Re: At Least 10 Dead at a Community College Shooting In Oregon..

[Turtleneck]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Sooo, can anyone fill me in on membership status in a well regulated militia for any of these shooters?

Can somebody tell me what the framers meant by well regulated and who gets to do the regulating?

[Robert J Sakimano]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Sooo,  can anyone fill me in on membership status in a well regulated militia for any of these shooters?

Can somebody tell me what the framers meant by well regulated and who gets to do the regulating?

Fox News and the NRA have been self-designated the spokespersons for the framers of the US Constitution. They'd be happy to discuss this with you.

[The_Dude]

Can somebody tell me what the framers meant by well regulated and who gets to do the regulating?

Fox News and the NRA have been self-designated the spokespersons for the framers of the US Constitution. They'd be happy to discuss this with you.

Yeah, and msnbc and the lefties don't.

[Guest]

can't count very well but it looks like there are 32 states in which you can go to a gun show and walk out with a weapon - no background check required.

It isn't just at a gun show "gasp"....a private individual can sell a long gun to a private individual in Michigan.  This does NOT cover hand guns.

So again the "gun show loophole" is a farce.  #1 it's all over the state and every day.  #2 the type of guns that can be sold w/o a permit and a background check are used in fewer murders nationally per year than Baseball bats, fists and knives.

So crow away about this...it's much ado about nothing.

[Turtleneck]

Can somebody tell me what the framers meant by well regulated and who gets to do the regulating?

Fox News and the NRA have been self-designated the spokespersons for the framers of the US Constitution. They'd be happy to discuss this with you.

Unfortunately, most of them have never read the Constitution.

[Guest]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Sooo, can anyone fill me in on membership status in a well regulated militia for any of these shooters?

More bullshit and swerve.

Any reading of the contemporary debate makes it clear this was enacted to give the populace a general right to be armed.

While I realize that people today know more about the Founders intent than Hamilton and Madison you can at least read about it here:

Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Introduction

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.

Parting Shots

There are 3 ways the Second Amendment is usually interpreted to deny it was intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms:

It protects a state's right to keep and bear arms.
The right is individual, but limited to active militia members because the militia clause narrows the right's scope.
The term "people" refers to the people collectively, rather than the people as individuals.

Yet, three jurists, who were contemporaries of the Founders, and wrote constitutional commentaries, read the Second Amendment as protecting a private, individual right to keep arms. There is no contrary evidence from that period (see Guncite's Is there contrary evidence? and Second Amendment challenge).

Instead of the "right of the people," the Amendment's drafters could have referred to the militia or active militia members, as they did in the Fifth Amendment, had they meant to restrict the right. (Additionally, see GunCite's page here showing evidence that the term, "people," as used in the Bill of Rights, referred to people as individuals.)

It strains credulity to believe the aforementioned three jurists misconstrued the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The only model that comports with all of the evidence from the Founding period is the one interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right for a collective purpose. The militia clause and the right to keep and bear arms were intended to be complementary.

Perversely, gun rights defenders are accused of creating a Second Amendment myth, when it is some present-day jurists and historians who have failed to give a full account of the historical record.

[The Pantry]

Pretty sad all you asshats are still debating.

Nothing. Repeat, "nothing"...will change anyone's mind.

Gun guys like guns. And, the anti-gun guys prefer dick up their ass. It's as simple as that

[Turtleneck]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Sooo,  can anyone fill me in on membership status in a well regulated militia for any of these shooters?

More bullshit and swerve.

Any reading of the contemporary debate makes it clear this was enacted to give the populace a general right to be armed.

While I realize that people today know more about the Founders intent than Hamilton and Madison you can at least read about it here:

Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Introduction

The Second Amendment:

   A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.

Parting Shots

There are 3 ways the Second Amendment is usually interpreted to deny it was intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms:

   It protects a state's right to keep and bear arms.
   The right is individual, but limited to active militia members because the militia clause narrows the right's scope.
   The term "people" refers to the people collectively, rather than the people as individuals.

Yet, three jurists, who were contemporaries of the Founders, and wrote constitutional commentaries, read the Second Amendment as protecting a private, individual right to keep arms. There is no contrary evidence from that period (see Guncite's Is there contrary evidence? and Second Amendment challenge).

Instead of the "right of the people," the Amendment's drafters could have referred to the militia or active militia members, as they did in the Fifth Amendment, had they meant to restrict the right. (Additionally, see GunCite's page here showing evidence that the term, "people," as used in the Bill of Rights, referred to people as individuals.)

It strains credulity to believe the aforementioned three jurists misconstrued the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The only model that comports with all of the evidence from the Founding period is the one interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right for a collective purpose. The militia clause and the right to keep and bear arms were intended to be complementary.

Perversely, gun rights defenders are accused of creating a Second Amendment myth, when it is some present-day jurists and historians who have failed to give a full account of the historical record.

Meanwhile, Jim over at guncite.com is quite the constitutional scholar. Guess what, I know quite a bit about the Constitution. I carry a pocket copy in my work bag. I read it weekly if not daily. I re-read all of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers each year. Not because I admire the Constitution, but because I find the debates at the founding to be fascinating and it pays to be familiar with the document that arranges the powers and institutions of government. Why don't you start with original source material instead of relying on what others say? Not saying you're wrong, but you always want to pass off other's knowledge as your own.  But I suppose it is easier to listen to others than it is to do your own work.

[The_Dude]

More bullshit and swerve.

Any reading of the contemporary debate makes it clear this was enacted to give the populace a general right to be armed.

While I realize that people today know more about the Founders intent than Hamilton and Madison you can at least read about it here:

Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Meanwhile, Jim over at guncite.com is quite the constitutional scholar. Guess what, I know quite a bit about the Constitution. I carry a pocket copy in my work bag. I read it weekly if not daily. I re-read all of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers each year. Not because I admire the Constitution, but because I find the debates at the founding to be fascinating and it pays to be familiar with the document that arranges the powers and institutions of government. Why don't you start with original source material instead of relying on what others say? Not saying you're wrong, but you always want to pass off other's knowledge as your own.  But I suppose it is easier to listen to others than it is to do your own work.

You sir are a great American

[Turtleneck]

Meanwhile, Jim over at guncite.com is quite the constitutional scholar. Guess what, I know quite a bit about the Constitution. I carry a pocket copy in my work bag. I read it weekly if not daily. I re-read all of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers each year. Not because I admire the Constitution, but because I find the debates at the founding to be fascinating and it pays to be familiar with the document that arranges the powers and institutions of government. Why don't you start with original source material instead of relying on what others say? Not saying you're wrong, but you always want to pass off other's knowledge as your own.  But I suppose it is easier to listen to others than it is to do your own work.

You sir are a great American

Not really. It just pays to be informed rather than letting Rush Limbaugh tell you want to think.

[GRR Spartan]

Sorry Goose we will agree to disagree on some of the aspects of anyone's righs to own weapons.

You want to believe the constitution that was written when we had true citizen soldiers should apply now we have organized law enforcement and multiple branches of the military protecting us. You even have had the opportunity to serve in one of those branches.

I don't object to people owning guns but cry 2nd ammendment and then say the active militia part doesn't apply to an America with electrical grids and indoor plumbing? I suspect many of present day gun owners citing 2nd amendment have no interest in ever being part of an organized fighting force and following orders from others.

Don't call bullshit just because you disagree. We have 36 people dead because two gun enthusiast mothers thought getting their sons involved with their hobby. 2 sons who were both diagnosed with Asperger's. No militia affiliation.

I'm not favoring taking your guns or mine. I am in favor of registering guns, tracking their sale and tracking the sale of ammunition. My guns are used for hunting and its why nearly everyone living on the outskirts of a large population center like Philadelphia, all those small villages in New England also owned guns as did the families living on the frontier. They needed to eat. They were also expected to use those guns to act as citizen soldiers in an ORGANIZED militia because our new country didn't have the military structure it has present day.

Most of the country doesn't want my guns and thy don't want to take your guns. But they don't object to tracking sales, waiting periods and limiting specific types of ammunition that was developed for miltary use and tracking ammunition sales.

[Guest]

You sir are a great American

Not really. It just pays to be informed rather than letting Rush Limbaugh tell you want to think.

LOL....so only original reporting is allowed for any thread you're reading? I'll expect equal enforcement. And again with the supposed people filling my empty mind, I've not listened to ANY portion of a RL broadcast in at least 3-5 years. It's been longer than that since I heard a complete show and I've never heard more than maybe 10-12 in any given year since he's been on the air. So I guess that makes me brain washed......

Now I'd link you to a story that has the evolution of the 2nd with all the changes and debate from proposal to adoption but I didn't do the work so it's BS to you. Further, I'm not willing to put in that kind of work for 7 people here to read it at most and none that are going to change their minds.

[Oj]

Can somebody tell me what the framers meant by well regulated and who gets to do the regulating?

The original intent was for STATE governments to regulate their own militias to prevent the FEDERAL government from imposing its will unchecked.

[Guest]

Most of the country doesn't want my guns and thy don't want to take your guns.  But they don't object to tracking sales, waiting periods and limiting specific types of ammunition that was developed for miltary use  and tracking ammunition sales.

What most of the country wants is irrelevant to those in power.

The only sales that aren't tracked now are long guns between private individuals.  It's been pointed out many, many times that long guns are involved in VERY few murders.



Waiting periods would have done nothing to stop the very shootings you want to stop.  I've got no big issue with them but for the effect on mass killings you might as well regulate kitty litter.

Limiting military ammunition is another strange proposal.  Hunting ammunition is meant to be more lethal than military.   Yet for some reason you want to regulate the less lethal variety?

Tracking ammunition sales?  Again, I don't have a big objection but does it really achieve anything toward your goal?  One person buying one box of 50 rounds isn't going to raise any red flags and 50 rounds is plenty to cause massive damage.

I don't dispute your goals are admirable, I do dispute your proposals for getting there.  Why go through the political uproar and divisiveness if you're not gaining anything?   If you're going to spend all that political capital and have the country in a stir at least make the end result worthwhile and productive.

[Travis of the Cosmos]

Most of the country doesn't want my guns and thy don't want to take your guns.  But they don't object to tracking sales, waiting periods and limiting specific types of ammunition that was developed for miltary use  and tracking ammunition sales.

What most of the country wants is irrelevant to those in power.

The only sales that aren't tracked now are long guns between private individuals.  It's been pointed out many, many times that long guns are involved in VERY few murders.



Waiting periods would have done nothing to stop the very shootings you want to stop.  I've got no big issue with them but for the effect on mass killings you might as well regulate kitty litter.

Limiting military ammunition is another strange proposal.  Hunting ammunition is meant to be more lethal than military.   Yet for some reason you want to regulate the less lethal variety?

Tracking ammunition sales?  Again, I don't have a big objection but does it really achieve anything toward your goal?  One person buying one box of 50 rounds isn't going to raise any red flags and 50 rounds is plenty to cause massive damage.

I don't dispute your goals are admirable, I do dispute your proposals for getting there.  Why go through the political uproar and divisiveness if you're not gaining anything?   If you're going to spend all that political capital and have the country in a stir at least make the end result worthwhile and productive.

I'm going to stop you right there.

Most of us want to stop all shootings. Not a certain type. The media latches onto the big ones but that doesn't make the others acceptable.

[Oj]

Most of the country doesn't want my guns and thy don't want to take your guns.  But they don't object to tracking sales, waiting periods and limiting specific types of ammunition that was developed for miltary use  and tracking ammunition sales.

What most of the country wants is irrelevant to those in power.

The only sales that aren't tracked now are long guns between private individuals.  It's been pointed out many, many times that long guns are involved in VERY few murders.



Waiting periods would have done nothing to stop the very shootings you want to stop.  I've got no big issue with them but for the effect on mass killings you might as well regulate kitty litter.

Limiting military ammunition is another strange proposal.  Hunting ammunition is meant to be more lethal than military.   Yet for some reason you want to regulate the less lethal variety?

Tracking ammunition sales?  Again, I don't have a big objection but does it really achieve anything toward your goal?  One person buying one box of 50 rounds isn't going to raise any red flags and 50 rounds is plenty to cause massive damage.

I don't dispute your goals are admirable, I do dispute your proposals for getting there.  Why go through the political uproar and divisiveness if you're not gaining anything?   If you're going to spend all that political capital and have the country in a stir at least make the end result worthwhile and productive.

Handguns should be banned, period.

[The_Dude]

You sir are a great American

Not really. It just pays to be informed rather than letting Rush Limbaugh tell you want to think.

Who hear lets Rush Limbaugh think for them?

[Guest]

I'm going to stop you right there.

Most of us want to stop all shootings. Not a certain type. The media latches onto the big ones but that doesn't make the others acceptable.

As if I don't....

What about stabbings? Beatings? Since Rifles seem to be on the list to be banned, what about knives? Baseball bats? Tire irons?

Of course if those items are used properly they're not involved in murders, and of course the same thing applies to rifles and shotguns.

[Turtleneck]

Not really. It just pays to be informed rather than letting Rush Limbaugh tell you want to think.

LOL....so only original reporting is allowed for any thread you're reading? I'll expect equal enforcement. And again with the supposed people filling my empty mind, I've not listened to ANY portion of a RL broadcast in at least 3-5 years. It's been longer than that since I heard a complete show and I've never heard more than maybe 10-12 in any given year since he's been on the air. So I guess that makes me brain washed......
Now I'd link you to a story that has the evolution of the 2nd with all the changes and debate from proposal to adoption but I didn't do the work so it's BS to you. Further, I'm not willing to put in that kind of work for 7 people here to read it at most and none that are going to change their minds.

The problem with your post is that you assumed there is a definitive reading of the Constitution. Every reading of the Constitution in an exercise in interpretation. The Constitution is approximately 4300 words. Given its important place in American politics, it is a rather vague document.

In all fairness, reading original documents is not a prerequisite for good conversation. It's good that we read how others have interpreted the intentions of the framers, especially from people qualified to do so. My claim is not that we need to type up original research for our posts. However, you call out posters for their interpretations, make a smart ass remark implying you have definitive knowledge regarding the intentions of the framers, and then do nothing more than toss out competing interpretations from a website possibly managed by the guy behind FinalFourU.com. While I question the quality of most of the sources you dig up for these threads, it is not the above link but the insistence that the intentions of the framers has ben discovered when you have no basis to evaluate that claim.

[Turtleneck]

Not really. It just pays to be informed rather than letting Rush Limbaugh tell you want to think.

Who hear lets Rush Limbaugh think for them?

Mostly you.

[Guest]

At the risk of upsetting an apple cart here - a link to research I didn't do.

That darned right wing rag Mother Jones seems to think the wall to wall media coverage and the copy cat effect might be real after all....gosh something those other loonies have been saying for years.

How the media inspires Mass Shooters

In late August, not 10 hours after a disgruntled former TV reporter posted video on Twitter and Facebook of himself gunning down two ex-colleagues in Virginia, the New York Daily News tweeted a preview of its front page for the next day. It featured a triptych of stills from the killer's horrifying footage. Readers saw the attack from the shooter's perspective—looking down the barrel of his Glock 19 at the flash of the muzzle and a victim's terrified face, just moments before her death.

It was a gut punch to the victims' loved ones. Journalists and the public responded with a torrent of tweets decrying the cover as "repulsive" and "despicable" and saying that "the victims deserve better." The Daily News said that it published the images "to convey the true scale" of the attack "at a time when it is so easy for the public to become inured to such senseless violence."

Journalism can be a powerful force for change, and news organizations should not flinch at reporting on mass shootings. But what the Daily News editors didn't realize was that this sensational approach can possibly do more than perturb or offend. Such images provide the notoriety mass killers crave and can even be a jolt of inspiration for the next shooter.

The next one struck just five weeks later, in Oregon. The 26-year-old man who murdered nine and wounded nine others at Umpqua Community College last Thursday had posted comments expressing admiration for the Virginia killer, apparently impressed with his social-media achievement: "His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems like the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight."

The networks stopped showing streakers at sporting events decades ago because of this, so in reality they've known it all along. But lives were sacrificed for ratings.....

[Travis of the Cosmos]

I'm going to stop you right there.

Most of us want to stop all shootings. Not a certain type. The media latches onto the big ones but that doesn't make the others acceptable.

As if I don't....

What about stabbings? Beatings? Since Rifles seem to be on the list to be banned, what about knives? Baseball bats? Tire irons?

Of course if those items are used properly they're not involved in murders, and of course the same thing applies to rifles and shotguns.

Those things suck too. And as Bob said 8 pages ago there isn't one simple answer that fixes everything. Including getting rid of guns or regulating them or whatever.

Which of course isn't an option anyway whether it's a good idea or not.

[Guest]

Those things suck too. And as Bob said 8 pages ago there isn't one simple answer that fixes everything. Including getting rid of guns or regulating them or whatever.

Which of course isn't an option anyway whether it's a good idea or not.

Bob may say that to appear moderate, in reality every time he's in one of these threads it's the guns and the red necks that own them.

I'm open to regulations that make sense, my frustration is that 90% of proposals do nothing to solve the problem. They're simply feel good measures, which in many ways are worse than nothing.

I'd like to see more people come forward that know something - too many times we hear afterward that these shooters have told others of their plans and those people did nothing.

[Robert J Sakimano]

Benghazi

[Robert J Sakimano]

As if I don't....

What about stabbings? Beatings? Since Rifles seem to be on the list to be banned, what about knives? Baseball bats? Tire irons?

Of course if those items are used properly they're not involved in murders, and of course the same thing applies to rifles and shotguns.

Those things suck too. And as Bob said 8 pages ago there isn't one simple answer that fixes everything. Including getting rid of guns or regulating them or whatever.

Which of course isn't an option anyway whether it's a good idea or not.

you're a great American.

[Robert J Sakimano]

the Oregon shooters mother - a patriot who, like her son (RIP), is a gun enthusiast - seems like a very well-adjusted lady who is merely supporting the 2nd Amendment..

one of her online statements:

"I keep all my mags full. I keep two full mags in my Glock case. And the ARs & AKs all have loaded mags. No one will be 'dropping' by my house uninvited without (acknowledgment)"

Read More About This Fine Patriot and Defender of the Constitution Here

[steveschneider]

the Oregon shooters mother - a patriot who, like her son (RIP), is a gun enthusiast - seems like a very well-adjusted lady who is merely supporting the 2nd Amendment..

one of her online statements:

"I keep all my mags full. I keep two full mags in my Glock case. And the ARs & AKs all have loaded mags. No one will be 'dropping' by my house uninvited without (acknowledgment)"

Read More About This Fine Patriot and Defender of the Constitution Here

Sounds like a weak minded fool that absorbed every bit of the NRA propaganda which is nothing more than a bunch of fear, lies and misinformation in an effort to sell guns. We aren't safer, our neighbors aren't safer and our children aren't safer. Enough is enough.

[Guest]

the Oregon shooters mother - a patriot who, like her son (RIP), is a gun enthusiast - seems like a very well-adjusted lady who is merely supporting the 2nd Amendment..

one of her online statements:

"I keep all my mags full. I keep two full mags in my Glock case. And the ARs & AKs all have loaded mags. No one will be 'dropping' by my house uninvited without (acknowledgment)"

Read More About This Fine Patriot and Defender of the Constitution Here

Of course you linked a similar article pages ago, but then again repetition is your strength.

Amazing that in that story and a 4 minute video an organization with the news gathering power of CNN was unable to scrape up one picture of this woman they're spending all the time talking about. Rather unusual.

And unlike your post the 2nd amendment isn't mentioned. The focus is on her son's mental illness and propensity to skip his medications. As they talk about in the video the parallels to Newtown are there. Mom/kid, guns, mentally ill son, etc, etc.....you exonerate everything else and convict the guns. I guess using that logic we could save on prisons, just lock the guns up and turn the perps loose.

[Guest]

the Oregon shooters mother - a patriot who, like her son (RIP), is a gun enthusiast - seems like a very well-adjusted lady who is merely supporting the 2nd Amendment..

one of her online statements:



Read More About This Fine Patriot and Defender of the Constitution Here

Sounds like a weak minded fool that absorbed every bit of the NRA propaganda which is nothing more than a bunch of fear, lies and misinformation in an effort to sell guns. We aren't safer, our neighbors aren't safer and our children aren't safer. Enough is enough.

Careful. Criticism of his black mother like this would earn you a racist designation from Bob in nearly any other story. Calling her a "weak minded fool" is pretty darned mean.

[Travis of the Cosmos]

Sounds like a weak minded fool that absorbed every bit of the NRA propaganda which is nothing more than a bunch of fear, lies and misinformation in an effort to sell guns. We aren't safer, our neighbors aren't safer and our children aren't safer. Enough is enough.

Careful. Criticism of his black mother like this would earn you a racist designation from Bob in nearly any other story. Calling her a "weak minded fool" is pretty darned mean.

FYI- the fact that you are the one that keeps talking about race (and irrelevant matter in this case) when no one else is is what makes you a full on raging racist.

Not that I expect you to understand that.

[Robert J Sakimano]

the Oregon shooters mother - a patriot who, like her son (RIP), is a gun enthusiast - seems like a very well-adjusted lady who is merely supporting the 2nd Amendment..

one of her online statements:



Read More About This Fine Patriot and Defender of the Constitution Here

Sounds like a weak minded fool that absorbed every bit of the NRA propaganda which is nothing more than a bunch of fear, lies and misinformation in an effort to sell guns. We aren't safer, our neighbors aren't safer and our children aren't safer. Enough is enough.

if our leaders valued human life over money and power, the NRA would be referred to as a terrorist organization.

Which is what they are.

[Robert J Sakimano]

Careful. Criticism of his black mother like this would earn you a racist designation from Bob in nearly any other story. Calling her a "weak minded fool" is pretty darned mean.

FYI- the fact that you are the one that keeps talking about race (and irrelevant matter in this case) when no one else is is what makes you a full on raging racist.

Not that I expect you to understand that.

he also blames the female victim for being raped.. so, ya know.. take his angry, paranoid rants for what they're worth.

[The_Dude]

Sounds like a weak minded fool that absorbed every bit of the NRA propaganda which is nothing more than a bunch of fear, lies and misinformation in an effort to sell guns. We aren't safer, our neighbors aren't safer and our children aren't safer. Enough is enough.

if our leaders valued human life over money and power, the NRA would be referred to as a terrorist organization.

Which is what they are.

Classic liberals. Demonize everyone who has a different viewpoint.

If you don't agree with me, you are a terrorist, bigot, racist, etc.

Yawn.

[The_Dude]

Those things suck too. And as Bob said 8 pages ago there isn't one simple answer that fixes everything. Including getting rid of guns or regulating them or whatever.

Which of course isn't an option anyway whether it's a good idea or not.

Bob may say that to appear moderate, in reality every time he's in one of these threads it's the guns and the red necks that own them.

I'm open to regulations that make sense, my frustration is that 90% of proposals do nothing to solve the problem. They're simply feel good measures, which in many ways are worse than nothing.

I'd like to see more people come forward that know something - too many times we hear afterward that these shooters have told others of their plans and those people did nothing.

Welcome to the world of liberal politicians, where feel good measures and legislation that either makes the situation worse or does absolutely nothing is seen as a triumph.

How many times have you seen Obama and his admin pat themselves on their back over failures they called successes lol.

What a fucking asshole completely devoid of any leadership.

[The_Dude]

Careful. Criticism of his black mother like this would earn you a racist designation from Bob in nearly any other story. Calling her a "weak minded fool" is pretty darned mean.

FYI- the fact that you are the one that keeps talking about race (and irrelevant matter in this case) when no one else is is what makes you a full on raging racist.

Not that I expect you to understand that.

Ah. So if the black person isn't a liberal we can attack them. If they are a liberal, you are a racist if you attack them.

Ok, pretty much what I thought.

[Travis of the Cosmos]

Let me just go ahead and cross over threads here with this picture. What a complete lunatic this guy is.

[Robert J Sakimano]

if our leaders valued human life over money and power, the NRA would be referred to as a terrorist organization.

Which is what they are.

Classic liberals. Demonize everyone who has a different viewpoint.

If you don't agree with me, you are a terrorist, bigot, racist, etc.

Yawn.

just my opinion that the NRA is a terrorist organization. I believe I'm still allowed the opportunity to have an opinion.

[Guest]

Careful. Criticism of his black mother like this would earn you a racist designation from Bob in nearly any other story. Calling her a "weak minded fool" is pretty darned mean.

FYI- the fact that you are the one that keeps talking about race (and irrelevant matter in this case) when no one else is is what makes you a full on raging racist.

Not that I expect you to understand that.

I've been waiting for this post. Please point out for me when you've called Bob a racist for his obsession with "brown people" in numerous other threads. I know you wouldn't be guilty of a double standard. I'll wait.....

[Guest]

FYI- the fact that you are the one that keeps talking about race (and irrelevant matter in this case) when no one else is is what makes you a full on raging racist.

Not that I expect you to understand that.

he also blames the female victim for being raped.. so, ya know.. take his angry, paranoid rants for what they're worth.

I'll grant you this. Once you tell a lie you never let go of it.

[Travis of the Cosmos]

FYI- the fact that you are the one that keeps talking about race (and irrelevant matter in this case) when no one else is is what makes you a full on raging racist.

Not that I expect you to understand that.

I've been waiting for this post. Please point out for me when you've called Bob a racist for his obsession with "brown people" in numerous other threads. I know you wouldn't be guilty of a double standard. I'll wait.....

We're talking about you here not Bob. Cool it with your obsession train for a minute and let's talk about why you are so insistent on talking about the race of the mother of a psychopath.

[Sponsored content]