'No Way To Prevent This,' says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

WildmanWilson

Kayak said:

WildmanWilson said:

Did you ever read the rest of the Bill of Rights?

There's some interesting language in the 5th you might take note of:

"No person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

Do you define guns as property, and if so, are they subject to the governments taking them away with due process?

Or, is "2nd" more important than "5th"?

Due process is the key. Sure a criminal can lose certain rights if convicted. We see many pushing the Red Flag laws where due process is pretty much thrown out the window. We don’t need a mobocracy and allow freedom taken by those that scream the loudest. 

Legume

Liberal cities, lmao.  Defund the police wasn't accurate when it was created, but that hasn't been a thing in a couple of years, unless you're taking about the current calls to defund the FBI, but that's coming from the Defend Trump SuperPAC cabal.

WildmanWilson

Legume said:

Liberal cities, lmao.  Defund the police wasn't accurate when it was created, but that hasn't been a thing in a couple of years, unless you're taking about the current calls to defund the FBI, but that's coming from the Defend Trump SuperPAC cabal.

Guy you are such a liberal puppet. Do you ever speak truth? You’re not worth the time posting numerous links for politicians and media calling for defunding. Policing has dropped dramatically in some cities. Cop’s know the lib run cities will not have their backs. Why would anyone want to be a cop there?

You are the reason we can’t fix a problem because you’re either a straight up liar or straight up brainwashed. 

Kayak

WildmanWilson said:

Kayak said:

WildmanWilson said:

Did you ever read the rest of the Bill of Rights?

There's some interesting language in the 5th you might take note of:

"No person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

Do you define guns as property, and if so, are they subject to the governments taking them away with due process?

Or, is "2nd" more important than "5th"?

Due process is the key. Sure a criminal can lose certain rights if convicted. We see many pushing the Red Flag laws where due process is pretty much thrown out the window. We don’t need a mobocracy and allow freedom taken by those that scream the loudest. 

Thankfully, criminals and loud screamers don't write the laws. Unfortunately for you, laws aren't limited to people who commit crimes; they can be written for those who don't, too. 'Civil law' affects all of our lives without involving jail, and 'due process' can be applied just as much, including taking away our property when we haven't committed a crime.

FlyOverCountry

WildmanWilson said:

Legume said:

Liberal cities, lmao.  Defund the police wasn't accurate when it was created, but that hasn't been a thing in a couple of years, unless you're taking about the current calls to defund the FBI, but that's coming from the Defend Trump SuperPAC cabal.

Guy you are such a liberal puppet. Do you ever speak truth? You’re not worth the time posting numerous links for politicians and media calling for defunding. Policing has dropped dramatically in some cities. Cop’s know the lib run cities will not have their backs. Why would anyone want to be a cop there?

You are the reason we can’t fix a problem because you’re either a straight up liar or straight up brainwashed. 

lousubcap

Gun violence has surpassed the opioid crisis as Americans’ primary public health concern, according to the latest edition of the Axios-Ipsos American Health Index.

Edit-lots of other interesting pieces of information in the linked report.

JohnInCarolina

http://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1659378655959678978?s=20

Legume

As far as the video of the AK-47 guy shooting at home invaders, a handgun or shotgun could've done that. Both much, much safer in a neighborhood and more accurate close in.  I am all for people defending their homes, but that's a spurious justification for assault rifles.

Red flag laws - they're not meant to be permanent removal, but rather a quick, risk-based, temporary removal of weapons to be followed up with due process. I don't see how any of this can be addressed without an approach based on mitigating risk and that's what red flag laws are meant to be.

To me, shall not infringe isn't the issue because there hasn't been and won't be a serious push to outlaw all guns in this country.  In my opinion, the issue is what was meant by keep and bear arms, for the purpose of securing a free state. Are there or should there be reasonable limits?  The founders didn't anticipate technology as we see it today.  They didn't anticipate people collecting more guns and ammo than they could use in a lifetime. We have polluted the conditions behind what could've been reasonably anticipated by the founders.

Does 2A mean people can own as many guns as they want?  If there was a limit to the number of guns, amount of ammo one can own or possess, does that really infringe on the intent of 2A?

WildmanWilson

lousubcap said:

Gun violence has surpassed the opioid crisis as Americans’ primary public health concern, according to the latest edition of the Axios-Ipsos American Health Index.

Edit-lots of other interesting pieces of information in the linked report.

The one at the top is a few month while at the bottom of the page its an overall and guns were third. Most polls I saw guns were much lower as a concern

https://www.statista.com/statistics/986209/most-important-health-issues-facing-america-us/

And for all concerns its very very low.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/323380/public-opinion-on-the-most-important-problem-facing-the-us/

I don't think most people are as afraid as you snowflakes on here are.

JohnInCarolina

Math is hard, statistics especially, on average. 

WildmanWilson

JohnInCarolina said:

Math is hard, statistics especially, on average. 

So you only like math that backs your agenda? I looked at plenty of data from other sources and most all had guns as a low concern compared to other issues. 

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Math is hard, statistics especially, on average. 

So you only like math that backs your agenda? I looked at plenty of data from other sources and most all had guns as a low concern compared to other issues. 

Yeah, I was referring to the comment about there only being 1000 people.  You know, the one you edited out?  

WildmanWilson

Legume said:

As far as the video of the AK-47 guy shooting at home invaders, a handgun or shotgun could've done that. Both much, much safer in a neighborhood and more accurate close in.  I am all for people defending their homes, but that's a spurious justification for assault rifles.

Red flag laws - they're not meant to be permanent removal, but rather a quick, risk-based, temporary removal of weapons to be followed up with due process. I don't see how any of this can be addressed without an approach based on mitigating risk and that's what red flag laws are meant to be.

To me, shall not infringe isn't the issue because there hasn't been and won't be a serious push to outlaw all guns in this country.  In my opinion, the issue is what was meant by keep and bear arms, for the purpose of securing a free state. Are there or should there be reasonable limits?  The founders didn't anticipate technology as we see it today.  They didn't anticipate people collecting more guns and ammo than they could use in a lifetime. We have polluted the conditions behind what could've been reasonably anticipated by the founders.

Does 2A mean people can own as many guns as they want?  If there was a limit to the number of guns, amount of ammo one can own or possess, does that really infringe on the intent of 2A?

Maybe a gun or shotgun can work on multiple attackers but most would want better fire power because you may have 4 or 5 people coming in and you don't want 3 to 6 rounds. Its why the police will use them in many situations. Plus they are much easier to shoot accurately than a handgun and don't kick like a shotgun in case a woman was shooting it. They are not just for home protection though

So you think its OK to take someone's rights as long its just for a "while"....then at some point we give them the okay to defend themselves. I remember not too long ago our government put out a warning that solders returning home could be a domestic threat. Do we just take those guns for a while and then we just figure it out? Who gets to make that call on who is a threat? If you post something on twitter a person didn't like is that enough? We all know the Red Flag laws would be abused and due process would be gone.

I'm sure the Founders were more concerned about an overreaching government more than what we were shooting. They never said we had to limit ourselves to muskets. They also never envisioned the first amendment changing like it has with technology. Should we be limited to writing letters while they are in the computer age?

Yes, it matter if I'm limited. That's really a goofy question. You want the citizens to be stuck with one box of 12 gauge shells and one gun while the police or military are nearly unlimited? No, we can not match them completely but we can do enough that would make it tough to do anything they want and doubt they would want to take on such a fight. We also know criminals will not follow the same limits that are imposed on law abiding citizens. 

Legume

Interesting, so no limits on guns, no red flag laws.  What then?  I've seen you say harden the schools so shooters can't get in.  I've seen you say "address mental health" without any suggestion for how that works, because at some point someone will have ti say this person can't have a gun, but that goes against everything you've said.

Legume

And I never suggested one box of shells and one gun, did I?  

Do you forsee yourself battling the police or military at some point?

FlyOverCountry

Legume said:

Interesting, so no limits on guns, no red flag laws.  What then?  I've seen you say harden the schools so shooters can't get in.  I've seen you say "address mental health" without any suggestion for how that works, because at some point someone will have ti say this person can't have a gun, but that goes against everything you've said.

Legume

Wilson, you've mentioned you work for a box/packaging company.  I think it sounded like you were maybe in planning or logistics or something along those lines, I could have it wrong.  Anyway, I'm curious if you use any risk management / process improvement methodologies at work, six sigma, lean, kaizen, tools like FMEA? I'm not asking to try to insult you, but because I would think you do but I don't see any evidence of that kind of thinking in your opinions here, just a lot of ketchup on the wall.

WildmanWilson

Legume said:

And I never suggested one box of shells and one gun, did I?  

Do you forsee yourself battling the police or military at some point?

You also didn't say what I should own but seem to think I should have some limits. Is that up to you or who?

I don't foresee a some things but try to prepare for them. I don't foresee an earthquake or my home catching fire. I don't foresee me getting in a wreck. The Jews didn't foresee themselves dying at the hands of Hitler. Being prepared is never a bad idea because you never know what can happen. Especially at the hands of people that have always had a bad track record. Governments always want more power over their citizens. We either keep them in check or they take more rights until we have none.

FlyOverCountry

WildmanWilson

Legume said:

Interesting, so no limits on guns, no red flag laws.  What then?  I've seen you say harden the schools so shooters can't get in.  I've seen you say "address mental health" without any suggestion for how that works, because at some point someone will have ti say this person can't have a gun, but that goes against everything you've said.

What happens to our government leaders to keep them safe? They make it harder for harm to come to themselves with more guns and more security. They don't depend on people just being good. Why do they get better than our children?

Yes, there are steps we can take to a gun away but it must be through due process. It will never be easy to stop a lone wolf. We all probably know a person we think is crazy but very few believe they can carry out these evil deeds. We see over and over these shooters have known issues by the parents or schools and even records on file at times with the police. Do you lock them away for life? Hard to do when they haven't done anything yet. Some people have no record at all but go off and kill people. Do you really want to put everyone away that seems odd?

 If we allow rights to be taken easily they will and they will encompass more people that don't deserve it. We must have checks and balances.

Legume

"What happens to our government leaders to keep them safe? They make it harder for harm to come to themselves with more guns and more security. They don't depend on people just being good. Why do they get better than our children?"

Unfortunately, government leaders are targets for people that don't agree with them. We put them in that position when we elect them (they do too when when run), but it's the cost of doing business.  Not true of our kids. Fortifying schools may be an eventuality, but the question is to what degree does that have to be done and at what cost - financial cost, cost to freedom and having our kids live in a prison like setting.  It also isn't upstream enough toward root causes. You say guns aren't the problem and we can't take guns from people without due process and you say red flag laws are not due process, so we have to build higher and thicker walls to hide behind, because freedom. That just seems like a really **** way to live, to me, without really trying to solve this.  It's not zero sum, we should all be able to benefit, even with compromise.

It's not up to me how many and what types of guns people should have.  I vote and I vote for the candidates that I feel are most reasonable and best aligned with my sensibilities.  It's up to our elected officials to produce legislation that benefits us as a society and when they fail or refuse to do so, we have to vote for new people. I consider myself to be part of that society and am happy to reap the benefits that provides.

I use the word reasonable a lot because the right solution isn't about me, or any individual, it's about the whole of us and reasonable seems like a good way to me to express that there is always some compromise necessary in that.  If I was advocating to limit your guns, realize that I would also be advocating to limit my guns.

Buckwoody Egger

JohnInCarolina said:

Tonight on @wbaltv11: A man with an AR-15 has been showing up for weeks to a school bus drop off for local elementary school students. Parents say their kids are afraid, the man says he’s protesting @GovWesMoore’s new gun control law.

What an absurd situation that is. Protesting— sure ok did he submit the paperwork and get approvals for that location.  What about loitering, should we just enforce that? Whenever the officer approaches to get his story he has to comply with hands up and weapon down requests or he is toast. Maybe thats what he wants?

Hope he has the safety on. Don’t wanna sneeze and shoot your own toes off. 

From the Atlantic

What the U.S. Can Learn About Gun Violence From Serbia

In a matter of days, the Serbian government was able to reduce illegal gun ownership by 90 percent. Uprooting a culture of violence will be much harder.

By Eric Gordy

May 16, 2023

As The Onion repeatedly reminds us, most people most of the time think of the United States as the only place where school shootings and other mass shootings regularly take place. So when two such shootings happened in Serbia in one week, people in both countries understandably asked themselves: Was the United States, deep down, somehow like Serbia? Or was Serbia just now becoming like the United States?

In Serbia, this last question occasioned some soul-searching: What is happening in this society? I have been asking the same questions for the past 30 years as a sociologist researching the region. Serbia is deeply divided, traumatized by the violence of a recent past that different parts of the political culture simultaneously celebrate, condemn, and studiously ignore. It is governed by an elite that operates through informal networks, letting the public in only as much as necessary to maintain the appearance of legitimacy. Its institutions speak about security as incessantly as they foster insecurity. As trite as it may be to say that the violence that happened last week was inevitable, it would not be wrong to say that you could always sense the potential for it to happen.

John J. Donohue: The problem America cannot fix

Does it make sense to point to gun violence and call Serbia a Balkan U.S.A.? The two countries definitely have some similarities, but the differences are just as stark. Consider gun ownership. Everyone knows that the United States is No. 1 in the world in firearms possession. Less remarked-on is the fact that Serbia ranks not far behind, at No. 3. But the gulf between them is pretty big: For every 100 people in the United States, there are 100 to 120 firearms, whereas in Serbia, there are nine to 39, according to data from the University of Sydney’s GunPolicy.org.

The wide range in these estimates shows just how many guns are unregistered and illegal. The long and semiautomatic arms used in last week’s killings are permitted in much of the United States but entirely illegal in Serbia. Serbia doesn’t have anything like the National Rifle Associationlobbying politicians to influence gun policy. Nor is there a large constituency in Serbia for the idea that guns are emblematic of personal freedom or embody a basic right. In fact, firearms legislation is pretty restrictive. The guns are out there because the legislation is not enforced.

Because semiautomatic weapons are illegal in Serbia, the state was able to respond quickly. The authorities did make some early blunders. Education Minister Branko Ružić traced the causes of the shootings to “video games” and “so-called Western values,” and was compelled to resign within four days. Police requested that schools in Kikinda and Užice deliver lists of “problematic and asocial” children (a request the schools rightly refused). But it took only a day for President Aleksander Vučić to deliver a speech promising swift action to protect public safety and to reduce ownership of illegal firearms by 90 percent. Confiscation combined with an amnesty program for the surrender of illegal weapons allowed police to collect 3000 guns in mere days.

This early and swift response earned Serbia a lot of international praise—and drew unflattering comparisons with the United States from some observers, including Kris Brown of the Brady campaign. But Vučić’s executive action to enforce existing laws did not satisfy activists in Serbia who saw the root of the horrific events not only in the presence of weapons but also in a cultural and media environment where violence is glorified, and in a political culture where the state uses awful memories of the past, and the fears that derive from them, to justify and promote violence.

Serbia has made no serious public effort to come to terms with its deep complicity in war crimes committed in the 1990s, despite numerous criminal convictions of individuals and the International Court of Justice’s finding it liable for breaching the Genocide Convention. Instead, its political elites and tabloid media continue to promote ethno-nationalist resentment and hatred, and those sentiments have been amplified by a widely shared attitude of victimhood. If we trace the origins of Serbian nationalism to Ilija Garašanin's Načertanije, an expansionist manifesto written in 1844 and published in 1906, then the idea of “Greater Serbia” is considerably older than “Make America Great Again.”

From the January 1913 issue: The Balkan crisis

On Beogradska street in Belgrade, scant blocks from the Vladislav Ribnikar elementary school, where nine people were murdered on May 3, you can find a plaque honoring the memory of Dušan Jovanović, a 13-year-old Roma boy who was beaten to death by racists in 1997. But just a short walk from there, on the corner of Aleksa Nenadović Street, passersby are greeted by a large mural celebrating General Ratko Mladić, who was convicted of genocide for the murder of 8,372 civilians in Srebrenica in 1995. The mural has been there since 2021 and is assiduously protected.

The Mladić mural is an expression—and not the only one of its kind in Serbia—that goes beyond the internationally standard routinization of violence in films and propaganda. That’s because it attaches violence to an ideological purpose, and to ethnic and national hatred that is, at a minimum, tolerated by the state.

Although the constituency of the worst-inclined people is well represented in Serbia, it’s hardly the case that everyone is an ethno-nationalist fanatic inclined to violence. Parents of the victims in the school shooting led a march against violence in which they drew the appropriate connections. Their protest demanded the resignations of responsible officials and demanded a special session of Parliament in which laws promoting everyday security could be passed. They are also demanding strict limits on the promotion of violence and hatred in the media, including violent films and entertainment programs, “print media and tabloids that publish false news items,” and “television stations that mislead citizens, poison minds, and promote violence,” specifically Pink TV and Hepi TV, two broadcasters very close to the ruling elite.

Read: The return of the 1920s

The presiding officer of Parliament declined to meet with the victims’ parents, although later, Vučić said that he and the prime minister had met with them and “will fulfill all of their demands.” However, Vučić’s party said that it would meet any new protest with a simultaneous counterprotest, which would be certain to inflame tensions and lead to further violence. A few days later, the president described the protesters as “hyenas and scavengers,” which probably indicates that he is not all that interested in reaching compromises or calming things down.

Why the hostility between the regime and the parents, who at first glance appear to share the same goals? Vučić acted immediately by issuing his executive action on firearms. He was rightly praised by many sides for doing something that people had been requesting for years. But Vučić was able to do this at least in part because of the authoritarian character of his rule. Opposition parties are weak, and he enjoys nearly complete control over Parliament, the judiciary, and most other relevant decision-making and enforcement institutions. The parents’ protest highlighted the links among the authoritarian character of the state, the destructively ideological nature of the media, and the broad normalization of violence in the culture.

Confiscating a large number of illegal weapons will probably do some good, and it certainly will not do any harm. But Vučić is aware that he cannot address the root causes of violence without putting the foundations of his rule in danger: The informal network of elites that governs the country needs citizens to be confused, fearful, and insecure.

The conclusions that can be drawn from Serbia’s experience might be unwelcome ones for American gun-control advocates, who argue that the basic cause of persistent mass killings in the United States is not cultural or psychological, and stems not from the erosion of values or the evaporation of respect for authority; rather, they say, it can be traced almost entirely to the presence of large numbers of guns. A critical mass in Serbia is arguing to a receptive public that the state can get rid of guns but that eliminating the danger of violence will also require building institutions that are truthful and responsible, and building a culture that is, if not tolerant and understanding, then at least relatively nontoxic.

When we talk about these issues in Serbia, the touchstone is often the wars of the 1990s, out of which the present regime emerged, and the failure of institutions to deal seriously with its legacy. This is an enormously important issue. I wrote a book about it, and so have many other people who were determined to point, with alarm, at the danger that arises from leaving history as a field of open wounds.

But there is another touchstone, which the parents’ protest indicated with tremendous clarity. It has to do with the character of the political culture. Countries such as Serbia, whose governments made the promise of security central to their power, have come to depend on keeping alive the very fears they pledged to defend their citizens against. The Serbian government has further shored up its authority by shutting down opposition—emptying the public sphere of both genuine confrontation and the capacity to resolve disagreements. Violent ideologies easily gain traction in societies shaped by fear that also lack outlets for constructive dissension. Serbia’s protest against violence is dangerous for the country’s ruling elite, because its demand is to make people more secure by making the culture more democratic and inclusive.

We may be tempted to regard these points about history and culture as unique to the exotic Balkans, but as is almost always the case, they are not. So we shouldn’t be too surprised that in the aftermath of Serbia’s mass shootings, the U.S. and Serbia, with all their differences, are asking themselves what they have in common—and maybe even what Serbia’s experience can teach us about the United States.

Eric Gordy is a professor of sociology at University College London and the author of Guilt, Responsibility and Denial: The Past at Stake in Post-Milošević Serbia.

Buckwoody Egger

The informal network of elites that governs the country needs citizens to be confused, fearful, and insecure.

This line was really telling to me. Gun enthusiast groups (and the marketing to them) justify guns with defending against what they fear and a lack of security. They say “I need to be prepared for _____.”  It is really unfortunate when they then accuse others of being scared of their gun enthusiasm.  Who was the fearful one first?  If someone is selling you fear, find data before you react. 

Gun safety advocates use data to advise on probability, root cause, etc. There are plenty of people fearful of gun enthusiasts and overestimating personal risk and that is unfortunate. But if you look closely at gun enthusiasts who are responsible and judicious, they respect the lethality of the tool just like any other tool that is sharp, explosive, dangerous, etc and safety is a minimum expectation.  

YukonRon

FlyOverCountry said:

WildmanWilson said:

Legume said:

Liberal cities, lmao.  Defund the police wasn't accurate when it was created, but that hasn't been a thing in a couple of years, unless you're taking about the current calls to defund the FBI, but that's coming from the Defend Trump SuperPAC cabal.

Guy you are such a liberal puppet. Do you ever speak truth? You’re not worth the time posting numerous links for politicians and media calling for defunding. Policing has dropped dramatically in some cities. Cop’s know the lib run cities will not have their backs. Why would anyone want to be a cop there?

You are the reason we can’t fix a problem because you’re either a straight up liar or straight up brainwashed. 

Bees do not explain honey to flies standing on **** either.

WildmanWilson

Legume said:

"What happens to our government leaders to keep them safe? They make it harder for harm to come to themselves with more guns and more security. They don't depend on people just being good. Why do they get better than our children?"

Unfortunately, government leaders are targets for people that don't agree with them. We put them in that position when we elect them (they do too when when run), but it's the cost of doing business.  Not true of our kids. Fortifying schools may be an eventuality, but the question is to what degree does that have to be done and at what cost - financial cost, cost to freedom and having our kids live in a prison like setting.  It also isn't upstream enough toward root causes. You say guns aren't the problem and we can't take guns from people without due process and you say red flag laws are not due process, so we have to build higher and thicker walls to hide behind, because freedom. That just seems like a really **** way to live, to me, without really trying to solve this.  It's not zero sum, we should all be able to benefit, even with compromise.

It's not up to me how many and what types of guns people should have.  I vote and I vote for the candidates that I feel are most reasonable and best aligned with my sensibilities.  It's up to our elected officials to produce legislation that benefits us as a society and when they fail or refuse to do so, we have to vote for new people. I consider myself to be part of that society and am happy to reap the benefits that provides.

I use the word reasonable a lot because the right solution isn't about me, or any individual, it's about the whole of us and reasonable seems like a good way to me to express that there is always some compromise necessary in that.  If I was advocating to limit your guns, realize that I would also be advocating to limit my guns.

I thought you said children are targets as well? They just don't deserve your time and money to protect them. 

I remember a time when we thought the products we could buy were safe. That was until some evil people starting tampering with the food and medicine we used, to try are kill or harm us. Not sure why people want to do it but they did. So the entire food industry changed to put covers or caps or some way to tell us if it had been tampered with. They didn't do anything to change the people doing it but found a way to at least slow them down greatly. We can at least do this with schools. Make it harder for them to come in and have a class room door that is easy to lock. There are ways to engineer a defense for much of this. 

We are electing people and they still allow us our God given rights. Its not easy to just take them or change the Constitution or Bill of Rights. The Founders made it that way for a reason. What you want personally doesn't mean a flipping thing. Sorry. That's just how freedom works.

What you think is reasonable may seem crazy to me...as we well see. I think the big picture is freedom from oppression like we have seen throughout history. Many, many, millions died under the idea that they were being protected from themselves . Governments are evil and kill more than any one or few individuals can. Look no further than what happened to the native Americans by the US government. They were slaughtered and then agreed to go to reservations where they were treated horribly. Why put trust in them knowing what they are capable of. We aren't so "modern" and "sophisticated" that evil is out of style.

JohnInCarolina

JFC

http://twitter.com/FairfaxCountyPD/status/1661310855496060929?s=20

caliking

To the asshat(s) who can't comprehend what the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment means...

Today was the 3rd Grade Awards Ceremony at caliprince's school. Busy day, but I cleared out the afternoon so I could attend. I had somewhat forgotten the significance of the date, but as soon as I walked into his school, I thought of the kids at Robb Elementary in Uvalde. And, their parents. And, all those who loved, and still love, them. I saw the faces of those  kids, as each one of the students stepped onto the stage to receive their awards. 

Got in the truck afterwards, and listened to the coverage/commemoration of the date on the radio. I hadn't had a chance to tune in earlier. 

Back at home, I happened to come across the below article , when looking for places to visit this summer.

This about sums it up:

 “We understand that for some reason, to some people, to people with money, to people who fund political campaigns, that guns are more important than children,” she said.

Didn't make it past the description of the little girl's burial, because of the tears welling up in my eyes, and the anguish felt for the parents. I can't even imagine.

caliprince also didn't want to come home after the ceremony either. Too many fun things to do at school in the afternoon. 

So... forget the niceties. F*ck you, whoever can't see that we have a problem. F*ck Greg Abbott. F*ck Dan Patrick. Edit: almost forgot... F*ck Ken Paxton.

As they say in Texas, f*ck all y'all. May you rot in helll, unloved and forgotten. 

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/uvalde-shooting-mother-grief-one-year-anniversary-gun-control/

caliking

And, apparently, legislation  re brass knuckles is alright. But, guns? 

Aw hell no!! Mah freedumb!!

fishlessman

the schools around here are getting alot of swatting hoax calls, 6 weeks ago or so there were about 30 schools emptied and checked for a shooter in one day. tuesday an officer accidentally fired his gun in a school bathroom during one of these events with the kids outside. its getting to be nutz

HeavyG

https://twitter.com/rudepundit/status/1661556772757282817