Latest On Sunday's Joel Osteen Megachurch Mass Shooter

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheValeyard
a reply to: chr0naut


It's Texas.
I could buy an AK from my friend the next town over for a couple pesos.
My 80 something Texas grandma has like 7 rifles and 3 pistols.
Everyone has extra guns and you can get em cheap with no background check.
Then there's people who 3D print em.

That's like arguing that Fentanyl is cheap and you can get it everywhere.

As Porkchop has stated, those guns purchased without background check are supposed to be illegal.

Gun stores run backgrounds through NCIS.
If you buy a gun at a gun show from a private seller then no background is required by the seller.
99% of traced crime guns were initially obtained from a dealer, pawnbroker, or gun manufacturer
usafacts.org...

a reply to: CarlLaFong


What kind of gender fluid?
I usually go with Valvoline 10-30 for spring and summer.

Edit - I used to use 5-30 year round but this way I seem to get better mileage, and the gender swap valves sound cleaner.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

The issue is the problem with numerous and constant gun-related deaths but the US political system is historically incapable of dealing with, when the solutions are trivial, and have been proven out, in much of the known world.

You're trying to make it political. "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The 2nd Amendment does not start with an ellipsis.

Sentences have meaning between the initial capital and the period at the end. Legal paragraphs, even more so. You can't pick out words or omit stuff, otherwise you could justify that the seventh commandment says "thou shalt commit adultery".

Hint: The 2nd refers to 'militia' and also to defence of 'state'. They aren't just meaningless weasel-words but are part of the meaning of the whole. Any interpretation that does not encompass those words, is not valid.

If deaths are your concern, firearms aren't the problem.

Sure they are - absolutely - without question.

Yet it remains clear what is your concern. That being the subversion of rights of people in favor of giving government more power over them.

Since the birth of your nation, the 2nd has been incapable of protecting the rights of the people from tyranny. The numerous uprisings, government overreach, direct nullification of civil rights, incarceration of those not guilty of crimes, long and arduous incarcerations of people guilty of very minor crimes, the wars (including the civil war), and frequent times soldiers have been pressed into military service, are ample evidences of that - it couldn't be any more futile in that regard!

You can't even suggest that the country with the most massive incarcerated population on the planet has some handle on liberty! What a joke!

The US Constitution was formulated for, and supported both the slavery of, and the genocide of, its civilians.

Right from the outset of the nation it has been, and is now, extreme tyranny for its poor, its homeless, slaves (back then) and former slaves (now), and its native first nations inhabitants.

The 2nd has, however, led to the very-many mass shootings of innocents, the shooting of civil rights proponents, a culture of crime with firearms, and even to the assassination of Presidents, and still your political system can't act on it? This is the same legislation that is provably historically incapable of preventing tyranny.

If the 2nd had not been written, more Americans would have lived in the perfect union, justice, domestic tranquillity, common defence, general welfare, and liberty espoused in its preamble.

When you finally come to that realization, you just may understand how clownish you come across.

You claim rights that you don't have (look at all your gun laws), and that don't do what you claim they do.

Name calling does not even seem appropriate.

a reply to: chr0naut

The 2nd Amendment does not start with an ellipsis. Sentences have meaning between the initial capital and the period at the end. Legal paragraphs, even more so. You can't pick out words or omit stuff, otherwise you could justify that the seventh commandment says "thou shalt commit adultery".

Was it confusing for you to understand what an "operative clause" is?

That being the pertinent part of the amendment that specifically, so much so that the word infringe only appears once in the Constitution, states the government cannot make rules, laws, acts or anything else against the peoples right.


The rest of your comment is the epitome of garbage. Not only the logic but the outright lies used to reinforce the garbage.



You're a demonstrable authoritarian.

And it's only you left who disagrees....

LATEST...

Shooter was pro-Palestine/Hamas, anti-Semitic, NAZI.

Genesse Moreno’s neighbours say that she intimidated them with guns and Nazi salutes
The Lakewood Church shooter reportedly terrorized her neighbours for years before she opened fire inside Joel Osteen’s megachurch on Sunday.

“Her way of intimidation was to bring the gun cases in and out, crossbows. She’d come out, have her gun cases, do heil Hitler, flip you off, call you the b-word, or something. It was something every day,” one neighbour told KPRC, a Houston TV news station.

Another neighbour said Moreno had scrawled swastikas on her property and taunted her and her grandchildren multiple times.
www.independent.co.uk...

a reply to: CarlLaFong

So a typical leftist...

-------------------------------

Its funny how some in this thread complain about gun proliferation even though that saved lived.

Most churches around the country dont have trained armed people standing guard.

he probably expected to have free rain killing till the cops arrived.

*shrugs* but yea lets keep playing that inanimate object made them do it.

Not a mentally ill person did a horrific act.

People are strange... excusing the horrible actions to try and gain imaginary political points.

Some of yall need some perspective... jesus... common sense something.

a reply to: Irishhaf

It's never been more clear that the far Left is the home of Jew-hating NAZIs.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Was it confusing for you to understand what an "operative clause" is?

That being the pertinent part of the amendment that specifically, so much so that the word infringe only appears once in the Constitution, states the government cannot make rules, laws, acts or anything else against the peoples right.

The whole of the 2nd is a single clause, in fact also a single sentence. It isn't even sub-divided into sub-clauses.

But, as it isn't part of preamble, it is operative. All of it.

The rest of your comment is the epitome of garbage. Not only the logic but the outright lies used to reinforce the garbage.

You're a demonstrable authoritarian.

Because I disagree with US authorities, that you admire?

LOL

And it's only you left who disagrees....

I am centrist. I disavow communism, big ivory-tower government, and excess political control.

I favour capitalism, and highly citizen-participatory (representational) small government. Participation in government should go beyond the occasional election and be a mandatory requirement of all able citizens (otherwise, a faction takes control).

I also believe that the administration has a duty to its constituency, its allies, and guests to ensure the common good, that it must encompass good stewardship of resources (natural, civil and economic), and that it must be compassionate towards those at the lower end of the scale of health, wealth, welfare and housing. That compassion must be evidenced in budgetary and policy outcomes to be seen as legitimate.

So, not really a left-winger or a right-winger. I think the dichotomy gets in the way of good governance. Just look at current governments mired in partisanship and in-fighting, who cannot move on pertinent matters in a timely way.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TheValeyard
a reply to: chr0naut

It's Texas.
I could buy an AK from my friend the next town over for a couple pesos.
My 80 something Texas grandma has like 7 rifles and 3 pistols.
Everyone has extra guns and you can get em cheap with no background check.
Then there's people who 3D print em.

That's like arguing that Fentanyl is cheap and you can get it everywhere.

As Porkchop has stated, those guns purchased without background check are supposed to be illegal.

Gun stores run backgrounds through NCIS.
If you buy a gun at a gun show from a private seller then no background is required by the seller.
99% of traced crime guns were initially obtained from a dealer, pawnbroker, or gun manufacturer
usafacts.org...

Oh dear!

99%

The gun lobby has a lot blood on their hands, eh?

a reply to: chr0naut

The whole of the 2nd is a single clause, in fact also a single sentence. It isn't even sub-divided into sub-clauses.

But, as it isn't part of preamble, it is operative. All of it.

How many SCOTUS decisions do you require to be proven incorrect?

I am centrist. I disavow communism, big ivory-tower government, and excess political control.

Were that true, you wouldn't be a proponent of removing people's civil rights, nor would you condone a mandated vaccine.....

Like I said, when/if you come to the realization of what you advocate for, you'll throw up on your clown shoes.

a reply to: JinMI

And, have you noticed, the American President is supposed to uphold the law, but they can just pardon whomever they please, and for whatever reason they please. No judge, no jury, no prosecution and defence, and no evidence presented

- People who have been convicted and found guilty of crimes in a court of law.

Totally not government corruption.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

The whole of the 2nd is a single clause, in fact also a single sentence. It isn't even sub-divided into sub-clauses.

But, as it isn't part of preamble, it is operative. All of it.

How many SCOTUS decisions do you require to be proven incorrect?

I am centrist. I disavow communism, big ivory-tower government, and excess political control.

Were that true, you wouldn't be a proponent of removing people's civil rights, nor would you condone a mandated vaccine.....

I didn't condone it. I understood the reason they wanted to do it, but I was neutral on the matter, because I would prefer choice and better education.

Like I said, when/if you come to the realization of what you advocate for, you'll throw up on your clown shoes.

Those who you accuse of wanting power during the pandemic, have nearly all left office now, with several of them standing down voluntarily, and leaving politics entirely (like the PM of New Zealand did).

Keep bleating out how we are sheeple.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: chr0naut

Ah , Allegedly David Slew Goliath with a Rock . Then there's that ...

He allegedly used a sling.

a reply to: chr0naut

Guns also have a plethora of benign uses, what is your point?

I am not suggesting anything, I am simply stating that people have been killing each other for thousands of years before guns came on the scene. Guns are just another tool that has been added to a long list of things people use to kill each other.

The simple fact that it is the only one that is constantly gone after by the government should tell you everything you need to know about that. An unarmed populous is a heard waiting to be slaughtered.

a reply to: chr0naut

Your link is a nothing burger posted by someone who knows nothing of gun laws in the US besides what they read on the internet. Living and breathing it every day lets you see the interwinding's of the law and how they are used for and against us.

Constitutional carry, look it up.

You did not answer my question. "What are your laws down there like for illegal gun possession? Nice jail time? Heavy fine?"

Us court systems have a tendency to let these people go, then wonder why they go back out and do the same damn thing every other day. They perpetuate the cycle but want to say it's a gun problem.

I've said it once and I will say it a million times, the US does not have a gun problem. We have a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem. And, until we start treating it as such, nothing will get any better.



The only reason I am asking you is that you want to focus on the gun being the issue when it's really not. Guns have bene around for hundreds of years and, only within the last 30 years, have they really become a "problem". Why is that? Did the guns change? Sure. Did the people change? Absolutely. Did the times, economy, political entities, and everything else change? You bet your ass.


Guns have been around longer than you or I. Why are we just now focusing on the guns when the guns have always been here? Could it be that people like you are just trying to sweep other things under the rug?

a reply to: chr0naut

If you are going to say I said something, at least be accurate with what I said.


We were talking about criminals buying guns in a private sale, not Tim buying an AK from Joe down the street.

That's like arguing that Fentanyl is cheap and you can get it everywhere.

False

Fentanyl is illegal, AKs are not. Care to make a legitimate argument?

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

Your link is a nothing burger posted by someone who knows nothing of gun laws in the US besides what they read on the internet. Living and breathing it every day lets you see the interwinding's of the law and how they are used for and against us.

The link in my previous post was to the 'New Zealand Law Courts' page regarding New Zealand gun law charges.

It was in answer to your previous question about gun laws, and how they are prosecuted, here.

It was not commentary on US laws.

You need to read and probably take a moment to comprehend what what you are reading, rather than to listen to the voices in your head, otherwise, you might appear to be a little silly (if you ask a specific question, are given a specific answer, but you don't seem willing or able understand what you read).

Constitutional carry, look it up.

In New Zealand, and in Australia, we do not have anything as stupid as the 2nd Amendment, we have completely separate Constitutions from the US one.

Neither country has "Constitutional carry", at all. It is irrelevant to mention it in regard to the situations in New Zealand and/or Australia.

New Zealand and Australia are sovereign nations with their own laws modelled on the Westminster legal system, but with their own separate laws and statutes applicable to the respective countries.

You did not answer my question. "What are your laws down there like for illegal gun possession? Nice jail time? Heavy fine?"

The link I provided previously answered your question fully.

It was a link to the New Zealand courts webpage that outlined the penalties under the law for a number of firearms offenses. It specifically answered your question, to the letter of the law.

Us court systems have a tendency to let these people go, then wonder why they go back out and do the same damn thing every other day. They perpetuate the cycle but want to say it's a gun problem.

I've said it once and I will say it a million times, the US does not have a gun problem. We have a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem. And, until we start treating it as such, nothing will get any better.

The only reason I am asking you is that you want to focus on the gun being the issue when it's really not. Guns have bene around for hundreds of years and, only within the last 30 years, have they really become a "problem". Why is that? Did the guns change? Sure. Did the people change? Absolutely. Did the times, economy, political entities, and everything else change? You bet your ass.

Guns have always been used to murder American civilians. America was born in revolutionary war, with guns and cannons. There was no time in American history where there was NOT a gun problem. As the population increased, so the problem increased, but the problem was there right from the outset.

Guns have been around longer than you or I. Why are we just now focusing on the guns when the guns have always been here? Could it be that people like you are just trying to sweep other things under the rug?

Drugs, murder, suicide and crime have all existed longer than you or I. What is the point you are trying to make?

That we should continue to do nothing?

Other countries have acted and those acts have been effective, and they are still free countries. Some would argue, much more free than yours:

Freedom Index by Country 2024

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

If you are going to say I said something, at least be accurate with what I said.

We were talking about criminals buying guns in a private sale, not Tim buying an AK from Joe down the street.

Either Tim or Joe could be criminals. In fact, if they were criminals, they are more likely to purchase firearms privately rather than go through the vetting process.

And criminals are not a different species. They are just normal people who have done, or intend, a criminal act. Good people become criminals when they cross the line.

That's like arguing that Fentanyl is cheap and you can get it everywhere.

False

Fentanyl is illegal, AKs are not. Care to make a legitimate argument?

No, Fentanyl is a controlled substance in the USA. It is legal in certain medical situations. Similarly, guns are not legal in some circumstances in the US.

As an argument, cheapness and proliferation are not useful in solving the firearm murder, maiming, accident and suicide statistics.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

Guns also have a plethora of benign uses, what is your point?

Name a benign use other than sports target shooting.

They really aren't that useful, especially for benign things.

I am not suggesting anything, I am simply stating that people have been killing each other for thousands of years before guns came on the scene. Guns are just another tool that has been added to a long list of things people use to kill each other.

The simple fact that it is the only one that is constantly gone after by the government should tell you everything you need to know about that. An unarmed populous is a heard waiting to be slaughtered.

The government has resources to murder its entire population regardless of the population having guns.

They have chemical, biological, nuclear and conventional weapons that can be deployed over the horizon or remotely. They have superior armour and superior firepower. They could blockade people and starve or them or cut water supplies, cut roads, block tunnels, knock aircraft out of the sky, and down bridges. Guns are irrelevant if they wanted to enslave or kill.

The thing is, most modern countries are governed by their constituents. That is far more protective of liberty. If you don't elect or allow those types of lunatics to gain that level of control, they never will. That is why you have government structures, democracy, separation of powers and alternatives. After the fact, however, is too late.

a reply to: chr0naut

Was I talking about constitutional carry in either of those places? No


But, with your link you prove my point. Down there, illegal possession and use of firearms is actually punished.

The laws here are used as more of a "guideline" to slap people on the wrist and let them back out. Unless you have been a law abiding citizen your entire life and you screw up one time, then they are used to throw the book at you and make an example out of you.

Guns have been around a lot longer than the US, there are plenty of other countries that have stricter gun laws than ours and still have a "gun problem". Gun problems do not exist, they are a figment of your delusional mind that give you a reason to try and disarm a populous so that you may better control and manipulate them.

Drugs, murder, suicide and crime have all existed longer than you or I. What is the point you are trying to make?

You seem to think you are such a smart fella, I shouldn't have to explain such a simple concept to you. But, if I do, I will gladly explain it.