Nashville school shooting: Woman ‘armed with assault-style rifles’ kills six

wbot said:
Katie Hobbs' press secretary:

FsWpUS_XoAMWlvl
Click to expand...
Here's an idea for a article:
Bloody Monday
---------------
In a hate crime incident a male identifying as a female trans activist who on social media previously ranted about how "homophobes deserve to die" shoots up a Christian school, sympathetic media outlets in an unsurprising move attempt to deflect from the self identification of the the shooter portrays him as Christian indirectly blaming Christians for gun violence.
 
Not sure if posted already but the body cams from the officers is online.
Those officers are absolute heroes. They arrive, grab their rifles and go in the school with an active shooter with no fear, clear room by room in a systematic way and run towards gunfire before putting it down. They even get bonus points for headshots.
 
Brawler said:
Not sure if posted already but the body cams from the officers is online.
Those officers are absolute heroes. They arrive, grab their rifles and go in the school with an active shooter with no fear, clear room by room in a systematic way and run towards gunfire before putting it down. They even get bonus points for headshots.
Click to expand...
Yeah I posted it earlier. I see someone else also posted a reddit link.

Sadly you can also see one of the children lying in the hallway just before they kill the shooter but it's blurred out.
 
Daveogg said:
So my train of thought originated from this post by @buchanan8

"The shooter is a transvestite, therefore mentally ill. Mental illness is the problem here, not guns"

So would you agree with me that guns very much are the problem?
Click to expand...
Guns don’t kill people. It is deranged people. We don’t consider locking up every single person to prevent regular murder( unless of course you are a branch covidian ).

Unfortunately, the only way to identify the deranged people who do school shootings is to catch them when they try and enter places like schools. This needs better security.

Something that probably could work without violating any constitutional rights is to impose a security tax on firearms, accessories and ammo, which replaces all sales taxes if they apply. That tax then funds security for vulnerable places like schools.

That is more productive than any discussion on banning firearms which even if I agreed to it, is simply impossible because you need a 2/3 majority in both houses.
 
The directionbrains have taken over the thread with their bickering, as usual :) US! AND THEM! OVERRRR AND OVER AGAIN!
Someone should make a containment thread for their partisan arguing so we can shoo them off there whenever they come schit up the threads with their politicking.
 
Cray said:
Are you suggesting that any gun control legislation is a violation of the 2nd amendment?
Click to expand...
Inherently yes, but times change and as such legislation can change.
While people may have misinterpreted the meaning of words from over two centuries ago, the "shall not be infringed" hasn't lost it's meaning.
Other countries do not have this problem as this isn't enshrined in their founding documents. Get a constitutional change and this point becomes moot.
Until then it's just a slow erosion of rights.

Much of the proposed legislation is nonsensical amounting to little more than cosmetic characteristics. This is especially true in states like California.
This is unsurprising as many people do not know the first thing about firearms, especially politicians.
 
quovadis said:
Where's the gang affiliation metric or is it an assumption?
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that the Black population are just inherently more homicidal that all the other demographics instead? o_O
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the massive gang problem in the US?
 
Cray said:
Are you suggesting that any gun control legislation is a violation of the 2nd amendment?
Click to expand...
Consider it the same as the right to vote.

It should be as easy/difficult as it is to buy a gun as to vote.

That is the standard set that is effectively set by the 2A.
 
Kieppie said:
Yeah great example of someone that doesn't know what "well regulated" means. I never said it's just the Dems that are wrong about the meaning of words.

Carry on Greg.
Click to expand...
Jesus!

A chief justice of the US Supreme Court, and you figure you know more about the 2A and 'well regulated' than he did.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look right now?

Any at all?
 
greg0205 said:
Jesus!

A chief justice of the US Supreme Court, and you figure you know more about the 2A and 'well regulated' than he did.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look right now?

Any at all?
Click to expand...
You don’t even want to define what a woman is fam.

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed “

Why would the line refer to “the people” if they were not referring to everyone.
 
konfab said:
You don’t even want to define what a woman is fam.

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed “

Why would the line refer to “the people” if they were not referring to everyone.
Click to expand...
A woman is someone who has a restraining order against you, konfab.

Glad we could clear that up.
 
wbot said:
Wtf

https://twitter.com/x/status/1640866093458653185

Mind you in their next tweet they have an issue with a Polish video game company having mostly white employees. Tells you everything you need to know about this account. More woke idiots.
Click to expand...
"another act of violence - misgendering."
"dishonors the memory of the victims"
They actually see her as a victim in this.... thats the only way this kind of talk can make sense.
They can take a long walk off a short pier and **** right off.
 
greg0205 said:
Jesus!

A chief justice of the US Supreme Court, and you figure you know more about the 2A and 'well regulated' than he did.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look right now?

Any at all?
Click to expand...
Ah yes the same type of people that you call, and I quote.
"A partisan Supreme Court all to happy to take a dump on the constitution."
You're very selective about when you find them trustworthy :rolleyes:

You're using one example, I repeat one, to justify your case.
Do you realise how ridiculous you look trying to argue that words mean the same today as it did 200 years ago?
Today, where people cannot even define what the word "Woman" means, so much so that they had to change the dictionary entries.
I guess we should be glad they did not include the passage "the right to happiness and being gay" :X3:

“Well regulated” refer to proficiency and top-notch training as per Dr. Robert J. Cottrol a Second Amendment expert and legal historian, who was the Harold Paul Green Research Professor of Law at George Washington University.
A more layman way of using it was properly operating or in ideal state.
Curious as to your interpretation of this sentence "..every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.."

I find it odd that you, and many others, would infer the modern meaning of the word given the context of the time when these documents were written.
 
konfab said:
Guns don’t kill people. It is deranged people. We don’t consider locking up every single person to prevent regular murder( unless of course you are a branch covidian ).

Unfortunately, the only way to identify the deranged people who do school shootings is to catch them when they try and enter places like schools. This needs better security.

Something that probably could work without violating any constitutional rights is to impose a security tax on firearms, accessories and ammo, which replaces all sales taxes if they apply. That tax then funds security for vulnerable places like schools.

That is more productive than any discussion on banning firearms which even if I agreed to it, is simply impossible because you need a 2/3 majority in both houses.
Click to expand...
Your reasoning was going so well if i read it in reverse. Then it ends with the dumb part: "Guns don't kill people" - they do. Because a deranged person with a pen, is less dangerous than a deranged person with a semi-automatic. Fact. Get rid of the guns :)
 
greg0205 said:
A woman is someone who has a restraining order against you, konfab.

Glad we could clear that up.
Click to expand...
Honk.

Honestly, the fact that you get emotional triggered by stating a definition that is based on biology is exactly why I don’t take you seriously.
 
rambo919 said:
Here's an idea for a article:
Bloody Monday
---------------
In a hate crime incident a male identifying as a female trans activist who on social media previously ranted about how "homophobes deserve to die" shoots up a Christian school, sympathetic media outlets in an unsurprising move attempt to deflect from the self identification of the the shooter portrays him as Christian indirectly blaming Christians for gun violence.
Click to expand...

So, mentally ill then.
 
konfab said:
You don’t even want to define what a woman is fam.

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed “

Why would the line refer to “the people” if they were not referring to everyone.
Click to expand...
Yeah militia were all able bodies men that volunteered in such a more organised capacity, the people are the others.
The fact that women were never prosecuted for owning firearms/using, even if they were spinsters, should make it clear that the latter half refers to these regular people, irrespective of gender, not in the militia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X