Active shooter reported at Texas elementary school

a reply to: face23785

Ok. You think like a Progressive and have the correct talking points. Laws have been passed to destroy our Constitution giving the Federal Government more control. Look up Enumerated Powers. The whole reason the Constitution was designed as it was is to control the Federal Government and overreach.

Also check out the 10th Amendment. A perfect example is medical marijuana. It is a federal crime but states have legalized it. There are certain things the government should NOT be allowed to intervene in.

a reply to: matafuchs

If you really think these gun lobby groups or the NRA give a damn about the constitution you're living in a dream world!

All these people care about is money. They're using the constitution as an excuse to push back on reforms that would damage their balance sheets.

The fact that profits come before peoples lives for these people is pretty disgusting. But that's the far right in a nut shell.

Where were all the constitution lovers when Donald Trump banned Muslims from entering the US? They went missing for that i guess.

a reply to: research100

Funny, the gal Molly from The Federalist just mentioned that last night on Tucker. She claimed the exact opposite of your claim here.

Dozens of "gun control" laws are broken every time one of these events take place.

You have not made a persuasive case that gun control laws work.

a reply to: jamespond

The NRA is a non-profit org. They do not sell guns. They actually teach responsible gun use and training.

The Muslim ban? Way to bring 45 to the table.

So cops chased him into the school... but waited outside for an hour before confronting the gunman?

www.msn.com...
Lt. Christopher Olivarez of the Department of Public Safety told CNN that the school security officer outside was armed and that initial reports said he and Ramos exchanged gunfire. ....
Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw said Wednesday that 40 minutes to an hour elapsed from when Ramos opened fire on the school security officer to when the tactical team shot him.

a reply to: matafuchs

They also report spending over 3 million a year for lobbying and to Politicians, with an unknown amount going to Pacs that also spend it on lobbying.

originally posted by: matafuchs
The NRA is a non-profit org. They do not sell guns. They actually teach responsible gun use and training.

The NRA doesn't give a **** about your rights or anything else for that matter, they are a lobbying organization for firearms manufacturers.

Mind Control Technology.

Try to read the whole article with an open mind.

multidimensionalconsciousness.wordpress.com... -circumventing-mind-control-part-i-mohsen-paul-sarfarazi-ph-d/

a reply to: matafuchs

The NRA is a non-profit org. They do not sell guns. They actually The NRA is a non-profit org. They do not sell guns. They actually teach responsible gun use and training.
and training.

Great!
This Ramos guy seemed pretty proficient at killing even without training. Do you think a course in " responsible gun use" would have changed the outcome of Monday's events?

You are all so funny with your hate of the NRA. Like they are the problem. You Progressives are a funny bunch.

Lobbying? I would worry more about big pharma than the NRA. What have they gotten passed?
Proficient killer? The NRA denounces mass shootings and after many has lobbied for armed security in schools. No one wanted that and with de-funding the police in the last 10 years there are no funds to protect our kids.

The school shooting is a mental health issue and it lays at the feet of his parents and the people he was in contact with that did not get this asshat the help he needed.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: matafuchs

The NRA is a non-profit org. They do not sell guns. They actually The NRA is a non-profit org. They do not sell guns. They actually teach responsible gun use and training.
and training.

Great!
This Ramos guy seemed pretty proficient at killing even without training. Do you think a course in " responsible gun use" would have changed the outcome of Monday's events?

Probably not. In thinking about this, the kid was poor. He worked at Wendy's and saved up $4000 according to random internet rumors. (no idea if this is true) and instead of buying new cloths or saving for other things, he bought two high end weapons and do so legally. Almost exactly when he was legally allowed to.

If all of that is close to accurate, he had this kind of ending in mind for a while. I don't think anything could have stopped his will to do this.

But the entry into the school should have been impossible, and at the very least, those kids and teachers should be alive today. We can't go back in time and change things, but we can make GOD DAMN SURE that every school in the United states is secure, has single points of entry, and no other means of entry are possible. Yes it sucks horribly that we have to resort to this, but something is making people have zero cares for human life. Long before we try to legislate away guns, we need to understand what to do to fix that part. What could we do to teach kids how important life is? Or is life really not all that important?

a reply to: matafuchs

You are all so funny with your hate of the NRA. Like they are the problem. You Progressives are a funny bunch.

I didn't say that. I'm saying "training" wasn't the problem here. The guy was very proficient without any NRA training, that we know of. ...AND that " responsible gun use" training wouldn't have changed the outcome of Monday's event.

I'm not pointing fingers at the NRA, talking about the gun lobby, or David Hogg...

I'm merely saying that the NRA training isn't the issue here.

originally posted by: matafuchs
You are all so funny with your hate of the NRA.

The NRA is a joke, I wouldn't give them a penny, my local group is a million times better.

a reply to: matafuchs

The school shooting is a mental health issue and it lays at the feet of his parents and the people he was in contact with that did not get this asshat the help he needed.

Be careful with that talking point. It's a cop out. Red/yellow flag laws can be more dangerous than banning guns.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Great! This Ramos guy seemed pretty proficient at killing even without training.

being pretty much at point blank range, he wouldn't need to know much more than how to change the magazine and pull the trigger.

being in a say 30' x 30' (just a guesstimate) foot class room full of kids, is not like being 300 yards away, or people shooting back.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You do you as you always have.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It is a mental health issue not a cop out. If he could not get guns I am sure, with his cutting fetish, it would have been another weapon. There is a lot more coming out about the shooter and he was a nut case.

Red Flag laws are not the answer either. A disgruntled ex can cause you to lose all your weapons. That goes to the courts though.

It is about when a person you know is on the edge you do not turn the other way and that is society now. A person would rather film a shooter than use their phone to call for help.

Mental health all around.

a reply to: matafuchs

It is a mental health issue not a cop out.

It's a slippery slope. In California, where pot is legal, pot users who legally purchase the herb can't get a gun. By submitting your ID at the time of of purchase, you're automatically registered as "not right head" enough to own a firearm.

Suppose such a law extends to getting banned from Twitter for certain kinds of posts, or if a neighbor reports you for having a loud argument with a domestic partner or family member or neighbor? What if merely asking for mental health care from your insurance company, or being a member of Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous or Gamblers Anonymous disqualifies you?

What if being banned for firearm ownership was as easy as getting on a "No-Fly list"?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: matafuchs

It is a mental health issue not a cop out.

It's a slippery slope. In California, where pot is legal, pot users who legally purchase the herb can't get a gun. By submitting your ID at the time of of purchase, you're automatically registered as "not right head" enough to own a firearm.

Suppose such a law extends to getting banned from Twitter for certain kinds of posts, or if a neighbor reports you for having a loud argument with a domestic partner or family member or neighbor? What if merely asking for mental health care from your insurance company, or being a member of Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous or Gamblers Anonymous disqualifies you?

That’s simply untrue. There is no law that precludes one from owning a gun if they have legally purchased marijuana.

a reply to: NoMoreFools
You sure about that?

The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Federal Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 make it illegal for a person who fits into any of the following categories to ship, transport, receive or possess firearms or ammunition. These laws prevent a state from issuing a concealed carry license/permit as it would be illegal for people who fit in these categories, by federal law, to own or possess a gun.

Persons who have been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year
Fugitives from justice
Persons who are unlawful users of or are addicted to narcotics or any other controlled substances (including medical marijuana, see below)
Persons adjudicated as a mental defective or who have been committed to a mental institution (although relief may be available under the 2008 NICS Improvement Act)
Aliens illegally in the U.S.
Military veterans discharged under dishonorable conditions
Persons who have renounced U.S. citizenship
Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
Persons subject to a court order that restrains them from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, with limited exceptions, provided the court order:
was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.

www.usconcealedcarry.com...