Exploiting tragedy

[Jmac Attack]

You should all ask yourselves why you haven't heard about the Sutherland Springs Church shooting. Took place just a few months ago and was deadlier than Parkland.

I have not heard about that. Care to share? If true, then yeah, why hasn't it been news?

[Jason]

You should all ask yourselves why you haven't heard about the Sutherland Springs Church shooting. Took place just a few months ago and was deadlier than Parkland.

For the exact same reasons why the Florida school shooting has morphed into a nonsensical anti-NRA campaign instead of blaming the hundred reasons it really happened.

Pretty disgusting how the liberal media handles these things.

[Jason]

You should all ask yourselves why you haven't heard about the Sutherland Springs Church shooting. Took place just a few months ago and was deadlier than Parkland.

I have not heard about that. Care to share? If true, then yeah, why hasn't it been news?

A man walked into a church, went up and down every isle and viciously murdered 25 people, 26 if you include the unborn child. The only reason he didn't kill more (and this is why you haven't heard about it...) is because a man armed with an AR-15 stopped the shooter.

[zombie]

You should all ask yourselves why you haven't heard about the Sutherland Springs Church shooting. Took place just a few months ago and was deadlier than Parkland.

I have not heard about that. Care to share? If true, then yeah, why hasn't it been news?

A man walked into a church, went up and down every isle and viciously murdered 25 people, 26 if you include the unborn child. The only reason he didn't kill more (and this is why you haven't heard about it...) is because a man armed with an AR-15 stopped the shooter.

pretty sure i have heard about that, unless there was another similar shooting that was stopped from being worse by a neighbor with a gun. i'll have to look up the details.

[Jmac Attack]

You should all ask yourselves why you haven't heard about the Sutherland Springs Church shooting. Took place just a few months ago and was deadlier than Parkland.

I have not heard about that. Care to share? If true, then yeah, why hasn't it been news?

A man walked into a church, went up and down every isle and viciously murdered 25 people, 26 if you include the unborn child. The only reason he didn't kill more (and this is why you haven't heard about it...) is because a man armed with an AR-15 stopped the shooter.

Interesting. I will look it up. Pretty fucked up!

[Jmac Attack]

Most of these shootings has had security or an armed person on site. Humans like to think they are Chris Kyle and brave, but most of us are pussies. Lol.

[Jmac Attack]

https://www.snopes.com/sutherland-sprin ... -theories/

[zombie]

any reference to snopes is immediately a conversation killer around here, unfortunately.

[Jmac Attack]

any reference to snopes is immediately a conversation killer around here, unfortunately.

Damnit. I will find another one......

[zombie]

The only thing twisted was the out of context Trump quote. Lol

in the interest of full context: mike pence said: "i think, in your meeting with governors earlier this week, individually and as a group, we've spoken about the states taking steps. but the focus is to literally give families and give local law enforcement additional tools, if an individual is reported to be a potential danger to themselves or others. allow due process. no one's rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the fire arms but any weapon in the possession..." (then trump start to interject)

trump said, in response: "or, mike, take the fire arms first and then go to court. because that's another system. because a lot of times by the time you go to court; it takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures. i like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man's case, that just took place in florida. he had a lot of fires (i think he meant fire arms), they saw everything. to go to court would have taken a long time. so you can do exactly what you're saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second."

none of which changes anything about what i was saying. so, "but context" is just an attempt to shift and deflect away from what was said and the implications of it.

[Jason]

Your quote implied everyone's guns. Full context just proved otherwise.

[zombie]

Your quote implied everyone's guns. Full context just proved otherwise.

it did not imply everyone's guns. it implied the guns of people, where there is suspicion of a crime. it would be similar to pushing through a door, instead of getting a search warrant first.

[Jason]

Reading "take the guns first. go through due process second" makes me think it's referring to nationwide gun control as opposed to the actual quote of referring to lunatics.

[zombie]

i'm sorry that you interpreted it in that way. to me, "due process" as a term, implies that a wrongdoing or crime is suspected of an individual or individuals. so that being included reads different, to me, than just an outright ban across the united states.

[zombie]

it is interesting that you referred to the quote as being about lunatics too. how do you determine that someone is a criminal or "lunatic", if not by due process? would you oppose it, if hillary clinton or barack obama suggested that citizens suspected of crime or wrongdoing automatically become lunatics, even before it is legally determined to be so?

i am not saying that trump said that either, but that is how you're choosing to defend his quote.

[Foo]

it's not the dems that i heard that from. if you don't have a problem with "guilty until proven innocent" then fair enough. if "pre-crime" is okay with you, that's fair. it's not okay with me though.

Just to be clear, you think the shooter should have had access to guns the entire time?

no. he should have been investigated when it was brought to the attention of the fbi and to law enforcement. that is where the failing happened. but if you guys want to twist everything i'm saying, like you always do. fair play. i should know better than to discuss anything with the two of you.

Great, you investigate him. Then what?

What is that supposed to do? Sadly there are thousands of people like that guy out there. We get lucky every day they don't turn their thoughts into actions.

we're never going to be able to prevent every crime and every criminal. if that means we should start treating people as if they are guilty, just on suspicion or rumor alone, then have at it. i don't want a part of that.

So what is the point of investigating? You aren't advocating anything be done.

the point of investigating is to determine whether he presents a threat or not, and to act accordingly under the law and due process.

Again, you are playing very fast and loose with the reality.

They did this. They have done this before with people like the Boston Marathon bombers. What exactly does this do? If they are not mind numbingly stupid and flat out state they are going to commit these crimes, it accomplishes nothing.

I am not advocating any actions being taken. I have defended the mentally ill on this topic. I am not going to sit here and pretend a massive failure of a solution is accomplishing anything, though.

[Foo]

The only thing twisted was the out of context Trump quote. Lol

Did you see the media running with Trump's "Lifetime President" joke? Good lord they are a bunch of lying sacks of shit.

No, but of course they did.

Republicans and Democrats......get rid of them all. Nawm saying?

As a garden variety Democrat, I am assuming you would not like to be "gotten rid of".

You keep saying that. But I disagree with a lot of them. Can't have a discussion with you if that is what you think I am. I am a social liberal. I admit that. But you side with conservatives more than I do liberals. You have said that liberals are scum. I haven't said that about conservatives. I do think the uber Christian right are a little crazy. Other than that, they cool. I have said in here, some good things about Trump. Only people to respond was Seb and Zombs......like once or twice. But let's argue about our differences. ???????????????

Trying to find common ground. I guess that's bad.

I am not advocating "getting rid of" anyone. I can disagree with you, without insinuating you should be exterminated.

[zombie]

Again, you are playing very fast and loose with the reality.

They did this. They have done this before with people like the Boston Marathon bombers. What exactly does this do? If they are not mind numbingly stupid and flat out state they are going to commit these crimes, it accomplishes nothing.

I am not advocating any actions being taken. I have defended the mentally ill on this topic. I am not going to sit here and pretend a massive failure of a solution is accomplishing anything, though.

are you talking about law enforcement and/or the fbi? is that the "they" that you're referring to? they can't prevent everything. they will never be able to prevent everything. should they do their jobs better? absolutely. should they take threats or potential threats more seriously? absolutely.

if you're not advocating any actions being taken, why are you jumping down my throat about this? i don't know what your point in all of this is, exactly? are you just playing devil's advocate with me?

[Foo]

Again, you are playing very fast and loose with the reality.

They did this. They have done this before with people like the Boston Marathon bombers. What exactly does this do? If they are not mind numbingly stupid and flat out state they are going to commit these crimes, it accomplishes nothing.

I am not advocating any actions being taken. I have defended the mentally ill on this topic. I am not going to sit here and pretend a massive failure of a solution is accomplishing anything, though.

are you talking about law enforcement and/or the fbi? is that the "they" that you're referring to? they can't prevent everything. they will never be able to prevent everything. should they do their jobs better? absolutely. should they take threats or potential threats more seriously? absolutely.

if you're not advocating any actions being taken, why are you jumping down my throat about this? i don't know what your point in all of this is, exactly? are you just playing devil's advocate with me?

I am not jumping down your throat about it. Just pointing out the pointlessness of what "Should" happen.

[zombie]

Again, you are playing very fast and loose with the reality.

They did this. They have done this before with people like the Boston Marathon bombers. What exactly does this do? If they are not mind numbingly stupid and flat out state they are going to commit these crimes, it accomplishes nothing.

I am not advocating any actions being taken. I have defended the mentally ill on this topic. I am not going to sit here and pretend a massive failure of a solution is accomplishing anything, though.

are you talking about law enforcement and/or the fbi? is that the "they" that you're referring to? they can't prevent everything. they will never be able to prevent everything. should they do their jobs better? absolutely. should they take threats or potential threats more seriously? absolutely.

if you're not advocating any actions being taken, why are you jumping down my throat about this? i don't know what your point in all of this is, exactly? are you just playing devil's advocate with me?

I am not jumping down your throat about it. Just pointing out the pointlessness of what "Should" happen.

okay. so are we working under the premise that the people tasked with protecting us and enforcing the law in this country are inept? how does making more laws for them, or even giving them authority to circumvent those laws in certain cases, solve their apparent ineptitude at protecting us and enforcing the law on our behalf?