Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

originally posted by: HauntWok
And you think I'm trolling?

Why are you so pro mass shooting? Do you want to commit a mass shooting yourself is that it? Have a need to be famous? Is that the real reason your fighting any solution to this problem?

Uh, yeah.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's an honest question at this point. This is a serious problem in this country.

This group has trolled this issue so hard, that the ONLY conclusion is that my original premise is correct and that the pro gun crowd celebrates these mass shootings.

Every time one of these events happen, the idea is naturally "what can we do to stop this"

And the gun crowd is there, shouting down any opposition to mass shootings. Why? Because they don't want them to stop. They want mass shootings every day, all day. Thinking that if they were there they could stop it. Or add to it ( I'm not really sure at this point ).

More guns for everyone! All the while drowning pool is playing in the background.

Their fantasy of a first person shooter game come to life. Leaving broken lives in their reason, laughing at anyone who wants to stop it.

originally posted by: HauntWok

And you think I'm trolling?

When did I say that.

originally posted by: HauntWok
No, of course its not just the mentally ill. But trying to keep firearms of of the hands of someone unstable is an idea.

Again, please show me what unstable means. How to define it and exactly what guarantee there is for this to work.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Just trying to come up with ideas to lessen the frequency and severity of these mass killings by people with legally purchased guns.

There is no gaurentee that further infringing upon a Right will do this.

All that you offer is basically a what if and maybe.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Why are you so pro mass shooting?

I will tell you what.
Actually answer 80% of my questions, then we can talk about me.
Since you have this major issue of not being able to address the things that either you don't like, or work to prove your Progressive stance wrong, why should anyone take you serious or answer your questions?

originally posted by: HauntWok
Do you want to commit a mass shooting yourself is that it? Have a need to be famous? Is that the real reason your fighting any solution to this problem?

Address 80% of the items posed to you, then we will talk.

a reply to: HauntWok

Nothing yiu say is honest

U are a gun obsessed troll

The chances are it is yiu who play fps .

The chances are it is you who would nit be allowed to own a gun

The chances are yiu are already on meds

The chances are u will snap and one of us in this thread will have to put u down

The chances are u didnt read my intro that proves everything yiu believe is a product of a diseased mind

U are the reason I own a gun.

originally posted by: HauntWok
It's an honest question at this point.

no, it's yet another example of simpleton logic, at it's finest..... "if you disagree with my ideas for gun control, then you MUST be pro-murder"

it's idiotic, and completely without any basis in reality..

This is a serious problem in this country.

no, it isn't...you only THINK it is, because the media hypes the living hell out of ANY shooting, up to "ZOMG!" levels..

an incident that would have been referred to as a "triple murder" 20 years ago, is now turned into a 3-ring circus, media frenzy, and called a "mass shooting", and is hyped to all hell, for maximum ratings....instead of just reporting the news, now they have commentary, and opinion, and all manner of other rubbish....the end result being you, and people like you, crap your pants in fear, think there's a bigger problem than there really is, and go off into the world parroting what less intelligent people think....

This group has trolled this issue so hard, that the ONLY conclusion is that my original premise is correct and that the pro gun crowd celebrates these mass shootings.

"this group"....lol...next thing you know, you'll be saying "you people", and then we'll have a real problem..

and again, if you're a simpleton, your conclusion makes perfect sense, and is very convincing...unfortunately for you, we're not simpletons...

try harder.

Every time one of these events happen, the idea is naturally "what can we do to stop this"

actually, no....

the first thought is usually a panicked "OH MY GOD! BAN GUNS BECAUSE GUNS!"...then they go on to talk about scary rifles, even if one had nothing to do with the event in question....then you usually have some commentary from some talking head who has no idea what the hell he's on about, this is all interspersed with inaccurate reporting, and networks just blurting whatever the hell they can get their grubby paws on, as they get it, without fact checking it, because they just GOTTA have the scoop before the other networks get it....inevitably, it leads to idiot politicians like Kevin DeLeon, and Dianne Feinstein, and Carolyn McCarthy, calling for all kinds of draconian legislation that infringes upon our right, as americans, to keep and bear arms..

And the gun crowd is there, shouting down any opposition to mass shootings.

NO, we're NOT shouting down opposition to mass shootings....we're shouting down your idiotic, and ineffectual ideas, that would do absolutely NOTHING to reduce instances of violence perpetrated with guns..

Why? Because they don't want them to stop. They want mass shootings every day, all day. Thinking that if they were there they could stop it. Or add to it ( I'm not really sure at this point ).

this bit is pure hyperbole, and i believe even strays into the territory of libel...

nobody here wants to see more murders...

More guns for everyone! All the while drowning pool is playing in the background.

you're disgusting.

Their fantasy of a first person shooter game come to life. Leaving broken lives in their reason, laughing at anyone who wants to stop it.

and i ask a FOURTH time....where are you getting this?

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's an honest question at this point. This is a serious problem in this country.

A serious problem that has only killed just over 900 people in the last SEVEN years. That's just under 130 people a year. So you said it yourself earlier that you cannot get these numbers to 0, so what is an acceptable threshold for you before you can agree to stop infringing on second amendment rights?

This group has trolled this issue so hard, that the ONLY conclusion is that my original premise is correct and that the pro gun crowd celebrates these mass shootings.

Every time one of these events happen, the idea is naturally "what can we do to stop this"

And the gun crowd is there, shouting down any opposition to mass shootings. Why? Because they don't want them to stop. They want mass shootings every day, all day. Thinking that if they were there they could stop it. Or add to it ( I'm not really sure at this point ).

More guns for everyone! All the while drowning pool is playing in the background.

Their fantasy of a first person shooter game come to life. Leaving broken lives in their reason, laughing at anyone who wants to stop it.

See this. THIS is why we are calling you a troll. This is called projection. You are projecting your ideas onto a group of people that have NEVER even HINTED that any of this is true. We keep demanding that you prove these accusations, but you just respond with more rhetoric and ignore the demands for evidence. None of us have projected an abhorrent dehumanizing position onto you, so WHY do you think it is ok to do to us? This is why you are a troll. You have no compassion for the other side, cannot see anything beyond your own opinion and have a closed mind. The fact that this thread has gone on for almost 40 pages and YOU are the only one disagreeing with 3 - 4 other people shows what all of this.

Why can't people understand that the gun laws/regulations are not there for Criminals OR defense from criminals. The politicians are trying to take your guns so that you can't fight back when martial law is implemented or a protest/revolution occurs. It's just another form of mass control.

a reply to: macman

Address 80% of the items posed to you, then we will talk.

Ok, let me go through this thread and address your posts: All quoted content will be from your posts in this thread agreed?

When will you post here about people killed by arson?
Or knives?
Or fists?

Because this isn't about arson, or knives, or fists, this is about people with guns.

When will you decry arson and go after the gas companies and gas stations?

Again, about guns, not arson, not gas companies, gas stations or any of that.

So, murders don't happen without firearms????

I never said murders didn't occur without firearms.

originally posted by: HauntWok


Nothing to see here, nothing to do here, all's fine, guess if they didn't wanna die they should have had bigger guns!

Care to show where this is stated?

NRA: ‘Only Way To Stop A Bad Guy With A Gun Is With A Good Guy With A Gun’

originally posted by: HauntWok

I don't know, maybe keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill might help.

And how to you do that?
Without violating the rights of people here in the US.

By identifying de-stigmatizing, and helping people with mental illnesses. Having people be comfortable going and getting help they need without feeling shamed for doing so.

How does the DoI come into play?
And what is this "second half" thing you speak of?

Take your pick of the hundreds of threads on ATS about the Declaration of Independence and how a lot of people want a violent revolution in this country.

I am of course talking about the second half of the second amendment, the only part that the pro gun crowd wants to use and they completely ignore the first half as if it doesn't exist. It's one sentence long.

And where on God's Green earth has anyone, except you and every other talking point parrot stated this give people a license to kill?

It doesn't but that doesn't stop a lot of people on the pro gun side from believing it does.

In addition, I LOVE it when you and other Progressives leave out that last half of the 2nd.
Can you please tell me what the missing 4 words are again????

I'll do one better, here's the whole thing:

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.

www.archives.gov...

The whole thing, so there is no confusion, it's one sentence long, not two separate sentences, one singular sentence, see that "well regulated Militia" bit? Yea, that's a part of it too.

Regulation is not infringement. Regulation is regulation period.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Then there's the problem of those that follow the NRA philosophy that "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

And what is the problem here?

I doubt a lot of gun nuts are as bad ass as they think they are.

He used a knife and a vehicle to kill people as well.
Where is your fake outrage for those killings?

Knives have utility beyond simply being a weapon of destruction, firearms are only a weapon of destruction, even in defense, they are only effective with the potential for destruction. You can create with a knife, you can create with a hammer, you can create (entertainment) with a baseball bat.

I ask again. When will you propose such infringements on other rights?

Regulation is not infringement.

You want to infringe and burden a free US citizen that wishes to exercise a Right, with a "mental evaluation" before they can purchase a firearm. Maybe this would be the same "mental evaluation" that is performed for Law Enforcement??

I would propose that some sort of mental health evaluation be conducted for people who have legal access to firearms. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Mother Jones as your source???

Not really my problem you have an issue with the source material.

They are declining. Why do you want people to give up more Rights?

No rights given up, no bans, just regulations implemented, as per the second amendment.

And again, which mental illness are you wanting prohibited from legally owning a firearm?

Well, how about schizophrenia? Bi Polar disorder?

www.foxnews.com...

And what law stops this from happening again?

Nothing can completely stop it, but we can reduce the frequency and severity of these things happening.

So, what say you. Care to actually address anything? Or will you just respond with items like the above, article talking in circles about mental health, identifying not one thing as to what within a mental illness will prohibit someone.
Or how about "Shall not be infringed"?

How about well regulated?

You have yet to define what mental illness will prohibit someone from owning a firearm.

I say that schizophrenia, and bi polar and ptsd are good indicators that someone shouldn't be owning a firearm.

You have yet to define what "shall not be infringed" means.

When you tell me what "well regulated" means, then I'll tell you what shall not be infringed means.

You have yet to explain why violence with any other weapon is okay with you.

I never said it was, but this thread is about gun violence, and not violence by any other means. I do have a problem with all violence, but we are on this subject right now, let's finish this candy bar before opening another thank you.

You have yet to explain why you are fine with violence period, so long as it isn't done with a firearm.

See, this is when you get into hyperbole and trolling.

You have yet to explain how a law limiting access to a group of people, will stop them from obtaining a firearm.

It will stop them from getting a gun legally, and most of these mass shootings were done by someone who bought a gun legally.

I assume you would leave that up to the Govt and Govt medicine to decide on.
DO you make any decision on your own?

Yes, I would want someone qualified to make that decision, not just some bureaucrat or random idiot.

I suppose that the Federalist Papers are a living document as well????

The idea that the constitution is a living document is that it changes with the times to reflect what is best for this republic today.

And what does any of those items have to do with your misunderstanding of the topic at hand?

I don't have any misunderstandings about the topic at hand, I have an obvious misunderstanding about why this violence is acceptable for some people because of a baseless fear of losing their ability to go on these rampages.

I hope that helps you macman

Was that roughly 80% or do you need more?

a reply to: HauntWok

gee, do you suppose you could go back, and address all of my replies to you that you ignored?

by the way...from this reply, i have learned:

you don't know what "well regulated" means, in the context in which it was used...english was a bit different back then..

You are a hypocrite... ("it's ok for me to do, but not you")

you are dishonest, and libelous.

you are biased toward lies, hyperbole, and big government.

you have a delusional world view.

i'm sure macman will be along shortly to address you....in the meantime, i await a reply to the posts you ignored...

originally posted by: HauntWok
This group has trolled this issue so hard, that the ONLY conclusion is that my original premise is correct and that the pro gun crowd celebrates these mass shootings.

I think it is fairly obvious who has been using over the top rhetoric and hyperbole. Only one person in thus thread has expressed a desire to see other human beings killed.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Ok, let me go through this thread and address your posts: All quoted content will be from your posts in this thread agreed?

Finally.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Because this isn't about arson, or knives, or fists, this is about people with guns.

It is about the mentally ill hurting others. You either want all instances of violence to be reduced, or not.
Your bias against firearms is blatant, and has clouded your judgment.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Again, about guns, not arson, not gas companies, gas stations or any of that.

Again, mental illness does not own firearm violence. Mental illness and violence is all encompassing. And to exclude the others is ignorant and again………biased due to your Progressive leanings.

originally posted by: HauntWok
I never said murders didn't occur without firearms.

That is great. SO……..you will only allow your bias to go after firearm violence.

originally posted by: HauntWok
NRA: ‘Only Way To Stop A Bad Guy With A Gun Is With A Good Guy With A Gun’

And with all of the reports out of Detroit alone, you still deny that people are able to stop violent attacks.
Look, if you don’t want to defend yourself, that is your choice. NOT one person here has stated you HAVE to own/carry a firearm. Yet, you wish to further infringe on people’s rights just so you feel safe.

originally posted by: HauntWok
By identifying de-stigmatizing, and helping people with mental illnesses. Having people be comfortable going and getting help they need without feeling shamed for doing so.

So, go forth and press for such things. No one is stopping you.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Take your pick of the hundreds of threads on ATS about the Declaration of Independence and how a lot of people want a violent revolution in this country.

Please show me some quotes on this. Otherwise, it is just your typical BS.

originally posted by: HauntWok
I am of course talking about the second half of the second amendment, the only part that the pro gun crowd wants to use and they completely ignore the first half as if it doesn't exist. It's one sentence long.

And we have already gone over this. Identified who the Militia is, that the control of the Militia when activated resides to the State and is under the control of Congress ONLY when the State hands over this control. It has been shown that you incorrectly read the statute.
And since you really DON’T want to include the last half, it seems you will never understand how the Full context reads.

originally posted by: HauntWok
It doesn't but that doesn't stop a lot of people on the pro gun side from believing it does.

Show me where this is. Aside from your fantasized belief.

originally posted by: HauntWok
I'll do one better, here's the whole thing:

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.

www.archives.gov...

The whole thing, so there is no confusion, it's one sentence long, not two separate sentences, one singular sentence, see that "well regulated Militia" bit? Yea, that's a part of it too.

And again…………..we have gone through this. Your explanation has been shown to be so incorrect, that telling me that birds live in outer-space is more correct.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Regulation is not infringement. Regulation is regulation period.

If regulation removes a Right, edits a Right, or stops a person from exercising a Right, it is in fact infringement.
That whole argument is about the oldest and lamest response out there.

originally posted by: HauntWok
I doubt a lot of gun nuts are as bad ass as they think they are.

And surely a Progressive Keyboard Commando is better?
But………it isn’t yours to judge now is it.
Since when do YOU get to decide life for others?
Oh I forgot, the Progressive thing.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Knives have utility beyond simply being a weapon of destruction, firearms are only a weapon of destruction, even in defense, they are only effective with the potential for destruction. You can create with a knife, you can create with a hammer, you can create (entertainment) with a baseball bat.

And this again. Regardless of the “multiple” different uses of an object, once it is used as a weapon, it is a weapon.
Your outrage is still fake, and biased.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Regulation is not infringement.

Oh but I thought regulation was the ability to stop people from owning certain firearms, types, mags, ammo, require certain items to own a firearm.
That is infringement. Any way your Progressive mind tries to twist it, it is infringement.

originally posted by: HauntWok
I would propose that some sort of mental health evaluation be conducted for people who have legal access to firearms. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

So, further infringement. No thanks.
It guarantees nothing.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Not really my problem you have an issue with the source material.

Well, seeing as you provided a source that is a known Socialist/Progressive Anti-2nd group, yeah there is a huge issue with your source.

originally posted by: HauntWok
No rights given up, no bans, just regulations implemented, as per the second amendment.

Regulation is infringement. There you go again, trying to redefine words and such. Aliksky style BS doesn’t fly here.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Well, how about schizophrenia? Bi Polar disorder?

Since people as a whole with these illnesses are not going on violent rampages, seems you just got an ax to grind with the mentally ill.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Nothing can completely stop it, but we can reduce the frequency and severity of these things happening.

What guarantee is there for any of your proposed solutions to reduce any violent act?

originally posted by: HauntWok
How about well regulated?

And we have gone over this again and again and again.


Continued..........

a reply to: HauntWok

originally posted by: HauntWok
I say that schizophrenia, and bi polar and ptsd are good indicators that someone shouldn't be owning a firearm.

Why, because you say so?
Those illness do not show to have violent rampages.

originally posted by: HauntWok
When you tell me what "well regulated" means, then I'll tell you what shall not be infringed means.

We have gone over this. Please go back and re-read statements by myself and many others here.

originally posted by: HauntWok
I never said it was, but this thread is about gun violence, and not violence by any other means. I do have a problem with all violence, but we are on this subject right now, let's finish this candy bar before opening another thank you.

The subject is the mentally ill and violence. Thanks

originally posted by: HauntWok
See, this is when you get into hyperbole and trolling.

Says the person shown by many others to be doing exactly that.

originally posted by: HauntWok
It will stop them from getting a gun legally, and most of these mass shootings were done by someone who bought a gun legally.

So, stopping someone from getting a firearm legally will stop someone from committing crime. Now that is a novel idea. Care to show me where that works?

originally posted by: HauntWok
Yes, I would want someone qualified to make that decision, not just some bureaucrat or random idiot.

So, the Govt would have no say as to what defines someone from not being able to legally purchase a firearm?

originally posted by: HauntWok
The idea that the constitution is a living document is that it changes with the times to reflect what is best for this republic today.

Oh how I love the Progressive mindset. Outcome based actions, subverting laws, making up crap as they go, redefining words to suite their stance.


[

originally posted by: HauntWok
I don't have any misunderstandings about the topic at hand, I have an obvious misunderstanding about why this violence is acceptable for some people because of a baseless fear of losing their ability to go on these rampages.

So, yet another Progressive tactic. Go research Beezers “Why do you hate Kittens” post.
Since I am not for further infringement, I am for mass killings. WOW, you really are grasping aren’t you.

originally posted by: HauntWok
I hope that helps you macman

It at least shows what you exactly are. A Progressive first, and whatever second.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Was that roughly 80% or do you need more?

More is always better. But hey……….it’s your choice.

a reply to: Daedalus

you don't know what "well regulated" means, in the context in which it was used...english was a bit different back then..

Ah I see, so we have to use 18th century understanding and definitions for this amendment? Ok, well, then here's your list of 18th century approved arms:

www.militaryfactory.com...

Since we cannot infringe on your right to bear arms, and we can't update to current terms of the wording, then absolutely, as you say, these are your arms approved by the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution as you want to define it.

Me, I would rather not ban any guns, (I personally like a .357 and a .30-30 Winchester), but hey, your rules I guess. Can't argue with that right? Only 18th century definitions allowed, and the above link is the arms available to people in the 18th century.

Darn, guess I lose this one huh?

a reply to: HauntWok

But wait.....I thought that the Constitution was a living breathing document that adjusted for the times???

Using your applied Progressive logic, the firearms of the times, is that adjustment.


Also, that whole infringem....er I mean "regulation" is okay for firearms, but not for regulating voting???

Man, it is ALWAYS different with you Progressives.

a reply to: macman

I'm just going by Daedalus, don't blame me, can't use anything other than 18th century understanding and definitions.

I guess that unless the constitution is a living document we have no choice than to go by 18th century terms and definitions right? That means it wouldn't be unconstitutional to ban every firearm except the above referenced ones as those were the armament of the 18th century.

Unless of course the constitution DOES change with the times, then I can see how it might be considered infringement to not allow weaponry other than black powder muzzle loading rifles and handguns.

a reply to: HauntWok

Since it states "Arms" and not specific Arms, your idea is dead in the water.

Try again?

a reply to: macman

Since it states "Arms" and not specific Arms, your idea is dead in the water.

Yes, it does say arms, and I listed the arms of that time.

a reply to: HauntWok

And again......."Arms".
Does not state Arms of the times. It states Arms.

The meaning of "Arms" of that period was arms...Not nukes, but Small Arms that are used by a military or a militia.

a reply to: macman

You cannot have it both ways, either the constitution is stagnant static and constant, where all definition is frozen in time, or it changes based on the time.

Which is it?

Either congress has the right to regulate and specify the arms proscribed to the militia, or only those in use at the time of the amendments adoption are acceptable by definition of the age.

originally posted by: HauntWok
You cannot have it both ways, either the constitution is stagnant static and constant, where all definition is frozen in time, or it changes based on the time.
Which is it?

Exactly what the Supreme Court determined it to be based on the sentiments of when the Constitution was written:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. Source