At least 3 children and 3 adults killed in Nashville elementary school shooting

Its pretty much all they talk about.

 

Obviously, we need to be able to protect ourselves from the Left's agenda which calls for the murder of anyone that opposes the Leftist ideology.

Your girl let the cat out of the bag yesterday. It's plain to see why the Leftists want us disarmed. It's so they can send their death squads to murder us during their Days of Vengeance

 

The leftist ideology related to gun control would have prevented her from having a gun to shoot with in the first place.
But you right wingers just had to make it so, that she would get her hands on multiple guns with ease, even the more powerful guns were just as good as tossed in her lap to use. Well done.

 

Most likely the guns were legally purchased. The motive is still unknown, but they do know the attack was carefully planned.

 

There's no law that would have prevented this murder. No background check, no bans, no nothing.

Seeing how she was a potential member of a Left wing death squad, the government would have probably given her a gun and sent her on a mission to murder Christians.

 

Hale didn't have a criminal history. Transgender isn't considered a mental illness, yet. She wasn't considered a "prohibited person" under any current law.

 

Mental evaluation might have prevented it

Death squad.......listen to yourself.

No, but clearly that person had some actual mental issues, or this would not have happened.

 

I agree that transgenderism should be classified as a mental illness, but we know that won't ever happen.

Did she target Christians? Of course she did. It was her contribution to the alphabet community's Days of Vengeance . What other vengeance attacks do the alphabets have planned?

 

I have. Are you aware that even the notorious RBG thought that case was not properly decided? Still, the Bruen ruling, the most recent and by far most reaching Supreme Court case ever decided on the issue of the 2nd Amendment only happened last year. The makeup of the Court has not changed in terms of left-right balance since that time, nor is it likely to for at least the next 25 years or so. My point: No such reversal will happen anytime soon. If it takes the same 50 years it did for Roe to be overturned, I'll be over 100, if I'm still alive, at least in this body. I really hope I don't come back as a human on this rock for my next time around, but if I do, I sure hope my rights have not been taken away in the meantime.

An intellectually honest Supreme Court, regardless of ideology, would not overturn these decisions because the issues at the center questions are crystal clear to anyone who can speak and understand English competently. Judges should follow the Constitution, Law, and prior precedent, in that order, and not their own ideology, but unfortunately many forget that when it comes time for important rulings. We all are fortunate they got it right this time.

 

No need.
-This- shooter demonstrated mental illness.

And what? No quip about you being 2 decades behind on the issue of a legal requirement to lock up firearms?

 

Video shows Nashville school shooter in hallways | Al Jazeera Newsfeed


“Since the start of 2023, there have been at least 131 mass shootings.”

 

Why do you not understand the opinions of "constitutional scholars" do not trump holdings by the USSC?
The USSC is the authority on the subject -- Its word is, literally, law.
You can disagree, it just makes you wrong - regardless of your credentials.

 

Other than their irrational fear of firearms - nothing.

 

Bullet resistant exterior doors would have prevented this attack.

 

We don't take our instructions from constitutional scholars.

 

Wow... there's whole lot of ignorance to unpack there.

Do you have a meaningful definition for ""military grade kid killers"?

There are at least 20,000,000 legally owned "military grade kid killers" in the US.
In 2022, 8 of these "military grade kid killers" were used in mass shootings to kill 54 people.
How does your "research" support banning these firearms?

 

The term 'mentally ill' covers a LOT of territory. From a mild case of anxiety that is well controlled by meds (that likely describes 80% of the American population, just many have not been diagnosed), all the way up to a violent psychopath who thinks his neighbor's dogs are telling him to go out and kill people. So... Where do you draw the line? And how are those who decide these things even going to know, considering our medical records are completely off limits to anyone but the patient, their healthcare provider, and anyone the patient decides to allow to see them? Is gender dysmorphia (the clinical term for transgender) count as a prohibited condition? What if it's been 'fixed' by having a dickectomy? What about a 60-year-old woman who had a pretty serious case of post-partum depression 38-years ago after the birth of her first child, but after treatment and since then has been fine?

This is not me saying I disagree in principal with the idea that (some) mentally ill people are too dangerous and/or unstable to be entrusted with firearms, just that it's not a black and white line of too mentally ill and A-OK. I myself took a drug some years back that had a black box warning on it that it might cause violent outbursts in people under the age of 25 (which is when our brains become fully mature, which really sucks considering we start dying of natural causes just 20 short years later), should anyone under that age be blacklisted from possessing firearms? What about someone who is 25 1/2? 26?

It's not as simple as many are portraying it.

 

I see you are ignorant of US law.
Willfully, I am sure.

 

So....
You just barely made it out of middle school?

 

Are you unaware that all able-bodied men in between 17 and 45 are members of the United States Militia, by current and existing Federal Law? It sounds like it.

 

What is the rate of fire of a 1932 machine gun?
What is the rate of fire of an 'assault weapon'?

 

What I wanna see is the manifesto,

Christ, pick up on the brevity thing.

1. it does matter what the weapon is called, “assault” weapons are fully automatic and these were not. I’ve seen them, it’s just 2 semi auto carbines. You can only use one at a time, which he did in the vid. Accuracy in terms matters, I’ve no idea how that escapes you.

2. that was a guy.

3. he could have used any type of weapon and accomplished this scenario, including knives as the victims were either very old or very young. This lunatic was going on a murder spree and no law was going to prevent this, maybe we see what’s in the manifesto before making any other judgements on behavior.

 

Correct.
This shooting could just as easily been perpetrated wit a pump-action shotgun.

The shooter was legally able to purchase a firearm; none of the laws the anti-gun left scream we need would have stopped this.

 

except you would be wrong and you don't know what sort of threat someone might have to deal with. Lookup frangible ammunition. Your argument is not based on expert advice concerning self defense but rather a political position to try to pretend AR 15s are not needed. In reality, many common handgun rounds are MORE likely to go through walls than the stuff we professionals recommend for carbines for self defense.
https://www.guns.com/news/2015/09/17/self-defense-inside-the-home-avoiding-over-penetratio

Despite the popularity of the round, too few realize that 9mm ball ammo can easily punch through not just one but several interior walls. By contrast, .223 rifle ammunition tends to tumble, turn and slow down when penetrating barriers, even more than a 9mm fired from some pistols. Many shooters like to debate this point, and admittedly on the surface it doesn’t seem logical, but studies done by SWAT teams over a decade ago revealed this phenomenon to be fact and it was one of the main reasons a lot of tactical teams transitioned to M-4s/AR-15s and gave up the H&K MP-5 SMG in the 80s and 90s.

 

how many times have I said that-stuff that does not interfere with owning or buying or using firearms in lawful manners. Oh and I know where this is going-it's the same argument that if we agree civilians shouldn't own weaponized anthrax or nukes, we really are no different than gun banners who want to ban AR 15s.