Breaking- Church shooting in TX

[HomerJS]

Well, at least I never advocate anyone to punch, kick, use a baseball bat, etc. on anyone that dress or talk certain way like some of the posters here. (see the thread about the guy that dressed like a Nazi and being knocked out)

And who were the ones that advocate violence to settle any dispute again?

The current POTUS. He offered to pay their legal bills if arrested. Sets the tone for the country

 

[NAC4EV]

Good comeback

 

[brycejones]

Did my sig say anything about "violence" as you claimed I support? I am still waiting for any posts or threads that I support violence as you claimed in the other thread. Spin baby spin, Dig deeper. Desperation indeed.

No spin zone, your sig, sorry but a tajbot or felixthepussy clone is boring. Keep on keeping on

 

[Svnla]

No spin zone, your sig, sorry but a tajbot or felixthepussy clone is boring. Keep on keeping on

So nothing (posts or threads) to support your accusation. Typical. Digging deeper. Better luck next time.

Let see, the other moron is still unable to provide anything about the accusation of me as Trump supporter. LOL. Another one.

How sad and pathetic. Next.

 

[Paladin3]

I haven't asked you to justify the current gun laws in America, nor have you done so. You're participating in a thread which about yet another mass shooting in America. I would have thought the "why" was rather obvious, but apparently you don't.

You're not remotely interested in changing the gun laws, yet you keep straw-manning others' arguments into "they want to take away our guns", which means you're not interested in discussing others' viewpoints, only your own being "let's do nothing about gun control" or an extreme opposite (which you cannot possibly believe is the right thing to do), which as I said already, no developed country I'm aware of has implemented.

Don't claim that what you want is an end to evil/sick people using guns to hurt others while simultaneously advocating doing nothing, because that is just plain hypocrisy.



And?

All you've done here is consign yourself to a group of people on this forum who are only interested in talking about their own opinion. You've responded to me twice yet the only point of mine you've actually responded to is when I stated that I can do in the UK what you stated that most American gun-owners want to do yet mass shooting here are rare, and your general opinion appears to be, "but it should be easier" with no practical justification as to why.



Now to use your own straw-man argument against you:



Not to mention the fact that your latest post makes no sense: you advocated a number of measures which would restrict gun ownership for people who may be a risk to others, but as you say, there is no way to see into the future and tell us who will misuse a gun, then you go on to say that you're not willing to remove constitutional rights for any amount of perceived safety.

I also find it interesting that you used an expression "who have no business owning guns", yet your "business" for owning firearms is apparently "target practice and a bit of hunting", and don't forget: "FREEEDOMMMMMM!".

We enjoy a free society here in America. One of the rights guaranteed to citizens is the right to own firearms. We have a bunch of legal restrictions on that already. I'm saying that further restricting gun ownership, enough to actually accomplish an end to mass shootings, would not stand up to a Second Amendment challenge because it would have to involve basically banning all civilian ownership in one way or another. Nothing less has a chance of working because it would only put restrictions on law abiding gun owners who aren't the problem.

But that doesn't mean I advocate doing nothing. We have a clearly defined process by which a persons violent actions or mental state can result in a judge removing their rights to have guns. It works okay, but we could implement it much better, especially by the Air Force as shown by their failure to report the Texas church shooter to the FBI database.

And please stop lying. What I said was: "I'm not willing to give up our free society where we don't remove Constitutional rights from our citizens until they give us sufficient legal reason to do so. Not for any amount of perceived safety." We don't strip our citizens of their Constitutional rights here in America until they do something wrong to legally justify doing so, no mater how safe it makes you feel, got it?

Or just write FREEEEEEDOMMMMMMM again if that's all you've got.

 

[brycejones]

So nothing (posts or threads) to support your accusation. Typical. Digging deeper. Better luck next time.

Let see, the other moron is still unable to provide anything about the accusation of me as Trump supporter. LOL. Another one.

How sad and pathetic. Next.

Meh you can do better

 

[Paladin3]

Getting back on topic here this guy clearly should've been dishonorably discharged which is an automatic felony not to mention the fact that he had pending sexual assault charges on him when he committed this crime.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/devin-patrick-kelley-texas-church-shooting-massacre-sex-assault-case/

He was found guilty of basically beating his wife and child (he cracked his kid's skull) by a military court and spent a year it jail, followed by a conduct unbecoming discharge. That's the equivalent of a felony in a civilian court and the Air Force should have reported him to the FBI database of felons who have had their gun rights revoked.

The Air Force has already admitted fault for failing to do so, and that's how he was able to pass a firearms background check. I also read somewhere this might not be an isolate problem and failure to report military convictions to the FBI database could be a widespread problem.

I wish we took gun rights more seriously and did a better job of identifying the violent and mentally ill to remove their firearms. We tend to love our rights and forget about the associated responsibilities.

 

[soundforbjt]

He was found guilty of basically beating his wife and child (he cracked his kid's skull) by a military court and spent a year it jail, followed by a conduct unbecoming discharge. That's the equivalent of a felony in a civilian court and the Air Force should have reported him to the FBI database of felons who have had their gun rights revoked.

The Air Force has already admitted fault for failing to do so, and that's how he was able to pass a firearms background check. I also read somewhere this might not be an isolate problem and failure to report military convictions to the FBI database could be a widespread problem.

I wish we took gun rights more seriously and did a better job of identifying the violent and mentally ill to remove their firearms. We tend to love our rights and forget about the associated responsibilities.

Unfortunately Trump said extreme vetting wouldn’t have made any difference here.

 

[Paladin3]

No.

We stop this from happening by eliminating guns from the equation, not by Monday morning quarterbacking all the checks and laws and things that should have happened.

The United States is the only developed westernized nation with a mass shooting epidemic because there are quite simply too many guns.

You have an industry exploiting a misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment to essentially support a fetish.

I hope your fetish is worth the body count.

Well, all you have to do is get sufficient voters to agree with you and change the 2nd Amendment. Then figure out some way to seize all those guns. That's how it works in a democracy.

Don't forget, 99.9%+ of guns in America never hurt a single person. But please continue to judge all gun owners by the actions of a tiny, tiny few.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

But please continue to judge all gun owners by the actions of a tiny, tiny few.

It worked pretty well for african-americans for decades, and it's working pretty good for middle-easterners right now I guess, so why not?

 

[HumblePie]

Okay, there is no loophole in existing law, but a discrepancy written into the law that allows many sales to not be subject to background checks.

No discrepancy.

The original law requiring background checks as originated in 1993 was never meant to apply to anyone other than those that sell firearms for a profit and thus must require a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to sell firearms for a profit and or to sell firearms regularly.

The FFL was originally introduced in 1968 to keep track of firearm retail sales. Never used sales between private parties. In 1993, a law was introduced to make all FFL holders have prospective buyers fill out a form 4473 and call the FBI for a National Instant Criminal System (NICS) background check.

There was no loophole. There was no discrepancy. There was never a law, nor an intent to force background checks on all sales previously at all. The call for Universal background checks are a new thing. It is not something I am opposed to at all. However, I do find it dumb when people are trying to fear monger by calling it a "loophole" as if it is something wrong, shady, or borderline illegal.

Want a new Universal Background Checks law? Sure. Fine with it. But call out for what it is in clear language. Don't try to convince others that there should be a universal background check law because there is a "gunshow loophole" that allows "criminals" to buy guns through a "loophole" in the law. That sort of nonsense is just trying to use the fear of idiots with a gunphobia.

 

[Paladin3]

Unfortunately Trump said extreme vetting wouldn’t have made any difference here.

Please don't confuse the blathering of that idiot in the White House with anything I might have to say. I know it's sometimes hard to tell one idiot from the other 😉.

All the Air Force had to do was report his conviction to the FBI and his gun ownership rights would have been revoked, making it impossible to pass a firearms background check. That wouldn't have made it impossible for him to get a weapon from somewhere else illegally, but it would have been a damn good start.

 

[bradly1101]

that allows "criminals" to buy guns

That still happens, no matter what we call it or its history. Semantics is just a way to get lost in the weeds. I'm glad you also agree that we could be smarter about all this.

 

[Paladin3]

It worked pretty well for african-americans for decades, and it's working pretty good for middle-easterners right now I guess, so why not?

I hope you aren't implying I judge groups of people negatively because of the negative actions of a few. Every person deserves respect and common human rights regardless of who they are. After that we need to judge folks based on their actions and the content of their character alone. I have and always will advocate for personal responsibility.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I hope you aren't implying I judge groups of people negatively because of the negative actions of a few. Every person deserves respect and common human rights regardless of who they are. After that we need to judge folks based on their actions and the content of their character alone. I have and always will advocate for personal responsibility.

Nah, was making a snarky comment about generalizing groups based on the actions of a few, it's fun to draw iffy correlations between gun control mentality and racism, even if it's just minor trolling.

 

[Paladin3]

But I believe that these mass shootings tend to be a single location with either the shooter taking their own life or being shot down. And by a pretty wide margin, no?

It's a pointless argument, but hopefully we can all agree that it would have been great to have an armed civilian inside the church when the shooter walked in and started killing. The ability to shoot back is always better than waiting to die.

 

[Paladin3]

Well, at least I never advocate anyone to punch, kick, use a baseball bat, etc. on anyone that dress or talk certain way like some of the posters here. (see the thread about the guy that dressed like a Nazi and being knocked out)

And who were the ones that advocate violence to settle any dispute again?

Agreed. Violence should always be a last resort, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be ready to use violence if forced to do so in self-defense.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

It's a pointless argument, but hopefully we can all agree that it would have been great to have an armed civilian inside the church when the shooter walked in and started killing. The ability to shoot back is always better than waiting to die.

I'm fairly certain we won't all agree on that.

 

[Paladin3]

Nah, was making a snarky comment about generalizing groups based on the actions of a few, it's fun to draw iffy correlations between gun control mentality and racism, even if it's just minor trolling.

Sadly, you aren't completely wrong. The attitudes of some of the fellow gun owners I've met over the years is downright embarrassing. Granted it's only been a tiny few, but even a few is too many.

I'm going to be 50 next year and I'll be glad when the racist and sexist attitudes many folks in my and previous generations grew up with die off. It'd be nice to see future generations do better than we did when it comes to treating each individual according to the content of their character like MLK dreamed of.

 

[Paladin3]

I'm fairly certain we won't all agree on that.

Anyone claiming they would rather die than have a gun to defend themselves from a shooter is either lying or insane.

 

[soundforbjt]

Sadly, you aren't completely wrong. The attitudes of some of the fellow gun owners I've met over the years is downright embarrassing. Granted it's only been a tiny few, but even a few is too many.

I'm going to be 50 next year and I'll be glad when the racist and sexist attitudes many folks in my and previous generations grew up with die off. It'd be nice to see future generations do better than we did when it comes to treating each individual according to the content of their character like MLK dreamed of.

Some of the “gun-nutters” could be compared to drug addicts. Those are the one I worry about, not hunters.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Anyone claiming they would rather die than have a gun to defend themselves from a shooter is either lying or insane.

I think you'll find most that disagree would find it absurd to accept that their existence and ability to do every single minor thing in their day to day lives should require armed protection. Your argument there is just silly.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I think you'll find most that disagree would find it absurd to accept that their existence and ability to do every single minor thing in their day to day lives should require armed protection. Your argument there is just silly.

well now you're just talking like an insane person, stop being insane.

 

[jackstar7]

Meh you can do better

*Citation needed

 

[Paladin3]

The current POTUS. He offered to pay their legal bills if arrested. Sets the tone for the country

It scares the poop out of me that anyone looks to that man for guidance. We'd have better luck using him as an example of what not to do. Even on the rare occasion I agree with him in principle his solutions to problems are always failboat.