Texas shooting

[Psychotic Bovine]

Not a topic they are willing to discuss in the least.........

No, not a topic we are willing to discuss with someone who doesn't know jack squat about the subject.
Don't argue; you don't know what you are talking about.  You are only making yourself look foolish.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Enough ugliness for one day !

[..]

http://nypost.com/2017/11/06/texas-church-shooter-tried-to-bribe-underage-girls-to-date-him/

[..]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/devin-patrick-kelley-texas.html

[..]

https://apnews.com/149034eeb9f847749f2b8b6148b193da/The-Latest:-Gunman-had-been-arrested-for-animal-cruelty

[Psychotic Bovine]

but, since you didn't get it the 1,000 times we explained it, I will explain it again.

1.  Firearms in the US are used nearly 2 million times to protect life and property
2.  This is far more than they are used in illegal killing.  If you discount suicides (which will always happen, look at japan), and police justified shootings, accidents, and self defense, you are left with 6,000 or so murders by firearm a year.  
3.  Knives are deadly.  not as deadly as firearms, which have 18% fatal wounds, 4 % for knives.  But it's nearly impossible to quantify for obvious reasons. (hint:  it's intent!)
4.  The top 3 biggest mass murders in the US did not use firearms.
5.  Yes, firearms from the US do make it into Canada.  If they didn't come from the US they would come from somewhere else.  
6. Jamaica has the highest murder rate in the world, they are an island.  Do the guns just drop from the sky?  See #5.
7. Jamaica has a near total ban on firearms (or very difficult to get a permit to own, check it out).
8. Mexico has a higher crime rate than the US, and has strict gun control.
9. Obama said that Indiana is the reason for all of the murders in Chicago because we follow the Constitution.  Why doesn't Indiana have this same crime rate?
10. If the guns are getting into Canada from US easily (as others have noted), why do they have a lower crime rate?
11. Why do the cities with the strictest gun control in the US have the highest murder rates?
12. What part of "shall not infringe" do people not understand.  We have the right to own firearms.  Period.  Worry about your own country.  Secure your borders.

There are your answers.  

Crime happens.  It's a very complicated reason why it happens; far more complicated than can be explained by "banning all guns that look evil".

[¿spoom]

I know you guys get a little testy when someone talks about limiting your toys.  Sure, someone could have blown them up, or run the church down with a bulldozer, or something like that, but he didn't.  He used a semi auto with a high capacity magazine, just like the guy in Las Vegas.
Who knows why the guy in Manhattan didn't use a gun.  Maybe he couldn't afford one, since he had two fake ones.  He did manage to do a lot damage with the truck.  Did people having guns help them there?  I know that guns are just a tool, but there are few tools out there that can inflict, so much killing in such a small amount of time.
Have any of you ever sat back and wondered why so many killings have happened in the US these days that are not happening elsewhere in the world, except the middle east.  It's because guns are so readily available in the US.  If someone tries to buy large quantities of fertilizer the FBI will probably be on them pretty fast.  Plus, I doubt there is a large black market out there for that stuff.  You want some semi autos with high capacity magazines.  Probably be able to get that on any street corner.
The problem here is that you guys are too close to the problem.  You need to sit back like the rest of the world does and see the real issue.  But you won't.  You will just say that we don't know what were talking about because we don't understand.  It's sad, because as a third party looking in we can see the problem and it is not just one thing, its a combination of things.  There is no quick fix unfortunately.  It will take time, but I can see limitations to your second amendment being put in and the eventual elimination of it.  It may not be in your lifetime, but it will happen.  It just takes a big enough event to really get the ball rolling.   I believe it will start with the elimination of high capacity magazines for civilians.

I get a little testy when someone starts out, "Wow...you guys will never get it will you. " with or without a "furriner" multiplier.  
That almost takes you out of the "worth trying to talk with" from the start. Personally, I'd rather hear a Canadian rag on US gun laws than an American, because Canadians can't vote here. I'm half German, but I get too much pleasure calling PM Merkel an idiot and saying she's getting Muslims lined up to kill unborn German babies in the near future, to ever want to tell others they can't do the same to me in return. Likewise to my opinion of Justin Trudeau, right?   Personally, I wish the only Republican candidate for President and only one who said he'd support a single payer system had been willing to actually fight for it (when he became the only one elected)since I feel my Country's healthcare system has been irretrievably broken for decades and all either party can do is find new ways to do nothing but support the insurance companies. Anyway, start out snarky and it all comes back that way, at least in my book.
EDIT-> I do give a lot of weight to the "if he couldn't get a gun, he'd use a truck, boulder, crossbow, whatever. While the death toll might be lower or the degree of difficulty higher, an insane person who's decided to commit mayhem will always find a way, even without  gun. Indeed, the toll might even be higher if I was forced to use something else. My gun might jam, but if my stolen dump truck or school bus doing 80mph into a crowded fair...well, you get it.

[Patrick]

If the bad guy didn't have an AR more people would be alive.

How so?  An AR (unless altered) is just a semi-auto like any other semi-auto.  Did it kill more people because it looks scary?

Yep, has to be the guns fault. After-al, it looks really scary so it must be outlawed. Apparently this has nothing to do with the fact the shooter was a crazy POS. I would rather doubt the gun was obtained legally.

[¿spoom]

semi auto sounds crazy scary. My great grandfather's 5-shot S&W top break DA revolver from the late 1800's is a semi auto; it fires as fast as one can pull the trigger. Likewise the venerable Marlin Model 60 .22 but in the meantime, perhaps it should just be illegal for them to look scary? spray 'em pink?

[Patrick]

This just in.
The Air Force never reported or turned over any info about this shooter as required.

This POS therefore passed the background checks.

I've mentioned this before and still feel it needs to be resolved. Agencies do not like to exchange info. Apparently they continue to try and keep everything within their own empires. I've been involved and have experienced this phenomenon many times over the decades. Always hated it.

[Chrisj CMA]

I know you guys get a little testy when someone talks about limiting your toys.  Sure, someone could have blown them up, or run the church down with a bulldozer, or something like that, but he didn't.  He used a semi auto with a high capacity magazine, just like the guy in Las Vegas.
Who knows why the guy in Manhattan didn't use a gun.  Maybe he couldn't afford one, since he had two fake ones.  He did manage to do a lot damage with the truck.  Did people having guns help them there?  I know that guns are just a tool, but there are few tools out there that can inflict, so much killing in such a small amount of time.
Have any of you ever sat back and wondered why so many killings have happened in the US these days that are not happening elsewhere in the world, except the middle east.  It's because guns are so readily available in the US.  If someone tries to buy large quantities of fertilizer the FBI will probably be on them pretty fast.  Plus, I doubt there is a large black market out there for that stuff.  You want some semi autos with high capacity magazines.  Probably be able to get that on any street corner.
The problem here is that you guys are too close to the problem.  You need to sit back like the rest of the world does and see the real issue.  But you won't.  You will just say that we don't know what were talking about because we don't understand.  It's sad, because as a third party looking in we can see the problem and it is not just one thing, its a combination of things.  There is no quick fix unfortunately.  It will take time, but I can see limitations to your second amendment being put in and the eventual elimination of it.  It may not be in your lifetime, but it will happen.  It just takes a big enough event to really get the ball rolling.   I believe it will start with the elimination of high capacity magazines for civilians.

You have no clue what our second amendment is about.  If you did you would see "limiting" it is expressly prohibited buy the amendment itself.

When a good guy with a gun is needed, you don't want him to have limited capability 

[Gavin_Sons]

semi auto sounds crazy scary. My great grandfather's 5-shot S&W top break DA revolver from the late 1800's is a semi auto; it fires as fast as one can pull the trigger. Likewise the venerable Marlin Model 60 .22 but in the meantime, perhaps it should just be illegal for them to look scary? spray 'em pink?

exactly, I can shoot 6 rounds out of my 44 revolver open the cylinder eject 6 rounds reload with my speed loaders shut the cylinder and be firing again in about 4 seconds so essentially I can get off about 24 or so rounds in 30 seconds, 48 in a minute if I had enough speed loaders. And i do, maybe I'll  paint all my guns to mimic the NES blaster. That should make them less deadly.

[The emperor has no clothes]

This just in.
The Air Force never reported or turned over any info about this shooter as required.

This POS therefore passed the background checks.

I've mentioned this before and still feel it needs to be resolved. Agencies do not like to exchange info. Apparently they continue to try and keep everything within their own empires. I've been involved and have experienced this phenomenon many times over the decades. Always hated it.

I don't know who dropped the ball, but part of our problem is allowing plea agreements of 1 year for fracturing a babies skull, fracturing a child's skull, and assaulting his wife.

[northernvalk]

Not a topic they are willing to discuss in the least.........

No, not a topic we are willing to discuss with someone who doesn't know jack squat about the subject.
Don't argue; you don't know what you are talking about.  You are only making yourself look foolish.

Mad Cow, we have different opinions but keep the personal attacks to yourself. I know quite a bit about firearms and shooting sports and don't need your approval for any comment I make. You're the one who makes himself look foolish by insulting someone's intelligence because they don't share your view. Stats can be construed to prove almost any position, especially when they cannot be proven or qualified.
Bye the way...I had a great weekend actually USING my firearms..Lots of grouse, couple rabbits and whitefish were running so we got some fish too....a great weekend enjoying the sports I love with my legal firearms.  Insult someone who might care next time......

[Jess from VA]

This just in.
The Air Force never reported or turned over any info about this shooter as required.

This POS therefore passed the background checks.

I've mentioned this before and still feel it needs to be resolved. Agencies do not like to exchange info. Apparently they continue to try and keep everything within their own empires. I've been involved and have experienced this phenomenon many times over the decades. Always hated it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/texas-shooting-church.html

This is bad news.  I have been thinking about it all day, and trying to figure out what happened.  This would not have been one of my guesses.

He had the AR and several other firearms in the car and at his home.

I don't think his conviction was a plea bargain, but I could be wrong.  I think they took him to a Special court, where the jurisdictional limit on sentence is a year confinement, BCD, total reduction in grade and pay.  I think he got a max sentence under his Special, but not the max authorized for the offenses under the UCMJ.  But they had to take him to a General Court to get more than he got.

In any event, the conviction he had was enough to make him an unlawful gun owner/buyer.  But if it doesn't get in the data base... WTF?  I'd have to refresh my recollection on this, but I'd wager the USAF is about to get a bunch of federal tort claims for a lot of money, and if they can't settle, a bunch of federal lawsuits.

Now what's interesting is that TX reportedly refused him a CCW permit.  Did they find out about his court martial convictions even though not reported by USAF through usual channels, or was it something else?

BTW, Art 128, UCMJ provides (in part)  (7) Assault consummated by a battery upon a child under 16 years.  Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.  And this is only assuming he used no form of club, which would make it an aggravated assault. 

[bscrive]

I know you guys get a little testy when someone talks about limiting your toys.  Sure, someone could have blown them up, or run the church down with a bulldozer, or something like that, but he didn't.  He used a semi auto with a high capacity magazine, just like the guy in Las Vegas.
Who knows why the guy in Manhattan didn't use a gun.  Maybe he couldn't afford one, since he had two fake ones.  He did manage to do a lot damage with the truck.  Did people having guns help them there?  I know that guns are just a tool, but there are few tools out there that can inflict, so much killing in such a small amount of time.
Have any of you ever sat back and wondered why so many killings have happened in the US these days that are not happening elsewhere in the world, except the middle east.  It's because guns are so readily available in the US.  If someone tries to buy large quantities of fertilizer the FBI will probably be on them pretty fast.  Plus, I doubt there is a large black market out there for that stuff.  You want some semi autos with high capacity magazines.  Probably be able to get that on any street corner.
The problem here is that you guys are too close to the problem.  You need to sit back like the rest of the world does and see the real issue.  But you won't.  You will just say that we don't know what were talking about because we don't understand.  It's sad, because as a third party looking in we can see the problem and it is not just one thing, its a combination of things.  There is no quick fix unfortunately.  It will take time, but I can see limitations to your second amendment being put in and the eventual elimination of it.  It may not be in your lifetime, but it will happen.  It just takes a big enough event to really get the ball rolling.   I believe it will start with the elimination of high capacity magazines for civilians.

You have no clue what our second amendment is about.  If you did you would see "limiting" it is expressly prohibited buy the amendment itself.

When a good guy with a gun is needed, you don't want him to have limited capability 

Actually, Chris I do.

It is an archaic law created during the infancy of your constitution when there was still a chance of England invading your country.  It was enacted when flintlocks were being used and had been for the last hundred years.  Your forefathers never had any inclination that the guns would morph into what we have today.  
Truth be told.  If the gov't wanted to keep to the letter of the law, then you have rights to flintlocks, since that was the arms of the day.

[Jess from VA]

I'm sorry sir, but that is a very old and tired and very wrong reading of the 2d Amendment.

[Chrisj CMA]

I know you guys get a little testy when someone talks about limiting your toys.  Sure, someone could have blown them up, or run the church down with a bulldozer, or something like that, but he didn't.  He used a semi auto with a high capacity magazine, just like the guy in Las Vegas.
Who knows why the guy in Manhattan didn't use a gun.  Maybe he couldn't afford one, since he had two fake ones.  He did manage to do a lot damage with the truck.  Did people having guns help them there?  I know that guns are just a tool, but there are few tools out there that can inflict, so much killing in such a small amount of time.
Have any of you ever sat back and wondered why so many killings have happened in the US these days that are not happening elsewhere in the world, except the middle east.  It's because guns are so readily available in the US.  If someone tries to buy large quantities of fertilizer the FBI will probably be on them pretty fast.  Plus, I doubt there is a large black market out there for that stuff.  You want some semi autos with high capacity magazines.  Probably be able to get that on any street corner.
The problem here is that you guys are too close to the problem.  You need to sit back like the rest of the world does and see the real issue.  But you won't.  You will just say that we don't know what were talking about because we don't understand.  It's sad, because as a third party looking in we can see the problem and it is not just one thing, its a combination of things.  There is no quick fix unfortunately.  It will take time, but I can see limitations to your second amendment being put in and the eventual elimination of it.  It may not be in your lifetime, but it will happen.  It just takes a big enough event to really get the ball rolling.   I believe it will start with the elimination of high capacity magazines for civilians.

You have no clue what our second amendment is about.  If you did you would see "limiting" it is expressly prohibited buy the amendment itself.

When a good guy with a gun is needed, you don't want him to have limited capability 

Actually, Chris I do.

It is an archaic law created during the infancy of your constitution when there was still a chance of England invading your country.  It was enacted when flintlocks were being used and had been for the last hundred years.  Your forefathers never had any inclination that the guns would morph into what we have today.  
Truth be told.  If the gov't wanted to keep to the letter of the law, then you have rights to flintlocks, since that was the arms of the day.

Thank you bscrive for proving me right.  You have no clue. And because of that I am relieved from needing to read any further response from you on this subject.

[The emperor has no clothes]

This just in.
The Air Force never reported or turned over any info about this shooter as required.

This POS therefore passed the background checks.

I've mentioned this before and still feel it needs to be resolved. Agencies do not like to exchange info. Apparently they continue to try and keep everything within their own empires. I've been involved and have experienced this phenomenon many times over the decades. Always hated it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/texas-shooting-church.html

This is bad news.  I have been thinking about it all day, and trying to figure out what happened.  This would not have been one of my guesses.

He had the AR and several other firearms in the car and at his home.

I don't think his conviction was a plea bargain, but I could be wrong.  I think they took him to a Special court, where the jurisdictional limit on sentence is a year confinement, BCD, total reduction in grade and pay.  I think he got a max sentence under his Special, but not the max authorized for the offenses under the UCMJ.  But they had to take him to a General Court to get more than he got.

In any event, the conviction he had was enough to make him an unlawful gun owner/buyer.  But if it doesn't get in the data base... WTF?  I'd have to refresh my recollection on this, but I'd wager the USAF is about to get a bunch of federal tort claims for a lot of money, and if they can't settle, a bunch of federal lawsuits.

Now what's interesting is that TX reportedly refused him a CCW permit.  Did they find out about his court martial convictions even though not reported by USAF through usual channels, or was it something else?

BTW, Art 128, UCMJ provides (in part)  (7) Assault consummated by a battery upon a child under 16 years.  Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.  And this is only assuming he used no form of club, which would make it an aggravated assault. 

Sounds like the AirForce agreed to a deal. I'm not really blaming the Air Force. It seems to happen through out our society. We've got to stop this non sense. If somebody fractures the skulls of children they should have the book thrown at them.



Details of domestic violence incidents revealed
Kelley served in logistics readiness at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico from 2010 until his discharge for assaulting his wife and stepson.
Kelley initially faced multiple charges in his 2012 court-martial, according to records reviewed by CNN. He was originally charged with assault and battery against his wife, aggravated assault against his stepson, and four charges involving firearms, including two charges of pointing a loaded firearm at his wife and two charges of pointing an unloaded firearm.
The firearms charges were dropped prior to the trial as a result of an agreement in which Kelley pleaded guilty to the aggravated assault against the child and the assault against the wife.
As part of his plea, Kelley admitted to hitting his stepson on the head and body "with a force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm." The injuries lead to internal bleeding and fractures in the child's skull, Christensen told CNN.

[Psychotic Bovine]

I know you guys get a little testy when someone talks about limiting your toys.  Sure, someone could have blown them up, or run the church down with a bulldozer, or something like that, but he didn't.  He used a semi auto with a high capacity magazine, just like the guy in Las Vegas.
Who knows why the guy in Manhattan didn't use a gun.  Maybe he couldn't afford one, since he had two fake ones.  He did manage to do a lot damage with the truck.  Did people having guns help them there?  I know that guns are just a tool, but there are few tools out there that can inflict, so much killing in such a small amount of time.
Have any of you ever sat back and wondered why so many killings have happened in the US these days that are not happening elsewhere in the world, except the middle east.  It's because guns are so readily available in the US.  If someone tries to buy large quantities of fertilizer the FBI will probably be on them pretty fast.  Plus, I doubt there is a large black market out there for that stuff.  You want some semi autos with high capacity magazines.  Probably be able to get that on any street corner.
The problem here is that you guys are too close to the problem.  You need to sit back like the rest of the world does and see the real issue.  But you won't.  You will just say that we don't know what were talking about because we don't understand.  It's sad, because as a third party looking in we can see the problem and it is not just one thing, its a combination of things.  There is no quick fix unfortunately.  It will take time, but I can see limitations to your second amendment being put in and the eventual elimination of it.  It may not be in your lifetime, but it will happen.  It just takes a big enough event to really get the ball rolling.   I believe it will start with the elimination of high capacity magazines for civilians.

You have no clue what our second amendment is about.  If you did you would see "limiting" it is expressly prohibited buy the amendment itself.

When a good guy with a gun is needed, you don't want him to have limited capability  

Actually, Chris I do.

It is an archaic law created during the infancy of your constitution when there was still a chance of England invading your country.  It was enacted when flintlocks were being used and had been for the last hundred years.  Your forefathers never had any inclination that the guns would morph into what we have today.  
Truth be told.  If the gov't wanted to keep to the letter of the law, then you have rights to flintlocks, since that was the arms of the day.

Nice try, but there were high capacity/high fire rate arms already in production, or on the drawing board.

One was a 20 shot, mag fed rifle.  Another was the Puckle Gun. Lewis and Clark used the first one (the 20 shot rifle) on their expedition.
Your comment is like saying that the 1st amendment only applies to the printing press and quill, since they could never have imagined the Internet, tv, or radio during that time (and they definitely couldn't  have).  Big, fast firing guns?  Yup.  Electronic communication?  Nope.

[Jess from VA]

This just in.
The Air Force never reported or turned over any info about this shooter as required.

This POS therefore passed the background checks.

I've mentioned this before and still feel it needs to be resolved. Agencies do not like to exchange info. Apparently they continue to try and keep everything within their own empires. I've been involved and have experienced this phenomenon many times over the decades. Always hated it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/texas-shooting-church.html

This is bad news.  I have been thinking about it all day, and trying to figure out what happened.  This would not have been one of my guesses.

He had the AR and several other firearms in the car and at his home.

I don't think his conviction was a plea bargain, but I could be wrong.  I think they took him to a Special court, where the jurisdictional limit on sentence is a year confinement, BCD, total reduction in grade and pay.  I think he got a max sentence under his Special, but not the max authorized for the offenses under the UCMJ.  But they had to take him to a General Court to get more than he got.

In any event, the conviction he had was enough to make him an unlawful gun owner/buyer.  But if it doesn't get in the data base... WTF?  I'd have to refresh my recollection on this, but I'd wager the USAF is about to get a bunch of federal tort claims for a lot of money, and if they can't settle, a bunch of federal lawsuits.

Now what's interesting is that TX reportedly refused him a CCW permit.  Did they find out about his court martial convictions even though not reported by USAF through usual channels, or was it something else?

BTW, Art 128, UCMJ provides (in part)  (7) Assault consummated by a battery upon a child under 16 years.  Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.  And this is only assuming he used no form of club, which would make it an aggravated assault.

Sounds like the AirForce agreed to a deal. I'm not really blaming the Air Force. It seems to happen through out our society. We've got to stop this non sense. If somebody fractures the skulls of children they should have the book thrown at them.



Details of domestic violence incidents revealed
Kelley served in logistics readiness at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico from 2010 until his discharge for assaulting his wife and stepson.
Kelley initially faced multiple charges in his 2012 court-martial, according to records reviewed by CNN. He was originally charged with assault and battery against his wife, aggravated assault against his stepson, and four charges involving firearms, including two charges of pointing a loaded firearm at his wife and two charges of pointing an unloaded firearm.
The firearms charges were dropped prior to the trial as a result of an agreement in which Kelley pleaded guilty to the aggravated assault against the child and the assault against the wife.
As part of his plea, Kelley admitted to hitting his stepson on the head and body "with a force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm." The injuries lead to internal bleeding and fractures in the child's skull, Christensen told CNN.

OK, so there was a bargain on charges, but was there a bargain on the type of court martial (special or general) and was there a bargain on sentence?

If they had already decided to take him to a special, dropping those charges meant nothing on sentence (he was maxed out for a special), only on his record.

I can tell you one thing for certain (if those facts are accurate).  He would not have got that deal in any legal office I worked at, and certainly not from Strategic Air Command.

As I said above, I'm pretty sure the Air Force is about to pay a heavy price on this case (with taxpayer dollars).  Sure, he might have been able to get an AR (and other guns) on the black market.  But he didn't, the AR was bought new (and maybe the others too).

[The emperor has no clothes]

Jess, you know much more about it than I ever care to. But to me as a layman, it chaps my ass when the judicial system is so willingly lazy to plea bargain douche bags who would strike women and children with enough force to fracture their skulls. As I said earlier, it's not just the Air Force, it's our entire society. To me, I don't care how much work, time, effort it takes for FULL prosecution of our violent criminals, it's worth it. Someone gets caught with a joint, by all means plea it out and be done with it. Hit 2 little children with enough force to crack their skulls, get every friggin charge thrown at them to the fullest extent.

[¿spoom]

I know you guys get a little testy when someone talks about limiting your toys.  Sure, someone could have blown them up, or run the church down with a bulldozer, or something like that, but he didn't.  He used a semi auto with a high capacity magazine, just like the guy in Las Vegas.
Who knows why the guy in Manhattan didn't use a gun.  Maybe he couldn't afford one, since he had two fake ones.  He did manage to do a lot damage with the truck.  Did people having guns help them there?  I know that guns are just a tool, but there are few tools out there that can inflict, so much killing in such a small amount of time.
Have any of you ever sat back and wondered why so many killings have happened in the US these days that are not happening elsewhere in the world, except the middle east.  It's because guns are so readily available in the US.  If someone tries to buy large quantities of fertilizer the FBI will probably be on them pretty fast.  Plus, I doubt there is a large black market out there for that stuff.  You want some semi autos with high capacity magazines.  Probably be able to get that on any street corner.
The problem here is that you guys are too close to the problem.  You need to sit back like the rest of the world does and see the real issue.  But you won't.  You will just say that we don't know what were talking about because we don't understand.  It's sad, because as a third party looking in we can see the problem and it is not just one thing, its a combination of things.  There is no quick fix unfortunately.  It will take time, but I can see limitations to your second amendment being put in and the eventual elimination of it.  It may not be in your lifetime, but it will happen.  It just takes a big enough event to really get the ball rolling.   I believe it will start with the elimination of high capacity magazines for civilians.

You have no clue what our second amendment is about.  If you did you would see "limiting" it is expressly prohibited buy the amendment itself.

When a good guy with a gun is needed, you don't want him to have limited capability 

Actually, Chris I do.

It is an archaic law created during the infancy of your constitution when there was still a chance of England invading your country.  It was enacted when flintlocks were being used and had been for the last hundred years.  Your forefathers never had any inclination that the guns would morph into what we have today.  
Truth be told.  If the gov't wanted to keep to the letter of the law, then you have rights to flintlocks, since that was the arms of the day.

Actually, no. The biggest fear was that a government could enslave it's unarmed people. Can't say they haven't done that anyway without firing a shot, but I'm trying to clear up intent, and it's too early to call the game. Don't take it personal, I'm not familiar with the fine points of your framework for your country.

[Valker]

Some people on here seem to think the second amendment gives U.S. citizens the right to own guns-this is NOT true. It assumes we have the right already, it simply restricts what the government can to to usurp those rights.

[MP]

Some people on here seem to think the second amendment gives U.S. citizens the right to own guns-this is NOT true. It assumes we have the right already, it simply restricts what the government can to to usurp those rights.

Bingo!

Most think the amendments give us rights. Wrong. They prohibit govt from taking them away!

[Jess from VA]

Jess, you know much more about it than I ever care to. But to me as a layman, it chaps my ass when the judicial system is so willingly lazy to plea bargain douche bags who would strike women and children with enough force to fracture their skulls. As I said earlier, it's not just the Air Force, it's our entire society. To me, I don't care how much work, time, effort it takes for FULL prosecution of our violent criminals, it's worth it. Someone gets caught with a joint, by all means plea it out and be done with it. Hit 2 little children with enough force to crack their skulls, get every friggin charge thrown at them to the fullest extent.

Well Rob, this is one time I (almost) completely agree with you.  As far as throwing the book at all violent criminals.  Moreso with repeat offenders (this turd wasn't).  

Where plea bargains begin to make more sense is for crimes where we in the prosecutor's office know the last 3-10 guys who did substantially the same thing got a range of say 40-65% of max authorized (first offenders).  And it is often argued that for justice to ever be fair, people have to get the same time for the same crimes.  So you offer a plea sentence in the range of what people have been getting, and in exchange save the taxpayers and the office the expense and the work.  The cities are where (prosecution) business is booming, and the deals are the best, for the worst offenders.  

What I'd like to know is if the Air Force (or his defense counsel) had this guy evaluated by the white coat guys prior to trail.  The more you hear about this guy, the more you know he was bent.  Offering to pay underage girls to date him?      

Having tried one case involving a child with a fractured leg, I want to remind you that the medical definition of fracture can include some very tiny minimal findings on xrays.  Not to diminish a criminal act on a child, but the medical results of the assault are very relevant.  

You say 2 children?  The court martial was only for one.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Jess, you know much more about it than I ever care to. But to me as a layman, it chaps my ass when the judicial system is so willingly lazy to plea bargain douche bags who would strike women and children with enough force to fracture their skulls. As I said earlier, it's not just the Air Force, it's our entire society. To me, I don't care how much work, time, effort it takes for FULL prosecution of our violent criminals, it's worth it. Someone gets caught with a joint, by all means plea it out and be done with it. Hit 2 little children with enough force to crack their skulls, get every friggin charge thrown at them to the fullest extent.

Well Rob, this is one time I (almost) completely agree with you.  As far as throwing the book at all violent criminals.  Moreso with repeat offenders (this turd wasn't).  

Where plea bargains begin to make more sense is for crimes where we in the prosecutor's office know the last 3-10 guys who did substantially the same thing got a range of say 40-65% of max authorized (first offenders).  And it is often argued that for justice to ever be fair, people have to get the same time for the same crimes.  So you offer a plea sentence in the range of what people have been getting, and in exchange save the taxpayers and the office the expense and the work.  The cities are where (prosecution) business is booming, and the deals are the best, for the worst offenders.  

What I'd like to know is if the Air Force (or his defense counsel) had this guy evaluated by the white coat guys prior to trail.  The more you hear about this guy, the more you know he was bent.  Offering to pay underage girls to date him?      

Having tried one case involving a child with a fractured leg, I want to remind you that the medical definition of fracture can include some very tiny minimal findings on xrays.  Not to diminish a criminal act on a child, but the medical results of the assault are very relevant.  

You say 2 children?  The court martial was only for one.

Evidently he hurt his infant son, a 3 year old stepson (both fractured skulls) and his wife.

[gordonv]

Jess, you know much more about it than I ever care to. But to me as a layman, it chaps my ass when the judicial system is so willingly lazy to plea bargain douche bags who would strike women and children with enough force to fracture their skulls. As I said earlier, it's not just the Air Force, it's our entire society. To me, I don't care how much work, time, effort it takes for FULL prosecution of our violent criminals, it's worth it. Someone gets caught with a joint, by all means plea it out and be done with it. Hit 2 little children with enough force to crack their skulls, get every friggin charge thrown at them to the fullest extent.

Can we say "Law abiding Citizen" (the movie)?

[98valk]

I think the canadians will think different when they have to protect themselves for being taken over by un globalists and muslim immigrates.

"The very concept of a nation founded by European settlers is offensive to me. Old stock White Canadians are an unpleasant relic, and quite frankly, replaceable. And we will replace them."

- Justin Trudeau, when asked to comment on his Open Borders immigration strategy.

[hubcapsc]

I think the canadians will think different when they have to protect themselves for being taken over by un globalists and muslim immigrates.

"The very concept of a nation founded by European settlers is offensive to me. Old stock White Canadians are an unpleasant relic, and quite frankly, replaceable. And we will replace them."

- Justin Trudeau, when asked to comment on his Open Borders immigration strategy.

I googled that. I wonder if it originated on twitter or "weaslezippers"? 

-Mike

[Trynt]

[quote author
.  It was enacted when flintlocks were being used and had been for the last hundred years.  Your forefathers never had any inclination that the guns would morph into what we have today.  
Truth be told.  If the gov't wanted to keep to the letter of the law, then you have rights to flintlocks, since that was the arms of the day.


[/quote]
Then I suppose our !st Amendment doesn't extend to TV & radio because our forefathers had no indication of those either.

[Pappy!]

The background check system did indeed fail once again. This has happened now in two Church shootings with two separate shooters. South Carolina and Texas. Neither shooter was legally allowed to purchase or own weapons yet both were able to purchase weapons "legally".
Once again, a Government run program is showing it's inability to get anything done correctly, yet some are calling to put additional layers of red tape onto the system.

F6Gal - I agree about locking the doors of a church. A church is the Pinnacle of Freedom in this country. For the time being at least I think it needs to be done.

[Gavin_Sons]

The background check system did indeed fail once again. This has happened now in two Church shootings with two separate shooters. South Carolina and Texas. Neither shooter was legally allowed to purchase or own weapons yet both were able to purchase weapons "legally".
Once again, a Government run program is showing it's inability to get anything done correctly, yet some are calling to put additional layers of red tape onto the system.

F6Gal - I agree about locking the doors of a church. A church is the Pinnacle of Freedom in this country. For the time being at least I think it needs to be done.

It really didn't fail, by what i gather the military did not release any of his information so there was nothing on the background check to see. Had the military  released this information to the proper agencies it would have stopped him (maybe) from getting a gun. But we need more laws that they can not enforce. The law we already have would work if only they would enforce them.

[Pappy!]

Gavin - it is my understanding that his assault on his wife and child was also picked up by Civil authorities, not just the Military. It was the Air Force that dealt with it.
Second-hand information but that is all any of us are getting at this point.

[Jess from VA]

The background check system did indeed fail once again. This has happened now in two Church shootings with two separate shooters. South Carolina and Texas. Neither shooter was legally allowed to purchase or own weapons yet both were able to purchase weapons "legally".
Once again, a Government run program is showing it's inability to get anything done correctly, yet some are calling to put additional layers of red tape onto the system.

F6Gal - I agree about locking the doors of a church. A church is the Pinnacle of Freedom in this country. For the time being at least I think it needs to be done.

Most public buildings (code), have to have a setup where if it's locked to the outside, and people are still inside, they still have to be able to leave (like for fires).  Most public building have crash bars, so you can crash out.   Therefore, if there is a church security detail (or not), once the sermon starts, why not lock them to the outside (only), but in an emergency people can still get out, and if folks show late, security can let them in (if they are good guys).  Now if there is a door in back that does not have a crash bar, then one should be installed, or a security man has to be there to guard it or unlock it.  There must always be a back door available for escape.

Cameras are also a good idea, and the one on the front door should be plainly visible to anyone, especially anyone casing the joint with bad intentions.   That right there may be enough to make him go looking for another target.

When the Air Force failed to register this turd's convictions, the system failed.   I believe they will pay heavily for this failure, and I would not be surprised if a whole detail of USAF personnel is on their way down there now to minimize damages.

Years ago, when one our planes went down in a populated area, I just barely avoided getting detailed to that little task force to begin investigating claims for damages.  That is not a job anyone would look forward to.  People tend to be pissed off, and with good reason.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The background check system did indeed fail once again. This has happened now in two Church shootings with two separate shooters. South Carolina and Texas. Neither shooter was legally allowed to purchase or own weapons yet both were able to purchase weapons "legally".
Once again, a Government run program is showing it's inability to get anything done correctly, yet some are calling to put additional layers of red tape onto the system.

F6Gal - I agree about locking the doors of a church. A church is the Pinnacle of Freedom in this country. For the time being at least I think it needs to be done.

Most public buildings (code), have to have a setup where if it's locked to the outside, and people are still inside, they still have to be able to leave (like for fires).  Most public building have crash bars, so you can crash out.   Therefore, if there is a church security detail (or not), once the sermon starts, why not lock them to the outside (only), but in an emergency people can still get out, and if folks show late, security can let them in (if they are good guys).  Now if there is a door in back that does not have a crash bar, then one should be installed, or a security man has to be there to guard it or unlock it.  There must always be a back door available for escape.

Cameras are also a good idea, and the one on the front door should be plainly visible to anyone, especially anyone casing the joint with bad intentions.   That right there may be enough to make him go looking for another target.

When the Air Force failed to register this turd's convictions, the system failed.   I believe they will pay heavily for this failure, and I would not be surprised if a whole detail of USAF personnel is on their way down there now to minimize damages.

Years ago, when one our planes went down in a populated area, I just barely avoided getting detailed to that little task force to begin investigating claims for damages.  That is not a job anyone would look forward to.  People tend to be pissed off, and with good reason.

It is a sad state when we are trying to figure out making our churches into fortresses. 

[Jess from VA]

It's been a sad state of affairs for some time now.

Be prepared. 

Adapt, improvise, overcome.

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

Humans are the top of the food chain, dangerous, unpredictable, and often unstable and crazy.  The number of defective units today is higher than ever, and it is only common sense to prepare for them.       

[cookiedough]

not a church goer, but locking doors anywhere maybe bad, what if the shooter is already in the church and doors are locked unable to get out quicker?    Just a thought?  

went to walmart late last night open 24 hours and some weirdo was near me looked suspicious as well gotta keep my head on a swivel never know what some crazy will do?  

[Chrisj CMA]

I think FL has it right. And at least here the bottom line is, you have to be in fear of your life. If you are genuinely and verifiably afraid you may be killed, draw, shoot and surrender to law enforcement. If you weren't being threatened at the time of the shooting it doesn't matter how bad the bad guy was, some sleazy lawyer is going to try to ruin your life.

[northernvalk]

I think the canadians will think different when they have to protect themselves for being taken over by un globalists and muslim immigrates.

"The very concept of a nation founded by European settlers is offensive to me. Old stock White Canadians are an unpleasant relic, and quite frankly, replaceable. And we will replace them."

- Justin Trudeau, when asked to comment on his Open Borders immigration strategy.

You are 100% correct on this Vaquero, We have a leader who has gone off the deep end! But we don't have to "think differently" because LOTS of us have weapons at home.  I know I can do a WORLD of hurt with my .308 bolt and a box of ammo, A LOT more damage than an untrained idiot with a semi and a banana clip!!! If the time comes, we ARE ready.....even if it's only 5 shots at a time....