Fort Worth Church Shooting

[corona]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

Actually the law to allow lawful carry in a church only passed recently.

Not true, its been legal to carry in a church for years. The law passed clarified and simplified the verbiage of the law, which was previously confusing.

Even the author of the bill stated this back in 2017 when it was passed.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov...texas-churches

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by Barrymccockinner

Other countries are “gun free zones” and it works great. We just happen to be the Wild West.

Mexico as one example has very strict gun laws, yet it is overwhelmed with shootings. If simply banning something stops it's use, why do we have such a illegal drug problem in America? I have never seen Meth or heroin legally for sale at a store.

[oeb11]

Prohibition of alcohol worked "very well" for the abolitionists.

[GastonGlock]

I support common sense gun control:

-Nationwide stand your ground
-Nationwide castle doctrine
-Nationwide constitutional carry
-Abolition of the NFA
-Abolition of all gun import bans
-Mandatory high school gun safety and shooting courses

[LargeBreastFan]

Originally Posted by GastonGlock

I support common sense gun control:

-Nationwide stand your ground
-Nationwide castle doctrine
-Nationwide constitutional carry
-Abolition of the NFA
-Abolition of all gun import bans
-Mandatory high school gun safety and shooting courses

NFA = National Firearms Act.

Thanks Gaston, you make great guns.

[rexdutchman]

^^ 100% and a bit of history in "Letters from the Federal farmer to the republican"( Federalist papers)
"to preserve liberty, its essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms, and be taught alike , especially when young how to use them".
The liberal retards and the LSM will never address the issues just try to change history and the constitution.

[Barrymccockinner]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

^^ 100% and a bit of history in "Letters from the Federal farmer to the republican"( Federalist papers)
"to preserve liberty, its essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms, and be taught alike , especially when young how to use them".
The liberal retards and the LSM will never address the issues just try to change history and the constitution.

Your side is always calling names and cannot have healthy dialogue. Name calling is brave behind the keyboard, but most of you are pussies who need their guns or else you’d be impotent. I can see from the name calling and use of LSM that you’ve been brainwashed by the radicalized Republican resources - Faux, Breibart, Alex Jones, etc.

But I digress. The point is that the constitution is a living document meant to change as our country changes. Case in point the Bill of Rights, which were written after the constitution and are changes / clarifications. After that, there have been other amendments that have changed the constitution. We can do that still.

The Federalist papers were essentially propaganda documents (and I don’t mean propaganda in a negative way, just that they were meant to influence) to ratify the constitution, so not sure what your point is about the opinions of those that wrote them. They are that, opinions. Fact of the matter is we have more than twice as many weapons per capris as any other countries, and the number of mass shootings and suicides by guns is astronomical compared to other countries. This is something we should definitely address.

[GastonGlock]

Originally Posted by Barrymccockinner

Your side is always calling names and cannot have healthy dialogue. Name calling is brave behind the keyboard, but most of you are pussies who need their guns or else you’d be impotent. I can see from the name calling and use of LSM that you’ve been brainwashed by the radicalized Republican resources - Faux, Breibart, Alex Jones, etc.

But I digress. The point is that the constitution is a living document meant to change as our country changes. Case in point the Bill of Rights, which were written after the constitution and are changes / clarifications. After that, there have been other amendments that have changed the constitution. We can do that still.

The Federalist papers were essentially propaganda documents (and I don’t mean propaganda in a negative way, just that they were meant to influence) to ratify the constitution, so not sure what your point is about the opinions of those that wrote them. They are that, opinions. Fact of the matter is we have more than twice as many weapons per capris as any other countries, and the number of mass shootings and suicides by guns is astronomical compared to other countries. This is something we should definitely address.

A little background on myself - I voted blue until a few years ago. I lived in Chicago and was very anti-gun. Then I moved to San Francisco. Between living there, travelling western Europe, China, India, and around the US for work, it occurred to me more and more how much people were were becoming pro-statist, and that when left to it's own devices, it becomes a type of corporate feudalism in the US, and that once the state has taken enough power, situations like what is happening in Hong Kong arise.

That realization is what lead me to move to Texas and start stockpiling weapons. The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting and really isn't so much about self defense, it's about starting a bloody grassroots rebellion in the event of a government gone rogue, or making invasion by a foreign power as gruesome as possible.

Talk of "this is a civilized society, weapons don't belong" is a privileged, suburban, "ivory tower" mindset. You are right that The Constitution is a living document, but I think it's intellectually dishonest to say that the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow me to have a machine gun, but the 1st Amendment applies to the internet, and the 4th Amendment applies to electronic wiretapping.

Yes, we have a shitload of guns in this country. By virtue of that, people committing violence tend to use those. Trying to get rid of the guns doesn't address the violence. The UK for example, for all it's gun and knife bans, is having a crazy epidemic of stabbings, to the point that offenders are using screw drivers.

An interesting (and horrifying) development in the UK Stabbing problem is that they've noticed that the goal has moved from killing to maiming and degrading. Allow me to introduce you to "bagging":

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...y-9939397.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...-backside.html

While these attacks don't have a political agenda, I would argue that this sort of thing almost amounts to terrorism, which is what I would also label the publicized mass shootings we hear of, regardless of political agenda.

I don't want to make any of these monsters famous or make them martyrs to some cause. What I DO want to know, is why they did it, and unfortunately, we seldom get that answer. But I feel like if we could, we could make serious in-roads on bringing the violence down. Furthermore, I don't understand the mentality of trying to add harsher punishments, like terrorism charges to this sorts of attacks when the attacker seldom executes these attacks with a plan to make it out alive.

When I see these shooters in the news, I see the same maladjusted kids I grew up with that killed themselves. A lot of these sorts of folks who do these attacks were the sorts to just kill themselves 30-40 years ago, (btw, ~60% of reported gun deaths every year are suicides). So what changed between now and then to get these people to hurt others instead of themselves?

I'm not an expert on anything, but my personal opinion is that this might be an internet-based problem. While bullying is bad, we've allowed people an escape to a place where they're left to their own devices, where they can find antisocial echo chambers that will parrot their own bad ideas back at them and instill them with a victim mentality that seeks justice, but still gives them no value to their own lives.

[oeb11]

Joe Biden Attacked Texas Concealed-Carry Law That Prevented A Massacre

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/30...ssacre-sunday/
On Sunday morning a gunman opened fire at West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas. The gunman shot two people before an armed person in the congregation shot him seconds after the gunman opened fire. One of the victims is reportedly in critical condition, the other has died.
The church was live streaming their Sunday service when shots were fired. Thus you can watch below the immediate response of the armed security member to the gunman opening fire.

The congregation member’s protective gun carrying was possible thanks to a new law allowing Texans to carry guns in places of worship. The bill was signed in June by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R).
2020 Democratic hopeful Joe Biden attacked Abbott for signing this law. He called it “irrational.”
“It is irrational, with all due respect to the Governor of Texas, it’s irrational what they’re doing. … And we’re talking about loosening access to have guns? Being able to take them into places of worship, store them in schools, it’s just absolutely irrational,” Biden said.
Yet, very clearly, increasing firearm access for law-abiding Texans helped to minimize the casualties in the West Freeway church shooting.
If the shooter had been the only individual armed in the church Sunday, he would have had the opportunity to fire more bullets. Thanks to the law signed by Gov. Abbott, an armed service man was able to shoot the gunman and save innocent lives.
Britt Farmer, the senior minister at West Freeway church, said he is thankful to the Texas government for passing laws that allow citizens to protect themselves from evildoers.
“We lost two great men today, but it could have been a lot worse. And I am thankful that our government has allowed us the opportunity to protect ourselves,” Farmer said.
Democrats are hell-bent on restricting the very law that saved lives. Every top 10 Democrat presidential candidate supports further restricting gun rights.


Biden is showing his senility and irrationality - advocating for people to deliberately and knowingly disarm themselves to allow armed mentally ill shooters many more victims.
Biden is advocating for how many more murders in the texas church?????
Vote against Biden and the DPST's - and for sanity. Well trained Armed guards are not a shooting problem - and protecting a population is not a "crime" the DPST's want.

Just as the DPST's feat the dead Iranian terrorist general as a hero for all the American deaths he caused.

Irrational idiots!!!

[TheWanderer]

I own guns and believe the rights of honest citizens to own guns but I see a little more carefully thought out and executed gun control as a good thing and not destroying the 2nd Amendment. If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that citizens can effectively fight back against a tyrannical government, then we are already way behind. We are not generally allowed to own mortars, hand grenades, howitzers, rocket launchers, tanks, 50 caliber armored personnel carriers, military grade drones, etc.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by oeb11

able to take them into places of worship, store them in schools, it’s just absolutely irrational,” Biden said.
Yet, very clearly, increasing firearm access for law-abiding Texans helped to minimize the casualties in the West Freeway church shooting.
If the shooter had been the only individual armed in the church Sunday, he would have had the opportunity to fire more bullets.
“We lost two great men today, but it could have been a lot worse.

and it could have been two FEWER great men that were lost..

I still say the Head Security guy should have asked the killer to remove his coat. my argument is sound.. the Killer wore a bulky coat and an obvious disguise. I'll bet anyone here that a Synagogue or Mosque would not have endured this shooting. their Security team would not have waited around, concerned about his "right" to be left alone on private property.

Originally Posted by TheWanderer

I own guns and believe the rights of honest citizens to own guns but I see a little more carefully thought out and executed gun control as a good thing and not destroying the 2nd Amendment. If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that citizens can effectively fight back against a tyrannical government, then we are already way behind. We are not generally allowed to own mortars, hand grenades, howitzers, rocket launchers, tanks, 50 caliber armored personnel carriers, military grade drones, etc.

agree.. while I support and applaud the 6 people who were armed and drew their weapon, the Killer should have never had his own weapon. we don't have sufficient laws that stop dangerous folks from obtaining guns. the thinking needs to steer away from "you have your gun, I have mine, let's see who wins the shootout", to eliminating the need for guns where possible.

and yeah, if you think stockpiling weapons will help against a rogue government, you need to exit the 18th century.

[LargeBreastFan]

Originally Posted by TheWanderer

I own guns and believe the rights of honest citizens to own guns but I see a little more carefully thought out and executed gun control as a good thing and not destroying the 2nd Amendment. If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that citizens can effectively fight back against a tyrannical government, then we are already way behind. We are not generally allowed to own mortars, hand grenades, howitzers, rocket launchers, tanks, 50 caliber armored personnel carriers, military grade drones, etc.

That "a little more carefully thought out and executed gun control" has turned to;

Background checks to purchase ammo (California).

"Red flag" laws in California (2014), Washington (2016), and Oregon (2017), Colorado, Nevada, and Hawaii (2019), and others.

A high-capacity magazine ban is a law in 8 states. "Assault" weapons bans in seven states.

The "carefully thought out and executed gun control" is step-by-step plan for gun control for all citizens.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by LargeBreastFan

The "carefully thought out and executed gun control" is step-by-step plan for gun control for all citizens.

gun control? or gun banning?

nothing wrong with gun control.. the far right likes to skewer the real argument, and say the government wants to take everyone's gun away..

poppycock.

then they steer the argument to "we have tons of guns on the street already, gun control doesn't work, we need more guns to counter the bad guys with guns".

sort of true.. this got way out of hand. but don't use it as a declaration that gun control should be avoided. we haven't really tried to pass sensible laws. granted there probably isn't enough support, except in pockets, like places you described.

but England, Vietnam, many places have a near-zero gun murder rate. they did something right to get where they are.

[LargeBreastFan]

Chung,

I love you, but Poppycock back attcha.

Gun control vs gun banning? Only difference is time. Pass one gun control law, it doesn't work, then pass another, then another, then another until you have gun banning.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by LargeBreastFan

Chung,

I love you, but Poppycock back attcha.

Gun control vs gun banning? Only difference is time. Pass one gun control law, it doesn't work, then pass another, then another, then another until you have gun banning.

Ha!

Ace of Spades Poppycock!

I don't know why I am bothering, LBF, but I'm going to ask.. why do you think that could ever happen in the USA? consider that any form of gun control has stiff opposition.. what could ever occur that would systematically eliminate guns, to where the (I assume Federal) Government has control of them all?

your argument is as far out as an Anti-Christ appearing with "666" written on his forehead. perhaps your conclusion is Apocalypse-based?