- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Shooter reported at Texas' Santa Fe High School: At least 9 dead
Posted on 5/18/18 at 4:45 pm to Scoop
Posted on 5/18/18 at 4:45 pm to Scoop
quote:
What’s the “gun lobby?” As these types of shootings are always used by the left as a means to erode gun rights, why is it inappropriate to examine the details to see how they might form their narrative? In this case, it appears the shooter used low capacity, basic firearms. It has nothing to do with talking points. It’s just looking at the details and figuring out what the narrative might be from the left. They can’t use an anti-gun narrative here without admitting they want all guns banned. Assuming it was a standard hunting shotgun, this is gonna be a tough one to use to advance the anti gun cause. It’s a hunting weapon and a simple revolver that hasn’t significantly changed since it’s introduction in 1836.
But was it an assault revolver?
0
Posted on 5/18/18 at 4:48 pm to rowbear1922
quote:
I want to hear how gun control stops this lunatic?
His dad not allowing access would've been a start. As for gun control. Idk. There's a middle ground somewhere but neither side will meet there
Posted on 5/18/18 at 4:54 pm to TJGator1215
quote:
Neither side will meet there
Like any negotiation, if both sides didn’t want ONLY their demands met, a middle ground could be reached. As a gun owner and avid shooter, I know I’m perfectly fine with requiring permits similar to a drivers license, 7-10 day waiting period, etc. but when you want to ban guns is where I draw the line.
Posted on 5/18/18 at 4:56 pm to rowbear1922
quote:
I know I’m perfectly fine with requiring permits similar to a drivers license,
Then you also have to be fine with voter ID. Can't have it both ways.
Posted on 5/18/18 at 4:56 pm to Dr RC
quote:
Again, they were debated
Well, that's certainly a mischaracterization. They were ratified unanimously, because the anti-federalists knew that without those natural rights being recorded in writing, the government, could, and would, become tyrannical.
Funny how it's now a large segment of the people, rather than the government (well some there too), that want to strip natural rights from others.
Posted on 5/18/18 at 4:58 pm to Korin
quote:
Koran
I 100% think there should be voter ID. I’m independent when it comes to politics if it helps
Posted on 5/18/18 at 5:00 pm to rowbear1922
I disagree. It's a slippery slope and would make all constitutionally protected rights fair game.
Posted on 5/18/18 at 5:03 pm to rowbear1922
I didn't even mention gun control in this thread you invalid. I only talked about people going straight to their gun lobby talking points during an active situation. It's shameful. Sick even.
Posted on 5/18/18 at 5:05 pm to Evolved Simian
quote:
Well, that's certainly a mischaracterization. They were ratified unanimously, because the anti-federalists knew that without those natural rights being recorded in writing, the government, could, and would, become tyrannical.
Funny how it's now a large segment of the people, rather than the government (well some there too), that want to strip natural rights from others.
No. It is not a mischaracterization. They were absolutely debated on. The amendments wouldn't have even been put in w/o Madison riding everyone's asses about it.
During the debates for what became The Bill of Rights Madison proposed 9 amendments, the House approved of 17 articles, the Senate approved of 12, Congress approved of 12, and 10 of them were ratified at the time. Article 2 eventually became 27th Amendment in 1992. Article 1 is still awaiting ratification.
They also declined to fully insert the BoR into the Constitution as Madison wanted.
This post was edited on 5/18/18 at 5:08 pm
Posted on 5/18/18 at 5:17 pm to Tigerdev
quote:
I didn't even mention gun control in this thread you invalid. I only talked about people going straight to their gun lobby talking points during an active situation. It's shameful. Sick even.
At no point when this was active was anyone talking about the such...seeing as how the suspect was contained well before the thread started rolling, the discussion started after situation was contained and everyone was waiting on information to come out.
Posted on 5/18/18 at 5:18 pm to Korin
quote:
And the VT shooter killed 30 with 2 handguns (.22 and 9mm), so...
This convo has gotten a little sideways.
Someone suggested a shotgun and revolver being used is proof that high capacity magazine bans won't matter.
I suggested that's not necessarily the case considering Cruz and others have been more deadly with an AR-15 (with "high capacity magazines").
You're using the VT shooter as a counterpoint, who used weapons with 10 and 15 round magazines. Those still fall under the definition of high capacity magazines IIRC.
I'm not trying to get into a debate, I was just pointing out why this won't end the debate on high capacity magazines.
Posted on 5/18/18 at 5:18 pm to Korin
I have to show/have an ID to be at work. Why shouldn’t people who are making the decisions that effect the general public NOT have to prove who they are and they are residents?
Posted on 5/18/18 at 5:18 pm to Korin
What's the latest?
Motive, weapons, etc.?
Followed this morning but have been in meetings all afternoon
Motive, weapons, etc.?
Followed this morning but have been in meetings all afternoon
Posted on 5/18/18 at 5:20 pm to Pettifogger
Motive unknown, weapons shotgun and revolver
Posted on 5/18/18 at 5:22 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
What's the latest?
Motive, weapons, etc.?
Followed this morning but have been in meetings all afternoon
1. How old was the shooter?17
2. Did he act alone? Maybe
3. Where did he get the guns? Took them from dad
4. Why types of guns and how many? .38 revolver and shotgun
5. Are the bomb stories true or just bad early information? True
6. Were there obvious signs that people missed? Or was this a normal kid and everyone is shocked? One girl said he was a sweet kid...cops said he kept a private journal expressing tendencies
7. How many people killed? 10
8. How many people injured? 10
9. Is the shooter alive? Yes
10. Is the shooter talking? Id assume so
11. Do we know a motive? Not as of now offically
Posted on 5/18/18 at 5:31 pm to Korin
quote:
Then you also have to be fine with voter ID. Can't have it both ways.
I'm not sure this is true.
One is a fundamental right. The other is a privilege, although I suppose that turns on your interpretation of Amendment Dos.
I suppose I have to add this qualification: I own guns, and I support your right to own them too. But if you need a license to make any meaningful use of a car, you should need one to buy a purpose-built instrument of bodily harm.***
We're all repeating tired tropes here, but it bears repeating that we're the only country where this happens. That isn't a coincidence. Say what you will about the media, but we aren't the only country that glorifies criminals.
***ETA: and as if this conversation wasn't fraught enough, I appreciate that this looks like a case where basic gun control laws might not have made a difference.
This post was edited on 5/18/18 at 5:33 pm
Posted on 5/18/18 at 5:31 pm to mikeboss550
Thanks dudes
Posted on 5/18/18 at 5:44 pm to Tigerdev
quote:
Tigerdev
It’s funny because you’re more likely to die from that random cigarette being smoked next to you than any gun.
Weird how your selective outrage doesn’t give a shite about the thousands more people who die from second hand smoke than from firearms.
Posted on 5/18/18 at 5:50 pm to beerJeep
quote:
It’s funny because you’re more likely to die from that random cigarette being smoked next to you than any gun.
That's not how this works; criticism of X isn't necessarily illegitimate simply because Y is also deserving of criticism. That's literally a logical fallacy.
Page 39 of 45
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News