Watch Uvalde school shooting video obtained by Statesman showing police response

Oh dear oh dear... you slipped there, and helped the socialist liberal make his point. How in the world are you going to face your right wing colleagues after such a blunder, I wonder...

 

You have no point...lol

 

You are full of bovine scat. A firearm is a mechanical device.
Take your star wars nonsense and use it like an enema.

 

They DID run towards the gunfire, that's why they're heroes.

Which was the right thing to do, those parents would have got themselves and hostages killed.

No, nowadays people look for an excuse to persecute the police, they're right to be wary.

 

It is relevant and crushing proving you wrong.
Unable does not mean unwilling.

 

People voting is why 25 States, i.e., 50 percent allow concealed carry of a handgun without a permit. Within 90 days it will probably be more than half. When are liberals going to walk the walk and demand that the bodyguards of Bloomberg, Soros, etc. be disarmed? Or that armed Private Military Companies not be allowed to protect the rich with guns (including AR-15s) while the rest of us are disarmed as was the case after Katrina.

This is how liberalism works.

The rich.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/12/hurricanekatrina.usa

The little people.


The above links are a classic example that for the left, all animals are equal. But some are more equal than others.

 

Where have I advocated disarming anyone?
Do you believe the guards in your scenario are not trained and insured?

 

I don't care if they are or aren't. I care about me. BTW, I am trained and insured.

Do you care that the rich and elite can be protected by armed security with AR-15 rifles while guns, even revolvers, are taken away from the little people?

 

Only a progressive liberal could take an event where the police were clearly incompetent and cowardly and sat on their ass while the shooting continued when they should have been acting and try to use that to make some failed argument that.......

"See here? .... If armed police couldn't stop the guy then why do you need a gun?

When the moral of the story here is if you do have a gun and the situation warrants it.... You should probably not sit on your ass until it's too late to use it.

 

Yes, you are a conservative — that is to be expected

Yes

 

So when are you liberals going to ask Bloomberg et al. to forgo their armed security and set an example?

 

Too bad one of those teachers wasn't armed, eh?

It must really chafe you that the Supremes not only just reenforced Heller, but expanded on it with Bruen. Say farewell for just about everything on your list (psst... your "assault weapons" are in common use for legal purposes, so they're not going anywhere!), at least without getting 38 States to agree with 66% of the Congress to repeal the 2A. There are always other countries.

 

Most liberals do not want the severe income disparity that exists which currently allows such to occur.

 

Oh, he has been. I wonder if it consumes his real life as much as it does his participation here... Things that make you go hmmm.

 

So you expect teaches to combat armed individuals to protect children that the police fail to?

I hope you are expecting to pay these people 150k+ a year.

As for SCOTUS, they have simply stated that no precedent exists, you might be cheering that for now. Since rulings have recently been made that say the protections only apply when the constitution was written I hope you will cheering these remarks when all you have is a black powder musket.

 

If your last comment was supposed to address the recent SCOTUS decision overturning Roe v. Wade you have totally mischaracterized the decision. The decision was based on the fact that the Constitution never addressed abortion so therefore, the matter is a State decision. On the other hand firearms are addressed in the Constituion, i.e, 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS is not going to limit this right to black powder muskets anymore than they will limit freedom of the press to this.

 

Forget the income disparity. Just demand that Bloomberg and other liberals practice what they preach. Shame them into doing the right thing. lol

 

Not at all. Just a last, desperate line of defense when all hope is mostly already lost. You gotta admit, the idea that if even one of them had been surriptiously armed and managed to get a shot off at him when he was looking the other way may have made the tragedy less heinous. But, hey, if you're scared of the little old English teacher losing her mind and killing kids rather than kid killers, we can do it your way instead.

Not even CNN has the stones to try to spread that kind of bogus propaganda. Hearing it reminds me of the Russian shills on this very forum and their "Baghdad Bob" responses in threads about Ukraine.

 

What you continually don't get is that it's going to take a group of "sensible" legislators far larger and broader than just those in Congress. SCOTUS has just in the past few weeks, as you'd have to be living in a rock to not know, expanded 2A rights (and they are natural rights, that I would argue exist even without the 2A) by a huge degree. I'm sure when you heard that news it completely horrified you, because it is contrary to all that you want, advocate, and just plain spit in your hand and wish for.

In fact, as myself and others have pointed out to you numerous, countless times, it's going to take 66% of the entire Congress to be what you call "sensible" (and I would call anti-American), PLUS half the Legislatures (plus one) of each of 38 individual States. You may think that's just around the corner, but only if you're measuring time using astronomical terms. That's not only not going to happen in our lifetimes, it's not likely to happen in our great-great-great-great-great grandchildren's lifetimes. Half a millennia from now? Who knows, the US of A may not even exist then and they may be excavating 21st Century graves with the same zeal and amazement as we do those of ancient Egypt before what you desire comes to pass on these lands.

Your arrogance leads you to believe that you can just reject all counterpoints (like the idea of 3d printing a firearm at home) is just so sophomoric. You really think these sorts of things can just be dismissed, when in fact the technology is just going to continue to improve, just as our computers and phones have over just the past 20-30 years. Today, we print toys and tchotchkes made from plastic, but it won't be long until a $300 consumer grade printer is either capable of carving things out of raw metal blocks, or even melting metal to manufacture things. At home. For the price of a year's worth of morning coffee. Or one heavy drinking night out on the town.

Guns will be among those things. Just as the war on drugs has been, and will continue to be, and abject failure, so will your hypothetical future war on firearms. Which will require massive, multi-generational shifts in societal views on such things just to alter the Constitution, and even if that wet dream of yours happens, it's just the beginning of your fight. You think you have some sort of momentum towards the majority you think exists just under the surface, if only "a few sensible Legislators could get elected", but it doesn't exist.

The pendulum is actually swinging the other way. Legal gun rights have been massively expanded just in the past decade or two, more and more Americans are taking advantage of their freedoms to keep (and bear!) arms. In my State, more than one in six adults has a license to carry, which is up from zero when I was a kid.

The momentum you seek, that you crave, that you require, simply does not exist.

I don't understand people like you. People who would not only give up their own rights but seek to strip others of those same rights as well. I once signed an Oath to lay down my life, if necessary, to protect those rights, as have so many countless millions of others. We will not stand by and allow you to destroy what we and our ancestors fought, bled, and in so many cases died to create and defend. And hundreds of millions of others who didn't sign that same Oath nonetheless believe in its cause.

So, keep prattling on about your silly and stupid ideas about how to accomplish your unattainable mission. Countless others and I will be here standing watch (metaphorically speaking) to make sure it never happens. And we have the Law, our longstanding traditions, technology, and so many other things on our side, including our politics and the will of the American people.

You are delusional if you think you will even live to see your goals attained.

 

Actually, I'm Team DeSantis. Then again, I'm not a "rightist" (whatever that is), nor am I interested in anyone being a King. Hell, I think the UK should get rid of their last vestiges of royalty, and it's really not any of my business.

 

This is where you guys on the right lose me. I'm with you on the gun issue, 1,000%, but I don't give two f's about gay sex, nor do I consider it immoral in any way. Whatever floats any particular persons boat, as long as it only involves consenting adult humans, it's their prerogative. And please spare me your religious bullshit, dude. I died and actually visited the other side, and it's not what your religion says it is.

 

Not unable, unwilling. Or stupid, if they really thought the door was locked, and thought there was no option aside from waiting for someone with a key to show up. Either way, worthless cops who either need some serious training adjustments or another career.

But, oh, how I wish the teachers in the room had been carrying. It could have completely reversed the outcome, or come real damn close. And even had they been armed, and somehow failed to properly engage the bad guy (and calling him that is actually being very nice), I'd still rather a teacher have another tool other than to grab their genitals and try to use their bodies as a makeshift human shield. Not as a primary line of defense in any way, but as a last resort, last line of defense that may save lives? Yeah, it's a can't miss idea.

 

These "worthless cops" armed with only pistols ran towards a man armed with an assault rifle, they saved many lives.

 

Second.

This is where people get cornfused. There doesn't need to be an Amendment to "allow" you to do something. By default, you're "allowed" to do anything, except things which the government has a rational basis (i.e., good reason) to prohibit. No such rational basis exists for banning using the internet, unless we turned into China when I wasn't looking. But there is also a good 1A case to be made.

Government, ours anyway, can't just ban things for grins, nor because they can get 50% plus 1 in the proper legislative body to do so.

In the past, yes. But those rulings are very much up for debate after the Bruen and EPA decisions. Take bump stocks as one example. They were banned, and those bans have, to my knowledge, been upheld by Courts to date. But it's very questionable if those bans will hold up to the new standards SCOTUS put out in those cases. I guess we'll see.

 

Bullshit. By the time they bothered busting down the door (and I believe it was a border patrol agent that did so, not the local yokels), it was too late. Everybody in the room, 19 kids and 2 adults, were already dead.