BREAKING: Yet another... Mass shooting. 27 killed, 30 injured In Texas Church

[Synciere]

Why are people complaining about others making this about politics? It's a political issue. We're the only country this happens to, because our POLITICians are bought by the gun industry. It's become POLICY. It's like when people who aren't oppressed hate talking about race, because they don't feel those issues and don't want to be reminded of it. People who are pro-gun don't want to admit that they'd rather have their rifle and let people die than enact laws like in Britian, Sweden, Norway, Australia, Denmark, Japan, Switzerland, or any other country where they've created laws that prevent mass murder because they, you know... make sense! But that's okay though, because your thoughts and prayers are with them, just not your ideologies or actions.

[Amsterdam]

RIP!


Question how are the:
the church murderer, the Las Vegas murderer and the TImes Square murderer not labeled terrorist or extremist?

[HarthorneWingo]

RIP!


Question how are the:
the church murderer, the Las Vegas murderer and the TImes Square murderer not labeled terrorist or extremist?

Terrorism is usually connected to a political and/or financial objective. The guy is Texas simply hated his mother-in-law.

[Amsterdam]

RIP!


Question how are the:
the church murderer, the Las Vegas murderer and the TImes Square murderer not labeled terrorist or extremist?

Terrorism is usually connected to a political and/or financial objective. The guy is Texas simply hated his mother-in-law.

OK that's sounds reasonable. But the dude that ran over the folks at TImes Square and this dude both had prior military backgrounds. Doesn't that sound too coincidental? Why? Is it to distract from heat being put at the top or to further divide the public from creating a cohesive voice on political matters. What do I know?

But this is quite interesting>

https://www.naturalnews.com/038380_covert_hypnosis_mind_control_PSYOP.html

[earthmansurfer]

As of now, we know this:

The shooter should not have legally been able to obtain a gun, due to a dishonerable discharge. Someone did not follow the law.
The person who shot him was a law abiding citizen, NRA member, with a lawfully obtained AR15.
If not for the legal AR15 guy, many many more would have been killed.

[aq_ua]

As of now, we know this:

The shooter should not have legally been able to obtain a gun, due to a dishonerable discharge. Someone did not follow the law.
The person who shot him was a law abiding citizen, NRA member, with a lawfully obtained AR15.
If not for the legal AR15 guy, many many more would have been killed.

And if the gun hadn’t been available for the shooter to illegally obtain, zero people would have been killed.

[WhyISO]

It's proven that banning sale of firearms will eliminate the number of deaths by firearms.
Don't believe me...take a look at this list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Guess which countries have firearms banned?

[spree8]

It's proven that banning sale of firearms will eliminate the number of deaths by firearms.
Don't believe me...take a look at this list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Guess which countries have firearms banned?

It'll never happen. Gotta get over it. Reform? Sure, but banning them completely? Never.

[BigShot Bojan]

RIP!


Question how are the:
the church murderer, the Las Vegas murderer and the TImes Square murderer not labeled terrorist or extremist?

Terrorism is usually connected to a political and/or financial objective. The guy is Texas simply hated his mother-in-law.

than why didnt he put his gun in her mouth and blow her head away...

[earthmansurfer]

As of now, we know this:

The shooter should not have legally been able to obtain a gun, due to a dishonerable discharge. Someone did not follow the law.
The person who shot him was a law abiding citizen, NRA member, with a lawfully obtained AR15.
If not for the legal AR15 guy, many many more would have been killed.

And if the gun hadn’t been available for the shooter to illegally obtain, zero people would have been killed.

You have a plan to remove the 2nd amendment?
You do know it is there to keep the government in check and not each other?
And this comes from a non gun owner and I don't even like guns.

[DOT]

As of now, we know this:

The shooter should not have legally been able to obtain a gun, due to a dishonerable discharge. Someone did not follow the law.
The person who shot him was a law abiding citizen, NRA member, with a lawfully obtained AR15.
If not for the legal AR15 guy, many many more would have been killed.

And if the gun hadn’t been available for the shooter to illegally obtain, zero people would have been killed.

You have a plan to remove the 2nd amendment?
You do know it is there to keep the government in check and not each other?
And this comes from a non gun owner and I don't even like guns.

It was also written at a time when you could only fire one bullet a minute and black people only counted as 3/5ths of a person. Updating it is within reason. Try coming up with legislation for weapons 250 years from now. We have no idea what they'll look like, so it's impossible

Plus everyone that mentions the 2nd amendment conveniently leaves out the "well-regulated militia" part of it

[thebuzzardman]

RIP!


Question how are the:
the church murderer, the Las Vegas murderer and the TImes Square murderer not labeled terrorist or extremist?

Terrorism is usually connected to a political and/or financial objective. The guy is Texas simply hated his mother-in-law.

than why didnt he put his gun in her mouth and blow her head away...

Because the media makes a huge to do over every mass killing.

Go out in fame and glory.

Sick, right?

More sick than devoting a week to every mass killing, but not by much more.

[HarthorneWingo]

RIP!


Question how are the:
the church murderer, the Las Vegas murderer and the TImes Square murderer not labeled terrorist or extremist?

Terrorism is usually connected to a political and/or financial objective. The guy is Texas simply hated his mother-in-law.

than why didnt he put his gun in her mouth and blow her head away...

He didn't know how to properly channel his anger?

What's strong with simply berating the mother-in-law and kicking her out of the house?

Watch on YouTube

[BigShot Bojan]

Terrorism is usually connected to a political and/or financial objective. The guy is Texas simply hated his mother-in-law.

than why didnt he put his gun in her mouth and blow her head away...

He didn't know how to properly channel his anger?

What's strong with simply berating the mother-in-law and kicking her out of the house?

Watch on YouTube

BANG ZOOM!

[earthmansurfer]

And if the gun hadn’t been available for the shooter to illegally obtain, zero people would have been killed.

You have a plan to remove the 2nd amendment?
You do know it is there to keep the government in check and not each other?
And this comes from a non gun owner and I don't even like guns.

It was also written at a time when you could only fire one bullet a minute and black people only counted as 3/5ths of a person. Updating it is within reason. Try coming up with legislation for weapons 250 years from now. We have no idea what they'll look like, so it's impossible

Plus everyone that mentions the 2nd amendment conveniently leaves out the "well-regulated militia" part of it

You will stand no chance with that argument in front of the Supreme Court.

I'm all for reasonable gun laws, but my point with this thread was there was already a gun law in place - No dishonorable discharged servicemen get to own a gun. The Air Force, for whatever reason, didn't do their job. The person with the legally obtained gun "saved" the day.

Read on Twitter

[robillionaire]

"the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”

-founding father

Why let the fascist militias and the state have the monopoly on guns, defend your communities

[DOT]

You have a plan to remove the 2nd amendment?
You do know it is there to keep the government in check and not each other?
And this comes from a non gun owner and I don't even like guns.

It was also written at a time when you could only fire one bullet a minute and black people only counted as 3/5ths of a person. Updating it is within reason. Try coming up with legislation for weapons 250 years from now. We have no idea what they'll look like, so it's impossible

Plus everyone that mentions the 2nd amendment conveniently leaves out the "well-regulated militia" part of it

You will stand no chance with that argument in front of the Supreme Court.

I'm all for reasonable gun laws, but my point with this thread was there was already a gun law in place - No dishonorable discharged servicemen get to own a gun. The Air Force, for whatever reason, didn't do their job. The person with the legally obtained gun "saved" the day.

Read on Twitter

So he bought it through a gun store then? Go after the d1ckhead that sold him it, he broke the law. Or, more likely, he bought it in a WalMart parking lot off of some guy on Craigslist, in which case make it a law that private sales of guns are illegal.

Also, another reasonable law would be to ban assault rifles. Handguns and hunting rifles are fine, but only allow a certain amount of ammunition per person. Extensive background checks, psychological evaluations not only of the person buying the gun, but of those that live with them or can get access to that gun.

Congrats, I just prevented the tragedy that happened. And what's your excuse about Vegas? Orlando? Sandy Hook?
We've had twice as many mass shootings (not victims of mass shootings, number of mass shootings) this year than Japan has had victims of mass killings over the last 95 years. We passed the point of no return when we allowed children to be murdered and did nothing.

But keep your head in the sand and say there's nothing we could've done

[spree8]

It was also written at a time when you could only fire one bullet a minute and black people only counted as 3/5ths of a person. Updating it is within reason. Try coming up with legislation for weapons 250 years from now. We have no idea what they'll look like, so it's impossible

Plus everyone that mentions the 2nd amendment conveniently leaves out the "well-regulated militia" part of it

You will stand no chance with that argument in front of the Supreme Court.

I'm all for reasonable gun laws, but my point with this thread was there was already a gun law in place - No dishonorable discharged servicemen get to own a gun. The Air Force, for whatever reason, didn't do their job. The person with the legally obtained gun "saved" the day.

Read on Twitter

So he bought it through a gun store then? Go after the d1ckhead that sold him it, he broke the law. Or, more likely, he bought it in a WalMart parking lot off of some guy on Craigslist, in which case make it a law that private sales of guns are illegal.

Also, another reasonable law would be to ban assault rifles. Handguns and hunting rifles are fine, but only allow a certain amount of ammunition per person. Extensive background checks, psychological evaluations not only of the person buying the gun, but of those that live with them or can get access to that gun.

Congrats, I just prevented the tragedy that happened. And what's your excuse about Vegas? Orlando? Sandy Hook?
We've had twice as many mass shootings (not victims of mass shootings, number of mass shootings) this year than Japan has had victims of mass killings over the last 95 years. We passed the point of no return when we allowed children to be murdered and did nothing.

But keep your head in the sand and say there's nothing we could've done

??? It's the Air Forces fault for not notifying the proper authorities. Therefore, any store that sold it to him made a legal transaction as far as they're concerned since the background check didn't bounce back any red flags.

Also, assault rifles aren't legal btw.

[earthmansurfer]

It was also written at a time when you could only fire one bullet a minute and black people only counted as 3/5ths of a person. Updating it is within reason. Try coming up with legislation for weapons 250 years from now. We have no idea what they'll look like, so it's impossible

Plus everyone that mentions the 2nd amendment conveniently leaves out the "well-regulated militia" part of it

You will stand no chance with that argument in front of the Supreme Court.

I'm all for reasonable gun laws, but my point with this thread was there was already a gun law in place - No dishonorable discharged servicemen get to own a gun. The Air Force, for whatever reason, didn't do their job. The person with the legally obtained gun "saved" the day.

Read on Twitter

So he bought it through a gun store then? Go after the d1ckhead that sold him it, he broke the law. Or, more likely, he bought it in a WalMart parking lot off of some guy on Craigslist, in which case make it a law that private sales of guns are illegal.

Also, another reasonable law would be to ban assault rifles. Handguns and hunting rifles are fine, but only allow a certain amount of ammunition per person. Extensive background checks, psychological evaluations not only of the person buying the gun, but of those that live with them or can get access to that gun.

Congrats, I just prevented the tragedy that happened. And what's your excuse about Vegas? Orlando? Sandy Hook?
We've had twice as many mass shootings (not victims of mass shootings, number of mass shootings) this year than Japan has had victims of mass killings over the last 95 years. We passed the point of no return when we allowed children to be murdered and did nothing.

But keep your head in the sand and say there's nothing we could've done

Did you even read that? It was the Air Forces fault.
There was a gun law in place.

Chicago - strictest gun laws in place. How is that working out?

And the Dems did a great job on this one. http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/11/06/cruz-democrats-filibustered-legislation-that-would-have-resulted-in-texas-church-shooter-being-in-prison/

[DOT]

You will stand no chance with that argument in front of the Supreme Court.

I'm all for reasonable gun laws, but my point with this thread was there was already a gun law in place - No dishonorable discharged servicemen get to own a gun. The Air Force, for whatever reason, didn't do their job. The person with the legally obtained gun "saved" the day.

Read on Twitter

So he bought it through a gun store then? Go after the d1ckhead that sold him it, he broke the law. Or, more likely, he bought it in a WalMart parking lot off of some guy on Craigslist, in which case make it a law that private sales of guns are illegal.

Also, another reasonable law would be to ban assault rifles. Handguns and hunting rifles are fine, but only allow a certain amount of ammunition per person. Extensive background checks, psychological evaluations not only of the person buying the gun, but of those that live with them or can get access to that gun.

Congrats, I just prevented the tragedy that happened. And what's your excuse about Vegas? Orlando? Sandy Hook?
We've had twice as many mass shootings (not victims of mass shootings, number of mass shootings) this year than Japan has had victims of mass killings over the last 95 years. We passed the point of no return when we allowed children to be murdered and did nothing.

But keep your head in the sand and say there's nothing we could've done

Did you even read that? It was the Air Forces fault.
There was a gun law in place.

Chicago - strictest gun laws in place. How is that working out?

And the Dems did a great job on this one. http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/11/06/cruz-democrats-filibustered-legislation-that-would-have-resulted-in-texas-church-shooter-being-in-prison/

Great, so you can excuse this one on someone not doing their job

What about all the other mass shootings where the shooter legally bought all his guns? Still ignoring those because they don't fit your narrative?

And why bring up Chicago? Every other country with stricter gun laws has less mass shootings than us, so I'd say stricter gun laws work just fine.

There's no point in talking with you, you're fine with children being mowed down in schools because "there's nothing else we could have done"