Things that made you frown today (Political Version)

[cwolff]

It's very possible that if we had done something meaningful after Columbine, or Aurora, or Sandy Hook, or Vegas, or any other major public massacre the Florida shooting wouldn't have happened and those 17 young people would still be able to live out the rest of their lives.

We can't do anything. The culture wars are too hot for reason or empathy. One week ago GOP reps in Colorado voted in a straight party line vote to keep bump stocks legal here. They're protecting bump stocks. That IMO is nuts.

[Wrathbringer]

It's very possible that if we had done something meaningful after Columbine, or Aurora, or Sandy Hook, or Vegas, or any other major public massacre the Florida shooting wouldn't have happened and those 17 young people would still be able to live out the rest of their lives.

Not possible. You're dreaming.

[Gelston]

Why do you keep making this personal?

It isn't personal. You are saying stupid shit.

[Wrathbringer]

It isn't personal. You are saying stupid shit.

This is correct.

[Parkbandit]

It's very possible that if we had done something meaningful after Columbine, or Aurora, or Sandy Hook, or Vegas, or any other major public massacre the Florida shooting wouldn't have happened and those 17 young people would still be able to live out the rest of their lives.

Like what? Like what exactly would Backlash do that would have prevented the Florida shooting after Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook or Vegas? Be specific Backlash.. just don't say "Something, anything" like you usually do.

I have an idea: If the dozen or so reports to the police department from different people, INCLUDING THE FUCKING SHOOTER HIMSELF, were actually acted upon... maybe that Florida shooting wouldn't have happened.

This isn't about gun violence. This isn't about schools being a soft target. This isn't a 2nd amendment rights deal. This is about our government completely FAILING to do the job they were supposed to do.

If, as citizens, we did our part of "See Something, Say Something" and specifically identified this kid as a threat... and even the kid himself called, saying he was a threat, this was nothing but a complete failure on our government's part.

Anything other than this is nothing but a smokescreen and another example of people in politics using a wedge issue to drive people apart.

[Methais]

It's very possible that if we had done something meaningful after Columbine, or Aurora, or Sandy Hook, or Vegas, or any other major public massacre the Florida shooting wouldn't have happened and those 17 young people would still be able to live out the rest of their lives.

This was already the most easily preventable mass shooting of all time and the cops and FBI allowed this to happen by doing nothing when there were a million red flags.

What’s your opinion on how the authorities handled all those red flags, including standing outside doing nothing like fat vaginaheads while people are getting murdered inside?

What are your thoughts about those things?

[Latrinsorm]

You said ban AR-15s.

I said doing so wouldn't touch the Bill of Rights.

Capacity =/= banning weapons.

No one anywhere has ever disputed this. I also said that banning certain magazines wouldn't touch the Bill of Rights, because I said doing a lot of things wouldn't touch the Bill of Rights, because there are lots of versions of Constitutional gun control. Anyone whose go-to response to gun control legislation is to shriek about the Second Amendment is wasting your time.

Like I said AR-15s are just a style. Think of it like someone being emo, they dress the part and wear some eyeshadow but they are still human underneath. That is why I said to focus on magazine capacity.

What you said was that people were trying to take something out of the Bill of Rights, that's all I've been talking about. I really have no idea why you're harping on a point on which nobody has disagreed.

Who is talking about unlimited firearms? I'll probably never own more than 4. Pistol, shotgun, AR, and a bolt action. I have already put forward a gun regulation. The problem is that it wouldn't actually help what you want it to help. So when the next one happens you will want to go further, and when the next one happens after that you'll go even further. Until we are talking about banning guns all together.

And if enough people agree, that will be Constitutional too. That's how this works. Government of the people, by the people, for the people.

What about regulating that evil and dangerous Free Speech? I mean really, how many people have been radicalized by dangerous words and rhetoric that they didn't really understand? How many people have died because we let people say what they want?

We already have regulations on free speech that everyone agrees with; for example, you don't think people should be allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater.

One of the few countries that haven't been ruled by a dictator or invaded as well.

The United States has been successfully invaded during three distinct conflicts.

[Latrinsorm]

Your general run of the mill murder you mean?

For some reason you think it's the gun that's doing it and that is retarded. These kids think the guns are sexy so they shoot up schools. It has nothing to do with their mental state, it's that they fetishize guns!

This is precisely why people say its a mental health issue and not a guns issue, because it is.

Let us consider the OECD countries' rates of gun ownership, schizophrenia, and gun death.

[cwolff]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-win?CMP=fb_gu

Just 3% of Americans own half of the guns in America. And that 3% isn’t just anyone. According to a Harvard study flagged by Scientific American this month, the person most likely to stockpile guns in this country is an older, white man from a rural conservative area. And an alarming body of research shows that they’re motivated by racial anxiety and a fear of emasculation.

This is what you're up against. Guns are now part and parcel of the culture wars. They're more fetish token than useful tool around the homestead. The NRA overplayed their hand and it's coming back to bite them.

I also will no longer tell you that, "No one wants to take away your guns!"

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment to allow for significant gun control legislation. The 97-year-old Stevens wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times on Tuesday suggesting a repeal would weaken the National Rifle Association's ability to "block constructive gun control legislation" and be a more "effective and more lasting reform."

[drauz]

Let us consider the OECD countries' rates of gun ownership, schizophrenia, and gun death.

I'm confused, are you suggesting that these people are of sound mind?