Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

School shooting in San Bernedino

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • lynelhutz
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    The 1968 Gun Act is being rolled back even as we speak.

    Silencers will be deregulated soon, and full auto is very possible within the year.

    No man setting off to commit murder ever stopped because the weapon he planned to use was illegal.
    But an impulsive decision will be acted upon less if there are less guns available.

    But don't worry, I know it doesn't matter. And ultimately neither do death rates, murder rates, the rate of risk versus protection to the owner. There isn't any data that would significantly change the debate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    For once I actually agree with you

    It's a shame to see some people on the right moving further left in their desire for a nanny-state.
    Tell that to people in Chicago, New York City, or California. All of which have strict gun laws (which I do not support).
    Felons have a lot of restrictions, all constitutional.
    In this particular case, the woman did not take the threats seriously. That is a mistake that lead to a terrible chain of events.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    The Bill of Rights is an excuse?

    The nanny state doesn't exist. First you want to jail the mentally ill, then the domestic actors...it will end up in camps and ovens.

    This is still America. For now.
    For once I actually agree with you

    It's a shame to see some people on the right moving further left in their desire for a nanny-state.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    I'm on the right, I support the 2nd amendment, however, I part ways with some on the right when they suggest the constitution prevents society from punishing individuals who violate the law.
    Anyone convicted of a felony involving the use of violence, the use of any weapon in the act of a violent crime should not be allowed to possess a weapon. Serving time does not suggest in any way that a criminal has been reformed, in fact, the idea of reform has been abandoned completely in the US penal system.
    Our prisons are nothing less than gang recruitment centers, run by gang members both inside and outside by the use of intimidation of prison officials.
    Possession of a weapon by such individuals should result in thier immediate arrest for violating the terms of their release. This would help reduce crime by giving prosecutors a powerful tool against gang members and mentally disturbed violent offenders.
    The USSC has confirmed the rights of municipalities in restricting the sales of certain weapons. The 1968 Gun Control Act was confirmed by the court, it banned the sale of some weapons.
    This would indicate that there is some flexibility.
    The 1968 Gun Act is being rolled back even as we speak.

    Silencers will be deregulated soon, and full auto is very possible within the year.

    No man setting off to commit murder ever stopped because the weapon he planned to use was illegal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
    I know. Whenever I hear anyone on the political right make reference to the "Bill of Rights" I just instantly translate it to the "right to bear arms". All the other rights are nice intentions but not to be taken too seriously. They certainly aren't intended to interfere with an investigation, surveillance, a conviction or punishment when "we all know" we are dealing with a bad guy.
    I'm on the right, I support the 2nd amendment, however, I part ways with some on the right when they suggest the constitution prevents society from punishing individuals who violate the law.
    Anyone convicted of a felony involving the use of violence, the use of any weapon in the act of a violent crime should not be allowed to possess a weapon. Serving time does not suggest in any way that a criminal has been reformed, in fact, the idea of reform has been abandoned completely in the US penal system.
    Our prisons are nothing less than gang recruitment centers, run by gang members both inside and outside by the use of intimidation of prison officials.
    Possession of a weapon by such individuals should result in thier immediate arrest for violating the terms of their release. This would help reduce crime by giving prosecutors a powerful tool against gang members and mentally disturbed violent offenders.
    The USSC has confirmed the rights of municipalities in restricting the sales of certain weapons. The 1968 Gun Control Act was confirmed by the court, it banned the sale of some weapons.
    This would indicate that there is some flexibility.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    School district spokeswoman;


    Armed security officers are not assigned to any of the district's elementary schools, said Maria Garcia, a school district spokeswoman. But she described security on the North Park campus as "very, very tight."
    Please define " very, very tight".

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
    I know. Whenever I hear anyone on the political right make reference to the "Bill of Rights" I just instantly translate it to the "right to bear arms". All the other rights are nice intentions but not to be taken too seriously. They certainly aren't intended to interfere with an investigation, surveillance, a conviction or punishment when "we all know" we are dealing with a bad guy.
    Especially when the "bad guys" are from our own government.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynelhutz
    replied
    Originally posted by Tuebor View Post
    Talk to any defense attorney and they will tell you how much the Bill of Rights has been eroded over the last few decades by judicial precedence.

    Tuebor
    I know. Whenever I hear anyone on the political right make reference to the "Bill of Rights" I just instantly translate it to the "right to bear arms". All the other rights are nice intentions but not to be taken too seriously. They certainly aren't intended to interfere with an investigation, surveillance, a conviction or punishment when "we all know" we are dealing with a bad guy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    I guess tight security means unarmed personnel with clenched rectums.

    UH, as always, that pesky Bill of Rights still says you can't incarcerate someone until they have been found guilty in a court of law.

    Looks like the guy was a misdemeanor style of abuser, and the Caliban has moved away from jails and prisons in favor of outreach programs.
    He was "guilty in a court of law", but since it wasn't in that particular town, it didn't count, and that is sheer stupidity on the part of the law. "Forewarned is forearmed".

    "Clenched rectums"? Beautiful. An image that will remain for years.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    The first recorded school shooting in the USA was in 1814.
    And shootings aren't the worst of it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    My step son is a San Diego county sheriff officer assigned as a resource officer at a high school. Of course after a successful and bloody attack had been conducted.
    The San Bernedino school had lax security, strike one.
    The shooter was a convicted felon who had brandished a weapon. Strike two.
    The wife did not notify the administration that he had made threats. Your out!

    We live in a different time then when we were kids.
    The first recorded school shooting in the USA was in 1814.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    My step son is a San Diego county sheriff officer assigned as a resource officer at a high school. Of course after a successful and bloody attack had been conducted.
    The San Bernedino school had lax security, strike one.
    The shooter was a convicted felon who had brandished a weapon. Strike two.
    The wife did not notify the administration that he had made threats. Your out!

    We live in a different time then when we were kids.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
    Maybe there could be a list of folks who DON'T get access to roam around in school corridors...
    They had that rule at Sandy Hook.

    Rules without the means to enforce are pointless.

    It is tough to stop a man who has embarked upon a goal which he values more than his own life.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuebor
    replied
    Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
    LOL! Yup, it is all just one big slippery slope. First parking tickets and then the ovens.
    Talk to any defense attorney and they will tell you how much the Bill of Rights has been eroded over the last few decades by judicial precedence.

    Tuebor

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuebor
    replied
    Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
    Maybe there could be a list of folks who DON'T get access to roam around in school corridors...
    Who checks the list? Santa? The only real solution is to start erecting barriers and have armed security, or LEOs, on premises. We do this in industry. One shooting, and within the year turnstiles were erected at the Ford plant I worked at. Fences and turnstiles (with security) go a long way toward reducing such incidents which is the best we could realistically hope for. It is simply impossible to know who is going to go nutter at any given moment, so best to provide security for our most valued assets (i.e. schools).

    Tuebor.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X