith and they are immediately accused of lying. I'll give that a rating of partial truth, cops do take a job that could often put them in harms way, but it does not "require" them to do so nor does it require them to step in front of a bullet if there might be an alternative. You complete ignorance in what a law enforcement officers actual duties and responsibilities are continues to be displayed by your false statements, even after I posted the The Police Response to Active Shooter Incidents link in my previous reply. I guess you're more interested in spouting your false accusatory rhetoric than learning facts based on research, updates and resolutions after the Columbine and Sandy Hook Shootings. And again you continue to bad mouth not only the law enforcement response but Republicans - because that's how you roll - and not a condemnation for the person who pulled the trigger or blocked the door open to give the gunman easy access or the school staff who could have taken steps to defend the students from an active shooter situation. I suspect it's because you are less outraged and concerned with the deaths of the kids and teachers, than you are delighted to once again bad mouth cops and Republicans. Recently I learned the Texas legislature budgeted money for teachers and school administrators to take courses to arm themselves in the event of just such a situation as the one that happened in Texas. A great many teachers and administrators objected to the idea and instead used some of that funding for other things until the legislators were able to place better controls on the funding. Why aren't there any people asking why some teachers or administrators didn't take those funds, training and arm themselves in case an active shooter engagement ever happened at their schools. Why are so few people even mentioning the fact that a teacher apparently blocked open the outside door the shooter entered the school by this avoiding having to enter the front of the school where an armed school safety officer was supposed to be I say was supposed to be because recent information suggest he wasn't there... so far no reason has been given for the absence, but this ought to be interesting. No this thing could not have been avoided by the passage of HR8 or any of the currently suggested gun laws, not even the suggested assault rifle ban since the Texas shooter also had a handgun in his possession and reportedly a shotgun in his vehicle despite anti-gun lobbyists and Democrats suggesting it would have been... But it could easily have been avoided if ingress into the school building was better controlled and there was sufficient coverage and funding for armed school safety officers to be present when a person with a long gun walks up to the only open public access into the school which are a few of the the suggestions that have been offered on the SchoolSafety.org website - and adamantly and immediately rejected for consideration by Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
  5. Now this is something new and if true I expect someone will have some serious explaining to do... FOX: Tactical team prevented from entering school earlier by local Uvalde police: report Border Patrol agents reportedly 'did not understand' why they were being held back Not to mention probably justifying some of the outrage people are expressing concerning the law enforcement response to the shooting. If as the story suggest the on scene tactical commander held the border patrol strike team back for 30 minutes, that's unconscionable. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/27/us/texas-school-shooting#a-border-patrol-tactical-team-was-ordered-to-hold-back-before-confronting-the-gunman Reportedly TX governor Abbott is "livid" that he was given inaccurate and incomplete information prior to the news conference after the Uvalde school shooting. Texas Tribune: Gov. Greg Abbott says he was misled about poor police response to Uvalde shooting “I am livid about what happened,” the governor said at a tense press conference in Uvalde. “The information I was given turned out, in part, to be inaccurate, and I am absolutely livid about that.” https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/27/greg-abbott-texas-uvalde-shooting/
  6. CBS: DHS watchdog: Migrants weren't tested for COVID before transport on domestic commercial flights HS Today: OIG Finds Migrants Were not Tested for COVID-19 Before Boarding Domestic Commercial Flights
  7. I realize how important effective mass transit is to stem the environmental damage caused by so many fossil fuel vehicles... But then again ~
  8. Umm perhaps you should take the time to look at the timeline again... I have to shake my head at the armchair warriors who think someone else should have done something differently in an exchange of gunfire situation when the chances are they've never been in a shooting situation or a real life life of death situation themselves... Yes we can all wish something was done differently and want to believe things might have turned out differently IF... but the truth is sitting around after the fact, with no real life of death situation staring them in the face, no bullets flying past them pinging off the walls and claiming someone wasn't doing their J.O.B. is about as thoughtless as something can get... I realize some people have it against law enforcement to begin with with their Defund the Police, and all cops are bastards, cops are racist and other such nonsense but the reality is it is cops are not cannon fodder. It may be their jobs to enter into dangerous situations but they are not required to do so mindless of the situation, the likely outcome or their own safety and anyone who thinks it is knows little more about what it actually means to be law enforcement than they've learned from the anti-police memes they see on the websites they visit. Like the people sitting in the safety and comfort of their homes saying the cops who don't step in front of a bullet to save others aren't fit to wear the badge... What were the cops supposed to do break into a barricaded classroom with a hail of bullets hoping they got a shot at the gunman who would be shooting at them and not accidently hit any students or teachers? "Where are the children? Where's the shooter? Is the shooter using children as a shield? When they go in the door, they got to find the shooter before they could even fire their weapon. And while they're looking for that shooter, what happens? They get shot." Too many people aren't talking about or even considering proper tactics and reality, they're considering pure fantasy (from the movies or something) where the "hero" can walk into a hail of gunfire remain completely unscathed and take out the bad guy... that's not reality, that's suicide. Why aren't more people asking why the school left so many doors unlocked and opened instead of keeping them secured to protect the safety of the children or what other steps could have been taken to keep the shooter from gaining entry to the building in the first place instead of trying to condemn the cops for not stepping in front of a bullet in a situation that probably wouldn't have changed a thing except possibly add to the body count of innocents? Probably for the same reason Washington Democrats when told they should consider some of the suggestions to make students, schools and education environments safer respond with NO; "We are going to vote on gun legislation.". ** And no... absolutely not, the officer's duty was not to draw the fire of the shooter away from the students that you would even think that just more shows your ignorance of what true law enforcement is. https://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series/the police response to active shooter incidents 2014.pdf I guess what gets me the most are there are those people who continue to heap derogatory and hateful rhetoric on the police officers who responded to the Uvalde school shooting and haven't made a single word of condemnation about the shooters... They're actually treating the law enforcement worse than they are the person who actually pulled the trigger killing 21 people. But it is what it is ~
  9. Police officers entered the Texas school about a minute or two after the gunman entered... anyone saying they waited an hour to enter is either uninformed or lying. The police entering the building quickly discovered they were seriously outgunned, moved to a place of cover to report their observations and was told to await backup and special tactics units. 11:40 a.m. Ramos walks into the west side of Robb Elementary School and shoots multiple rounds. 11:43 a.m. Robb Elementary School announces a lockdown. The Uvalde Police Department shares information on Facebook. 11:44 a.m. The Uvalde Police Department and the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District Police Department move inside the building. The officers hear gunfire and exchange fire with the shooter, move back to get cover. 12:45-1 p.m. U.S. Border Patrol tactical teams arrive, breach the classroom and kill Ramos. Escalon, the Texas public safety spokesman, could not say why it took an hour for a federal special weapons team to enter the classroom and kill the gunman. And anyone who suggests the police should have charged into a firefight against an unknown assailant, indiscriminately firing multiple rounds (5.56) from a weapon superior (AR style long gun) to the handguns they were carrying (40 cal.) - is either an idiot... has a serious fantasy hero complex or is suicidal with little to no real world concern. Anyone who says that's the policeman's job to jump into a situation like that has never been in law enforcement or has any realistic concept of what a cop's responsibilities actually are. Gun laws suggested by the Washington Democrats (specifically HR8) wouldn't have prevented this shooting despite some politicians suggesting it would have. A lesser equipped and out gunned law enforcement officer could have rushed to confront the shooter, but with no intelligence about who the shooter is, his intended target or his weapon and protection the officer could have easily become one of the casualties like the school safety officer in NY who was killed by the gunman who tried to stop the NY shooter who was also wearing body armor. What very well could have prevented this tragedy is for anyone who saw the shooter's social media post about his intent to conduct a mass shooting calling the authorities - ANY authorities, and reporting it... but that didn't happen.
  10. I'd say the fact that you brought your uterus into a discussion about gun violence just proves how WOKE you are - but that would probably be a bit much... The truth seems to me to be a hallmark of WOKE-ness is they can't stay on topic about any given subject once it's been pointed out how weak their position is so they start throwing different topics out (I call it shot gunning) by way of deflection and distraction. What exactly does the completely false meme you posted claiming uteruses are more heavily regulated than guns have to do with the discussion anyway? It's false, there aren't more reproductive laws on the books than there are gun laws. Uteruses and reproductive rights are not mentioned, thus not protected in the Constitution. Uteruses is a direct reference to the abortion discussion which as far as I can tell have little or nothing to do with mass shootings or guns. Did I mention the fact that suggesting uteruses are more heavily regulated than guns is a fabrication and completely false? Milwaukee Sentinel: During a speech on the Senate floor, Johnson made his push for The Luke and Alex School Safety Act, which would require the Department of Homeland Security to collect feedback and data on best practices for "improving the health, safety and welfare of individuals in school settings." The bill is named after Luke Hoyer and Alex Schachter, who were killed in the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, in February 2018. "Today, America grieves," Johnson said. "There's nothing partisan about it." "There's nothing partisan about this bill whatsoever," Johnson said. "It's just a good idea that could save lives. ... During the previous administration, they set up that clearinghouse. It's up and it's operating." But he was blocked by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, who vowed: "We are going to vote on gun legislation." jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2022/05/25/ron-johnson-promotes-bill-creating-clearinghouse-school-safety-walks-away-from-cnn-reporter https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/111 See this is the kind of "My Way - or No Way" thing I mentioned earlier that I expected from the Democrats... However a lot of people will still maintain the gun isn't the problem, it's the person who pulls the trigger and that's what should be addressed ~ But blame the gun not the person who pulls the trigger, unfortunately seems to be the anti-gun - Democrat way and without the specified anti-gun legislation exactly as it is presented with no compromise or alteration, it seems those in the (D) anti-gun lobby would rather do nothing than something, if it isn't exactly what they initially presented. The SchoolSafety.gov website is not exactly an open forum but it has contributions from crime experts in forensics, law enforcement and investigators with suggestions as well as technologists from several different categories, architects and safety engineers to design safer schools. For instance I just heard today the Texas shooter who killed 21 people including 19 children under the age of 13, entered the school from a side door that leads into the teacher's parking lot, not the front door where the School safety office is located. The teacher's parking lot door was unsecured and unmonitored... One would think after as many mass shootings there have been in Texas and school shootings we as a nation over the past few years someone would have thought; "Maybe we shouldn't leave a building filled with our most vulnerable so open and unprotected to anyone who might wish them harm"... but no, it's easier to try to blame the gun even though no matter how many new gun laws get passed a criminal or murderer isn't going to pay any attention to gun laws when they decide to go on a shooting rampage and even a person who has no mental health illness history or previous criminal record (let's start with the Sandy Hook school shooting, and skip to the New York grocery store shooter and the Texas school shooter) can still legally obtain a firearm and decide to walk into a school and absolutely none of the proposed new gun laws currently proposed by the likes of Schumer or his ilk would have prevented a single one of them. One might also think that if someone suggests we try to do a better job of securing schools, limiting ingress providing adequate response capabilities in the event of an emergency as a way to keep school children safe people would be willing to at least consider the merits of that suggestion instead of immediately dismissing it and saying "we're going to do it my way"...
  11. Yeah I could believe you when you say Trump didn't bring back manufacturing jobs... or I could go with the opinion of someone a little less biased and a little better informed... FORBES: In Trump's First 30 Months, Manufacturing Up By 314,000 Jobs Over Obama; Which States Are Hot? The Balance: Donald Trump promised to be the greatest job-producing president in U.S. history. During his 2016 campaign, he pledged to create 25 million jobs in the next 10 years. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there were 3.1 million fewer jobs in December 2020 than in January 2017 when Trump took office. If Donald Trump had been able to keep his campaign promise, he would have beaten the current record-holder, President Bill Clinton, who created 18.6 million jobs during his two terms. Key Takeaways President Trump's policies and negotiations resulted in: 6.6 million jobs created before the pandemic Tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese imports A renegotiation of NAFTA with the intention of bringing jobs back to the U.S. A reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% Removal of a key Dodd-Frank requirement for banks with assets of less than $100 billion https://www.thebalance.com/trump-and-jobs-4114173 https://www.atr.org/manufacturing/ The fact remains, more than a year after Biden was elected we are in one of the worst inflationary periods since the 70's, currently topping 40% and projected to go higher. Gasoline prices are higher than they've been in 8 years and is projected to keep climbing at least through the Summer. (currently about $4.19 locally), common people, the working middle class and poor people are suffering and president Biden calls the high fuel prices an "incredible transaction" period. The price of food has risen 6.5 to 7.5 percent since 2021 and is expected to climb another 6 to 7 percent next year. We don't have enough baby formula on the shelves for the mothers who are in this country legally to feed their babies but the government is sending pallets of baby formula to the border to give to people (not always family members) who have entered this country illegally with children and the government is doing little or nothing to try to stem the flow of foreign nationals across our national borders. As a matter of fact even folks in the Biden administration have predicted the influx of foreign nationals will be on par - or exceed the number of people coming into the country after Biden was elected... No, I don't think Biden is the worst president we've ever had {yet} but if anyone asked me to use one one word to describe policies, programs and proposals attributed to the Biden administration I might offer "ineffectual" to describe what the Biden administration has accomplished so far. But If I were given the latitude of more than a one word answer I would say "I think President Biden and many on his side are out of touch with the major concerns of the majority of Americans" the top five of which seem to be: The economy; inflation and consumer costs. Health care; including concerns about the Covid pandemic Wages and Earnings; *closely tied to the economy Leadership in Washington; The ability for the federal government to effect positive change and get the R's and D's to work together for the good of the country The situation with Russia*; most notably the Ukraine War and Russia's threat of nuclear intervention... *Until the advent of the Ukraine War, Racism and Immigration pretty much shared the #5 spot depending on which polls were being considered... (also most were pre - SCOTUS - abortion poll) and of course different local and regional polls will show different priorities... ie: some border states tend to rank Immigration higher while some high crime states like New York and California rate Crime and Safety higher. After the latest mass shooting in Texas chances are the importance of Guns issues will have also increased. https://www.statista.com/statistics/323380/public-opinion-on-the-most-important-problem-facing-the-us/ https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-asked-2000-americans-about-their-biggest-concern-the-resounding-answer-inflation/ https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/what-issues-matter-most-to-voters-in-2022-us-mid-term-elections-long-island-university-hornstein-center-national-poll-301378814.html https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/02/16/publics-top-priority-for-2022-strengthening-the-nations-economy/ https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_051222.pdf/ https://headlines.liu.edu/?p=4686
  12. Just like the WOKE crowd to bring a uterus to a gun fight discussion... Like it our not - agree with it or not 18-year-olds are old enough to vote, their old enough to put their lives on the line and serve in the military and by virtue of being law abiding Americans are entitled to the rights and protections afforded to them by the Constitution. If anything I applaud state's legislatures for definitively highlighting what a half assed job the federal government has made, not just out of gun laws but so very many federal programs, regulations and laws. I mean making it illegal for someone under the age of 21 to lawfully purchase a handgun while maintaining it is completely legal for a person under the age of 21 to walk around with one hanging off their hip. The federal government is reluctant at best to give the states the powers they are constitutionally entitled to have but at the same time appear next to incompetent when it comes to passing laws to maintain control over those powers they take away from the states. Oh and unsurprisingly you're still wrong.... I'm still opposed to your previous statement on straw purchases and if it appears we are saying the same thing on part of this topic it is probably coincidental, for instance you make the case that all firearms should be licensed and registered like machine guns and I opposed that premise by saying it makes sense for some weapons, like machine guns to be licensed and registered but to contend all firearms should be licensed and registered is first unconstitutional and second illegal. You're concept of what constitutes us agreeing on a topic is, to say the least mind boggling, not to mention not quite accurate. It is still perfectly legal and proper for someone to conduct a private transfer, sale, trade or gift from one individual to another even pertaining to a person under the age of 21 and involving a handgun - that is not a straw purchase. An actual straw purchase is someone purchasing a handgun with the express purpose of transferring ownership to someone who isn't allowed to purchase that item on their own. Previously you claimed anyone who previously purchased a handgun then sold that handgun to someone under the age of 21 was guilty of conducting a straw purchase - if that original buyer didn't make the initial purchase with the intent to immediately sell it to an unauthorized person, that is not the legal definition of a straw purchase. The problem with politics is much evident in the way you attempt to discuss things heaping unrelated and conflicting topics into a single subject discussion to attempt to obfuscate the issue (uteruses... really?!? ) with a health dose of political partisanship to turn up the gaslighting experience then a couple false or misleading statements to ice the cake... No one mentioned any thing about banning extended round clips and magazines although I do see how the inference could be derived from what I posted, but it could just as well have fallen under the restriction and licensing part of the discussion but the point remains 'does anyone really need an extended round clip or magazine" for recreational or even sports shooting? Honestly I wouldn't mind seeing them made illegal for sales, purchase or possession because other than the purpose of getting as many rounds downrange as quickly as possible, which tends to be more ineffective for target recreational shooting and hunting (might as well pick up a hand full of rocks and throw them) not to mention potentially hazardous to human life, I can't see any other practical use for them. So yeah I personally wouldn't mind seeing them banned - but that's just one person's opinion on the subject and to date I haven't heard anyone make any kind of defensible argument to even make me consider changing my mind. As to the rest, when I consider you have a valid point or even something thought provoking I usually try to point it out... But the problem usually arrives in your subsequent commentary... Claiming that those being treated with drugs or not has any bearing on what constitutes mental infirmity in accordance to the NICS is a fallacy and to suggest someone could simply stop taking their medication walk into a gun store and buy a gun serves only to compound that fallacy. None of which has any bearing on either the New York or the Texas shootings... it's merely more political pandering and finger pointing that serves no purpose other than to try to keep people divided. Yes, about 32 states currently removed the licensing requirements for concealed carry... New York State Did Not and it is the mass shooting in this state that started this thread so what exactly is the purpose for calling out the Republicans and even mentioning the legalization of carrying since it seemingly has no bearing on at least one of the mass shootings of this thread and little to none on the second mass shooting of this thread if not just to stir the pot, inject a political divide and attempt to argue about something that has little or no bearing on the discussion? Why not slam NY for health professionals apparently not informing NICS of the shooter's involuntary mental health evaluation after making threats to shoot up his school, why was he not on some kind of social media watch list with triggering keywords that might indicate the intention of violence, or the Democrats currently in power in Washington, DC for not publicly asking why the NY shooters mental history didn't trigger a no purchase flag on his application to purchase the murder weapon? I think it's because your less about facts and solutions than you are about political pandering and trying to verbally beat down people you disagree with.
  13. The Democrat has it right... We all might not agree on every aspect of every plan offered but there has to be some common ground where not only politicians but people can agree on, something efficacious that might, just might reduce the number of people killed and effected by mass shootings. Although a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, have acknowledged that there are measures available that will in no way infringe in the Constitutional guarantee to an individual's right to bear arms... The 1934 National Firearms Act that severely restricted the public ownership of machine guns and military grade explosive devices and the 1969 Gun Control Act which made the availability of those types of weapons even more restricted did not remove the people's right to keep and bear Arms, but it did make some uncommon types of weapons unavailable to the common public without licensing and registration. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System signed into law by former president Ronald Reagan did restrict some individuals from being able to purchase keep and bear arms, but to date the NICS background check regulation has not been seriously challenged or defeated by the courts. in 2018 President Trump signed the Fiscal Year 2018 Omnibus Appropriations bill which included a needed Fix to the NICS Act to ensure that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) operations more adequately address background check demand and improve NICS performance, including enhancing system availability, determination rates, and E-Check services. A year prior, frustrated with the apparent inactivity from Congress president Trump signed an Executive Order banning not only the sale but possession of "bump stocks". Other presidents have also previously attempted to deal with minor patch works issues in an attempt to make the American public safer, but not all have done so within the scope of their office's authority or in keeping with the requirements guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Even the Supreme Court has ruled: * "...the Second Amendment is not “unlimited.” It is not a right “to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Instead, the Court provided examples of permissible regulation of firearms consistent with the Second Amendment. The right does not “protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns,” nor does it grant an unregulated right to carry concealed firearms. These limits were “supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” -- DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER; 2007 I personally have no issue with expanding background checks for all commercial firearms sales and that includes gunshows, online whether the product is a whole gun or pieces of a gun (ghost guns) but have mentioned good faith sales or gifting of a firearm between friends and family members without a background check under the threat of federal charges of "gun trafficking" for non compliance I consider a bit over the top. Case in point, Democrats are calling for the passage of HR8 which they argue would have prevented the Texas School shooting, they're wrong of course, HR8 would have expanded firearms background checks to gunshow and online internet purchases, but for someone with no reported criminal record, no history of mental infirmity and of legal age to purchase such a weapon - like the Texas school shooter, HR8 would not have prevented the Uvalde school shooting and as the law is currently proposed, it would also require enhanced background checks for a firearm sale, trade or gift between two private individuals well known to each other. The bill could have wide bipartisan support the Democrats agreed to remove the language pertaining to private sales, trades and gifting and the gun trafficking reference in connection to those private sales, but previously and still there doesn't appear to be any spirit of compromise to get HR8 passed by removing those clauses. More 'my way or no way' uncompromising bluster from the Washington political elite many of whom pay thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands for private armed security services - while trying to tell law abiding gun owners they should have no right to purchase, own or use firearms. There has been no successful contest to the law that an individual needs to be 21-years of age to purchase a handgun, so instead of attempting to ban assault weapons, why not advance the age restriction to purchase assault weapons to 21 also? (IMO the current law needs to be amended to prohibit the unsupervised possession of a handgun or assault rifle by anyone under the age of 21 illegal as well instead of just pertaining to sales and purchase [under 21 - illegal to buy handgun but not illegal to possess makes little sense and just begs for straw purchases] with the exclusion for those honorably in, or discharged from the military). Just about every mass shooting we've heard or read about seems to share a common denominator and it's not the type of weapon used... it's extended round clips and magazines. Aside from the 'fun factor' does anyone really need an extended round magazine or clip for their weapon? Some have tried to argue that a well armed public is needed to address a possible takeover by a tyrannical government and for that reason extended round clips and magazines should be legal - if it ever gets to the point where any of the American public has to square off against the American military I don't think an extended bullet capacity will offer a spit in the wind's difference... extended clips - we don't really need them and banning them won't infringe on the rights of the 2nd Amendment in any way*. There is common ground, now if we can just get our elite Washington politicians who have been afforded their own private and government armed protection to stop insisting it has to be one way (Republican or Democrat) or the other without any room for compromise perhaps this latest tragedy will see the beginnings of some real public safety change.
  14. Yep, the Democrats are at it already... The blood hasn't even dried from the school hallways and the Democrats are calling for "gun control" and slamming those offering sympathy with their usual diatribe... The sad truth is there is no law, with the exception of a total ban on all firearms of every kind that will stop these types of killings. Even Australia after the 1996 gun ban has seen some 15 mass shootings (defined as 4 or more people being shot) in the intervening years, granted a very minor of incidents compared to the U.S. and other countries but for a country that essentially has a near total ban on the private ownership of firearms, 15 mass shootings is kind of remarkable. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html More level heads probably agree it is much too early to start talking about motivations and start point fingers and calling names... unless you're an anti-gun politician I guess but how did a young man who just turned 18 this month, legally purchase assault type rifles online costing more than $2,000? https://www.dailydot.com/debug/uvalde-mass-shooter-bought-gun-online/ As I've previously said, I have never been opposed to what I consider common sense gun regulation and one of the first things from the Texas school shooting story that came to my mind was how is it legal for a kid to order a firearm online, reportedly on the very day he turns 18?
×
×
  • Create New...