Robb elementary shooting in TX

Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
So, children do not have a right to life?

Their Constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been grossly violated.
Whatever makes you think that children does not have a right to life? Read my post a few times more.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
So, children do not have a right to life?

Their Constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been grossly violated.
It looks like you didn't read his post closely enough?
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Present arguments aside for the moment. With regards to original "intent" by the founders. Some of their quotes here might provide some clarity with respect to the 2nd A. and how they viewed Militias.

Also, to those outside the US who are reasonably interested in asking what is up with that US Constitution? It is most helpful to read up on the UK's Glorious Revolution 1688 and the resulting 'Constitution" in 1689. Then read the Declaration of Independence and the context of the time it was written. Monarchy & Mercantilism (centralized political & economic power) were the defacto world order. No democracies nor republics. They organized the first notable Republic (besides some Italian city states) since Rome. They wanted limited government power and placed as many checks and balances they could think of to preserve it. Anything that moved it away from that limited model they would have considered a move towards Tyranny. Anyway, RIP Ray Liotta. Off to the cornfields to catch up with Shoeless Joe.....

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“To disarm the people…s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.” – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
I'm puzzled that the wording of such an important passage as the 2nd amendment could be so ambiguous, as to make it a veritable Rorschach test. Such tortured syntax calls into question the supposed omniscience of the founders. What makes this amendment so sacred that it - apparently - cannot be modified or rescinded, being outdated as written?

If its purpose was to ensure the freedom/liberty of US citizens it doesn't seem to be doing the job any better than the laws of other developed countries.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
I'm puzzled that the wording of such an important passage as the 2nd amendment could be so ambiguous, as to make it a veritable Rorschach test. Such tortured syntax calls into question the supposed omniscience of the founders. What makes this amendment so sacred that it - apparently - cannot be modified or rescinded, being outdated as written?

If its purpose was to ensure the freedom/liberty of US citizens it doesn't seem to be doing the job any better than the laws of other developed countries.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger once said, “The gun lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
I'm puzzled that the wording of such an important passage as the 2nd amendment could be so ambiguous, as to make it a veritable Rorschach test. Such tortured syntax calls into question the supposed omniscience of the founders. What makes this amendment so sacred that it - apparently - cannot be modified or rescinded, being outdated as written?

If its purpose was to ensure the freedom/liberty of US citizens it doesn't seem to be doing the job any better than the laws of other developed countries.
Am not surprised at your reaction. It took a few good civics classes as taught back in the day in the US for me to understand too. To grab an better understanding you'd have to dig deeper into pre 1780 European Enlightenment thinking. The meaning is self explanatory if you read the founders comments. It certainly can be modified with 17 additional amendments but they purposely made it difficult to stand the test of time. They wanted to protect it from short term emotional political trends. If you want to really read a difficult document, read the EU constitution of 2004. The US constitution has a 52 word preamble, the EU 293 words. One of main differences? the founders view of rights. The US objective was protecting a individual's rights from the government. The EU is basically a list of rights and services granted by the government. In practice, what the state grants it can take away.

As for global indexes on freedom? Don't have much use for them and their methods of determining what freedom means. This particular list of top 10 was most ironic since it's memorial weekend here in the US. I'll comment using the words of the typical WW2 vets I grew up with. "every one of them damn countries is free only because of the US military and economy, whether they were freed in 1945 or 1990" Switzerland and Sweden may have survived WW2 neutral but if the US didn't join the war that would have been in grave doubt.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
Just as disturbing is their changing stories bordering on lying, from what I've read, as that means they are unwilling to admit or learn from their mistakes. Clear, unambiguous and true communication is very important.
I saw that the department had received armed gunman training in March of this year and used none of it. Another report quoted a student, who said the officers were standing and shaking.

I think that anyone from the department who was on site should be fired and barred from becoming a law enforcement officer. The department's officials who knew how the officers should be fired and held accountable. I guess I can understand how officers can be filled with fear in a situation like this, in a small city- nobody expects something like this to happen.

There's no way this city can afford the lawsuits that are sure to come.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
I'm puzzled that the wording of such an important passage as the 2nd amendment could be so ambiguous, as to make it a veritable Rorschach test. Such tortured syntax calls into question the supposed omniscience of the founders. What makes this amendment so sacred that it - apparently - cannot be modified or rescinded, being outdated as written?
Agreed.

Such tortured syntax also opened the door to a tortured interpretation of the Second Amendment by Scalia and his right wing buddies colleagues on the Supreme Court.

Nothing about the Second Amendment is so sacred that it cannot be modified because it is outdated … unless you're a right-wing GOP politician who is paid bundles of money by gun manufacturers to protect their profits.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
Three thoughts come to mind:

1. Murdering innocent Americans, including children, is a small price to pay to get re-elected as a Republican. Not much $$$ going to Democrats.

2. If campaign contributions from the NRA were banned we wouldn't have a gun problem. Politicians are easily bought.

3. The myth of law enforcement protecting citizens is gone. They only exist to protect themselves. Otherwise, the police unions would push to ban assault weapons. They have shamelessly exploited these tragedies to increase their funding without accountabilty to their communities.
WRT #2- campaign donations are supposed to be limited, but money has no conscience. The problem with thinking that one organization's donations should be stopped is: where does it end? Also, the donations that come directly from the NRA aren't where they get most of the money- it comes from independent donors who are members.

Law enforcement isn't there to stand watch over everyone- not enough officers, in any city, village or town. I have seen many TV news reports after someone is killed and people are crying and screaming, asking "Where were the police, to stop this?". Well, many people need to understand that not wanting to get involved when something happens leads to unabated crime. Some don't even care that the police are only feet or yards away, they still shoot wildly, like the idiots in Milwaukee who engaged in two gunfights WHILE the police were investigating the first shooting. The cops can be seen in the news videos- they were literally across the street and less than a block away.

How do you stop this kind of mayhem? Cities shouldn't be war zones and criminals have turned them into that. I doubt most cops have seen military duty, so this isn't something they can really train for. They f&cked up.

These cops stood by and waited- apparently, they thought the shooter was done and may have been waiting for instructions whereas, in many cases, officers run toward the place where a shooter is killing. To do this when children are being massacred is terrible, but in a city of just over 15K people, they likely knew some of the kids and didn't want to face this.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
Many are forgetting that elections do have consequences, and accepting that their vote contributes to mass murder of children is difficult. It’s their choice after all.
Easier to replace someone when a good candidate runs against them but in many cases, the other option is no better, for different reasons.

Any candidate that makes stupid comments about these shootings should be eliminated in the primaries, but another problem is that the general public is too apathetic about who's in office, who's running and what they plan to do if elected. Then, there's the issue of getting them to the polls- in Milwaukee, where the city has a ridiculous number of problems in all ways, only 90K voted for the new Mayor in a city of almost 600K. Also, many people don't want to think about politics.

It's hard to change when people are too lazy to bother.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
So, children do not have a right to life?

Their Constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been grossly violated.
How would you guarantee the rights of the people when others don't give a rat's ass about their rights?

You're taking the long view of this- look at it at a more direct level- this shooter may have known some of the kids, teachers and/or their families, but he apparently didn't care who he was killing.

Try to stop that kind of sh!t.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
I'm puzzled that the wording of such an important passage as the 2nd amendment could be so ambiguous, as to make it a veritable Rorschach test. Such tortured syntax calls into question the supposed omniscience of the founders. What makes this amendment so sacred that it - apparently - cannot be modified or rescinded, being outdated as written?

If its purpose was to ensure the freedom/liberty of US citizens it doesn't seem to be doing the job any better than the laws of other developed countries.
I don't think the Founding Fathers could imagine the depths of stupidity and inhumanity to which people have fallen. If they had, some limits would surely have been written into the 2nd Amendment.

Also, there's no way they could possibly have imagined the level of destruction future military armaments could reach. If they had been able to, I'm not sure they would have bothered with 2A.

Amendments require a Constitutional Convention and that requires specific conditions. It would probably take a long time to pass because voters are supposed to be represented in Congress- if the numbers of gun owners are accurate and they feel that they weren't represented in the way they 'should' be, lawsuits could follow and tie the Bill up for years. This assumes voters who are in favor of preserving 2A say "NO!" to any changes.

I don't see a fast path to improvements on this- it has a lot of moving parts.
 
Old Onkyo

Old Onkyo

Audioholic General
How would you guarantee the rights of the people when others don't give a rat's ass about their rights?

You're taking the long view of this- look at it at a more direct level- this shooter may have known some of the kids, teachers and/or their families, but he apparently didn't care who he was killing.

Try to stop that kind of sh!t.
It’s the gun. It’s an assault weapon.
designed with one purpose, kill as many PEOPLE as possible in as short amount of time.

i never new that so many police and politicians suffer from a speech impediment. Funny how they all start stuttering when asked about licensing, registration, wait times, or restricting access to the weapon….

but speak eloquently when discussing arming teachers, providing mental health, condemning parents, the internet, pop culture, being woke, immigration,

we have had mass shootings at grocery stores, schools, malls, theaters, concerts, etc. the idea that having armed guards everywhere at all times to “prevent” mass shootings is…

A police state. With a large number of citizens that are deputized to keep / restore law no order. 1/6.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
It’s the gun. It’s an assault weapon.
designed with one purpose, kill as many PEOPLE as possible in as short amount of time.

i never new that so many police and politicians suffer from a speech impediment. Funny how they all start stuttering when asked about licensing, registration, wait times, or restricting access to the weapon….

but speak eloquently when discussing arming teachers, providing mental health, condemning parents, the internet, pop culture, being woke, immigration,

we have had mass shootings at grocery stores, schools, malls, theaters, concerts, etc. the idea that having armed guards everywhere at all times to “prevent” mass shootings is…

A police state.
There's no gun/weapon that was designed with peace in mind. This type was never designed for citizens, but ways have been found to make sure they're available to most people. While I understand its utility and flexibility for other purposes, I think it's time to examine ways to make it more difficult for most people to buy them.

They don't stutter when the fingers aren't pointing at them.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
A law suit in the works?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sandy-hook-shooting-the-unprecedented-73m-settlement-with-gunmaker-remington/

An AR-15 type gun is said to be used in Uvalde to murder 21 people, 19 children and 2 teachers. The shooter bought two of those guns, both within 3 days of his 18th birthday, and used one of them on his rampage. I’d read that the guns were made by a gun manufacturer, called Daniel Defense, and each gun cost $1,870 retail. The murderer also had about 1,600 rounds of ammunition. This raises several good questions. Where does an unemployed high school drop-out get the means to buy all that? And how does a licensed gun dealer not suspect trouble when a kid, barely 18-years-old buys two of those weapons, plus all that ammunition, within a few days? By now, we’re used to hearing people ask those questions, as we are also used to seeing them ignored by people who should know better.

I also read something else more encouraging this morning. CBS News ran a story recounting the events coming from the 2013 school massacre in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. Parents of a six-year-old boy, Ben Wheeler, along with eight other Sandy Hook families, filed suit against Remington, the manufacturer of the gun used back then.
“What the Wheelers, and eight other Sandy Hook families, did at first seemed impossible. They sued the gunmaker, Remington Arms, and in February they settled the lawsuit for $73 million. It's the largest payout by a gun company to victims of a mass shooting.

Earlier this month, the family of Andre Mackneil, who was killed in the May 14 Buffalo shooting, announced they, too, will sue Remington Arms, which made the gun used at the Tops Supermarket.”
Last February, they won an unprecedented $73 million settlement from Remington. This was despite the existence of a 2005 law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Calling such a law “Lawful Commerce” is an ugly understatement among many in the bloody history of arguing over the Second Amendment.

The law was intended to shield gun manufacturers from legal liability from mass murders committed with their guns. It tried to eliminate the common law rights people would otherwise have to bring a lawsuit against manufacturers, such as automobiles, tobacco products, or pharmaceuticals. Still in effect today, this law is a travesty, but typical of the extremes taken by the politicians owned by the NRA.

Read the whole article. It's not too long, but it explains in some detail how the Sandy Hook families won against what seemed like a stacked deck. Daniel Defense is probably looking over it's shoulders, nervously, as I write this.
 
Last edited:
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
A law suit in the works?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sandy-hook-shooting-the-unprecedented-73m-settlement-with-gunmaker-remington/

An AR-15 type gun is said to be used in Uvalde to murder 21 people, 19 children and 2 teachers. The shooter bought two of those guns, both within 3 days of his 18th birthday, and used one of them on his rampage. I’d read that the guns were made by a gun manufacturer, called Daniel Defense, and each gun cost $1,870 retail. The murderer also had about 1,600 round of ammunition. This raises several good questions. Where does an unemployed high school drop-out get the means to buy all that? And how does a licensed gun dealer not suspect trouble when a kid, barely 18-years-old buys two of those weapons, plus all that ammunition, within a few days? By now, we’re used to hearing people ask those questions, as we are also used to seeing them ignored by people who should know better.

I also read something else more encouraging this morning. CBS News ran a story recounting the events coming from the 2013 school massacre in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. Parents of a six-year-old boy, Ben Wheeler, along with eight other Sandy Hook families, filed suit against Remington, the manufacturer of the gun used back then.

Last February, they won an unprecedented $73 million settlement from Remington. This was despite the existence of a 2005 law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Calling such a law “Lawful Commerce” is an ugly understatement among many in the bloody history of arguing over the Second Amendment.

The law was intended to shield gun manufacturers from legal liability from mass murders committed with their guns. It tried to eliminate the common law rights people would otherwise have to bring a lawsuit against manufacturers, such as automobiles, tobacco products, or pharmaceuticals. Still in effect today, this law is a travesty, but typical of the extremes taken by the politicians owned by the NRA.

Read the whole article. It's not too long, but it explains in some detail how the Sandy Hook families won against what seemed like a stacked deck. Daniel Defense is probably looking over it's shoulders, nervously, as I write this.
He had worked at a Wendy's, but that doesn't answer my question of "How the hell could he spend this much?". OTOH, he didn't have a car or truck, so that expense is moot.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
He had worked at a Wendy's, but that doesn't answer my question of "How the hell could he spend this much?". OTOH, he didn't have a car or truck, so that expense is moot.
Parents/family? Credit card?
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top