Three kids killed by shooter at Christian school

i think that is a fair and reasonable argument. There is zero doubt People are less connected and with that comes loneliness so we can agree there

 

This distinction doesnt seem all that interesting or supportive to the "guns are for individual self-defense" argument

 

Blah blah blah. They could but most won’t. All my reasonable ideas attack the problem. None of the gun nutter even suggest an attempt to fix the problem. The issue isn’t just limited to deaths there the injuries, uninsured medical cost and the swath of destruction gun violence leaves behind

 

ok man

 

Seems like America was even more cruel & violent in its past before video games or mass entertainment. These things may desensitize to a degree , but they are also outlets for people to engage with perhaps darker impulses and fantasies without actually harming people, that is also an aspect of that desensitization.

 

It should be treated like domestic terrorism. The homeland needs to be secured. All of you clamoring for assault weapons bans don’t seem to understand that it won’t come close to guaranteeing more shootings won’t happen, post-ban. If you really, really care about the kids, secure the schools.

 

People love their guns so much they want to live in a police state it seems. If the only freedom you care about is owning big guns, maybe freedom isnt for you. You want even more government with more policing powers so you can have their guns, the same government you are afraid of taking those guns away, its really nonsensical at this point.

 

None of their points ever make sense. "I need to stock up on 20 assault rifles and tens of thousands of rounds of ammo because I don't trust the shady American government, they're coming for my guns. On that note, I completely trust the government to protect my kids in schools."

 

fair argument and lack of emotional regulation no doubt is central to someone doing what she did. My opinions are based anecdotally but I teach my kids that anger is perfectly normal but what we choose to do with that is super important. I have given them a list of acceptable ways to process that anger. I also have encouraged combat sports. karate and bjj ( too young for Muay Thai). Teaches respect, discipline , delayed gratification and builds confidence. Not sure I can agree Role playing actual killing of people over and over is the best outlet for that anger. But we can respectfully disagree

 

I think there is a fine line between "art" and "exploitation." Most violent games have a story and sort of roleplay aspect to it, at least some kind of logic for doing the violent things you do in the game. I'm not going to say roleplaying a cop shooting gang members is 'healthy' per se, but that tends to not bother anyone as much as if someone made a game where you are a school shooter murdering children. Very few games, if any are transgressive in that they allow people to engage in wanton killing of vulnerable people without consequences in game. Even the online shooter games seem more about cooperation and teamwork to complete an objective than simply stacking up bodies for fun.

 

I think it's partly because some people feel that they have more input in their local government and that state government is at least more reflective of them.

There's also some on the far right who feel their values and their people are under attack by the Feds through civil rights, gun control, and other things being pushed on them over the years. Some might not even believe the Federal government is legitimate. This is all part of the growing talk of secession. I think even some militia types, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc. may like their county sheriff even if they hate the Feds. Notably, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City bombing, and the Cliven Bundy standoff all involved disputes with the Feds.

I've seen when the Proud Boys and other groups on the right will be very cozy with law enforcement in some places and get mad when cops are tougher on them in other places. They even yell at them, saying "Hey, what are you doing? We have been supporting you guys against BLM."

 

I think that's great. If your kids can defend themselves, I imagine it will make them less likely to ever shoot and kill somebody.

Side note: I think MMA has been great to expose a lot of McDojos and fantasy in the martial arts. But many in MMA are too Cobra Kai-ish IMO. I really hate if I see skilled fighters acting the fool or hitting or intimidating normal people. I've always believed martial arts should be about respect and discipline and the good guys were supposed to be the ones with the skills. But I'm sure that's nothing new. I'm always thrilled to see a BJJ practitioner subdue a violent guy without having to do permanent damage.

 

It was written clearly for the folks at the time it was written. Where the confusion comes in is looking at it under the lens of modern stylistic customs and syntax in the English language.

 

Pretty safe bet that this is not what the founders had in mind when they wrote the second amendment.
Over/under on when the next one goes down?

 

The shooter was under a doctor’s care for a mental disorder and was allowed to walk into five different stores and LEGALLY buy five different weapons. I don’t know about anyone else but there seems to be a fairly obvious problem there.

 

Serious question. Were you drunk when you wrote this, or under the influence of any prescription medications? You guys want schools open with the children unmasked because “freedom,” but you also want to turn schools into a locked down fortress. I don’t think you guys know what you want.

 

It is a fairly obvious problem for people who argue 'law abiding citizens' shouldn't have their gun ownership rights infringed upon, because being under the care of a therapist/doctor doesn't make someone a criminal.

 

Perhaps, but the First Amendment does not require us to understand any special 18th Century stylistic customs or syntax rules.

With the 2nd, however, we have:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Could have been written something like:

The rights of the people and a well regulated Militia to bear arms shall not be infringed; or

Congress shall pass no law infringing upon the right of the people or the right of a well regulated Mliita to bear arms

Like I said, I personally don't think it's clear either way based upon the text itself. I was more questioning whether the lack of clarity was intentional or not.

 

LOL at anyone thinking scotus should overturn 2A. May as well just ask putin to drop some nukes on us.