• Forum server maintanace Friday night.(around 7PM Centeral time)
    Website will be off line for a short while.

    You may need to log out, log back in after we're back online.

At least 27 dead, more than two dozen injured in shooting at rural Texas church

Shooter was a POS with a Dishonorable Discharge (DV) from USAF, making him unable to legally own a weapon.

I've no doubt that won't stop "them" from calling for more laws though.

Hope shooter is now having his skin melt-off every 10 minutes for eternity :mad:
 
It was noted that an armed citizen prevented any more casualties. If we ever lose the right to defend ourselves all will be lost because criminals aren't going to obey any laws.
 
I can't help but think we need to have some kind of control over the high capacity semi auto "assault rifles" these crazies are using, or better control over the crazies. It's hard to do either without trampling on someones constitutional rights. I'll never give up mine. The way I read the Constitution I should be able to park a tank in my driveway.
 
Two things failed us on this shooting...

1) Military failed to report his DV and Dishonorable Discharge to the civilian police. This failure to report allowed him to essentially have a "clean record".
2) We need more stringent background checks. An in-depth background check would have at least caught his dishonorable discharge...which then would have been questioned for the reason why.

Bottom line, it's too easy and too convenient to purchase a gun.
 
I will never understand how anyone can think that passing more laws will stop criminals from doing things. If they obeyed laws they wouldn't be criminals in the first place. Only the honest citizen who isn't hurting anything will be affected. There are already thousands of laws on the books that cover anything.
 
Lawmakers have proven over and over that they don't know what they are talking about when it comes to firearms. By most their definition of an assault rifle would include my .22 semi-auto rifle or even one of my .22 pistols.
 
I can't help but think we need to have some kind of control over the high capacity semi auto "assault rifles" these crazies are using, or better control over the crazies. It's hard to do either without trampling on someones constitutional rights. I'll never give up mine. The way I read the Constitution I should be able to park a tank in my driveway.

Crazies or better yet, criminals, don't abide by any legislation or laws. The only thing additional legislation would do is limit, citizens who DO obey the laws, the firepower or capacity needed to take down such criminals. Had the opposing hero to the shooter only been allowed to own a handgun, this definitely would have turned out much worse than it has. There is no such thing as an assault rifle, btw...

The same gov't that would have to enforce these "stricter" laws on legal gun owners, is the same one that just screwed up by not following THEIR OWN procedures...and THAT is what allowed this shooter to obtain the guns he had. Had they followed through on what they were supposed to do, the shooter wouldn't have been able to buy the guns the way he did, but some people are advocating for more laws and to give the gov't more control. :?:

The gov't sucks at everything they touch, but undoubtedly some people always insist it's just because they don't have enough power yet and we need to give them more...:?: They can't even handle the power they already have...

These "some people" are also the ones that endlessly complain about the US being a "police state", but continuously at the same time are advocating for more of it.... :laughing:
 
Last edited:
It's the crazies that scare me. Criminals still want to go home alive. No laws would have stopped this guy. Even if the Air Force would have done their job, he could still beg, borrow or steal a gun. Was he taking psychiatric drugs like most of the crazy shooters? Every trip to our homeless park hang out reminds me that our mental health system is messed up.
 
My posted thoughts above weren't aimed at you, ScooterJim, but just in general. I probably shouldn't have quoted what you posted, and didn't mean that directed at you. I apologize if my post came off that way.

What I don't understand is this call for more legislation. In this case, existing legislation was not followed. Even in the extreme case of Las Vegas, where every existing "safeguard" could not have prevented it, there is just no way to legislate against "evil". And pure and simple, that's just what these acts are.

Any attempt to do so just infringes on peoples legal rights, and never deters those insistent on committing these evil acts. Case in point are suicide laws, which have been mostly nullified and have ever rarely been prosecuted. You just can't legislate evil.
 
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

I know it sounds harsh, and I don't mean to sound like a heartless a$$hat. But there is a price we pay for the freedoms we have. Sometimes that risk is that someone will go off their nut and do something like this. But if we start trying to legislate everything and every person for every situation we will have no freedoms at all. I agree that we need better mental healthcare in this country. I'm not sure the government is the ones to handle that since they screw up everything they touch. But let's say they do. They start out keeping better track of those who are obviously off their nut. From there they start with those who take any kind of medication. Then they move on to those who have been mandated to take some kind of anger management class. Then, if you drink, even socially because it alters your mind. Before long they define mental illness as anyone who wishes to own a firearm. Because in their eyes you have to be crazy to want to own a gun.

In this particular case, I'm shocked that we're seeing it in the mainstream media since he was stopped by a private citizen with a firearm. And again at the risk of sounding like an a$$hat, I find it ironic that the guy drove all that way and killed and injured all those people, they assume, to get at his ex-mother-in-law and she wasn't even there that day. This poor idiot was lost on so many levels.
 
I can't help but think we need to have some kind of control over the high capacity semi auto "assault rifles" these crazies are using, or better control over the crazies. It's hard to do either without trampling on someones constitutional rights. I'll never give up mine. The way I read the Constitution I should be able to park a tank in my driveway.

Uhh, NO.

You obviously fail to realize criminals don't follow the law, only the honest people do. Helpless victims don't make scumbags harmless.

As was stated by our CIC

"This isn't a gun issue, it's a mental health issue".

That's exactly what you're saying you're wanting to do in your post
 
It's the crazies that scare me. Criminals still want to go home alive. No laws would have stopped this guy. Even if the Air Force would have done their job, he could still beg, borrow or steal a gun. Was he taking psychiatric drugs like most of the crazy shooters? Every trip to our homeless park hang out reminds me that our mental health system is messed up.

Want to know who's responsible for your personal safety, and that of your family?

Go look in the mirror.


You have the right not to arm yourself, just don't force your choice on others.
 
Back
Top Bottom