Agnostic.com

15 3

At what point will the mass shooting become, too horrific?

Most people believe that the Florida shooting will not change gun laws. How bad well it have to become before the US's citizens demand change and government enacts sane gun legislation. How many more people need to die? Is nothing too, much to tolerate? Is American killing American just part of the plan to keep the population divided and under the control of the elite? What do you think

HeathenFarmer 8 Feb 17
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

15 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

You should (or not) see some of the numpty brain dead comments by ammosexuals even on here before all the details were out.
"Some absurd number like 18". Then crickets. They don't care.
Right wingers are afraid of the dumbest shit possible.
The funny(stupid) thing about them is they never admit there's a problem and do anything about it than beat their chests and spew platitudes because they can't think their way out of a paper bag. They run right back into that burning barn and vote for the same idiots they always do.

Further people who never admit they're wrong are LIARS and that demographic is full of them.

I think the only way it's going to end is when capitol hill gets in the crosshairs.

1

They are starting to react now and might hear these kids. The kids are serious and right at voting age. Plans for rallies go on now into March and Cheeto and the bunch had best listen. Keeping us divided is not working. People are angry and lots of the younger ones are running for office. We encourage it and tell them we can change this in November of 2018. Vote the bastards out because we can do better than this. The issue is our survival as a nation and a democracy. This is not a party issue at all.

0

In the world of possibilities what would happen if the next mass shooting occurred at an NRA convention would that change anything?

1

when congress is shot

Stood up in front of a firing squad for treason and crimes against yhe American people?

5

I think plenty of people are demanding it. THe government is ignoring us for the money from the NRA.

2

It's been horrific since Sandy Hook.

I believe that if we could tolerate the Sandy Hook incident we could tolerate anything. I think if a group of gunman entered into an elementary school and killed everyone I still don't think it would change our gun laws.

5

They already have. The only things standing in the way of doing something about is are the NRA and morally bankrupt politicians who have sold out to the NRA.

@irascible there is an echo in here. I posted my comment before I read you post or wordywaits

2

I thought it already had

I cannot agree more but, I am Canadian and you are in the minority.

every individual is in the minority. im English so I don't get a say about it that will make any difference.

1

I suspect it will become important when most people know someone who has been shot, or was somehow involved in a shooting. I think it will be similar to how cancer came out of the closet when people realized how common it was among the people they knew. Once it becomes personal, people tend to pay attention. The sad part of that observation is we will endure a lot more deaths before people actually believe it might happen to THEM. Once we reach that point, more people will get involved in taking action instead of posting on facebook.

Living in Canada I know 2 Americans that have been shot and no Canadians that have been. I know 2 other Americans who have lost family to gun violence and no Canadians that have. The thing is I really don't know that many Americans.

4

I thought Sandy Hook would be that point... but we barely even blinked. So I don't think there is a point. I think that this is something most Americans have decided to be okay with and to accept in the name of an inanimate object that has been turned into a deity.

3

I thought after Sandy Hook - with the murders of so many young children - that there would - Finally - be a push to change things. Didn't happen. How many more people need to die? Many, many, many more - The US simply seems to value guns over human life - that's the ONLY rational explanation.

2

I thought after Sandy Hook - with the murders of so many young children - that there would - Finally - be a push to change things. Didn't happen. How many more people need to die? Many, many, many more - The US simply seems to value guns over human life - that's the ONLY rational explanation.

1

As a Canadian you don't have a legitament voice in this debate as you are not an American citizen. That being said the first mass shooting was too much. You can't change gun laws in the US because the most basic one is the second amendment. That amendment expresses my right as an American citizen to keep and bare arms and is inalienable and unabridgable. My rights shall not be infringed upon, per the constitution. The problem is a broken society and system of government as a whole. There is no cohesive culture here because people have mistaken melting pot to mean segregated culture. That's not what it means. It means homogenous through cohesion. There is an established American culture that many here refuse to engage in. It is that which breaks down a society.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Your one of the few in this group who has any sense when it comes to guns.

2

It's sickening that we are willing to sacrifice our children for idiots' right to have guns.

I approved your post, even though I find it wrong and disgusting. I'm not willing to sacrifice children's lives for any cause. That being said gun control is not a legal or legitimate answer to the problem of mental illness or extreme disenfranchisement.

It's not about mental illness. It's about people killing mass amounts of other people because anyone can buy any kind of gun.

@jayneonacobb mental illness kills people, but not at the expense of physical injury to others. Factual illness makes someone suffer to the point that the only one who is harmed is onesself.

You can't blame mental illness for this, because this kid was brainwashed and mentally Unstable. Someone formed that mind. Mental illness is suffering.

@DaniMa he killed small animals cruelly for fun. That's a sign of a sociopathic serial killer. Sociopaths are mentally ill. Brainwashed? By whom? What evidence do you have to support that claim.

@jayneonacobb literally a white supremacist group came out and said they trained the kid. Mentally ill and mentally unstable are two different things, so stop making my community a scapegoat for vicious crimes. And suddenly you're a psychiatrist as well, because in no reports have I read that he was diagnosed with sociopathy.

@DaniMa "because in no reports have I read that he was diagnosed with sociopathy." Because of HIPAA.

@Potsandpans well, he's claiming insanity in his screenings, so mentally ill people will once again be put on the block. He was mentally UNstable, not mentally ill. Because if he were ill at least we'd have a diagnosis.

@DaniMa I really don't know what to call it and what the differences are. Susan Smith, Andrea Yates and many others used water to kill children. Many offspring have killed their parents. Were they only unstable? I really don't know, but I do know that anyone who, unless it's self defense, kills anyone else isn't what I call normal or stable, especially a loved one.

4

As long as the NRA maintains its political and financial clout in this country's government, and as long as the intent of the 2nd amendment is distorted in perpetuosity: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", no incident of mass gun violence will be vulgar or repugnant enough.

Let's break down those terms. Militia means an armed citizenry. Well regulated means governed as little as possible to continue working. As in a well oiled machine runs better than an under or over oiled machine. Arms means all weapons and armaments. Shall not be infringed refers to the inalinable and unabridgable nature of the rights of American citizens.

@jayneonacobb So, lets break this down a little further. We already have a militia. It's called "the National Guard" and any yahoo who wants to play with guns on the weekends can join. Also, "the purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army. It was a concern that was relevant perhaps for a few years around the birth of the country. It is irrelevant today. Americans do not rely on state militias in 2012 for our freedom from the federal government." - copied from a Huff Post piece - 2012

@AtheistLatina55 the national guard is not a militia, my E-6 friend will attest to that. They are an auxiliary force scantioned and encompassed by the US army. He is not a full fledged citizen because of it. One of my roommates was in the air reserves as an E-5. He's out and working in the private sector as an airplane mechanic. He still doesn't have the right to sue the government for damages he suffered while in the military. That means he is also not a full citizen because his right to sue the government has been perminantly revoked.

The definition of a militia is an armed citizenry. Those soldiers, good friends of mine, will never again have full fledged citizen because of their service to you and your rights. They are eligible for a militia, but prior service is not required. Technically, by old laws that still exist every person eligeable for the draft or voluntary service is a member of the militia. Thusly granting them, the people, access to arms. Arms means all weapons and armaments.

The founding fathers knew weapons technology would advance. They heard of mythical weapons of immense power from religion and other fiction. They could easily comprehend wielding the power of 1000 Sun's.

The bill of rights was established expressly to limit government. You can not remove an amendment unless it conflicts with a pre-existing one. As was the case with the 21st and 18TH amendments.

The bill of rights aknowldeges certain human rights. It does not grant them. A right is an inalienable and unabridgable need of a person.

The huff post is heavily biased.

@irascible I blocked him a few days ago for other similar illogical or uninformed positions on other topics. SOmehow he was still able to PM mel He feels his rights of free speech are being violated

@irascible @btroje @AtheitLatina55 There is a direct link between the 2nd amendment and the preservation of slave hunter gangs in the south. One of the dirty little secrets about the origin of the US.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:25414
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.