You shouldn't be living in constant fear. Your odds of surviving today are very, very good. The murder rate now is roughly equivalent to the 1950s and much lower than the 70s, 80s, and 90s. These big shootings get a lot of press, but they are total outliers.
Turns out he was arrested in 2018 for planning a school shooting at his middle school. In 2018, authorities arrested 14-year-old Salvador Ramos after plans were discovered that he and a 13-year-old boy were planning a Columbine-inspired shooting at an Uvalde middle school. According to the Uvalde Leader-News, the teens had originally planned to carry out the shooting on April 20, 2022, which would coincide with the Columbine shooting anniversary during their senior year of high school, but one of the suspects persuaded the other to commit the shooting this year at Morales Junior High, where the 14-year-old was a student. Red flag laws now.
It takes a special kind of disturbed human being to see children murdered in both Sandy Hook and now Uvalde and take it upon themselves to mount a full throated case to the DD that "We are all good here... stop living in fear... let's do nothing".... You are sick in the head dude, and need help. Your obsession with protecting your fetish for assault rifles is borderline sociopathic. What human being can see this.... ESPECIALLY if you are a father with a child.... and say No problem... we are good here.
I agree, but the politicians and news would make you think crime is the worst ever. Crime has increased since the pandemic, but we're not 3rd world bad yet overall, except for concentrated areas.
No I get the point loud and clear. Look over here, not here. Stop talking about children being murdered you over emotional libtards. I get your shtick loud and clear too.
Judges (all elected in Texas) have to be willing to lower the threshold to detain folks, take their guns, and legally ban them from buying guns for the laws to have teeth. The tradeoff is that many people who are angry or show signs of disturbance, but haven't committed a crime, could have their rights violated. How do you police the gray area? How far do you go? There were similar value decisions that had to be made post 9/11, and those judgments are evaluated differently the further you're removed from the tragedy.
Those questions are all above my pay grade (which is why I'm grateful for people like you who understand the law), but my gut reaction is to say that you shouldn't be allowed to purchase an AR-15 days after your 18th birthday if you were were arrested as a minor for threatening and planning a school shooting.
Looks like KSAT is backtracking: https://www.ksat.com/news/local/202...um=social&utm_campaign=snd&utm_content=ksat12 "The 2018 arrests have been brought to light and are being reexamined following Tuesday’s attack at Robb Elementary School, where an 18-year-old high school dropout killed 21 people. It’s not yet known if there is any connection to the 2018 plot."
I don't care about assault rifles at all. I don't own any firearms. Everyone has a problem with children being murdered. We shouldn't base drastic changes to people's rights on statistical outliers. That is a lesson 9/11 should have taught everyone. One terrorist attack and we got domestic spying, torture, ridiculous and ineffective security at airports, etc. 9/11 was horrific, but the response was totally unnecessary. School shootings are horrific, but they are thankfully rare (especially on the scale of Parkland, Sandy Hook, or Uvalde) and should not be the drivers of policy that takes away people's rights. So no, I don't think rocketsjudoka should be living in fear. All the parents saying they are afraid to send their kids to school are having an emotional reaction that is not based in the real facts. The media should not be creating this terror that they always do.
TWENTY SEVEN... 27 School shootings this year. Are they all Uvalde level scale... no. Do they ALL represent danger to people like my wife and child??? Yes. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/24/1101050970/2022-school-shootings-so-far You might not have any assault rifles yourself, but you are shilling pretty hard for their protection right now. I repeat your whole "oh the media, this is no big deal" nonsense take here is outright disgusting. You care more about the rights of an assault weapon then you do the lives of children. Spare me your Bullsh$t about "taking away people's rights." Your perceived 2nd amendment rights are going nowhere. You're are shilling on behalf of weapons of war meant strictly for maximum carnage. This isn't about home protection, or hunting. You know that, and you STILL are trying to bully people into numbness with your bullsh$t. I'm sorry that I'm expressing an "emotional reaction" right now so I'll just calmly, and non-emotionally take a deep breath, relax.... and tell you to go F-ck yourself.
There have been more school shootings this year than any other year except last year. There have been more killed in K-12 schools this year than any other year except 2018…and we’re only 3 shy of that year…in May. According to the numbers, shootings are trending upwards and nothing is being done to prevent the upward trend…at what point should we be worried? Https://Chds.us/ssdb/charts-graphs
I agree with this last part. My point is that it really is up to us as a people to make these changes, if we want to. Our government is confusing, mixed, and often dysfunctional at all levels. Some problems are partially due to design, partially due to a disengaged citizenry, partially due to ignorance, and partially due to big money interests being okay with all of those other things and wanting to keep it that way. I'm trying to make it easier to understand for everyone involved - how things work (or are supposed to work). And I want people to know that it's okay for us to make the tough decisions, but it's best for us to know how to do it, and what quagmires we could be setting up for ourselves. In this situation, many are arguing for laws that restrict the growth of new gun sales. Sure, that could help, but what about all the current guns - take those? If so, which ones? Both sets of laws would be difficult to pass, the latter being very difficult and unlikely, due to pushback and constitutional issues. What about Red Flag laws? Many seem to be pushing for that. But as I linked an article from an earlier post, they are inconsistently written across states, and inconsistently enforced. Even if we can streamline national Red Flag laws (which I'm all for trying - I'm pro experiments in government), then there are a host of issues. I'm not saying it's impossible, just saying it's hard. Now evidence is being shown that this kid wasn't arrested for sure? I'm not sure. I want a real opinion. If he or anyone else threatens to shoot a school, a person, a gf, a dog, abuses dog...what situations are acceptable to create new laws that say things like 1) you can't have a gun for a certain time or 2) you can't ever have a gun or 3) you need to be in a mental institute and you can't say no and it's not up to you when you can leave. All those solutions are restrictions on freedoms, but arguably constitutional (as the consitution is flexible) and arguably ok policy. It's up to the people, including you and me to demand that from policy makers and/or elected judges. But before even getting there, what is it that you want? Should we lock up or institutionlize anyone who has threatened violence? For how long? What evidence is needed? What if we say, "hey, violent tendency young man, you can't buy a gun," and he gets a gun? Do you then lock him up forever for violating that?
I don't like this. The Constitution is meant to be flexible through the amendment process, not through whatever we think we can get away with and hope the courts don't overturn it even though we are pretty obviously a) trying to pass laws that do not fall under an Article 1 Section 8 enumerated power and b) are pretty clearly infringing on express constitutional rights. The opposite should be our standard practice, that we only pass federal laws that clearly fall well within an Article 1 Section 8 enumerated power and steer well clear of infringing on constitutional rights. And yet, as Americans you are as safe overall as people were in the 1950s and safer than people were in the 70s through 90s. You cursing at me is a poor argument, and pretty much shows the intellectual firepower you are bringing to bear.
I always like to point to this or similar articles when thinking about how the lobbyists run the country. Still seems pretty ridiculous that there are laws in place forbidding them to computerize paperwork. Makes me even less hopeful for other more meaningful restrictions to be put in place if we can't even computerize paperwork. https://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-many-guns
Fair. It's just a different approach to governance. I've been reading law review articles lately from the 1920's when amendments were actually passed...I just think the amendment process is broken. Also, SCOTUS said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was constitutional due to the commerce clause. I think it was a 9-0 decision. And the 1883 Civil Rights Cases, national laws doing the exact same thing were deemed unconstitutional 8-1 because it was deemed too big of an overstep of the national government. Yet, I actually think the 1 got it right (Harlan - the only dissenter in Plessy). He said the 14th was meant in its heart to do this (I'm paraphrasing). The 14th changed everything. Hell, the Civil War changed everything...literally changed the Constitution. WTF does equal protection mean, lol? If we're going on strict originalism of 1-8, then 90% of the federal government right now is unconstitutional. Hell, 90% of state government is unconstitutional post-reconstruction incorporation because all the state governments do the same thing as the feds when it comes to: judicial law-making, agency rule-making, governor law-making (Abbott controlling the tax purse to fund a year-long+ border war, COVID stuff everywhere). It's just practically impossible to be truly faithful to strict adherence to originalism unless you have a robust amending process...active might be a better word. Funny when it comes to clear infringements with due process and potential Red Flag laws that could lock up people (arguably unfairly). Nowadays, you and I could say that would probably be unconsitutional. But hell, that is a post 1960's Warren court interpretation of due process rights. See how crazy it is? I sympathize with your position, but if any state government or the federal government would implement gun restrictions and freedom restrictions on people they deemed a threat, that would totally be constitutional according to every single (predominately conservative) supreme court prior to the 1960's...prior to Miranda rights, prior to the right to an attorney at arrest, prior to the right to an attorney if you can't afford one, prior to warrantless wiretapping, prior to the right to remain silent. I mean, 1st Amendment protections didn't protect from getting arrested for criticizing the government until like the last 50 years...like after Roe, lol. Constitutional interpretation changes all the time depending on who is on the court.
