• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Says Florida Students Should Have Done More To Prevent Deadly Shooting

Boy this guy gives the term jackass a bad name....wish he had the courage to talk and console the parents in person. #coward. If Trumpy was in that situation all he would have done Commander "bone Spur" is take a Trumpy dumpy
 
Harshaw said:
No, I understand quite well how it works. It's people who say we "can easily assume" the Supreme Court will do anything who don't, especially on a novel question.
Click to expand...

One has to feel nothing but pity for the ill informed, or the low IQ party. All one has to do is look at the history of the Court, the make up of the Court, and one can pretty much know which way it is going to rule.

It won't reverse its prior position. It doesn't have to.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. It would have to reverse the Heller ruling, and now say that no gun can be regulated.

It only your idiotic notion that semi-automatics aren't in common use for lawful purposes which is "irrational."

But let's get specific.

Do you think semi-automatics are not in common use?
Click to expand...

First off, let us correct your stupidity, and lack of reading comprehension. I never said that the semi-automatic was not in common use. I said the common use argument was a false argument since it makes no difference in regards to the actual ruling in Heller.

Or do you think they aren't commonly used for lawful purposes?

Or both?
Click to expand...

For the military, and police, yes. For the general public it is used mostly for entertainment. Then you have the criminal like we just saw in the school, in Las Vegas, or even in robberies, home invasions, etc.

Not that it matters; any of those choices is factually wrong, and only shows ignorance of the issue.
Click to expand...

Well, yours anyway.

More ignorance. "Need" has nothing to do with it. Not with the Heller decision, and not with rights in general.
Click to expand...

"Need" is the basis of all rights. Especially when it comes to guns. You "need" a gun to hunt with. You "need" a gun for self defense. You "need" a gun to target practice with. You "need" a gun to kill unarmed students with.
 
dcsports said:
Assault rifles, including M-16s, are not legal today (at least, not without a special permit). You won't find more than a very narrow group supporting a change in this. Note that the weapon used in Florida was neither. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle, and is not used by the military. It is cosmetically similar, but not the same thing.
Click to expand...


If you study the history of the M-16, M4, and the AR-15, you will find the AR-15 came first, and was modified for military purposes. The A models were the basis for all of them, and they use the same platforms for their firing capabilities. Quite a bit more then cosmetics.

https://www.at3tactical.com/blogs/n...erstanding-the-different-types-of-ar15-rifles
 
Old Trapper said:
One has to feel nothing but pity for the ill informed, or the low IQ party. All one has to do is look at the history of the Court, the make up of the Court, and one can pretty much know which way it is going to rule.
Click to expand...

The pity has to be felt for people with no legal training who think they're experts on the court system, especially when they've obviously never studied the Supreme Court before now.

Sure it does. It would have to reverse the Heller ruling, and now say that no gun can be regulated.
Click to expand...

Neither of those things would have to happen. As with much of what you have said, this is idiotic.


First off, let us correct your stupidity, and lack of reading comprehension. I never said that the semi-automatic was not in common use. I said the common use argument was a false argument since it makes no difference in regards to the actual ruling in Heller.
Click to expand...

Crikey.

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25
Click to expand...


You just plain don't understand the decision. Weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes are those which are protected. Those in common use.

For the military, and police, yes. For the general public it is used mostly for entertainment. Then you have the criminal like we just saw in the school, in Las Vegas, or even in robberies, home invasions, etc.
Click to expand...

This is utterly asinine. Semi-autos are used for hunting, they're used for self-defense, they're used for sport shooting. The vast majority of guns are semi-auto.

Your prejudices concerning what people do with them are not fact.


"Need" is the basis of all rights. Especially when it comes to guns. You "need" a gun to hunt with. You "need" a gun for self defense. You "need" a gun to target practice with. You "need" a gun to kill unarmed students with.
Click to expand...

This is uneducated prattle. "Need" has nothing to with rights. You don't have to show a need to exercise a right. If you do, it's not a right.

You've never, ever read a Supreme Court case having to do with rights, or if you tried, you didn't understand it.
 
Grand Mal said:
What the hell are you on about? I've never said anything like 'ban guns', I've always supported the rights of Americans to own whatever guns they want. Please confine your comments about me to things I've actually said.
And read my riggin' post before you reply to it. My beef with Trump, in this case, is he beaking off about how it's a mental health issue when it's been about a year since he revoked a law making it more difficult for the mentally ill to buy a gun.
And don't you see how irrelevant it is whether this particular school massacre would have been prevented by that law? Jesus, what's with you people? Absolutely opposed to any effort to help the situation. It's acceptable to you, is it? Every month or two there's just going to be another mass shooting or massacre of schoolkids in America- that's just how it is because of the constitution.
And keep your childishly stupid references to TDS to yourself. That's good advice- terms like that just identify another idiot.
Click to expand...

So his post still contain nothing just as I knew it wouldn't.
No TDS is only childish to hose that have it but can't see that they do.

So instead of deflecting what laws would you pass that would not stamp on the rights of legal gun owners?

I posted the law. I asked you to show us where this kid was getting SS payments for a mental illness because that is the law he signed. So far as typical you provide nothing.

I am still waiting to hear you proposals and at least a microspec of honesty in the discussion so far as typical you have nothing.
Get back to me when you can actually answer the question, but we all know you won't.

Read the article on the mental illness thing. It wasn't how you described.
 
dcsports said:
Assault rifles, including M-16s, are not legal today (at least, not without a special permit). You won't find more than a very narrow group supporting a change in this. Note that the weapon used in Florida was neither. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle, and is not used by the military. It is cosmetically similar, but not the same thing.
Click to expand...

People are shouting "assault rifles are killing our children!" Weeping over bodies, literally.

And some people shout back "that's a carbine!" as if that's going to help the discussion.
 
MSgt said:
That's because "the Muslim" has taken place of "the communist." Everything else -home-grown terrorism, social developments, globalization, Constitutional progression- is too messy and takes too much time from our favorite television show.

As a people, we are notorious for defining everything in the simplest terms possible. National Security Strategies (NSS) (or "Foreign Policy" because even that must be reduced to a simple term) have long sought to define the world and our place in it as a vague slogan that allows for a wide interpretation. This is where I tend to digress into my strong suit so I will spare you and the thread. But, my core point is that we avoid the real issues for our desired ideologies. When it comes to our guns, we prefer the simple Second Amendment argument to the mess of sorting through how best to celebrate that right responsibly.
Click to expand...

Good post and good points, none I disagree with.

What I see from afar is a kind of world-weary arrogance, mixed with an intense undercurrent of fear, if not paranoia over America's place in the world. And I have an advantage as Vancouver is a gathering place for the world; a non-scientific body of study.

I have been of the view that the US, it's people NEED an "enemy" for some reason. I moved there as a child in the 50's, and instead of just schooling I discovered the mandatory citing of the "pledge of allegiance" every day. It was a shock, what if I disagreed? What do they do to you if you don't?
And I was soon to find out that all those Hungarians Canada had just taken in were going to rape my friend's mothers because they were "communists", the people we were fearing when we had "air raid drill" every day.
Then it was "Cubans" and still is. Then it was Vietnamese, but that got really confusing because some were our friends, so we were back to "commies", and this brand of commie was really scary because so many people I knew or knew about were going off to get killed.
Then I read Fahrenheit 451, and Animal Farm, and 1984 and was not surprised to find "commies" were kind of OK, it was Russia we had to worry about. Then the Russians were friends because they became free enterprise and then a new fear had to be found. A genius named Dick Chaney discovered the perfect war, an enemy unseen, hidden, well armed, and ever changing: "terrorist" The war that will never end. Perfect for Chaney and his arms and security holdings.
Today, we still have terrorists, but they are only worrisome of they come from another country. And it seems we've gone full circle again, "Russians" are friends again, our even though they're ****ing with the concept of democracy.

And...oh, "friends" are now "robbing America blind over trade" I guess Canada will soon be an enemy
 
bearpoker said:
It's more of the usual. White male shoots up a bunch of people. Thoughts and prayers. It'll all die down. (no pun) We certainly can't do anything about it. Blaming the victims is new though. Trumpian creativity at it's finest.
Click to expand...



"White male shoots up a bunch of people." Black males are disproportionately serial killers. So what? Why are you bringing race into the matter?
 
Trump should have been told that the kid had been reported to the FBI once, and several complaint calls had been made to the local Sheriff's office. What more could the locals have done?

Fact: in 2017 the US had 245 mass shootings, Canada had 1 (Wikipedia).
 
Rosie1 said:
Trump should have been told that the kid had been reported to the FBI once, and several complaint calls had been made to the local Sheriff's office. What more could the locals have done?

Fact: in 2017 the US had 245 mass shootings, Canada had 1 (Wikipedia).
Click to expand...

it isn't a president thing. that is a law enforcment issue and law enforcement dropped the ball.

most of those are drug or criminal related.
 
Rosie1 said:
Trump should have been told that the kid had been reported to the FBI once, and several complaint calls had been made to the local Sheriff's office. What more could the locals have done?

Fact: in 2017 the US had 245 mass shootings, Canada had 1 (Wikipedia).
Click to expand...

He won't criticize the locals. That would require him to criticize his fluffer Rick Scott.
 
Mr Person said:
So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior. Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2018
Click to expand...


Cruz was reported and nothing was done-that's a fact.

17 people are dead because we don't have a system!

Until the USA puts a nation-wide mental health system in place incidents like this will continue to happen.
 
Last edited:
Old Trapper said:
When was the last time you used a firearm to protect your life, your family, or your home? And why is an AR15 with a "bump stock" necessary to do such? I feel a lot safer with my Glock 40cal., and my home security 12 ga. shotgun. Even in a survival situation I would feel more secure with my .22mag. pump, and my .410 shotgun.
Click to expand...

That's the stupidest reasoning I've read in awhile. I've never used my fire extinguisher in the kitchen or the life preservers on boats either. Growing up we practiced fire drills to get out of the house safely and we teach kids stranger danger. We often act proactively to protect ourselves and our families. That's what responsible people do. It's stupid to just wait until AFTER a disaster.
 
Old Trapper said:
Show me where in the Second you have a right to a gun for any purpose other then the militia.

And it was not government tyranny that the Founders were concerned about. As the Second says "Being necessary to the security of a Free State" What they feared was a permanent standing Military that could be used against the people as was done in Europe.
.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was to protect against govt tyranny and exactly what good is a militia if people dont train with and become proficient with their weapons? And why cant that happen thru a variety of recreational means? WHich it does. It's great motivation to be proficient in a sport or hunting, so it encourages that proficiency.
 
MSgt said:
Well, gee, Lursa. Let's take look at your assertion....

- When Trump immediately repealed an Obama-era rule (HJ Resolution 40) in January 2017, which allowed nut cases on mental health benefits to be entered into a criminal database that disallowed them to purchase weapons, and all his doting Obama hating fans applauded...they absolutely proved that they do not agree about guns and nut cases.

- Then Trump's doting fans look away when Trump's own annual budget seeks to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for mental health programs, proving once again that they do not agree about the need to check our mentally ill.

- Then we allow Trump to shamelessly explain away this school shooting as merely a mental health issue or that the FBI didn't do their job and investigate a warning of this mentally screwed up kid, the doting fans prove that they wish to avoid the issue completely.

Do you know what an AR-15 is, beyond it's "assault" weapon status? It is a civilianized M-16, a military weapon that our troops exhaustively train with and deploy with in order to efficiently kill in combat. Here we have a kid who has a record of being a mental health patient, but had no problem whatsoever walking into a store and legally buying an AR-15. By all means untrained, civilian, psycho kid...please have a gun. It's your right!


Clearly, everyone does not agree about the mentally ill and their guns. Obama largely accomplished nothing and he actually gave it a shot. But what little he managed to do, Trump reversed to conservative cheers everywhere. Cheers, by the way, that belonged to "responsible" gun owners. When a great portion of this country would rather show their ass to Obama than recognize how irrationally stupid they are behaving, we have no desire to figure anything out. In the end, we simply do not give a damn, especially when we wish to place all the blame on a burdened FBI for not doing something about crazy, and as far away as possible from our beloved Trump who appears to want to hold the door open at the gun shop.
Click to expand...

Well since I am 100% anti-Trump, maybe you should address all that to someone else.
 
Lursa said:
Well since I am 100% anti-Trump, maybe you should address all that to someone else.
Click to expand...

I just replied to your assertions. You're the one that declared that we are all in agreement about gun toting nutcases. We are absolutely not. Trump's fan club proved that rolling back an Obama-era rule was more important to their sense of self than recognizing what was being rolled back.

And now...after another kook goes on a rampage, Trump declares to support efforts to improve background checks on gun ownership? What a crock. A "proper" background check on this mentally unstable kid would have still opened the door to the gun shop, because according to "responsible" gun owners everywhere, his Right is their Right.
 
MSgt said:
I just replied to your assertions. You're the one that declared that we are all in agreement about gun toting nutcases. We are absolutely not. Trump's fan club proved that rolling back an Obama-era rule was more important to their sense of self than recognizing what was being rolled back.

And now...after another kook goes on a rampage, Trump declares to support efforts to improve background checks on gun ownership? What a crock. A "proper" background check on this mentally unstable kid would have still opened the door to the gun shop, because according to "responsible" gun owners everywhere, his Right is their Right.
Click to expand...

The need to balance the rights recognized in the Constitution is well-known.

And deciding what to do regarding identifying and dealing with the mentally ill is a particularly tough one.

OTOH, I do not feel that myself and other law-abiding gun-owners should be punished because of their conditions or actions.
 
Lursa said:
The need to balance the rights recognized in the Constitution is well-known.

And deciding what to do regarding identifying and dealing with the mentally ill is a particularly tough one.

OTOH, I do not feel that myself and other law-abiding gun-owners should be punished because of their conditions or actions.
Click to expand...

I think it's tough only because we have chosen to make it tough.

- Under psychiatric care? No gun.
- On Prozak? No gun.

If we don't want our Rights harmed then we should stop defining them in accordance to the lowest denominator who constantly threatens those Rights with their actions....

- Sandy Hook? A kook.
- Batman Premier? A kook.
- Florida? A kook.

My Rights are worth far more than risking them so that a kook can abuse the same Right. Actively removing restrictions that open the door so that clinical-crazies can buy weapons is not us caring, or even respecting, our Rights. It's an irrational fear that supposes that our Rights hinge on the availability of weapons to the mentally weak.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
I think it's tough only because we have chosen to make it tough.

- Under psychiatric care? No gun.
- On Prozak? No gun.

If we don't want our Rights harmed then we should stop defining them in accordance to the lowest denominator who constantly threatens those Rights with their actions....

- Sandy Hook? A kook.
- Batman Premier? A kook.
- Florida? A kook.

My Rights are worth far more than risking them so that a kook can abuse the same Right. Actively removing restrictions that open the door so that clinical-crazies can buy weapons is not us caring, or even respecting, about our Rights. It's an irrational fear that supposes that our Rights hinge on the availability of weapons to the mentally weak.
Click to expand...

And it seems you are unaware of the argument that that type of scrutiny (many types are proposed) also encourages the mentally ill to NOT get treatment. Are you unaware of this? Have you considered it in your plan? And some proposals also dismiss things like due process and patient privacy. I think all these things should be considered before forfeited.

So it's not quite as black and white as you seem to think it is.

I originally posted that 'no one' is against addressing this by keeping guns from the mentally ill. I stand by that. I just do not see it as simple (or even workable) as you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom