Oxford, MI school shooting

[ArtieChokePhin]

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.

[pondwater]

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

[Dolphster]

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.   

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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.

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.

[pondwater]

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?

[Dolphster]

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.

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. 

[CF DolFan]

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. 

[Dolphster]

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. 

[pondwater]

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.

[Fau Teixeira]

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

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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?

[Spider-Dan]

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

[pondwater]

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?

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.

[Dolphster]

By gun nuts do you mean legal firearm owners?

"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. 

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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

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.

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 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.