Be interesting to see the motive on this one.
He was at the hospital with his mom for an appointment. It seems he is on anti-anxiety meds, was only there a couple minutes, became angry, pulled a gun and started shooting. Also has drug use conviction, a failure to appear and a revocation of probation.
5 Likes
So yet another prohibited person?
6 Likes
That’s what it looks like.
5 Likes
We need to ban gUnZ
4 Likes
All that Covid money that is being hoarded and not spent needs to be repurposed for more jail cells and prosecutors who will fill them.
1 Like
I know why a lib didn’t start a, “'nother shew-ting happen!” thread for this one. 
4 Likes
Well that’s what the DA is saying.
What else would some DAs say? The days of blaming the perpetrators (who can’t help themselves, they were shudder disadvantaged, poor babies) for their crimes are long past with some of them.
Edit: I did not put shudder in italics. The program did that. I wonder if this second use in the edit will be in italics too?
Edit #2: okay, that’s freaky
Wow. I shudder too.
PS: Didn’t happen to me.
Given what we know of the shooter, do you think he was a RESPONSIBLE gun owner?
Do tou think that matters to those wanting to ban guns? That’s never one of the criteria or even considered.
Since almost no one wants to “ban guns” your question is moot.
I strongly favor gun rights for people who use guns responsibly. But common sense solutions to reduce violence such as banning gun ownership by those with domestic violence restraining orders or those on the terrorism watchlist always get buried under cries of "you are trying to ban guns.’
My worry is that the intransigence of the 2nd Amendment absolutists in the face of common sense regulations that have broad support will eventually lead to broader restrictions than I want – or you want – as the public becomes increasingly incensed over inaction in the face of daily mass shootings.
1 Like
Well, that was a bunch of words to.basically say you have no idea how rights work
5 Likes
Its clear that you dont understand the bill or rights and the limited power of government
2 Likes
Strong accusation. You want to get specific.
The 2nd Amendment was a compromise between the Federalists’ desire for s standing army and the slave states insistence on needing slave patrols and the ability to resist what they correctly feared – that a federal army would be used to end slavery.
Every court case on 2A followed that logic until Scalia (who claimed he was an originalist but clearly was not) rewrote 2A in Heller to find an individual right to bear arms (as opposed to a “militia” right. Okay. But Scalia’s decision in Heller stated it could not be construed as barring bans on classes of guns or other restrictions.
You can only cling to "shall not be infringed’ if you cancel the qualifier about how infringement applies to a “well ordered militia”.
Tell me again how I don’t understand the Constitution and its history.
Worst part though, is I am your ally. My post was about the increasingly untenable position the “shall not be infringed” absolutists are placing themselves in.
1 Like
What else would have stopped the Atlanta shooter from shooting?
1 Like
I’ll definitely feel free to tell you that you fo not understand the Constitution.
4 Likes
Ok…but how would that prevent Audrey Hale shooting?
2 Likes
I respect your First Amendment right to say that… but do note that you cannot back up your claim with any actual contents.
You are also free to call me a Communist, a Groomer, and someone with terrible taste in music. You can assert whatever you want but that does not convey that you know what you are talking about.
