Shooter incident at elementary school in Uvalde, Texas - 19 children and 2 adults dead (7 Viewers)

[SaintJ]

Motive method opportunity. take any one of those away and it's system fails no go not happenin. This game is so stale,right says motive, left says method. no one ever thinks of taking away the last one,turning things into walled off forts.

Oh, they're way ahead of you.

“We have to harden these targets so that no one can get in ever except through one entrance,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick told Tucker Carlson in an appearance on Fox News. “Maybe that would help. Maybe that would stop someone.”

Top Texas Republicans resist gun control and push for more armed teachers and police at schools in wake of Uvalde shooting

As President Joe Biden vowed to enact stricter gun laws following the Uvalde shooting, top Texas Republicans worked to create distance between the shooting and potential gun restrictions.

www.texastribune.org

They are lapping this up. They want the chaos and fear because it plays right into their hands. The more people that have the fear, the more susceptible they'll be to someone proclaiming simple solutions.

 

[Complex Kid]

Top Texas Republicans resist gun control and push for more armed teachers and police at schools in wake of Uvalde shooting

As President Joe Biden vowed to enact stricter gun laws following the Uvalde shooting, top Texas Republicans worked to create distance between the shooting and potential gun restrictions.

www.texastribune.org

This guy shot it out with trained cops BEFORE getting into the school but yeah Ms. Frizzle the 2nd grade Art teacher is going to be able to take him out with a revolver.

 

[saintmdterps]

Nope.

If guns were turned loose in the capitol rotunda it would stop.

Oh wait…

 

[Infoman]

Or better yet, have Louis Farrakhan lead a million man march to purchase guns. I guarantee you that we would see the NRA and their supporters revert back to their pre 1965 stance regarding gun laws.

I'm cool with that too... But the NRA doesn't directly sell guns... I just want to see what happens when you ban something that there's a huge market for, makes billions of dollars a year, there is a high demand for, etc.... then make it illegal to buy, own, or sell.... especially in an area where people are desperate and willing to do whatever is necessary to get said object/substance... and already has a history of using said object or substance. You know like an metro area that has roughly 15 shootings a day that no one talks about?

I have a weird felling that not much would change outside of who makes the money on the substance/object, and how it was obtained (since we have 393 million guns in the US that are not going anywhere) but it's not like I have any proof or super long history of examples throughout American history to back this theory up....

 

[bclemms]

This guy shot it out with trained cops BEFORE getting into the school but yeah Ms. Frizzle the 2nd grade Art teacher is going to be able to take him out with a revolver.

Quit making it sound so difficult and be a little bit open minded. I made a quick illustration for those morans not understanding such a simple solution.

 

[Heathen Saint]

From a 10k foot view..I can’t decide which is more sick -

1) We have lawmakers who watch as children or peaceful assembly are slaughtered and shrug their shoulders and send silly thought and prayers save face comments…

OR

2) It takes slaughtering of children at a large or larger scale for our country to actually take action to protect them. This inevitably will happen again.. Will that be enough dead kids? Will the next event? Shame on this nation

 

[superchuck500]

This is the reason things like Uvalde won’t stop….in my opinion. Not saying you in particular have this view, but I think most Americans are against any drastic changes to the 2nd amendment. And as such, this land of gun culture simply won’t change. The math doesn’t work out. A hard reality we must consider…

Here's the thing though - it is true that the 2A won't be repealed or "changed", but there are many aspects of the gun issue in the United States that can be governed without going to the right to gun ownership. The 2A lobby has been so successful at treating all gun-related measures as existential threats to gun ownership that we can't even have these discussions without people framing it that way . . . but it's not accurate. One can easily envision a basket of reasonable efforts that could indeed help the situation that would not violate the Second Amendment. At some point we have to be critical of the arguments used against these measures and legislators have to have the courage to take the heat from the 2A lobby in trying to do something about it.

Some examples of areas open for change (but there are certainly others):

- Rules about gun access for dangerous or mentally ill people could be instituted to try to limit gun access to people with demonstrated histories of serious concern. This would not violate the 2A (note that laws restricting gun access to domestic abusers have been upheld as constitutional). But the 2A lobby resists this by using strawman/doomsday scenarios where state psychiatrists conspire to rule that everyone is crazy. These tactics have to be resisted in the name of sensible approaches with checks/balances and backstops to avoid abuse.

- Making particularly dangerous weapons like assault rifles harder to acquire by raising the age to 21 and requiring other demonstrations of competency. Limiting the market in which such weapons can be acquired. Or even making limitations on capacity and firing speed. The major 2A cases from the Supreme Court in the past 30 years have clearly noted that the right is not unlimited - there are to be expected reasonable limits on particularly dangerous arms, and I think that well-tailored limits and rules in this area would be upheld. The 2A lobby resists these on the basis that (1) changing acquisition rules are just a slippery-slope toward prohibition - but this is false and one need only look at Heller and McDonald to see just how false it is, so it is only a tactic of resistance by the lobby. And (2) that limitations on the weapon's capabilities themselves are arbitrary and easily modified so we just shouldn't consider them at all . . . but this again is not a reasonable approach to regulating a problem area. The AR is the weapon of choice in mass-murder incidents in the US and it isn't even subject to debate. We can work on the issue of access and capability without meaningfully impacting the lawful citizen's right to own these weapons.

These are just a couple of examples, there are others. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms and protects against government infringement of that right - but like all constitutional rights there is a framework of analysis of when a law actually does this and when it does not. We can be fairly confident that some approaches to regulating the gun issue in America will not violate that framework but it is political (and not legal) resistance that keeps these things from happening. One can certainly argue that these things may not have much impact but that thinking only reinforces our national paralysis on the issue.

 

[DerrickB]

From a 10k foot view..I can’t decide which is more sick -

1) We have lawmakers who watch as children or peaceful assembly are slaughtered and shrug their shoulders and send silly thought and prayers save face comments…

OR

2) It takes slaughtering of children at a large or larger scale for our country to actually take action to protect them. This inevitably will happen again.. Will that be enough dead kids? Will the next event? Shame on this nation

It's part of the matrix bro.

 

[bclemms]

Here's the thing though - it is true that the 2A won't be repealed or "changed", but there are many aspects of the gun issue in the United States that can be governed without going to the right to gun ownership. The 2A lobby has been so successful at treating all gun-related measures as existential threats to gun ownership that we can't even have these discussions without people framing it that way . . . but it's not accurate. One can easily envision a basket of reasonable efforts that could indeed help the situation that would not violate the Second Amendment. At some point we have to be critical of the arguments used against these measures and legislators have to have the courage to take the heat from the 2A lobby in trying to do something about it.

Some examples of areas open for change (but there are certainly others):

- Rules about gun access for dangerous or mentally ill people could be instituted to try to limit gun access to people with demonstrated histories of serious concern. This would not violate the 2A (note that laws restricting gun access to domestic abusers have been upheld as constitutional). But the 2A lobby resists this by using strawman/doomsday scenarios where state psychiatrists conspire to rule that everyone is crazy. These tactics have to be resisted in the name of sensible approaches with checks/balances and backstops to avoid abuse.

- Making particularly dangerous weapons like assault rifles harder to acquire by raising the age to 21 and requiring other demonstrations of competency. Limiting the market in which such weapons can be acquired. Or even making limitations on capacity and firing speed. The major 2A cases from the Supreme Court in the past 30 years have clearly noted that the right is not unlimited - there are to be expected reasonable limits on particularly dangerous arms, and I think that well-tailored limits and rules in this area would be upheld. The 2A lobby resists these on the basis that (1) changing acquisition rules are just a slippery-slope toward prohibition - but this is false and one need only look at Heller and McDonald to see just how false it is, so it is only a tactic of resistance by the lobby. And (2) that limitations on the weapon's capabilities themselves are arbitrary and easily modified so we just shouldn't consider them at all . . . but this again is not a reasonable approach to regulating a problem area. The AR is the weapon of choice in mass-murder incidents in the US and it isn't even subject to debate. We can work on the issue of access and capability without meaningfully impacting the lawful citizen's right to own these weapons.

These are just a couple of examples, there are others. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms and protects against government infringement of that right - but like all constitutional rights there is a framework of analysis of when a law actually does this and when it does not. We can be fairly confident that some approaches to regulating the gun issue in America will not violate that framework but it is political (and not legal) resistance that keeps these things from happening. One can certainly argue that these things may not have much impact but that thinking only reinforces our national paralysis on the issue.

Unfortunately, it took a comedian to lay it out better than anyone.

 

[CapitalCitySaint]

This **** is what justifies a march on DC. Demand change, call and email your legislators. This crap has to stop.

My daughter is in the third grade and her classroom is right inside the entrance. Her mother is a teacher, yes I worry. I am not unique in this.

I no longer live in Texas but that certainly isn’t going to stop me from emailing Turd Cruz.

I have already committed to throwing a party the day that guy meets his maker.

 

[efil4stnias]

Here's the thing though - it is true that the 2A won't be repealed or "changed", but there are many aspects of the gun issue in the United States that can be governed without going to the right to gun ownership. The 2A lobby has been so successful at treating all gun-related measures as existential threats to gun ownership that we can't even have these discussions without people framing it that way . . . but it's not accurate. One can easily envision a basket of reasonable efforts that could indeed help the situation that would not violate the Second Amendment. At some point we have to be critical of the arguments used against these measures and legislators have to have the courage to take the heat from the 2A lobby in trying to do something about it.

Some examples of areas open for change (but there are certainly others):

- Rules about gun access for dangerous or mentally ill people could be instituted to try to limit gun access to people with demonstrated histories of serious concern. This would not violate the 2A (note that laws restricting gun access to domestic abusers have been upheld as constitutional). But the 2A lobby resists this by using strawman/doomsday scenarios where state psychiatrists conspire to rule that everyone is crazy. These tactics have to be resisted in the name of sensible approaches with checks/balances and backstops to avoid abuse.

- Making particularly dangerous weapons like assault rifles harder to acquire by raising the age to 21 and requiring other demonstrations of competency. Limiting the market in which such weapons can be acquired. Or even making limitations on capacity and firing speed. The major 2A cases from the Supreme Court in the past 30 years have clearly noted that the right is not unlimited - there are to be expected reasonable limits on particularly dangerous arms, and I think that well-tailored limits and rules in this area would be upheld. The 2A lobby resists these on the basis that (1) changing acquisition rules are just a slippery-slope toward prohibition - but this is false and one need only look at Heller and McDonald to see just how false it is, so it is only a tactic of resistance by the lobby. And (2) that limitations on the weapon's capabilities themselves are arbitrary and easily modified so we just shouldn't consider them at all . . . but this again is not a reasonable approach to regulating a problem area. The AR is the weapon of choice in mass-murder incidents in the US and it isn't even subject to debate. We can work on the issue of access and capability without meaningfully impacting the lawful citizen's right to own these weapons.

These are just a couple of examples, there are others. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms and protects against government infringement of that right - but like all constitutional rights there is a framework of analysis of when a law actually does this and when it does not. We can be fairly confident that some approaches to regulating the gun issue in America will not violate that framework but it is political (and not legal) resistance that keeps these things from happening. One can certainly argue that these things may not have much impact but that thinking only reinforces our national paralysis on the issue.

But the NRA ( and its lobbying efforts ) have done a masterful job of convincing gun owners and gun lovers of exactly what you stated before regarding the "slippery slope" argument that ANY gun legislation will simply open "pandoras box" to further legislation ( ie. taking ur guns )

the NRA has spend 10s of millions over the years to do just that. They wont go quietly after spending that amount of money for lobby efforts to see it wasted.

 

[gboudx]

I no longer live in Texas but that certainly isn’t going to stop me from emailing Turd Cruz.

I have already committed to throwing a party the day that guy meets his maker.

I'm only emailing John Cornyn as he is the sanest of the 2 senators from Texas. I don't want to give lying Ted the satisfaction that he's important enough for me to reach out to him.

Please invite me to that party.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

...I have a weird felling that not much would change outside of who makes the money on the substance/object, and how it was obtained (since we have 393 million guns in the US that are not going anywhere) but it's not like I have any proof or super long history of examples throughout American history to back this theory up....

Yeah, me neither...

Then let them escalate. They can put their money where their mouth is, or in this case their precious AR-15.

But you're wrong. It literally does lead to more gun control:

Mulford Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That became California Law as a response to armed Black Panthers patrolling their neighborhoods.

 

[superchuck500]

But the NRA ( and its lobbying efforts ) have done a masterful job of convincing gun owners and gun lovers of exactly what you stated before regarding the "slippery slope" argument that ANY gun legislation will simply open "pandoras box" to further legislation ( ie. taking ur guns )

the NRA has spend 10s of millions over the years to do just that. They wont go quietly after spending that amount of money for lobby efforts to see it wasted.

That's precisely my point. The lobby has been wildly successful at framing the legal issue in a certain way that translates to highly effective lobbying and the creation of political risk for legislators that don't abide by it.

But it's actually not accurate - it is demonstrably false. Courage to take on difficult issues isn't easy, but courage to resist false frameworks should be something we can find.

 

[HoustonSaint68]