Mass Shootings in America Thread

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There is such a way: it is called automatic voter registration and mail-in voting. That would eliminate the need for voter ID altogether. It would also save the government money and increase voter participation. Strangely, voter ID proponents are against it. It is almost like—as in their own words—it is about voter suppression. Weird.

it's almost as if they already created a complex system of systematic voter fraud, and the magic cure-all remedy would destroy it. weird indeed.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
it's almost as if they already created a complex system of systematic voter fraud, and the magic cure-all remedy would destroy it. weird indeed.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
it's almost as if they already created a complex system of systematic voter fraud, and the magic cure-all remedy would destroy it. weird indeed.

Yeah, they did, just get a drivers license in CA or Washington and be automatically enrolled to vote. You don't need to even be a legal citizen or legal immigrant and now you get voting rights! 🙄

Right wing gun nut jobs feel "betrayed" because Trump is bending to public opinion.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Yeah, they did, just get a drivers license in CA or Washington and be automatically enrolled to vote. You don't need to even be a legal citizen or legal immigrant and now you get voting rights! 🙄

So these kids now at the townhall peddled CNN talking points it seems. I just heard the bald headed chick talking about how in Florida you don't need a permit to conceal carry a rifle.

Not only is that retarded, it's something CNN said last week.

The lie Chris Cuomo tweeted was also mentioned at the townhall. Weird.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Right wing gun nut jobs feel "betrayed" because Trump is bending to public opinion.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I don't like the idea of registering with the dmv either. driving is a privilege, not a basic constitutional right. i would prefer to not to have to access a privilege in order to excercise a right. you should be pre-registered from birth or the moment of legal immigration. your registration should arrive with your social security card. then every citizen is registered. so I'd love to read a sober argument of why that would be even remotely bad

Not to mention all of the people who are eligible to vote, but are ineligible for a drivers license, such as the disabled, the vision impaired, the elderly, people who did not pass the driving exam, and people who have poor driving records.

This does not include people who are eligible for a license but cannot afford it, or who have no need for one. Most people who live in large cities live in apartments that do not have garages, they do not own cars, and exclusively use public transit.

It is almost as if people in suburban and rural America cannot conceive of any system outside of their own. For example, many people who live in cities use their U.S. passport as their photo ID, but that is not an acceptable form of voter ID in Texas.

They will accept a fishing license, a gun license, or hunting license—none of which have photos—but they will not accept a student ID from a public university or a passport issued by the federal government.

It is almost like they only want certain people being able to vote. Weird.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Not to mention all of the people who are eligible to vote, but are ineligible for a drivers license, such as the disabled, the vision impaired, the elderly, people who did not pass the driving exam, and people who have poor driving records.

This does not include people who are eligible for a license but cannot afford it, or who have no need for one. Most people who live in large cities live in apartments that do not have garages, they do not own cars, and exclusively use public transit.

It is almost as if people in suburban and rural America cannot conceive of any system outside of their own. For example, many people who live in cities use their U.S. passport as their photo ID, but that is not an acceptable form of voter ID in Texas.

They will accept a fishing license, a gun license, or hunting license—none of which have photos—but they will not accept a student ID from a public university or a passport issued by the federal government.

It is almost like they only want certain people being able to vote. Weird.

Wow. That was so full of LIES!!!!

But then Adam is a Leftist Elitist Little Snot.

So it comes as no surprise.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I never meant to suggest that it would stop ANY potential riot, just that it will help the problem. Suggesting that it would be 100% effective would be as ridiculous as the notion that background checks will be 100% effective in preventing mass shootings. And things like this don't mirror each other, the other side always escalates. Conservatives were super critical of Clinton, liberals were even more critical of Bush, then conservatives went a little nutty over Obama right from the get go, now people have gone a lot nutty over Trump at the get go... the next switch over will most likely be worse unless drastic steps are taken to nip it in the bud. We know this because there was already talk of conservatives going super nutty if Hilary had won.

Again, if the cops stood by and did nothing while the riots went on, they were allowed. And a riot is a riot, there's no need to try to isolate what an actual riot is about because every riot has the potential to be as bad or worse than any other riot. By the same token, a mass shooting that ends with zero casualties but a decent number of injuries should be taken just as seriously as one that includes casualties. If that ever happens and someone says something to the effect of "Don't freak out it's not like anyone actually died" then that person would be a serious dick. One riot or mass shooting may not be "as bad" as another, but that doesn't actually make it "better".

Not if they're approaching it with more faith in the system. That's why helping to appease their fears is actually a good thing. They'll still have sour grapes due to losing, but that doesn't mean they'll still go out and try to burn down part of the town.

I think that the problem with your reasoning is assuming that people will be equally upset regardless of the circumstance. As if someone who'd otherwise simply be upset is unable to be pushed to rioting. Not everyone is simply looking for an excuse to riot, there are riots over specific things that people feel are serious injustices. The Rodney King riots wouldn't have happened if it had turned out the cops were somewhat justified in their actions. There may have still been people who got upset because he got beat down even if he'd repeatedly attacked the cops, but I doubt random people would have been killed by rioters over it.

Honestly that doesn't surprise me, our judicial branch is as prone to making stupid decisions as the either of the other branches of government. Looks like it is something that has to be handled at the state level... pity since it's clearly something that should be handled at the national level.

And would you consider those easily obtainable forms of ID to be enough identification in regards to obtaining a firearm? Not that they should be enough on their own to acquire a firearm, just enough to prove that you are who you say you are when they're running a background check on you.

Alright. I just don't agree with the entire premise. Not at all. That's really all there is to it. I think the people who are irrational enough to react violently to an election result they don't like aren't going to be disuaded from doing so by a voter ID law. There's really no point in going back and forth anymore with this because it'll just go in a circle and it's not really on the topic of the thread. You've made your point fine, I just don't agree with it at all.

As for your last question, it would depend on the specific ID. For the most part though I think getting a firearm should be much more difficult than voting.

You are right. Close this thread.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Yeah, they did, just get a drivers license in CA or Washington and be automatically enrolled to vote. You don't need to even be a legal citizen or legal immigrant and now you get voting rights! 🙄

Funny you mention that...

My ex could have voted under those rules you just described. They gave her a drivers license, no restrictions, no questions. But they should not have. She wasn't a citizen or permanent resident. She was about to expire on a student visa, as well. They don't get paid well enough to do in-depth checking.

Seems like a very stupid way to register people to vote. Unless they prove citizenship when they get their license renewed?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I don't like the idea of registering with the dmv either. driving is a privilege, not a basic constitutional right. i would prefer to not to have to access a privilege in order to excercise a right. you should be pre-registered from birth or the moment of legal immigration. your registration should arrive with your social security card. then every citizen is registered. so I'd love to read a sober argument of why that would be even remotely bad

Damn good ideas.

Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association (NRA) are each suggesting the other party will switch positions on whether the legal age to buy a rifle should be raised.

Amidst fierce debate over gun law reform after 17 people died in a shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Florida, Trump has repeatedly suggested that he might endorse a law to raise the legal age to buy a rifle to 21.

The NRA opposes that policy, fuelling suggestions that a split may be opening between the president - who told NRA members last year "I will never, ever let you down" - and the powerful group which spent $30m backing his run for the White House.

"It should all be at 21," Trump told state leaders at a meeting on Thursday. "And the NRA will back it."

I'm sure this won't be a problem though and the law will be changed, as the NRA is just a powerless gun lobby.

Okay there was a hilarious exchange with that Sheriff Israel that everyone can appreciate. He was being interviewed by Jake Tapper. Tapper asks the sheriff if the shooting might have been prevented if his office had done things different. The response from the sheriff is as follows, typed out exactly:

"Listen, if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, you know, uh, O.J. Simpson would still be in the record books."

Thank you CNN for this hilarity.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/25/donald-trump-nra-rifle-buying-age-minimum-raise-split

I'm sure this won't be a problem though and the law will be changed, as the NRA is just a powerless gun lobby.

Always funny to watch those Limey Fascists gripe about our Rights.

So happy we kicked their Red Coated Tyrannical Despots out of here.

This Sheriff really rubbed me the wrong way during the CNN town hall thing, too. He was just so shamelessly pandering it became embarrassing.

He needs to take responsibility for his department's failures in how they reacted to the shooting.

Gee... I wonder WHY this Victims Parent's aint getting any Big Press from our Loveable Lefty Media.

Want to Protect your kids? Become a Politician...well a Rich Democrat anyway

Lol so wait:

Florida shooting survivor gives jaw-dropping defense of sheriff deputy who stood outside school

The ship has sailed on "these kids are smart". They aren't.

“But I think it’s a good example of if he didn’t take action and supposedly four others didn’t, I mean, who does? I mean, who wants to go down the barrel of an AR-15 even with a Glock [handgun]?” the student added.

“And I know that’s what these police officers are supposed to do, but they’re people too. They need to worry about theirselves as well as all the other students,” Hogg explained."

So, that's done with.

Well of course. Cops are all MURDERS anyway. They probably have just helped the murder.

That is what Nephy would say anyway.

Oh and the Teachers too. They are all murders as well.