The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I'm surprised no one is talking about this.   A 15 year old boy went into Oxford High School and shot and killed three students and wounded eight others plus a teacher.   One of the wounded students later died at the hospital. 

The boy now faces four first degree murder charges as well as a domestic terrorism charge and is being tried as an adult.

Cue the tin foil haters with nonsense talk about non existent assault weapons, unicorns, ghost guns, bigfoot, leprechauns, and weapons of war.

Yes, a white kid went into his school and shot and killed 4 (one more died today) other white kids.   He was obviously shooting at black kids and hit the white kids by mistake.  Racist little f'er.   

I thought after Columbine we would take gun control seriously.  Then after Sandy hook I figured dead kindergarteners would be the final straw.  Then I thought the movement that the Parkland high students organized might make a difference.  But I know better now the I love my gun nuts have too much power for anything to be done.

By gun nuts do you mean legal firearm owners?

The "I love my gun nuts" are the indirect reason there will never be significant gun control legislation.  The real reason is that the astoundingly funded and powerful gun lobby has, and always will, greases the palms of both Republican AND Democrat lawmakers.  The power of the gun lobby is a sight to behold.  There is no cause nearer and dearer to the hearts of politicians than the cause of getting re-elected.  The gun lobby provides funding to the lawmakers (and a tidy little sum in the tip jar of course) which puts them in the pockets of the lawmakers.  Billy Jim Ray Bob who has a gun collection worth more than the trailer he lives in has no power.  But the lobby that represents him and all the other Billy Jim Ray Bobs has the kind of bank vault that provides incredible power. 

Once in a while some legislation might pass that accomplishes next to nothing (as it has in the past) to appeal to the "does nobody care about the children" voter block.  But it will do just enough to give the false impression that they have done something and rest assured it will have a bit of pork thrown in to appease and secure the votes of a few Republicans to make sure it is rammed through.  But real and meaningful gun control?  Nope, not gonna happen. 

That or it could be more people on both sides believe in the 2nd amendment than do not and those that disagree have to make up BS to justify why they are in the minority. 

Possibly.  But the old "follow the money" adage is usually a pretty good tool. 

You know, it's funny how the left wants to place even more restrictions on 2nd amendment rights. Their old standby argument is that no rights are absolute and that even the 1st amendment has restrictions. Can't yell fire in a crowded theatre or threaten the POTUS, etc. But the first hint of placing restrictions on abortion rights, they start screaming and crying bloody murder like little bitches. Keep in mind that abortion is not specifically protected in the constitution like the 1st and 2nd amendment.

Two cases in front of the SCOTUS. One case about the state of New York "restricting" 2nd amendment rights. Another case about the state of Mississippi "restricting" abortion rights. Well according to liberal logic, it's perfectly fine for states to "restrict" constitutionally guaranteed rights that are enshrined in the bill of rights. However, it's not acceptable to "restrict" abortion that was only declared a constitutionally guaranteed right by an interpretation by the SCOTUS 50 years ago.

So let's not get it twisted. I don't give a shit about abortion one way or the other. However, either constitutionally guaranteed rights can be restricted or they can't. You can't have it both ways and pick and choose the ones you like and don't like. The next issue is if constitutionally guaranteed rights can be restricted at the state level?

So if you want to restrict 1st or 2nd amendment rights, don't say shit when they restrict abortion because at that point you're looking like a silly and foolish hypocrite.

This is just the cost of doing business when we have the crap system of government we currently have.

Strange timing you have with this comment, given that SCOTUS is currently preparing to drastically curtail abortion rights while upholding your preferred gun rights.
Who looks like the "silly and foolish hypocrite" in that instance?

As for the original topic:  what is there to discuss?  The kid will be convicted and literally nothing else will change.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBIi39yXUAEcUtx?format=jpg&name=small)

I already went over that in my 2nd paragraph. Also, as mentioned, I don't give a shit about abortion one way or the other. Also, I have no control over what SCOTUS does.

Also, I'm specifically saying that my view is that constitutional rights should be treated equally. Either they can be restricted or they can't. There is nothing hypocritical about that.

However, you're view is that gun rights should have further restrictions placed on them, but abortion rights shouldn't. That's where the hypocrite part comes in. You people think you can have everything you want with no sense of compromise.

"Gun nuts" sounds like testicles shooting little bb's or something.  That in itself is pretty funny.  But then when I pictures in my mind a little cartoon set of balls shooting bb's that really cracked me up.   OMG, some gun nut shot his dick off.  I do make myself laugh sometimes.  Love me some me. 

That's an interesting take.  Let's explore that:

The current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (the interpretation you like) only dates to 2008, less than a decade and a half ago.  Prior to that, it was well and fully understood that the right to bear arms listed in the 2nd Amendment applied to, ahem, a well-regulated militia, and did not entitle every American to to any kind of weapon they can get their hands on.  I know you're familiar with the 1934 National Firearms Act, so you should also be familiar with United States v. Miller (1939), which explicitly affirmed (https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep307/usrep307174/usrep307174.pdf) the ability of Congress to regulate weapons outside the use of "a well-regulated militia":

The Court can not take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia; and therefore can not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

But hey, we all know the REAL principle at play here, which is: if you're in charge, you make the rules.
Conservatives are in charge of the Supreme Court, so the rules are whatever they say they are.

The solution for this is very simple.   No more gun free zones.  Either allow teachers to carry guns to school or put military personnel suffering from PTSD and unable to find work on the payroll as security.  Or both.   More restrictive gun laws won't stop a bad guy with a gun.  The only thing that will is a good guy with a gun.

So let me make sure I understand your proposal.  You want to put armed folks trained in combat who are unable to cope with the stress of combat into our schools?

This.

I fully believe in the right to own and carry. Do I believe every American should? No. Too many hot heads and dipshits out there, but I believe in the 2nd amendment for better or worse. I do not think the answer is to arm all teachers. I can imagine some would just fumble with a gun as not everyone is comfortable with a gun. Training is a solid start here, but funds. I'd rather arm a number of staff without knowledge of the students of whom is armed along with detectors. Deterrents are a useful tool and again training is as well. I don't have children but if I did in today's climate I wouldn't ever feel comfortable sending them to school. It would always be in the back of my mind.

I agree with you that "Gun Free Zones" are one of the stupidest ideas ever.  But speaking as a combat veteran, I'm not sure that military personnel with PTSD would be the best selection for armed security in schools.  At least at face value, I would be in favor of arming teachers as long as they went through an EXTENSIVE amount of training and psychological assessment. 

Why don't we just strap exploding belts onto kids in schools and if they get uppity we just allow teachers to blow them up on a whim.

It may be a little bit less crazy than what you wrote.

Am I missing something? Isn't that the way our laws are written? Kind of odd for you to get punished for my crime but maybe I'm just crazy like that.

Arming teachers and SROs do absolutely nothing to deter a school shooting.  At best they reduce the casualty count. The swift action of the SRO as opposed to the one at Parkland contributed to *only* having four funerals rather than a dozen or more.

His parents NOT purchasing the gun a few days earlier or properly securing it would have reduced it to zero.

I agree with this although I do feel where there is a will there is a way. I'm sure most kids who are using illegal drugs aren't being supplied by their parents inability to lock theirs up. Basically what I'm saying is there will never be a zero chance of a kid getting a gun to use.

All that typing and garble and all you have proven is that constitutionally guaranteed rights are subject to federal restrictions. That also includes abortion, for now. However, both cases before the SCOTUS are in reference to state restrictions on guns and abortions. Your radical hypocrisy is apparent when you think that NY should have the ability to legally restrict a constitutionally guaranteed right, but TX or MS shouldn't have the ability to legally restrict a constitutionally guaranteed right

Your post also highlights that the gun rights were established long before abortion rights. In fact it's literally spelled out in the Bill of Rights. No mention of abortion anywhere in the constitution. Let me say it again for those with radical agendas. The constitution actually spells out "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". The constitution doesn't say anything about abortion. Abortion rights are an interpretation of the constitution.

So here's your choices if you want to have congruent views and not be a hypocrite.

1. All constitutionally guaranteed rights can have federal and/or state restrictions placed on them.
OR
2. All constitutionally guaranteed rights are absolute.

You can't have it both ways unless you're 6 years old....


Yeah, that's pretty much how it works. As you lefties like to say, "elections have consequences." They were warned not to use the "nuclear option" and it came back to kick them in the nuts.

So, just to see if I have your position correct. You think that regulating 1st and 2nd amendments are OK but regulating abortion isn't?

The better gun control won't reduce gun violence to zero, that is not the standard.  If this gun wasn't available he might have changed his mind in the time it would take to acquire one.  Many are impulsive, making getting a gun harder will prevent some of them.  Some are determined making gun acquisition harder will mean more red flags are raised beforehand

I disagree, however I understand your opinion. Anyone with knowledge that an armed adult is in the vicinity will have hesitation. Even if that does not stop them, I still see it as a deterrent. I don't think we can ever fully stop a child from gaining access to a weapon of any sort. It's a very unfortunate reality, but that's just the cold hard truth. But I am fully onboard with securing any weapon inside a household with children to one's best ability. I'm also very pro teaching children from a young age the responsibility of owning and using a firearm. Of course using you're best judgment. If you're kid is torturing animals I'd probably suggest not doing so.

I don't disagree. I was just addressing the "zero" part of your comment. Some people really believe we can get to zero incidents and that will never be the case in our world of today. 

#1.  There are 10x more restictions on freedom of speech than there is the second amendment. Exceptions to the 4th, 5th and 6th are so numerous it is literally an entire law school class.

Nobody believes we can get to zero.  The problem is the people who claim we should do nothing unless it completely solves the problem.

I don't really believe that statement. But then again I'm not keeping score and don't really care. Anyhow, from your post I'll assume that you picked #1

I didn't even realize the guy in Oxford was pregnant let alone was wanting to get an abortion.

Parents have been charged with manslaughter.

Now that's really fucked up.   What crime did they commit??   How can they be charged with anything if the kid snuck into the area where they kept the gun and took it without permission??

Parents should probably have kept the gun inaccessible to their kid.

Buy a gun for someone you know to be violent, not that different than hanging you car keys to someone you know is drunk and intending to drive drunk.

I think it was involuntary manslaughter.  And after reading about their antics, I'm glad they got charged and hope they get convicted.  What a couple of giant a-holes those two are.  Apparently a couple days before the shooting his teacher saw him shopping for ammo on his phone and given the kid's overall weirdness, he made a report of it.  When his parents found out, the mother texted him (and police are in possession of the phone and have that text) and said, "I'm not mad at you.  But learn not to get caught."   And the morning of the shooting they were called in to the school because of violent drawings his teacher found and the school asked the parents to take him with them on the way out and get him in counseling within 48 hours.  The parents declined.  This little kid was a weirdo and his parents are weirdos and they not only didn't take any precautions from keeping the kid from access to the gun, they encouraged it.   If they could ever figure out a way to keep ignorant people from buying guns, I would support that specific gun legislation.  

And now, the parents were supposed to surrender themselves at 2PM today in order to be arraigned at 4PM.   They did not show up and now local authorities and US Marshal's Service is searching for them.  And entire family of scum. 

Wouldn't surprise me if they crossed the border.

So after all these years of "shall NOT be infringed" and "constitutional RIGHT to bear arms," you are just casually admitting that of course the feds can restrict constitutional rights?  This whole time, your only objection to gun control was that... it shouldn't be at the state or local level?

Number 1 has always been the case.
It's the gun nuts who think the 2nd Amendment (and only the 2nd Amendment) is magical and allows Americans the ability to own any gun they desire, free from any sort of regulation.

Since when was abortion ever "unregulated" in the US?
There have always been regulations on the timeframe within a pregnancy when abortions are allowable.

The question - when it comes to guns or abortions - is how much restriction should be allowed.

I'm a firm believer that if you own a gun and someone uses it to commit a crime you should be responsible for that crime.  You have responsibilities as a gun owner.

But not to the point where you should be charged with the crime itself.   The parents should be charged with something less serious, not murder.  That's why they fled.  They basically told the D.A. to go fuck himself.  

The parents being charged with murder is going to start this country down a slippery slope.  It will open the door for a lot of other unnecessary charges.

UPDATE:  The parents were nabbed in Detroit, so it looks like I was right about them attempting to cross into Canada.

Artie, I believe the parents were charged with involuntary manslaughter, not murder.  That is a considerably lesser crime than first degree murder.  These types of charges vary slightly from state to state and I know Michigan has a lot of quirky felony laws.  I'm not absolutely certain because I'm no expert on Michigan laws, so if someone knows better than I do, please correct me on this next part.  Given the guidelines to legally warrant a charge of involuntary manslaughter in MOST states, the things that the parents did in allowing the little asshole kid access to the gun and just as importantly when they had a school conference the very same morning of the shooting and the school asked the parents to remove the kid from the school and get him into counseling within 48 hours which they declined to do.......those factors and several others seem to meet the legal requirements of an involuntary manslaughter charge. 

There are restrictions on the 2nd amendment. That's a fact, my opinion has nothing to do with the facts.

You'll have to take that up with the "gun nuts", whoever they are. And honestly, while there are restrictions on "certain" small arms. As long as you can pass a background check and have the money, you can pretty much own almost anything you want.

I don't think I ever said there weren't any regulations on abortion. If I did, well then that's my mistake. Let me clear that up for you. Certain states have more stringent regulations than other states about owning and carrying firearms. If that's the case, states should have the ability to have more stringent regulations than other states regarding abortion.

That's what the SCOTUS is soon going to tell you.

Certainly sounds like four people died because of the careless storing of the firearm.

It was at least a major contributing factor.  When a lunatic wants to kill people, they will generally find a way.  But yep, the careless storing of the firearm definitely played a large role in it.

They traveled south to get to Detroit.

Michigan law says you need to be 18 to possess a hand gun. The fact his parents bought this for him is criminal.

Yes but downtown Detroit has the bridge where you can cross into Windsor.

If he was 18 then I'd agree. It's the responsibility of the gun owner to keep it from minors. Seems like in this case they are even more at wrong.