Just in, new mass shooting in another school today, 14 possibly dead 2 children confirmed dead... :(

[3MTA3]

Man Claiming to be an uncle of one of the surviving victime claims Gov Abbot tried to bribe and bully him into taking PR photo. Turns out he's from Spokane a serial stolen valor claimant looking t o get attention wherever thxy can.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1529992524986830854

but the truth as usual doesn't matter, and the story has gone viral on the Twitter Left.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1529946232956895232

 

[jayR]

This -> SSRI

 

[Hueco]

Are tides turning?

Edit: If I was 18, I would get while the getting is still good.

Oh if only I had the wisdom (and money) of my elder years in my youth.

The most powerful thing an 18 year old has is their vote. Everything else has to wait.

 

[bkroger86]

Are tides turning?

Edit: If I was 18, I would get while the getting is still good.

McConnell is at the negotiating table. I think Manchin-Toomey is up for bat once again.

 

[SonicBlue03]

McConnell is at the negotiating table. I think Manchin-Toomey is up for bat once again.

Which, TBH, is a good play. It creates a lot of Democratic pain if they continue to attack Manchin, and there is some decent wording in that which puts the ATF/FBI further in a bad spot with their side registries.

I get most of us feel that 2a should be as untouchable as 1a, but there's a bit of reality folks need to accept. Unless you're ready to take up arms against the media and the "other side" right meow, selective defeats = larger wins.

 

[Aero Denezol]

do you not remember Kip Kinkel?
a home grown Oregonian
he shot his grandparents also before shooting up the school

The internet was definitely around in the mid-late 90s. Mid-90s is not the "old days"... unless you're under 35 years old.

I was living in Eugene at the time and I remember awakening (with a hangover) to the sound of ambulances screaming into Sacred Heart. But yeah we had Yahoo, AOL, Message Boards, online PlayStation and Internet Pron back then. Plenty of safe spaces for kooks to cultivate and gain support for their murderous ideas.

The "old days" for me was when you took off on your bike to find your friends and didn't come home until dinner.

 

[Aero Denezol]

Man Claiming to be an uncle of one of the surviving victime claims Gov Abbot tried to bribe and bully him into taking PR photo. Turns out he's from Spokane a serial stolen valor claimant looking t o get attention wherever thxy can.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1529992524986830854

but the truth as usual doesn't matter, and the story has gone viral on the Twitter Left.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1529946232956895232

That is incredible but believable. Oblermann needs to be called out stat.

Proof positive the left is also deepfaking their way through debates - something they like to ascribe to the right

 

[EHJ]

 

[Will_White]

That is incredible but believable. Oblermann needs to be called out stat.

Proof positive the left is also deepfaking their way through debates - something they like to ascribe to the right

Or proof that the left is as susceptible to grifting as our military.

 

[EHJ]

Elon Musk Considers the Right of Gun Ownership 'An Important Safeguard Against Potential Tyranny of Government'

Elon Musk, who is the richest person in the world, revealed to CNBC how he feels about gun rights and the Second Amendment. "I strongly believe that the right to bear arms is an important safeguard

www.breakingreports.org

 

[3MTA3]

That is incredible but believable. Oblermann needs to be called out stat.

Proof positive the left is also deepfaking their way through debates - something they like to ascribe to the right

Olberman was only an example - the incorrect message has gone viral. All the lefty talking heads have gone all in on this lie.

 

[3MTA3]

Or proof that the left is as susceptible to grifting as our military.

We all want to believe things based on our beliefs (confirmation bias). It happens on all sides and I've been hoodwinked a few times myself.

 

[2506]

The Bill of Rights is a specific set of limitations expressing what the government cannot do/infringe upon. The first 10 amendments are written in such a way that they are immune from alteration/redaction by future amendments.

"Congress shall make no law…"
"Shall not be violated…"
"Shall not be infringed…"

An amendment eliminating or restricting those rights would be an inherent crossing of the explicit boundaries. The Framers
must have known how fickle and self-destructive future citizens would be to their own causes!

It's scary to think that people actually believe that the Bill of Rights can be amended out of existence. The Constitution cannot be self-defeating, or else this country and everything that binds it is equally null and void!

It's scary that you think the first ten amendments to The Constitution are a magical, untouchable set of decrees.
The Constitution (Article V) provides that amendments can be proposed either by Congress, with a two-thirds vote of both houses, or by a national convention requested by two-thirds of the state legislatures.

There's really nothing else to it, it's a relatively simple process
.

What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? | Constitution Center

A current public debate started by a retired Supreme Court Justice has people talking about possibly repealing one of the Constitution’s original 10 amendments. In reality, the odds of such an act happening are extremely long.

constitutioncenter.org

 

[taters613]

That is incredible but believable. Oblermann needs to be called out stat.

Proof positive the left is also deepfaking their way through debates - something they like to ascribe to the right

I think we should all avoid the temptation to propagate this type of "news", either via retweets or by posting links/screenshots. Ironically, the biggest "deepfake" issue we have in this country involves bad actors disseminating disinformation through social media (primarily twitter), and that disinformation propagates likes a virus through communities that agree with the underlying bias. This problem is rampant on both sides of the political spectrum.

By reposting this sort of content, you are just as much a part of the problem as the folks that propagated the original lie.

Think about this:
In this context, Twitter is effectively being used as a "Decentralized News Service", wherein every person that clicks that Retweet button is a acting as a news broadcaster. However, not a single one of these "broadcasters" has even a SHRED of accountability for the content they broadcast; and there is ZERO oversight around how this "News" is sourced. That is INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS!!

So, as the old adage goes: "Think before you (Re)Tweet!"

EDIT: @Aero Denezol I realize that this post sounded pretty harsh/critical, so let me be the first to admit that I (and just about everyone I know) has made the exact same mistake several times.

 

[2506]

Yes, it's very very hard to accomplish, that was done specifically to allow the largest majority to then convince 34 states to hold a convention of states, to then decide what to change, and then vote on before sending it on to Congress AND SCOTUS for review before a final amendment moves forth! That has only happened ONCE since the beginning, and will likely NOT happen again with the 2nd!
These incessant side steps and challenges, plus the SCOTUS unwillingness to take up a case has left us where we are now, with the 2nd relegated to secondary status, and a distasteful subject to be avoided at all costs! What's worse is the SCOTUS has rarely upheld the 2nd rights as written, choosing instead to set a very narrow view of the topic, or siding with the restriction because of the false belief that it's "Good for Us" mentality!

If it's only happened once, how did we get 23 additional amendments after the Bill of Rights?

 

[CLT65]

I also explained that, given the sheer magnitude of our national population, horrifying incidents like this remain statistically improbable, an argument which I attempted to support by looking up statistics on the leading causes of child death in our country. However, upon doing so, I was shocked to find that "Firearm-related injury" is #2 on that list, and so I quickly abandoned this argument.

I didn't read the whole thread, so perhaps this has been addressed, but I wanted to point out that this statistic is misleading. Most often they count "children" as old as 21, and include gangland murders, suicides, and even military combat deaths. The average innocent child your daughter's age has little to fear, as swimming pools are a statistically higher risk than guns, and "assault rifles" are a very small subset in that category. As horrific and heart-wrenching as things like this are, the average innocent child has a greater risk of being hit by lightning than ever facing a madman with a semi-auto rifle.

That said, it is horrific and heart-wrenching, deeply emotional especially for those of us with young kids. It tears me up inside to think of the unbearable loss those parents must be going through, and the absolute horror of the event. My guns mean absolutely nothing to me in comparison to my kids, but I am well aware of how the gun control lobby uses the raw emotion of the moment to push their agenda, so we need to be careful to avoid being caught up in that. I'm open to talking about background checks, age limits, and some form of red flags. In principle I'm opposed to these things, but in practice I'm open to seeing if they could ever be implemented in such a way that minimizes abuse and rights violations, while actually being effective to some degree.

As far as draconian restrictions on the guns and magazines, I'm against it. The gun control lobby has emotion on their side, but not science. For example, the 1994 - 2004 federal AWB was studied exhaustively and found to have been ineffective. I would give anything to keep my kids safe, but am not convinced that a gun ban would accomplish that. BTW, I'm personally into older guns, and can't remember the last time I shot an AR or loaded a "high capacity magazine"; I just think we need to be very careful before going down that road of more gun control.

Again, my heart aches for the truly innocent victims of these insane crimes in both New York and Texas. I'd love to see some effective solutions, we just disagree on what those solutions may be.

 

[mhayd93]

Just read that "article." I love how the author is clearly hoping people just read the title and first paragraph, thus intentionally misleading the uninformed to believe that you can buy a firearm direct-to-consumer as though you were shopping on Amazon.

 

[Rkangel]

Just read that "article." I love how the author is clearly hoping people just read the title and first paragraph, thus intentionally misleading the uninformed to believe that you can buy a firearm direct-to-consumer as though you were shopping on Amazon.

Clickbait is part of the playbook intended for the ignorant masses whose attention span and "research" never extends beyond the headlines.

I think the only truth about this shooting is the amount of lies it has generated.

 

[mhayd93]

It's scary that you think the first ten amendments to The Constitution are a magical, untouchable set of decrees.
The Constitution (Article V) provides that amendments can be proposed either by Congress, with a two-thirds vote of both houses, or by a national convention requested by two-thirds of the state legislatures.

There's really nothing else to it, it's a relatively simple process
.

What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? | Constitution Center

A current public debate started by a retired Supreme Court Justice has people talking about possibly repealing one of the Constitution’s original 10 amendments. In reality, the odds of such an act happening are extremely long.

constitutioncenter.org

This is probably already falling on deaf ears, but your mistake is assuming that since amendments are allowed (nobody is arguing that btw), then they can be used to repeal or essentially strike from record, existing amendments and aspects of the Constitution.

There is precedent for this (prohibition and the eventual walk back of prohibition); however, the difference is in the language. In the case of the Bill of Rights, many of the amendments have explicit language stating that congress/government may not restrict or infringe upon those rights. A Constitutional Amendment, passed by government, becomes a law. Therefore, in a scenario where a proposed/passed amendment restricts one of those rights, it would be inherently unconstitutional.

Do you really not see how the Bill of Rights disallows for their alteration/removal via future amendments? Spreading false information about how the 2nd Amendment could be justifiably neutered through the amendment process seems counterintuitive to the purpose of this forum.

 

[nwslopoke]

I get most of us feel that 2a should be as untouchable as 1a, but there's a bit of reality folks need to accept. Unless you're ready to take up arms against the media and the "other side" right meow, selective defeats = larger wins.

Compromise means you get something for giving up something else. This suggests a straight defeat. Giving up one's right to self protection without a guarantee of protection in its place (like the tax paid protection of politicians) is not a Compromise.