High School Shooting In Florida

[coachdb18]

Yeah, I've never felt the need to be tooled up when nipping down to Sainsbury's for a pint of milk. And I live in officially the most violent part of the UK.

Belfast?

Situational awareness is strong with this one LOLOLOL

 

[Sean]

Belfast?

Not far. Armagh.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Where do you people live, that you need several guns to defend yourself?

I have never lived in such a place, so I am curious.

What difference does it make if they want to carry a bunch of guns legally? Doesn't have anything to do with anything. It's people who harm innocents that is the problem.

 

[BobBalouski]

Where do you people live, that you need several guns to defend yourself?

I have never lived in such a place, so I am curious.

You're a woman who proclaims it's her "right" to tortuously kill her own baby...

Why do you so disingenuously ask?

 

[coachdb18]

Where do you people live, that you need several guns to defend yourself?

I have never lived in such a place, so I am curious.

Boston? Tsarnaev? REALLY???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFouY_b61bg

 

[BobBalouski]

They don't need them to defend themselves; they need them to compensate for their lack of anything else long and hard that still works.

A twat and a cuck, both who champion the intentional killing of little babies simply for convenience, walk into a bar...

...and start talking about guys' dicks.

 

[BobBalouski]

...I live in officially the most violent part of the UK.

As Main Street in Disneyland laughs.

 

[Adre]

“Only Donald Trump could see a school shooting and somehow determine that he was the true victim.”

Andy Borowitz

 

[BobBalouski]

Via A1, the Constitution, the Law of the Land, COMMANDS Congress it shall make no law.

Via A2, the Constitution COMMANDS Congress it shall not infringe.

It's really hard to say how the Constitution could make more clear that those INALIENABLE RIGHTS are ABOVE the federal government's purview, that government has no say about them, that government is as fully subservient to them as everything/everyone else who exists/lives EQUALLY under the Law's jurisdiction.

Democratically amending them - as is currently up for democratic discussion - would completely destroy the most foundational political aspect of American government's fundamental purpose: to fully protect, defend, and GUARANTEE the INALIENABLE RIGHTS of all individuals. In other words: amending them would legislatively erase exactly what the United States of America was intentionally/purposely/specifically constituted as in the first place.

Which is exactly the socialist/progressive eternal goal: that every individual be fully subject to the democratic/majority/mob rule of the collective...

...which naturally makes every socialist/progressive a direct domestic or foreign enemy to the Constitution for the United States of America.


A nation of law...

...or a nation of men?

A republic...

...if you can keep it.


Dancetime is coming.

 

[coachdb18]

Via A1, the Constitution, the Law of the Land, COMMANDS Congress it shall make no law.

Via A2, the Constitution COMMANDS Congress it shall not infringe.

It's really hard to say how the Constitution could make more clear that those INALIENABLE RIGHTS are ABOVE the federal government's purview, that government has no say about them, that government is as fully subservient to them as everything/everyone else who exists/lives EQUALLY under the Law's jurisdiction.

Democratically amending them - as is currently up for democratic discussion - would completely destroy the most foundational political aspect of American government's fundamental purpose: to fully protect, defend, and GUARANTEE the INALIENABLE RIGHTS of all individuals. In other words: amending them would legislatively erase exactly what the United States of America was intentionally/purposely/specifically constituted as in the first place.

Which is exactly the socialist/progressive eternal goal: that every individual be fully subject to the democratic/majority/mob rule of the collective...

...which naturally makes every socialist/progressive a direct domestic or foreign enemy to the Constitution for the United States of America.


A nation of law...

...or a nation of men?

A republic...

...if you can keep it.


Dancetime is coming.

In the same way that a military officer cannot issue an order that is unlawful, the amending of the Constitution cannot be done in an unlawful way, (specifically an attempt to repeal 1A or 2A, much like repealing the Law of Gravity), and any such attempt would be as unenforceable as an unlawful military order, such as the one given by Lt William Calley to destroy the village at My Lai and kill all the villagers inside it.

 

[richard_daily]

How can other countries deal with those facts, and the US can't?

Because our health care sucks.

Pretty simple stuff.

 

[RobDownSouth]

http://i.cubeupload.com/gY2lKH.jpg

 

[richard_daily]

Where do you people live, that you need several guns to defend yourself?

I have never lived in such a place, so I am curious.

Someplace other than a suburban bubble.

They don't need them to defend themselves; they need them to compensate for their lack of anything else long and hard that still works.

My dick's just fine in size. Thanks for your concern.

Yeah, I've never felt the need to be tooled up when nipping down to Sainsbury's for a pint of milk. And I live in officially the most violent part of the UK.

So you fancy yourself as tough, so you don't need a gun? Sounds like some penis extension-BS.

I'm not particularly tough. I am, however, pretty smart. I don't take risks that I don't need to.

 

[richard_daily]

http://i.cubeupload.com/gY2lKH.jpg

Democrats are gearing up to lose an election that's been handed to them on a silver platter...

Pretty stupid political strategy, but hey, Democrats have shown themselves to be pretty fucking dumb in the past.

 

[Que]

Democrats are gearing up to lose an election that's been handed to them on a silver platter...

Pretty stupid political strategy, but hey, Democrats have shown themselves to be pretty fucking dumb in the past.

Importing MS-13 with machetes while restricting firearms does not seem like a winning message.

 

[Dribble]

Look at what we are competing against...Only reason we lost was because we had a shittier candidate. Now...fuck my dog can run and win

 

[Hypoxia]

Answer to first question: A hard time shooting people without guns? Maybe, zip guns aren't that difficult to construct. If you meant to say "killing"; that's not so difficult. Delivery trucks and airplanes seem to work just fine for mass murder. As does ANFO. Maybe you should start a thread banning those things.

I meant 'shooting' so I said 'shooting'. Yes, killing can take other means... requiring more time and effort. Pulling a trigger is easy; I've done so many times. (US Army FTW!) Hitting something intentionally varies in difficulty but massed targets simplify that problem.

Your Liberty hating idealogs have decided that hanging violates the 8th Amendment. Sorry, no fun for you. You'll have to find your jollies someplace else other than the public gallows.

Laws can be and are changed. Do you want to risk dancing with the hangman, or the electrician? Would you prefer to be hanged, shot, injected, electrocuted, tossed into a volcano or a crocodile nest, tied to an anthill, or what? It can be arranged,

Your proposed solution doesn't target crime and instead targets lawful activities. What's next, the death penalty for everyone who buys a Big Gulp and a candy bar at the same time? 'Cuz, sugar is evil and 'mericans is fat.

Laws can be and are changed. Lawful wife-beating becomes not so lawful. Enforcement of the 2nd Amendment as written would outlaw many now-legal activities. And sugar doesn't explode skulls.

You think that guns are the problem instead of the mentally deranged who scream desperately for help as you walk by on your way to chastise someone doing nothing wrong.

Other nations have their own abundant screaming loonies. Other nations don't arm their screaming loonies with rapid-fire weapons. The crazy and sane alike can't shoot you if they don't possess firearms. Is that too difficult for you to grasp?

Law enforcement doesn't have the time or manpower to police millions of people in "school zones". Unless you want a police State - welcome to Russia.

You value airline passengers more than children. Noted. See 'militia' below.

And the kicker: EVERYONE between the ages of 15 and 45 ARE members of the militia.

Where they attend mandatory monthly drills and must maintain clean police records, with their persons and weapons subject to close inspection -- the well-regulated bit. Right. Where do you see that happening? What you been smoking?

'Militia' was the Founders' alternative to a standing army. Now we have a massive military; USA spends more on national security than does the rest of the world combined. So, of what use is a well-regulated citizen militia? How about... to provide security at schools? To be of service to your nation? Roman legions spent most of their time building stuff. Drop your pistol and grab a shovel -- we've schools to secure, infrastructure to rebuild. Get to work!

 

[HisArpy]

I meant 'shooting' so I said 'shooting'. Yes, killing can take other means... requiring more time and effort. Pulling a trigger is easy; I've done so many times. (US Army FTW!) Hitting something intentionally varies in difficulty but massed targets simplify that problem.

Laws can be and are changed. Do you want to risk dancing with the hangman, or the electrician? Would you prefer to be hanged, shot, injected, electrocuted, tossed into a volcano or a crocodile nest, tied to an anthill, or what? It can be arranged,

Laws can be and are changed. Lawful wife-beating becomes not so lawful. Enforcement of the 2nd Amendment as written would outlaw many now-legal activities. And sugar doesn't explode skulls.

Other nations have their own abundant screaming loonies. Other nations don't arm their screaming loonies with rapid-fire weapons. The crazy and sane alike can't shoot you if they don't possess firearms. Is that too difficult for you to grasp?

You value airline passengers more than children. Noted. See 'militia' below.

Where they attend mandatory monthly drills and must maintain clean police records, with their persons and weapons subject to close inspection -- the well-regulated bit. Right. Where do you see that happening? What you been smoking?

'Militia' was the Founders' alternative to a standing army. Now we have a massive military; USA spends more on national security than does the rest of the world combined. So, of what use is a well-regulated citizen militia? How about... to provide security at schools? To be of service to your nation? Roman legions spent most of their time building stuff. Drop your pistol and grab a shovel -- we've schools to secure, infrastructure to rebuild. Get to work!

So much projection. So much wasted anger. Anyone can make a gun from a piece of pipe and black powder. No black powder? ANFO works just as well as a propellant. A bit trickier, but it works. No ANFO? Well a rail gun is possible if you have enough power to drive the magnets and controllers.

MY POINT HERE is that a simplistic "outlaw all guns" won't stop clever people from building them.

Oh my, how vicious you are about my health and wellbeing. I'll take the anthill for $500.

What "legal activities" would enforcing the 2A "as written" be curtailed? You want to toss out the debunked "but it only covers the guns that were available at the time of ratification" argument? Go ahead. We'll wait for your idiocy to be displayed.

While we wait, let me ask you this; have you read the 5th Amendment? Do you know what a "taking" is? Do you know that that means if the Gov outlaws possession of firearms? Yep, they gotta PAY for each and every one of them they "take". At the going market rate. Sounds expensive to me. You willing to cough up the cash? Or should we just add that to the National Debt?

Don't fly, can't stand kids. Least of all kids who grow up believing nonsense.

Militia is DEFINED. It has NOTHING to do with your premise that they have to drill and/or muster. In fact, in California it is ILLEGAL for them to do that. So, your premise that one must engage in an illegal activity in order for it to be "legal" somehow sounds stupid.

Unless you want to say that State laws can't trump Fed Law or the US Constitution. Go on, I dare you to say that.

 

[BobBalouski]

...and any such attempt would be as unenforceable as an unlawful military order, such as the one given by Lt William Calley to destroy the village at My Lai and kill all the villagers inside it.

"as unenforceable as an unlawful military order"?

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif

How'd your "unenforceable" crap work out for "all the villagers", dumbass?

 

[BobBalouski]

Look at what we are competing against...Only reason we lost was because we had a shittier candidate. Now...fuck my dog can run and win

I understand you'd prefer a Billary-led government teat to suckle from rather than this Donald-led one...

...so, how 'bout, since they're all over the place and you keep whining about nobody listening to you on what to do about that, we just simply find you a nice, long barrel to suck from instead?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Via A1, the Constitution, the Law of the Land, COMMANDS Congress it shall make no law.

Via A2, the Constitution COMMANDS Congress it shall not infringe.

It's really hard to say how the Constitution could make more clear that those INALIENABLE RIGHTS are ABOVE the federal government's purview, that government has no say about them, that government is as fully subservient to them as everything/everyone else who exists/lives EQUALLY under the Law's jurisdiction.

Democratically amending them - as is currently up for democratic discussion - would completely destroy the most foundational political aspect of American government's fundamental purpose: to fully protect, defend, and GUARANTEE the INALIENABLE RIGHTS of all individuals. In other words: amending them would legislatively erase exactly what the United States of America was intentionally/purposely/specifically constituted as in the first place.

Which is exactly the socialist/progressive eternal goal: that every individual be fully subject to the democratic/majority/mob rule of the collective...

...which naturally makes every socialist/progressive a direct domestic or foreign enemy to the Constitution for the United States of America.


A nation of law...

...or a nation of men?

A republic...

...if you can keep it.


Dancetime is coming.

Maybe there is a mental health problem.

 

[Hypoxia]

Anyone can make a gun from a piece of pipe and black powder...

MY POINT HERE is that a simplistic "outlaw all guns" won't stop clever people from building them.

You read sloppily. Get new glasses. How many times must I repeat that controlling production, distribution, and possession of firearms in USA is impossible? Didn't you notice? My emphasis is on limiting PUBLIC exposure of firearms. Belong to a well-regulated militia to defend the nation, fine. Go rogue in public, not so fine.

What "legal activities" would enforcing the 2A "as written" be curtailed?

Currently legal: public possession of firearms when not a member of a well-regulated militia defending the nation. When enforced: get regulated or keep your firearms at home. Build your zip guns. Shoot rats and big fucking spiders. All in your basement, please.

While we wait, let me ask you this; have you read the 5th Amendment? Do you know what a "taking" is? Do you know that that means if the Gov outlaws possession of firearms?

Again, I never called for general confiscation, for outlawing possession, which is impossible in USA. Bark up another tree, puppy.

Militia is DEFINED.

Citation?

 

[ChinoMoreno]

people are saying the young lady in the video was uninformed and ignorant but she made two excellent points one was that adults arent doing enough and why are we allowing gun lobbyists to buy politicians. nonpartisan and valid

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

people are saying the young lady in the video was uninformed and ignorant but she made two excellent points one was that adults arent doing enough and why are we allowing gun lobbyists to buy politicians. nonpartisan and valid

Well when she figures out how to get rid of lobbyists I'm sure we'll be very happy.

 

[ChinoMoreno]

Well when she figures out how to get rid of lobbyists I'm sure we'll be very happy.

off point but man the govt sent all sorts of aid to california during their crisis now almost just as many kids died here and they only get condolences and bs. thats not cool