Another mass shooting...

  • 2610 Replies
  • 328685 Views
*

Lorddave

  • 18547
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2580 on: October 27, 2023, 09:27:51 PM »
Only the white women, though. He wouldn't get any likes if he blamed all women.

If I'm reading this correctly:
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voting-patterns-in-the-2022-elections/pp_2023-07-12_validated-voters_2-01/

Black women vote overwhelmingly democrat.
Hispanic are a sizable dem voter tho not as impressive.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 50915
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2581 on: December 21, 2023, 10:57:29 AM »
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67793962

Quote
Prague shooting: Gunman dead after killing more than 15 at Charles University

More than 15 people have been killed and 24 injured in a shooting at a university in Prague, officials say.

Police said the gunman had also been "eliminated" following the shooting at Charles University - the deadliest attack in modern Czech history.

Prime Minister Petr Fiala said he had cancelled upcoming engagements in light of the "tragic events" on Thursday.

University staff were told to stay put, barricade themselves in rooms and turn off the lights.

Footage has emerged on social video showing terrified crowds fleeing the area popular with tourists.

Police received first reports of shooting at the university's Faculty of Arts on Jan Palach Square in the centre of the capital after 15:00 local time (14:00 GMT).

At a briefing later on Thursday, the police and city authorities said the gunman was a student at the faculty.

They said he was a 24-year-old from a village 21km (13 miles) outside Prague. The suspect's father had been found dead earlier on Thursday.

The gunman's motives were not immediately known.

 :(
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 50915
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2582 on: February 24, 2024, 05:55:44 AM »
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nra-trial-verdict-rcna138827

Looks like Wayne LaPierre has to pay the NRA over $4 million.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 50915
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2583 on: June 21, 2024, 06:18:24 PM »
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-upholds-domestic-violence-gun-restriction-rcna137782#

Quote
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prohibits people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from having firearms, taking a step back from its recent endorsement of a broad right to possess a gun.

The court on an 8-1 vote ruled in favor of the Biden administration, which was defending the law — one of several federal gun restrictions currently facing legal challenges.

The ruling indicates that some longstanding gun laws are likely to survive despite the court's 2022 decision that expanded gun rights. In that case, the court for the first time ruled that there is a right to bear arms outside the home under the Constitution's Second Amendment.

Writing for the majority in Friday's ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that since the United States was founded "our nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms."

The provision at issue in the case "fits comfortably within this tradition," he added.

In reaching its conclusion, the court did not embrace some of the arguments made by the Biden administration in defense of the law, including that the government can disarm people who are not "responsible."

Quote
The decision came just a week after gun rights advocates won a big victory when the court ruled that a federal ban on "bump stock" accessories for semi-automatic rifles, which make them fire more rapidly, was unlawful.

I wasn't paying attention to gun stuff, so I didn't know about the bump stock ruling, but I am glad they've upheld the prohibition on people with domestic violence restraining orders.

I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2584 on: June 22, 2024, 08:39:36 AM »
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-upholds-domestic-violence-gun-restriction-rcna137782#

Quote
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prohibits people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from having firearms, taking a step back from its recent endorsement of a broad right to possess a gun.

The court on an 8-1 vote ruled in favor of the Biden administration, which was defending the law — one of several federal gun restrictions currently facing legal challenges.

The ruling indicates that some longstanding gun laws are likely to survive despite the court's 2022 decision that expanded gun rights. In that case, the court for the first time ruled that there is a right to bear arms outside the home under the Constitution's Second Amendment.

Writing for the majority in Friday's ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that since the United States was founded "our nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms."

The provision at issue in the case "fits comfortably within this tradition," he added.

In reaching its conclusion, the court did not embrace some of the arguments made by the Biden administration in defense of the law, including that the government can disarm people who are not "responsible."

Quote
The decision came just a week after gun rights advocates won a big victory when the court ruled that a federal ban on "bump stock" accessories for semi-automatic rifles, which make them fire more rapidly, was unlawful.

I wasn't paying attention to gun stuff, so I didn't know about the bump stock ruling, but I am glad they've upheld the prohibition on people with domestic violence restraining orders.

A necessary ruling to comply with the second amendment to the US constitution, of course-

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear semi automatic rifles fitted with bump stocks, shall not be infringed”

Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2585 on: June 22, 2024, 10:23:58 AM »
Show me the words "self defense"!


*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 50915
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2586 on: June 22, 2024, 11:40:52 AM »
I did read that one of the reasons the bump stock laws are bad is that they are not clearly defined in the law. I think bump stocks are stupid, but legislators need to tighten up the language.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2587 on: June 22, 2024, 12:27:14 PM »
Words mean something when defining the semiauto.

But words dont mean something when reading the 2ndA.

Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2588 on: June 22, 2024, 03:05:09 PM »
Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms was never about individual citizens right to self defence!

Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2589 on: June 22, 2024, 03:28:58 PM »
Agreed!

Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2590 on: June 22, 2024, 11:07:06 PM »
Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms was never about individual citizens right to self defence!

Bear arms, bear bodies and bear faces.  Bear pride, mofos!



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_flag_(gay_culture)

I did read that one of the reasons the bump stock laws are bad is that they are not clearly defined in the law. I think bump stocks are stupid, but legislators need to tighten up the language.

They are beyond stupid though.  They are a deliberate way to bypass restrictions on fully automatic weapons.  I don’t see any other way to look at them. 

Also far less accurately.  Which makes them pretty useless for anything other than indiscriminately spraying as many bullets into a crowd of people as fast as possible.  You wouldn’t use one for hunting, or home defense, or target shooting or law enforcement or fighting off the redcoats.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2024, 11:27:09 PM by Unconvinced »

*

gnuarm

  • 458
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2591 on: June 22, 2024, 11:34:06 PM »
Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms was never about individual citizens right to self defence!

Bear arms, bear bodies and bear faces.  Bear pride, mofos!



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_flag_(gay_culture)

I did read that one of the reasons the bump stock laws are bad is that they are not clearly defined in the law. I think bump stocks are stupid, but legislators need to tighten up the language.

They are beyond stupid though.  They are a deliberate way to bypass restrictions on fully automatic weapons.  I don’t see any other way to look at them. 

Also far less accurately.  Which makes them pretty useless for anything other than indiscriminately spraying as many bullets into a crowd of people as fast as possible.  You wouldn’t use one for hunting, or home defense, or target shooting or law enforcement or fighting off the redcoats.

My understanding is that bump stocks were not banned by law at the federal level.  They were included in the regulations regarding fully automatic weapons.  Unfortunately, it is hard to write a fully encompassing description of an automatic weapon.  They used the description of multiple firings with one action of the trigger.  Bump stock advocates claim that it is the finger, repeatedly pulling on the trigger which causes one firing per trigger pull.  However, a proper description of how a bump stock works, is that it moves the gun against the finger, which is not, itself, moving. 

Since the SCOTUS did not rule that bump stocks can not be outlawed, due to the Second Amendment, there is nothing to stop Congress from passing a law including weapons with bump stocks as fully automatic weapons.

*

gnuarm

  • 458
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2592 on: June 22, 2024, 11:44:40 PM »
Words mean something when defining the semiauto.

But words dont mean something when reading the 2ndA.

Words always mean something.  The problem is the Second Amendment was not well written, and is subject to interpretation.  The courts have seesawed on just what the Second Amendment means.  It used to be that precedence meant something.  But, the current SCOTUS appears to think not anymore. 

Heck, a Virginia Supreme Court judge talked about a capital crime case where the man was convicted.  Now, there is new evidence, which will exonerate the man.  But, by Virginia rules, a new trial can only be the result of misconduct by the prosecution or something similar.  The judge agreed that this was not "right".  But, this was how the Virginia courts have been doing it for centuries, so they can't change it.  Isn't that what judges do, determine what happens in the courtroom?  Yet, the SCOTUS seems to think precedence is something much more flexible.

Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2593 on: June 23, 2024, 06:12:55 AM »
Gicen youbwere confused about "my point" earlier in the week, it would not surprise you are cobfused by the 2ndA wording.


Only a dishonest person would say "its confusing".


*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 50915
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2594 on: June 23, 2024, 06:37:55 AM »
It's not confusing, but it is open to interpretation. Interpreting various things in the Constitution is one of the reasons we have a SCOTUS. Sometimes this is good, sometimes it isn't.

I agree with gnuarm about Congress being able to write legislation banning bump stocks. The law would need to be worded carefully and accurately. Which is not something Congress is very good at. They usually add a bunch of shit. Then the law would have to pass both houses and be signed by the president. It's not an easy process and would depend on the political winds of the time it is written.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2595 on: June 23, 2024, 06:52:36 AM »
I dont disagree with the autosemiauto because that law was very clear and specific.
But i disagreee with the coruptass scotus saying theyre adhere to thebletter in one instance and to the spirit in another nd then to whateberthehelltheyrepaid to pass Heller and citizensU.

If row can be flipped.
So can those two.




And "interpretation" only if youre an olympuc gymnyst.
There context within the sentence.
Theres context within when it was written.
Theres context to how virginias was strung together.
And theres context in the context.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2024, 06:55:02 AM by Themightykabool »

*

gnuarm

  • 458
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2596 on: June 23, 2024, 11:53:01 AM »
Gicen youbwere confused about "my point" earlier in the week, it would not surprise you are cobfused by the 2ndA wording.


Only a dishonest person would say "its confusing".

Which is the problem.  Some people say the Second Amendment says exactly what they want it to say, often only quoting a very few words.  The reality is the text is not remotely clear.  Combine that with the fact that guns today are hugely different from what was available at that time and we have a real mess of what we should and should not allow. 

Only a dishonest person would say the Second Amendment is "perfectly clear".  That, or someone who is rather stupid, and can't understand the words.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17033
  • Djinn
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2597 on: June 23, 2024, 12:37:01 PM »
Gicen youbwere confused about "my point" earlier in the week, it would not surprise you are cobfused by the 2ndA wording.


Only a dishonest person would say "its confusing".

Which is the problem.  Some people say the Second Amendment says exactly what they want it to say, often only quoting a very few words.  The reality is the text is not remotely clear.  Combine that with the fact that guns today are hugely different from what was available at that time and we have a real mess of what we should and should not allow. 

Only a dishonest person would say the Second Amendment is "perfectly clear".  That, or someone who is rather stupid, and can't understand the words.

Quote
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.

Seems reasonably clear to me, especially when one considers that the US had a policy of no standing armies before ww1.  Obviously the intent is for the defense of the state.  If it were self defense then it would have mentioned self defense.

The "well regulated militia" part also reinforces the notion of collective defense as some guy with a gun in his house in no way qualifies as a "well regulated militia".
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

gnuarm

  • 458
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2598 on: June 23, 2024, 01:42:50 PM »
Gicen youbwere confused about "my point" earlier in the week, it would not surprise you are cobfused by the 2ndA wording.


Only a dishonest person would say "its confusing".

Which is the problem.  Some people say the Second Amendment says exactly what they want it to say, often only quoting a very few words.  The reality is the text is not remotely clear.  Combine that with the fact that guns today are hugely different from what was available at that time and we have a real mess of what we should and should not allow. 

Only a dishonest person would say the Second Amendment is "perfectly clear".  That, or someone who is rather stupid, and can't understand the words.

Quote
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.

Seems reasonably clear to me, especially when one considers that the US had a policy of no standing armies before ww1.  Obviously the intent is for the defense of the state.  If it were self defense then it would have mentioned self defense.

The "well regulated militia" part also reinforces the notion of collective defense as some guy with a gun in his house in no way qualifies as a "well regulated militia".

So, according to the Second Amendment, what is included in the definition of "arms"?  That seems to be a huge point of contention today, so obviously, not so clear. 

Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2599 on: June 23, 2024, 02:29:28 PM »
Gicen youbwere confused about "my point" earlier in the week, it would not surprise you are cobfused by the 2ndA wording.


Only a dishonest person would say "its confusing".

Which is the problem.  Some people say the Second Amendment says exactly what they want it to say, often only quoting a very few words.  The reality is the text is not remotely clear.  Combine that with the fact that guns today are hugely different from what was available at that time and we have a real mess of what we should and should not allow. 

Only a dishonest person would say the Second Amendment is "perfectly clear".  That, or someone who is rather stupid, and can't understand the words.

Its perfectly clear.

What part confuses you and i can clarify.

Specificalyl, reading it while omiting half is pruposefully changing context.

Mr crouts got it.

You dont.
You seem aimed to purlosefully muddy the waters unnecesarily.
Arms means weapons.
And as per crout, to defend the state.
And in context to the Papers, to be able to repel a tyrannical govt.
Huray.
Clarity and context.

« Last Edit: June 23, 2024, 02:32:00 PM by Themightykabool »

*

gnuarm

  • 458
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2600 on: June 23, 2024, 03:41:50 PM »
Gicen youbwere confused about "my point" earlier in the week, it would not surprise you are cobfused by the 2ndA wording.


Only a dishonest person would say "its confusing".

Which is the problem.  Some people say the Second Amendment says exactly what they want it to say, often only quoting a very few words.  The reality is the text is not remotely clear.  Combine that with the fact that guns today are hugely different from what was available at that time and we have a real mess of what we should and should not allow. 

Only a dishonest person would say the Second Amendment is "perfectly clear".  That, or someone who is rather stupid, and can't understand the words.

Its perfectly clear.

What part confuses you and i can clarify.

Specificalyl, reading it while omiting half is pruposefully changing context.

Mr crouts got it.

You dont.
You seem aimed to purlosefully muddy the waters unnecesarily.
Arms means weapons.
And as per crout, to defend the state.
And in context to the Papers, to be able to repel a tyrannical govt.
Huray.
Clarity and context.

I honestly don't understand much of the shorthand/slang/corrupted words you use.  But I do understand, "Arms means weapons".  Unfortunately, this is still not clear in the context we are discussing.  Does this include hand grenades, bazookas, tanks, atomic weapons, kitchen knives?  The list of weapons goes on and on. 

I would say you are trying to show how I am right, but I actually think this is just a result of your poor communications skills.

Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2601 on: June 23, 2024, 04:55:47 PM »
Having weappns to protect the freedpm and secruity state requires having weapons.

Youre playing a purpsoefully ambigous game for a reason.

Ive done this dance before.
Be up front and get to the point and quit dancing around loke a weiner.

If you think that means you can extrpolate to a person having nukes for self defense - youd be incorrect.

The context of the 2ndA is clear.
Militia.
If you need assistance why its militia and not person, you can review article 1:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: [The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .

*

gnuarm

  • 458
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2602 on: June 23, 2024, 06:01:09 PM »
Having weappns to protect the freedpm and secruity state requires having weapons.

Youre playing a purpsoefully ambigous game for a reason.

Ive done this dance before.
Be up front and get to the point and quit dancing around loke a weiner.

If you think that means you can extrpolate to a person having nukes for self defense - youd be incorrect.

The context of the 2ndA is clear.
Militia.
If you need assistance why its militia and not person, you can review article 1:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: [The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .

So, nothing you have said, makes the Second Amendment any more clear in regards to what weapons are intended to be available to the citizens. 

Should I assume you can't answer this question?  Sounds to me like the Second Amendment is not so clear, mostly because it is written using words.  Words have many meanings.  Stringing several of them together in sentences, propagates the proliferation of meanings, to the point it's hard to tell what the person is saying.  In the case of the Second Amendment, it means something different to everyone who reads it, mostly it supports whatever they want it to support. 

Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2603 on: June 24, 2024, 08:08:49 AM »
Correct.

The State gets to decide that the citizens who are well trained rrgulated in protection of the State.

No where in the 2ndA did it mention what the State could limit its people.

It mentions and is meant to ensure the king govt couldnt take away the States rights.

Context of the Papers.
Context of when and why it was written.
Context is context.

You seem to think its about you.
Its not.
Its about THEM.
And the ruling of Heller is directly in opposition of the 2ndA
« Last Edit: June 24, 2024, 08:10:59 AM by Themightykabool »

Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2604 on: June 24, 2024, 10:47:19 AM »
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: [The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .

Suppress insurrections?

Surely some mistake?

Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2605 on: June 24, 2024, 11:10:33 AM »
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C15-1/ALDE_00001077/


Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .

The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.2 The act of February 28, 1795,3 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.4 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war, but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.5


Article I, Section 8, Clause 16:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; . . .

The Supreme Court has characterized Congress’s power over the militia as being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them under the Militia Clauses,1 such that the power may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress.2 At the same time, the Court acknowledged [t]he power of the state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Constitution remained with the states.3 However, this power, the Court continued, is nevertheless subordinate to the paramount law of the General Government.4
Under the National Defense Act of 1916,5 the militia, which had been an almost purely state institution, was brought under the control of the federal government. The act divided militia of the United States—defined to include all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States between the ages of eighteen and forty-five—into several classes of organized militias, including the National Guard. Among its measures, the act reorganized the National Guard, determined its size in proportion to the population of the several States, required that all enlistments be for three years in service and three years in reserve, and limited the appointment of officers to those who shall have successfully passed such tests as to . . . physical, moral and professional fitness as the President shall prescribe.6 The act also authorized the President in certain emergencies to draft into the military service of the United States to serve therein for the period of the war unless sooner discharged, any or all members of the National Guard and National Guard Reserve, who thereupon should stand discharged from the militia.7
The Militia Clauses do not constrain Congress in raising and supporting a national army. The Supreme Court has approved the system of dual enlistment, under which persons enlisted in state militia (National Guard) units simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of the United States, and, when called to active duty in the federal service, are relieved of their status in the state militia.8 Consequently, the restrictions in the first militia clause that limit the militia to be called forth for three specified purposes do not apply to the federalized National Guard.9 Nor is there a constitutional requirement that state governors hold a veto power over federal duty training conducted outside the United States or that a national emergency be declared before such training may take place.10

*

Jura-Glenlivet II

  • Flat Earth Inquisitor
  • 6492
  • Will I still be perfect tomorrow?
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2606 on: June 24, 2024, 12:16:04 PM »
Fucking stupid Americans wedded to an act from 1795 like it was an act of god, Great Britain passed the Duty on Hair Powder Act in 1795.

The Act stated that everyone wishing to use hair powder must, from 5 May 1795, visit a stamp office to enter their name and pay for an annual certificate costing 1 guinea (equivalent to £100 in 2020). Certain exemptions were included: the Royal Family and their servants; clergymen with an income of under £100 a year; and members of the armed forces who were privates in the army, artillery soldiers, mariners, engineers, non-commissioned officers, subalterns, officers in the navy below commander, yeomanry, militia, fencibles, and volunteers. A father with more than two unmarried daughters could buy two certificates that would be valid for any number he stated at the stamp office. The master of a household could buy a certificate for a number of his servants, and that certificate would also be valid for their successors within that year.

A clergyman was fined £20 in Aslackby, in Lincolnshire for wearing hair powder without having previously taken out a licence.

Move on people.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2024, 12:18:05 PM by Jura-Glenlivet II »
Life is meaningless and everything dies.

Every man makes a god of his own desire

Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2607 on: June 24, 2024, 12:46:45 PM »
pretending to be upper class?

- stolen valor is still fineable.




nothing wrong with old laws.
but BUT depends on harm, application and context are key.



in case of 2ndA:
A person is not the people.
Security of the State is not security of the Home.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3362
  • God winds the universe
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2608 on: July 10, 2024, 02:04:54 AM »
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92660.0

You see, I have zero sympathy, having witnessed a dream of what it's like not having anendments guaranteed by the constitution.

So some shooting happened. Maybe some kids died. Won't anyone think of the children? Not when you're trying to take away my life and/or my freedom, I won't.

*

Lorddave

  • 18547
Re: Another mass shooting...
« Reply #2609 on: September 22, 2024, 01:26:37 PM »
https://wbhm.org/2024/birmingham-police-4-dead-dozens-injured-in-five-points-south-mass-shooting/

So... where's the good guy with a gun?  You'd think at least one of those peole would have shot back and saved lives but I guess not.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.