BREAKING>> Active Shooter Florida High School... Developing... Multiple victims...

[aligncare]

On the contrary, it is those hollering about new laws who are reacting emotionally.

Rational people understand that more laws, like the 'gun-free schools law', will never solve this problem.

Yep. Might as well call it the ‘sitting duck targets in school’ law.

I’d rather have the ‘we are armed and will shoot you dead if you come here intending student harm’ law

[INVAR]

This is not the time to meekly assume restrictions ARE coming, and start negotiating the terms of our surrender.

Tell that to Oceander and Jazzy - well, never mind Jazzy - he has been advocating the vigorous surrender of Rights to 'reasonable restrictions' that keep morphing into abolishment, criminalization and punishment since I've been on this board.

Now is the time to dig in to defend our position.

We are past the point of having any kind of reasonable discussion on the matter.

Defending our position at this point requires putting the fear of a kinetic response to tyrants who are stupid enough to do what these idiots like Jazzy are advocating.

The problem is not guns.  It's never been about the tools used to commit murder.  Rather the spiritual morass of evil our culture has created and celebrated for itself.  Mass murder is simply the consequence.  The problem's root is due a society that has discarded wholesale, God and His Laws that sustained and protected their forbears, replaced with a neo-morality using government-as-god based on self gratification and the basest impulses of human nature.

This kind of horror - we have brought upon ourselves - because we have rejected the Hedge that protected us from these evils.

And as these things continue to increase in frequency and intensity - instead of turning back to God - society hardens it's heart, showcases its hatred for those even suggesting what I just wrote and goes full-bore on attempting to eradicate rights and liberties in a vain and silly attempt to give themselves the illusion of safety and security.

Because I have called and you refused to listen,
have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
because you have ignored all my counsel
and would have none of my reproof,
I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when terror strikes you,
when terror strikes you like a storm
and your calamity comes like a whirlwind,
when distress and anguish come upon you.

Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer;
they will seek me diligently but will not find me.
Because they hated knowledge
and did not choose the fear of the LORD,
would have none of my counsel
and despised all my reproof,

therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way,
and have their fill of their own devices.

For the simple are killed by their turning away,
and the complacency of fools destroys them;

Proverbs 1: 24-32

[Lando Lincoln]

I understand the rational argument that we ought to participate in the discussion of new, "reasonable" gun control measures because... well... we will wake up one day and it will be done for us, without us, despite us. 

But, I don't subscribe to that thought. 

The end-point goal of the left is confiscation and banishment of guns.  For them, despite their platitudes, there is no point between here and there that will satisfy them.  The goal: confiscate, ban, and criminalize guns.  While they'd love to do it in one fell swoop, they will accept incremental steps in the process.  Theirs is a relentless and often silent process of taking a million steps to reach their goal; any goal actually.  They are patient and will exploit every mass murder event to ratchet up the rhetoric and to take one more baby step towards their end goal.

I will not do their bidding.  I will fight and resist every tiny incremental step they take along the way while trying to gain some of my own.  But, I sure as heck won't Neville Chamberlain this matter.  I will not.

[edpc]

I'm not sure I accept that.  The right to own property is the basis for all of our other rights.  Take that away and we have no real rights.  So, if something is legal and available, and you can afford it, you have a right to own it.  Taking it on the roads may be another issue.

Think about it for a moment, though.  You can buy a car, motorcycle, ATV - whatever, and not insure or tag it, then drive it all over your property without penalty.  Taking it on the road would be a violation of many laws.  There's no scenario where just owning the firearm wouldn't require registration and insurance under the previous proposal.  You can't penalize people for exercising a right.

[GtHawk]

Guns aren't responsible for violence.  But they sure do facilitate violence.   It's your right to protect your home and hearth by owning a gun (or guns).   But it is the community's right to demand that legal ownership include licensure, registration and insurance, just as everyone accepts with respect to cars.

And when that leads to more vehicular slaughter, because we just know registration will stop gun attacks. Or sick people use knives and machetes or propane tank bombs or fertilizer and other chemical bombs? You can't register and license away evil or mental illness no matter how many people's rights are infringed.

[Oceander]

Nope.  That was said after Columbine, your hero (I assume) even made a movie about it.  It's said after every tragedy like this by the ghouls who hope to use the blood of children to write new laws to further restrict the rights of people who didn't do the crime.

Go ahead and declare "victory" and "inevitable" all you like, I choose to...disagree.

The fact that you feel the need to demonize me, despite the fact that I am clearly not advocating for something like gun seizure, demonstrates the weakness of your position.

How many children are going to die because a mentally disturbed individual was able to legally purchase a fire arm?

If my daughter had been one of those killed, I can tell you right now that if you couldn’t come up with something better than “evil” and “what can you do”, then my solution would be to advocate for a complete ban on fire arms in civilian hands, period, and I’d be supporting an amendment to the Constituion to gut the second amendment as a dangerous anachronism that has no place in civilized society.

Don’t fool yourself.  Each school massacre creates more people who will ardently believe that way, and eventually there will be enough to make it happen. 

In fact, y’all are lucky that full autos like the Mac-10 were banned back in the 1980s, because if this kid and the one before him had used a full auto, and the death toll was in the hundreds, the Second Amendment would be gone.

[Restored]

Yeah just heard that on the radio news...

I'm not so sure I put much credence in a White Supremacist but there it is.

[DCPatriot]

I understand the rational argument that we ought to participate in the discussion of new, "reasonable" gun control measures because... well... we will wake up one day and it will be done for us, without us, despite us. 

But, I don't subscribe to that thought. 

The end-point goal of the left is confiscation and banishment of guns.  For them, despite their platitudes, there is no point between here and there that will satisfy them.  The goal: confiscate, ban, and criminalize guns.  While they'd love to do it in one fell swoop, they will accept incremental steps in the process.  Theirs is a relentless and often silent process of taking a million steps to reach their goal; any goal actually.  They are patient and will exploit every mass murder event to ratchet up the rhetoric and to take one more baby step towards their end goal.

I will not do their bidding.  I will fight and resist every tiny incremental step they take along the way while trying to gain some of my own.  But, I sure as heck won't Neville Chamberlain this matter.  I will not.

      

[driftdiver]

Guns aren't responsible for violence.  But they sure do facilitate violence.   It's your right to protect your home and hearth by owning a gun (or guns).   But it is the community's right to demand that legal ownership include licensure, registration and insurance, just as everyone accepts with respect to cars.

@Jazzhead
Name one society that did what you suggest and saw a decrease in violent crime.

Communities don't have rights.   States do, people do, communities dont.

[Oceander]

And when that leads to more vehicular slaughter, because we just know registration will stop gun attacks. Or sick people use knives and machetes or propane tank bombs or fertilizer and other chemical bombs? You can't register and license away evil or mental illness no matter how many people's rights are infringed.

That’s such a facetious point I’m surprised you would even bother to make it.  If this kid had been limited to a knife, 17 people, mostly kids, would not now be dead. 

[driftdiver]

The fact that you feel the need to demonize me, despite the fact that I am clearly not advocating for something like gun seizure, demonstrates the weakness of your position.

How many children are going to die because a mentally disturbed individual was able to legally purchase a fire arm?

If my daughter had been one of those killed, I can tell you right now that if you couldn’t come up with something better than “evil” and “what can you do”, then my solution would be to advocate for a complete ban on fire arms in civilian hands, period, and I’d be supporting an amendment to the Constituion to gut the second amendment as a dangerous anachronism that has no place in civilized society.

Don’t fool yourself.  Each school massacre creates more people who will ardently believe that way, and eventually there will be enough to make it happen. 

In fact, y’all are lucky that full autos like the Mac-10 were banned back in the 1980s, because if this kid and the one before him had used a full auto, and the death toll was in the hundreds, the Second Amendment would be gone.

@Oceander
What are you advocating for?   You still refuse to say.

BTW, Mac10s are horribly difficult to shoot accurately.  More than likely the death toll would have been lower.

Now if he had used a shotgun or bomb, or knife, then things could have been worse.

[Cyber Liberty]

The fact that you feel the need to demonize me, despite the fact that I am clearly not advocating for something like gun seizure, demonstrates the weakness of your position.

How many children are going to die because a mentally disturbed individual was able to legally purchase a fire arm?

If my daughter had been one of those killed, I can tell you right now that if you couldn’t come up with something better than “evil” and “what can you do”, then my solution would be to advocate for a complete ban on fire arms in civilian hands, period, and I’d be supporting an amendment to the Constituion to gut the second amendment as a dangerous anachronism that has no place in civilized society.

Don’t fool yourself.  Each school massacre creates more people who will ardently believe that way, and eventually there will be enough to make it happen. 

In fact, y’all are lucky that full autos like the Mac-10 were banned back in the 1980s, because if this kid and the one before him had used a full auto, and the death toll was in the hundreds, the Second Amendment would be gone.

Demonize you?  Is it really necessary to make it about you?

You and Jazz have convinced me that I need to fight harder than ever to keep you people away from my weapons.  If you say you don't want to seize them, then you are lying because you want to "register and insure" them.  What do you intend to do when I refuse?  Seize them. 

Start telling the truth about your intentions and you'll get more respect.

[Oceander]

I understand the rational argument that we ought to participate in the discussion of new, "reasonable" gun control measures because... well... we will wake up one day and it will be done for us, without us, despite us. 

But, I don't subscribe to that thought. 

The end-point goal of the left is confiscation and banishment of guns.  For them, despite their platitudes, there is no point between here and there that will satisfy them.  The goal: confiscate, ban, and criminalize guns.  While they'd love to do it in one fell swoop, they will accept incremental steps in the process.  Theirs is a relentless and often silent process of taking a million steps to reach their goal; any goal actually.  They are patient and will exploit every mass murder event to ratchet up the rhetoric and to take one more baby step towards their end goal.

I will not do their bidding.  I will fight and resist every tiny incremental step they take along the way while trying to gain some of my own.  But, I sure as heck won't Neville Chamberlain this matter.  I will not.

Then you have already conceded to them, because if gun owners do not constructively and creatively engage with the issue, there will be nobody to oppose the left when the school massacre that hits the tipping point takes place. 

You say you won’t give in to the left.  By refusing to see a problem that needs creative solutions, you already have. 

[driftdiver]

That’s such a facetious point I’m surprised you would even bother to make it.  If this kid had been limited to a knife, 17 people, mostly kids, would not now be dead.

@Oceander
Right the death toll would probably have been higher because it would have taken the kids longer to recognize the danger.  These kids were packed tightly together as in all schools.   

[INVAR]

But you can still choose to be a valuable part of the debate over how to restrict guns...Or you can, like INVAR, selfishly threaten to "start a war".   

As I will tell any and all advocates of tyranny - it's not a threat Jazzy - IT'S A PROMISE.

If you want to work to abolish in practicality, the Second Amendment and declare it a 'reasonable restriction' you go right ahead. 

You have absolutely no understanding or comprehension of what you will start. 

But I know for certain you will rue the day your ideas were actually attempted to be implemented.

[driftdiver]

Then you have already conceded to them, because if gun owners do not constructively and creatively engage with the issue, there will be nobody to oppose the left when the school massacre that hits the tipping point takes place. 

You say you won’t give in to the left.  By refusing to see a problem that needs creative solutions, you already have.

@Oceander
Gun owners have 'compromised' for decades.    You refuse to see the problem and are bending this issue to fit your agenda.

[driftdiver]

As I will tell any and all advocates of tyranny - it's not a threat Jazzy - IT'S A PROMISE.

If you want to work to abolish in practicality, the Second Amendment and declare it a 'reasonable restriction' you go right ahead. 

You have absolutely no understanding or comprehension of what you will start. 

But I know for certain you will rue the day your ideas were actually attempted to be implemented.

@INVAR
Its sadly ironic that people like him are more than happy to use the govts guns and govts violence to impose their version of safety on the population.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Jazzhead
Name one society that did what you suggest and saw a decrease in violent crime.

Communities don't have rights.   States do, people do, communities dont.

States don't either.  Sates and communities have authority, people, and only people have rights, and one of the most important is the right to defend ourselves.  Their protestations to the contrary, the ones counseling surrender on this thread wish to deny thee and me that right.

[txradioguy]

How about making big noise, that the FBI has had many/most of these perps "on the radar?"

We need a better LEO response when they are warned.

This tragedy could have been stopped a year ago...six months ago...hell even last week if someone had simply contacted the local Sheriffs department or police department. 

I mean the kid had been giving big enough signals on social media he was going to to something like this that even a blin man could have seen them.

And yet people remained silent.

[mystery-ak]

Florida school shooter belonged to white supremacist group, leader claims
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/374050-white-supremacist-group-leader-claims-florida-school-shooter-was

[Suppressed]

There was never any constitutional right to own a horse, wagon or any form of transportation.

The Constitution gives no power to Congress to ban those things.

  You can't compare something explicitly stated in the Constitution to something that's not.

I guess some of the Framers were right...the Bill of Rights would give some people the wrong idea that only enumerated rights exist.   

[Oceander]

@Oceander
Gun owners have 'compromised' for decades.    You refuse to see the problem and are bending this issue to fit your agenda.

Too bad.  You’re dealing with a very dangerous tool that can be easily used to create mayhem, as has been demonstrated once again.  More compromise is necessary because if gun owners cannot come up with a method for preventing mentally disturbed individuals from being able to legally buy fire arms and then go on a massacre like this, then they will lose their guns, period. 

There’s a reason why you can no longer own a full auto without special licensing.  The things are just too damned dangerous.  There’s a reason why you can’t go to Home Depot and buy a stick of dynamite to get rid of a tree stump:  it’s too damned dangerous. 

If gun owners cannot come up with a creative way of making sure that fire arms, period, are not considered to be too damned dangerous as well, they will lose them. 

[corbe]

Reality is Bad Enough

by Erick Erickson

<..snip..>

According to reporters, there have been 11 school shootings so far in 2018. In fact, some media outlets have reported there has been a mass shooting every two days since the beginning of 2018. But all that data is misleading. The data come from leftwing activist groups that have decided to alter the definition of “mass shooting” to boost the numbers.

Everytown for Gun Safety is one of those groups and has done the most to get reporters and supposedly objective journalists to use the altered data for propaganda purposes. As Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon notes, “This broad definition [of school shootings] places two separate suicides, a January 9 incident where a man shot a BB gun at a bus window resulting in no injuries; a January 10 incident where a student in a criminal justice club accidentally shot a peace officer's real gun at a target on a classroom wall instead of a training gun resulting in no injuries; a January 9 incident where gun shots were fired from somewhere outside of Cal State San Bernardino, which struck a building on campus without injuries; and other incidents next to the murder of a Winston-Salem State University student at a nightclub on the Wake Forest University campus, the January 22 shooting of a 15-year-old at a Dallas-area high school, and Tuesday's Marshall County High School shooting which left 2 dead and 18 others injured.”

https://www.themaven.net/theresurgent/erick-erickson/reality-is-bad-enough-H79v7Ywg00a0zYZr4nJJHQ

[driftdiver]

Too bad.  You’re dealing with a very dangerous tool that can be easily used to create mayhem, as has been demonstrated once again.  More compromise is necessary because if gun owners cannot come up with a method for preventing mentally disturbed individuals from being able to legally buy fire arms and then go on a massacre like this, then they will lose their guns, period. 

There’s a reason why you can no longer own a full auto without special licensing.  The things are just too damned dangerous.  There’s a reason why you can’t go to Home Depot and buy a stick of dynamite to get rid of a tree stump:  it’s too damned dangerous. 

If gun owners cannot come up with a creative way of making sure that fire arms, period, are not considered to be too damned dangerous as well, they will lose them.

@Oceander
You must have one of those Staples buttons, you press it and it says the same thing every time.

[txradioguy]

Just a little food for thought for you "common sense/register and insure" folks

Harvard study.
A study which was recently published by Harvard took a look at firearm ownership, gun laws and violent crime, and suicide rates around the world. The authors sought to answer the question would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?

The study, which was conducted by Don B. Kates, an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, a Canadian criminologist and university professor, offered a stark truth: More guns does not equal more deaths and less guns does not equal less deaths.

Kates and Mauser claim in the study that while some international comparisons have been viewed as evidence that more guns equals more deaths and therefore to reduce guns will reduce deaths, they indicate that some of these studies use inaccurate or misleading information to obtain the results.

According to the study, the so-called fact that the reason the murder rate is so high in the United States compared with other modern developed countries is due to the U.S. having uniquely easy access to guns, is simply not true. The study indicates those homicide rates are not an accurate representation and moreover, that those rates have nothing to do with the number of firearms in the country.

http://www.guns.com/2013/08/30/harvard-study-concludes-gun-control-prevent-murders-violent-crime/