Jump to content

Active shooter thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 13.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

4th&Five
4th&Five

Fuck off. You vote for this shit. Explain that to your kids. 

Pancho
Pancho

3rd leg of my move from Houston to the Bay Area, and I made it to LA.   I’m just now catching up on the news in my hotel.  I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again—I don’t have kids, but this e

royiv
royiv

WTF world are we living in when people are having a discussion about survival rates of certain rounds? People are being terrorized by gun violence and we're discussing which bullet has worse/better ch

Posted Images

Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7,913

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, dieucla98 said:

We love to make fun of Canada and I'm just now realizing it's out of envy. 

Canada. Living the American dream, without the violence, since 1867.

/Seen on a shirt in that Mike Myer’s “Pentaverate” show

Edited by Willfully Horn
Puncted
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13,049

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Guarantee that if Canada passes that law, the gop will be looking to remove extradition to Canada for any American that violates Canadian gun laws.

Considering that Canada has Justin and the two Ryans, the GOP may wish to rethink that before the pro-choice women head to Canada.

 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33,824

Posted
Posted
On 5/29/2022 at 10:51 PM, B00M said:

I didn't think we needed to beat this horse again but self defense, sure. And unfortunately, looking more inevitable as the years go by, resisting a tyrannical, fascist right wing government. 

 

you do realize that is not the intent of the 2nd amendment, right? like everything you probably believe about it is completely wrong. the 2nd was never intended to put guns in the hands of civilians. it's yet another lie we've been fed to be distracted by while they fleece the fuck out of our country

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29,174

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yeah, the whole "2A was to allow states to fight back against a tyrannical federal government" thing is a complete red herring.  It was to allow state militias to assist the (small) government army.

ok, so let's game this out.  let's pretend that all the other nonsense about 2a is well, nonsense, but the one legit part is to be able to have citizens armed in the case of a tyrannical government, or whatever the proper bullshit jargon is.

let's use my backyard as an example.  let's say a group in orange county has guns and is ready to fight the radical california govt (is it just federal govt or can they fight state govts too?).  ok let's say they can only fight against federal govt.

we can pretend their militia is organized and regulated, according to them at least.  so they start doing what they want.  local cops, state cops, whatever, they come and try to stop them.  add in federal employees - fbi from the la office, maybe atf or dea or other federal entities.  they come and try to stop them or infringe on their rights or whatever they're claiming to be scared of.

so then they use this 2a right to not only have firearms, but use them against what they think is tyrannical govt overreach, and they shoot, injure, and kill these govt representatives.  then what?  is this something they will try to use in court, like as a defense?  does everyone shrug and say, "well, they do have a right, and they do think we're acting like tyrants."

where does it end, if that part of the amendment is properly understood?  is 2a just about being able to have the guns, not about getting to legally use them?  if they can't legally use them to fight a tyrannical govt, then what's the point of it at all?  wouldn't it just be toothless?

has there been a case of like sovereigns or any of the wacko fringe groups off the grid where they claimed to be hiding behind the 2a to justify some of their actions?

i'm actually asking, because i have no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSG8R

TXSG8R 3,355

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

ok, so let's game this out.  let's pretend that all the other nonsense about 2a is well, nonsense, but the one legit part is to be able to have citizens armed in the case of a tyrannical government, or whatever the proper bullshit jargon is.

let's use my backyard as an example.  let's say a group in orange county has guns and is ready to fight the radical california govt (is it just federal govt or can they fight state govts too?).  ok let's say they can only fight against federal govt.

we can pretend their militia is organized and regulated, according to them at least.  so they start doing what they want.  local cops, state cops, whatever, they come and try to stop them.  add in federal employees - fbi from the la office, maybe atf or dea or other federal entities.  they come and try to stop them or infringe on their rights or whatever they're claiming to be scared of.

so then they use this 2a right to not only have firearms, but use them against what they think is tyrannical govt overreach, and they shoot, injure, and kill these govt representatives.  then what?  is this something they will try to use in court, like as a defense?  does everyone shrug and say, "well, they do have a right, and they do think we're acting like tyrants."

where does it end, if that part of the amendment is properly understood?  is 2a just about being able to have the guns, not about getting to legally use them?  if they can't legally use them to fight a tyrannical govt, then what's the point of it at all?  wouldn't it just be toothless?

has there been a case of like sovereigns or any of the wacko fringe groups off the grid where they claimed to be hiding behind the 2a to justify some of their actions?

i'm actually asking, because i have no idea.

IANAL, but I believe the militia as spelled out in the constitution is there to support “the state”, both federal and state. They fall under the president’s control in case of civil war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34,167

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

we can pretend their militia is organized and regulated, according to them at least.  so they start doing what they want.  local cops, state cops, whatever, they come and try to stop them.  add in federal employees - fbi from the la office, maybe atf or dea or other federal entities.  they come and try to stop them or infringe on their rights or whatever they're claiming to be scared of.

so then they use this 2a right to not only have firearms, but use them against what they think is tyrannical govt overreach, and they shoot, injure, and kill these govt representatives.  then what?  is this something they will try to use in court, like as a defense?  does everyone shrug and say, "well, they do have a right, and they do think we're acting like tyrants."

the participants in shay's rebellion and the later whiskey rebellion would have described themselves as a militia.  but they definitely were not part of the well-regulated militia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gyroprotagonist

gyroprotagonist 2,591

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

ok, so let's game this out.  let's pretend that all the other nonsense about 2a is well, nonsense, but the one legit part is to be able to have citizens armed in the case of a tyrannical government, or whatever the proper bullshit jargon is.

let's use my backyard as an example.  let's say a group in orange county has guns and is ready to fight the radical california govt (is it just federal govt or can they fight state govts too?).  ok let's say they can only fight against federal govt.

we can pretend their militia is organized and regulated, according to them at least.  so they start doing what they want.  local cops, state cops, whatever, they come and try to stop them.  add in federal employees - fbi from the la office, maybe atf or dea or other federal entities.  they come and try to stop them or infringe on their rights or whatever they're claiming to be scared of.

so then they use this 2a right to not only have firearms, but use them against what they think is tyrannical govt overreach, and they shoot, injure, and kill these govt representatives.  then what?  is this something they will try to use in court, like as a defense?  does everyone shrug and say, "well, they do have a right, and they do think we're acting like tyrants."

where does it end, if that part of the amendment is properly understood?  is 2a just about being able to have the guns, not about getting to legally use them?  if they can't legally use them to fight a tyrannical govt, then what's the point of it at all?  wouldn't it just be toothless?

has there been a case of like sovereigns or any of the wacko fringe groups off the grid where they claimed to be hiding behind the 2a to justify some of their actions?

i'm actually asking, because i have no idea.

so i don't think the founding fathers foresaw a yearly defense budget of $720 billion.  At this point every true defiance or threat from a militia against the gov will end like Waco just from the 3 letter agencies much less the actual armed forces getting involved.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tchookem

tchookem 3,900

Posted
Posted
Yeah, the whole "2A was to allow states to fight back against a tyrannical federal government" thing is a complete red herring.  It was to allow state militias to assist the (small) government army.
Yeah, the only time the militia was ever effectively used after 1783 was to put down rebellions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21,379

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

Now imagine how much they lie about shit that only matters to the defense of a poor black kid facing years of prison over some bullshit

With absolutely no national media, cameras, or "reliable" [read: white] witnesses watching them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 34,313

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

 I’m infuriated if the cops lied about it, but the proper response to any information about doors or teachers or what the school didn’t do or did do should be “who the fuck cares.”

We are profoundly broken and insane as a society if we are locking little children in fortresses so they don’t get murdered.  
 

We spend a lot of gotdamn time talking about amendments and clauses. Let’s go back to the preamble:

Quote

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Domestic tranquility. Justice. General welfare. Common defense.  That’s why the document exists. The Constitution does not exist to be served.  It’s not foreordained that the rest of the document will result in such a felicitous state of affairs.  It’s not Holy Writ.  Allah did not reveal it to the framers. And if it’s not ensuring these things, then change the gotdamn thing. 
 

Because sending 5.56 x 45 mm NATO rounds tearing through the little arms, legs, stomachs, and faces—faces!— of fourth graders doesn’t have shit to do with domestic tranquility, the common defense, or general welfare. And whatever document allows it needs to start promoting the general welfare some other way. 

  • Hook 'Em 31
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11,360

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
11 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

fuck, wow. is anything they told us true?

 

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Were the people doing the telling cops? Then….no.

never believe the police. never. they will lie to you directly. they will make promises they have no intent to honor. they will happily perjure themselves in a trial to make themselves or their colleagues look better. they will protect their own, first, and you, maybe second. i say maybe, because maybe they won't even do that - see uvalde and parkland. on a good day, i guess maybe you can rely on cops for help.

immediately following any sort of officer involved shooting, never believe the chief's bullshit when he comes out for a press conference. remember the houston shooting? those cops were heroes the next morning. art was practically ready to pin the medals on their chest in the hospital. oh, lookee here, they were full of shit and who knows how many people they fucked over in their fake raid/arrest scheme.

  • Hook 'Em 17
  • Like 7
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104,462

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

 

never believe the police. never. they will lie to you directly. they will make promises they have no intent to honor. they will happily perjure themselves in a trial to make themselves or their colleagues look better. they will protect their own, first, and you, maybe second. i say maybe, because maybe they won't even do that - see uvalde and parkland. on a good day, i guess maybe you can rely on cops for help.

immediately following any sort of officer involved shooting, never believe the chief's bullshit when he comes out for a press conference. remember the houston shooting? those cops were heroes the next morning. art was practically ready to pin the medals on their chest in the hospital. oh, lookee here, they were full of shit and who knows how many people they fucked over in their fake raid/arrest scheme.

A whole lot of this.  If a cop ends up telling the truth about something, it is PURELY either 1) because the truth serves his purpose more than any other story, or 2) he told the truth entirely by accident/coincidence, not on purpose.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 34,313

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

image.gif.d48b39a28eae0d46e74b8dca326c3948.gif

This fucking dude.  What a fraudster. This guy is not dumb.  He went to Yale Law, served in the USMC, and made a potful of money as a venture capitalist.  And he wrote a pretty intelligent and mostly sensitive book about hillbillies.  He’s used that empathy and insight for evil, he knows exactly how to get the ‘billies worked up about the gubmint. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33,824

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Red Five said:

If watching porn made you commit mass murders, well, I wouldn't be here typing this right now. 

 

1 minute ago, bluto said:

You wanna see some desperate dudes really go off the rails, take away the noodz

yup, seems like Mr Vance has it exactly backwards. we need more porn.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
landman

landman 559

Posted
Posted

Maybe this has already been discussed, but can the President not issue an executive order immediately banning the sale of AR's?  Or at least stopping the sale of them for some period of time so Congress can maybe think about doing something?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34,167

Posted
Posted
Quote

By James Finn | DETROIT – “Oh look, it has a dick,” snarled one of four men last night outside an El Paso library where Tracey had just finished her high school homework before heading to the halfway house where she lives because her parents kicked her out for being transgender.

In a phone interview today, Tracey told me the man grabbed her arm and forced her body around to make her look at him, saying “Yeah, you know they’re perverting kids instead of killing them.”

She had no idea what he meant, but she was scared, like she says she usually is on the streets of El Paso these days. “I’m only 17!” she told the man who grabbed her.

Another man said, “Yeah, you know it was one of your sisters who killed those kids. You’re a mental health freak!”

https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/05/25/texas-trans-girl-assaulted-over-gop-lies-about-uvalde-shooting/

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34,167

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, landman said:

Maybe this has already been discussed, but can the President not issue an executive order immediately banning the sale of AR's?  Or at least stopping the sale of them for some period of time so Congress can maybe think about doing something?

 

something like take the guns first, go through due process second?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookman

Bookman 4,609

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, landman said:

Maybe this has already been discussed, but can the President not issue an executive order immediately banning the sale of AR's?  Or at least stopping the sale of them for some period of time so Congress can maybe think about doing something?

 

In theory he could declare martial law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...