You guys are all wrong. He was ISIS.
Think about it for a second - how could the police possibly have removed his gf as a suspect within 12 hours of the attack when she was on the other side of the planet?
We will find out tomorrow when she either does or does not get arrested at the airport. She very well might flee.
Incredibly sad situation. It is good to see a lot of people coming to others aid during and afterwards though. Donating blood, money, time, etc. Hopefully we can understand why this person did this. As always, its the person to blame. Perhaps we can see it coming before it happens again.
It is sad to see many try to gun grab, make ignorant statements, and have a severe disregard for human life, because they think they're conservatives.
From the CBS lawyer who didn't have any sympathy because they were conservatives, to CNN saying "its important to remember they're conservatives", as if that matters. They're people, husbands, wives, children, etc. But because they're conservatives, they deserved it? Pathetic. A narratives used on these forums before. If this happened at a rap concert, and the same things were said but reversed, the media would be on fire about this. As it is, they're part of it.
Hillary showing her complete ignorance again, and hypocrisy. If Dems want any chance again, she needs to go away.
People calling for more gun regulations, as if that would have helped in this situation. We have gun laws, some cities/states have very restrictive ones. The same people want more and more regulations on one right, but not the other. Guns versus voting, typical hypocrisy. As far as we know now, he had now criminal record, no record of mental issues, the two biggest factors in obtaining a gun. He had time and money as well. As has been seen before, nobody say this coming from him. There is no gun regulation that would have stopped this. Short of taking away all guns, which some people want. Which will never happen, and shouldn't happen.
And Trump would be all over it but nothing.
There is only two theories going about with high prevalence;
1. He’s crazy.
2. He’s ISIS.
btw, Both can be verified to be eventually true. The guy's plot was assumed to be a lot worse... 42+ guns... and pounds of explosives, etc.
I imagine we can agree that basis for laws and basis for foundation for a country may not be the same, but sit on the same platform. To ignore the common veins between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, given the time period, and what the country had just/was going through would be a bit silly.The declaration of independence is not the basis of our laws it was the basis for this country's foundation. There is a difference.
I will add one. Gun purchase also requires purchase of a safe or other device that prevents others from accessing said firearms in the home, with local law enforcement making available a list of all firearm owners to the general public.
The good guy with a gun scenario is a myth.
If you want to hunt, use a bow and arrow.
So wait, you state that everyone should ignore conversation about mental health, and how that's related to the fact that someone just opened fire on thousands of civilians, then go on to state that 'nothing can be done, we're fine with people dying', really? Who's steering away from issues here?The mental health question does not matter one bit.
Doesn't matter if the guy was crazy or what the motive was. Doesn't matter if it was a medical issue.
We're not going to go around and mandate mental health screenings for everyone.
The "mental health" angle is just a tool to redirect the issue away from guns.
*biased handwringing snipped*
People calling for more gun regulations, as if that would have helped in this situation
We have gun laws, some cities/states have very restrictive ones.
The same people want more and more regulations on one right, but not the other. Guns versus voting, typical hypocrisy.
As far as we know now, he had now criminal record, no record of mental issues, the two biggest factors in obtaining a gun.
There is no gun regulation that would have stopped this.
Short of taking away all guns, which some people want.
Which will never happen, and shouldn't happen.
I look forward to the day when our courts assert the well regulated intent of the 2nd amendment and prevent every tom, dick and harry from acquiring firearms they do not need and should never be made available to the general public.did you even put one second of intelligent thought into that bullshit before you posted?
So wait, you state that everyone should ignore conversation about mental health, and how that's related to the fact that someone just opened fire on thousands of civilians, then go on to state that 'nothing can be done, we're fine with people dying', really? Who's steering away from issues here?
That's an impressive level of disconnect you've got going on. You even assert that he may have been 'crazy', aka suffering from some kind of mental illness/deficiency, but then state that uncovering more information about that will not stop future shootings? The only thing that will, is restricting the rights of others? Well let's extend that further, I posit that murders will still happen if guns are banned, so let's ban people from leaving their homes, since that's clearly more effective than your measures.I am saying that the conversation on mental health will not mitigate the risk of mass shooting and gun violence. That finding out he was crazy or suffered from "condition X" will not bring 59 people back, nor will it un-f##k the lives of thousands of people impacted this. It will not stop the next mass shooting.
That debating mental health in this country is independent of of debating guns as a part of our society.
Like I said...discussing the mental health of this guy does not matter. It will not change anything.
I am also saying that we as a society have proven we are comfortable with mass shooting. That dozens of dead people are acceptable.
Finally, I did not say nothing can be done.
I implied that we will not do anything. We will not do anything because we choose not too.
That's an impressive level of disconnect you've got going on. You even assert that he may have been 'crazy', aka suffering from some kind of mental illness/deficiency, but then state that uncovering more information about that will not stop future shootings? The only thing that will, is restricting the rights of others? Well let's extend that further, I posit that murders will still happen if guns are banned, so let's ban people from leaving their homes, since that's clearly more effective than your measures.
Some state that something should be done, but because it's different from what *you* want to be done, it's unacceptable, shouldn't happen, and you posit nothing will change because we choose to do nothing. Remarkable.
I imagine we can agree that basis for laws and basis for foundation for a country may not be the same, but sit on the same platform. To ignore the common veins between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, given the time period, and what the country had just/was going through would be a bit silly.
Fair enough, you may not have been spooled up on various positions taken during the last 50 pages. Increased focus on mental health research has been brought up more than once (and not just by me) alongside some much needed societal concentration research, to make inroads into some of the urban firearm crime we have in more concentrated areas in the US. Most of this thread has been relatively civil, with (in my opinion at least) very few extremist positions of 'take all the guns' or 'fuck you they're my guns'. Most have taken at least an interest in middle grounds, through increased legislation toward specific law-skirting aspects of current gun ownership laws, as well as aforementioned increased focus on mental health issues.You must have had a rough time in this thread because you are making some assumptions on my position.
I on the other hand am late to the party and have not gotten all riled up.
Yes, it is too late at that point, but that's generally what the gun nutters (or at least, 2A supporters) wish to ensure they're at least somewhat prepared for, to have the capacity of resisting a despot/performing a successful liberation/insurrection, and re-establish the union. Guns can be held by law-abiding citizens, as it has been for the last 250-odd years.No we wouldn't agree. One was created after the other and setup in such a way as to prevent the former from happening again. A country ruled by those with guns and not the rule of law isn't a country, its anarchy. There is a reason the founding fathers setup the system it did and it was to ensure an orderly and slow process for which citizens can be ruled and actively participate in how they are ruled.
If an armed insurrection is the only thing left to save us then its already too late.
A public database to facilitate robbery AND disarmament. Super.I will add one. Gun purchase also requires purchase of a safe or other device that prevents others from accessing said firearms in the home, with local law enforcement making available a list of all firearm owners to the general public.
The good guy with a gun scenario is a myth.
If you want to hunt, use a bow and arrow.
I imagine we can agree that basis for laws and basis for foundation for a country may not be the same, but sit on the same platform. To ignore the common veins between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, given the time period, and what the country had just/was going through would be a bit silly.
Well, Trump is in the Whitehouse, so clearly it is.[idiot]I'd argue that voting is FAR more dangerous than gun ownership. I mean we almost had Hilary in the White House![/idiot]
A public database to facilitate robbery AND disarmament. Super.
Yes, it is too late at that point, but that's generally what the gun nutters (or at least, 2A supporters) wish to ensure they're at least somewhat prepared for, to have the capacity of resisting a despot/performing a successful liberation/insurrection, and re-establish the union. Guns can be held by law-abiding citizens, as it has been for the last 250-odd years.
Yeah, the founding fathers set up a super awesome process for rulership (I prefer representation) within the union, but they also established that everyone's allowed to have a present-era weapon in hand. What does that tell you?
RT is reporting this, FVIR is another notorious RT reader.
And now we have 100 years of precedent stating that it does, and that's more recent.As I've explained to you before, the 2nd amendment has only recently been interpreted to mean an individual has the right to bear arms. We have over 150 years of supreme court precedent that says the 2nd was to ensure states had the right to arm their militias. So I disagree with your premise entirely.
As I've explained to you before, the 2nd amendment has only recently been interpreted to mean an individual has the right to bear arms. We have over 150 years of supreme court precedent that says the 2nd was to ensure states had the right to arm their militias. So I disagree with your premise entirely.