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

No it suggests nothing of the sorts. You are conflating things here. Mason basically wrote the bill of rights and is deemed the father of the bill of rights, any historian will back that up.

The bill of rights and constitution is not the same thing.
The constitution describes each of the roles and responsibilities of the arms of the government and citizens while the Bill of rights describes the rights and freedom of the people. The constitution limits the power of the government while the Bill of Rights grants authority to the people.

Mason did not want to sign the constitution, does it in your book mean he did not write the bill of rights because he did not sign the constitution???


I got you. I got confused as Greg was discussing the Constitution and I misread your reply as "Constitution" and not Bill of Rights.

My misunderstanding.

Thanks.
 
If there's no guns, there's no way to kill people (easily). Only LEAs should have guns, any other instance of a weapon anywhere outside of that should be dealt with in the strictest, most aggressive way possible. That way a gun becomes what it was meant for - ensuring peace and order, not killing 9-yr olds going to school. Or robbing a mother of her iPhone on Grayston Drive.

Of course its not easy to just "do it". So you start with small steps. For example, unless you think half of the Russian Spetsnaz is coming to rob your house, you DO NOT need a semi-automatic or higher weapon in your posession. At all. Ever. So ban those first outright. If you're not LEA and you're caught with one - we aren't going to ask nicely, you're in jail, and you're staying there. Then you work your way up. You can only hold 1 gun at a time - why do you have 5? Slowly but surely the public will be disarmed and guns will remain only where they belong - military and LEA. Then you move from a wild-west-gun-toting-mindest-of-the-1800s to something of a better future.
If there are no guns we will still remain number 1 from stabbing deaths in the world:


1680086297838.png
 
I got you. I got confused as Greg was discussing the Constitution and I misread your reply as "Constitution" and not Bill of Rights.

My misunderstanding.

Thanks.

No problem:thumbsup:
Greg is also confused but somehow I'm the cruel and inaccurate one, oh well.
 
Wish I could afford one...
If there are no guns we will still remain number 1 from stabbing deaths in the world:


View attachment 1500173
Aaah..top of the log for the wrong reasons again...
 
If there are no guns we will still remain number 1 from stabbing deaths in the world:


View attachment 1500173
I am guessing the WC is on top of the list for that.
 
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 :)
See my post about stabbings. Nothing will change in South Africa. You will just be killed by another weapon.
 
Nope


Race riot not mass shooting.


Gang warfare not mass shooting.


Not enough to establish as "a lot"


A knife can count as an assault weapon under the loose definitions currently used.


That's a regular rifle that just looks and handles like an assault rifle.
LOL!

Now we're playing that game y'all love so much where you assign your own definitions to common terms to keep the argument going and the playing field tilted in your favour.

The Feds define mass shootings as 3 or more killings in a single incident... 300 qualifies and I don't care how much you cry about me not buying into your new dictionary.

Also, scroll away and then come back and tell the class how 171 mass shootings before 2012 *isn't* "a lot"


Finally, here's the difference between your regular and the military rifle...

main-qimg-97058af70e3f1368c74e613584e7dfc6-lq


main-qimg-57f2bc0d3f7eb3a338978a252be92bcd-lq



You're welcome.
 
Mmmmm - I heard that that "+" represents MAPers.
The discrimination they (the MAPers) endure is absolutely dreadful.
The "+" basically means everything else that might be conceived. That said, how can a line be drawn between that which makes sense and that which is absurd.

The fringe group of loons who associate with the LGBTQIA+ movement know this and are happy to exploit it to bend society to their will, with the threat of the "bigot" label.
 
No problem:thumbsup:
Greg is also confused but somehow I'm the cruel and inaccurate one, oh well.
Nah, not at all... Light hearted joking doesn't always translate on the interwebs, and I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Mason wanted a bill of rights in the constitution when it was drafted, that didn't happen and he wouldn't sign it... He got his wish later 'tho, but it was Madison who proposed nineteen amendments and guided them through Congress.

Madison's amendments are the foundation of the bill of rights for me.

Always will be

...and that's the back story to my erasure post.
 
What about......
Not really. Just highlighting that with all mass shootings, factions of different ideologies will dissasociate the shooter from their ideology, despite the overwhelming evidence that the shooter was X or Y.
 
Nice distortion there with the Public Duty Doctrine, which boils down to the Police being held legally responsible for action/inaction in the highly litigious society that is the USA.

But of course glossing over actual Police policy and procedures for active shooters, which Uvalde team failed miserably at.

Unless you can demonstrate that the Uvalde Police Dept were banding about the tenets of the 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, as the motivation for why they waited outside of the room for an hour, I'll take it from where it came.

Did these cops forget that court case as they rushed? OH NOOOOOOOOOOO!

They didn’t go in because they don’t have a legal duty. It is as simple as that.

This goes to a large problem with the police is that the propaganda states that they should “protect and serve”, but the law only requires them to “investigate and arrest”.

Of course there are cops that do the jobs to the standard that the propaganda sets. Like the cops for this incident, and I do think they make up the majority.
 
They didn’t go in because they don’t have a legal duty. It is as simple as that.

This goes to a large problem with the police is that the propaganda states that they should “protect and serve”, but the law only requires them to “investigate and arrest”.

Of course there are cops that do the jobs to the standard that the propaganda sets. Like the cops for this incident, and I do think they make up the majority.
Do you have a quote from the Captain citing that the reason they did not enter was that they chose to abide by that principle? I.e. A quote to the media stating the reason they waited was the decided that it was not their duty to enter that day, so chose to wait?

Likewise do you have a quote from the heroes of this incident stating that they deliberately chose to over rule that requirement and leapt into action?
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X