The bodies of the the kids and adults murdered (murder is illegal) at a school in Parkland, Florida weren’t even cool when the Usual Suspects started clamoring for gun control. NBA coach Steve Kerr (who is protected by armed security) had a meltdown. Chelsea Handler (also protected by armed security on-set) railed against the NRA. All sorts of elected Democrats immediately went on Twitter to say we need to Do Something and grab guns. Even a sports reporter got in on the act. Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla) has been repeating the talking point that automatic assault rifles need to be banned (they actually are, and it seems the guns used by Nikolas Cruz were semi-auto)
And then there was the Sun Sentinel, a paper out of Florida’s Broward County covering South Florida news. Parkland is in Broward County, and the Editorial Board immediately jumped to gun grabbing rather than sympathy
Heartbreak of Parkland school shooting must bring action | Editorial
Students hiding in classrooms. Police officers surrounding a school with guns drawn. Parents racing to the scene, fearing the worst.
The national epidemic of mass shootings came home to South Florida on Wednesday afternoon, when shots rang out at a high school in Parkland.
This time, the heartbreaking images of children on stretchers and others scurried to safety with arms raised were broadcast from a community we know.
The wailing ambulance sirens and flashing police lights headed toward a school, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, we trusted as a safe place to send our children.
Many are recommending that schools have armed security, that some teachers be allowed to be armed. Instead of keeping schools as gun free zones, otherwise known as easy targets of opportunity.
Protecting gun lovers’ ability to buy assault-style rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines proved to be more convincing than the rising number of dead students.
Even requiring tougher background checks for people trying to buy guns wasn’t considered a political fight worth facing for elected leaders unwilling to defy the wishes of the National Rifle Association.
Outside of schools, the 2016 killing of 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando wasn’t enough of a body county to prompt tougher limits on rapid-fire weapons or high-capacity magazines.
It’s not the fault of “scary looking” guns. The NRA has no problem with background checks. It likes background checks. It doesn’t want guns in the hands of those who shouldn’t have it. Interestingly, the editorial board blames the guns, rather than the religions, namely, hardcore, gay hating Islam, responsible for the Pulse shooting. Which, BTW, was against the law, just like the shootings at Parkland. Strange how criminals refuse to follow the law, eh?
Amid the despair, we can also expect to be uplifted by stories from survivors of heroic acts that helped others live through the gunfire.
Then, perhaps most importantly, it will be up to us as a country to decide whether we will take action ourselves.
Take action to finally stop these mass shootings from becoming so routine that we sometimes just change the channel when reports of more deaths come from yet another town.
It’s not “politicizing†someone’s death to do something to try to prevent even more deaths.
OK, what are their ideas? Because it seems that the gun grabber ideas are always aimed at the law abiding citizens, rather than the criminals.
Maybe we could pass a law where it’s illegal to shoot people in a murderous manner.
Cool your jets big guy. We let a crazy guy kill first graders in Newtown CT years ago and did nothing. Nothing will be done now. The NRA and the GOP will protect your right to play like you’re a real soldier, without the risk.
Every now and then in America a crazy guy with an AR-15 style weapon will shoot and kill a bunch of innocent people, sometimes kids. It’s no big deal anymore unless it’s your kid, family or friend murdered.
Remember the Las Vegas massacre? It happened a few massacres ago. Remember “bump stocks” that kind of convert a semi-auto into auto-fire? Good times.
In America, there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop the mass shootings. Get used to it.
But be honest, just for a bit, TEACH. The AR-15 style (Mass Shooting Rifles or MSRs) are more than just scary looking, right. Why are they the weapon of choice for mass shooters? Large magazines, cartridge lethality, mobility, spray and pray capability, heat dissipation… they are designed to kill people in large numbers. And they are a great tool for the job, at least according to mass shooters.
Even you felt compelled to “shrink” the hunting rifle in your picture to make it the size of the MSR.
Because the hysterical media and Democrats (but I repeat myself) tell them so. And as stupid as you are, criminals are mostly even dumber. Like you, they believe what the hysterical media tell them.
That would be humorous if it weren’t so serious. Is that why Con Men bought so many Army-looking rifles? The media talked them into it?
So the fact that these assault weapons are easier to control, have large easily interchangeable magazines, shoot lethal rounds with less recoil, don’t heat up as readily, have pistol grips, and are specifically designed for killing humans in large numbers is not a factor?
Have you ever fired a rifle, or are you all hat and no cowboy?
Well, let’s pass a law requiring guns to be difficult to control. That make you happy?
Your original point was that “the media” has convinced mass killers to choose assault weapons, and that they offer no advantage over 4 shot magazine hunting rifles for killing dozens of humans in a short amount of time.
That’s clearly untrue. Do you have anything of substance to say?
As much as you ever have.
See the graphic above? You can do the exact same with that non-scary gun which wouldn’t have been on the assault weapons ban list. Except for spray and pray. Neither of them will do that, chump. Neither are fully automatic. They are both semi-auto. One bullet every time you pull the trigger.
Fully auto is illegal without a special permit from the ATF. The average citzen isn’t going to get one. And the gun used yesterday was not automatic. Stop making shit up. Stop lying.
Kiss my ass, TEACH. Why can’t you and your ilk have a discussion?
You’re lying now, and got caught forging the photos. Only an idiot claims that an assault weapon and semi-auto hunting rifle are equivalent. Ask our military.
Stop making shit up. Stop lying.
Your argument is that the world’s military has adopted small arms designs based on the weapons looking scary, rather than performance? Are you sticking with that ridiculous notion?
We get it. Some guys (a lot of guys) want firearms that look military although they have no use for the military advantages that come with them. Unfortunately, these military use advantages are also advantages for lunatics who want to kill dozens of people, including children rapidly.
Mass shooters choose AR-15 style rifles for a reason. The rifles themselves don’t cause the killings, they are tools that facilitate the carnage. Realize that these kind of killings are now largely an American phenomenon. Why? The easy available of the tools, rifles for mass shooting is only part contributory. What are the issues inside American men that trigger these outbursts?
More gun grabber lingo to take our guns:
This is the kind of progressive legal mumbo-jumbo the left uses to grab your guns.
Something has to be done. Let’s start by removing those useless “gun-free” zone plaques, and hospitalizing known psychos.
Blaming an inanimate object is a children’s response.
Based on what you know would you have hospitalized Cruz? Paddock (Las Vegas)? Neumann (OC, FL), Kelley (TX)? How would you legally justify this? Would you confiscate their assault weapons too, or would that be a bridge too far?
Why does the government ban grenades, rocket launchers, sawed off shotguns and make it hard to own a machine gun? Aren’t those inanimate objects too?
how to decide who to commit and who is sane enough to remain in the general public??
pass a simple law…
IF A PATIENT REQUIRES TREATMENT BY S.S.R.I. CONTAINING DRUGS, THAT PATIENT MUST BE ADMITTED TO AN APPROVED FACILITY FOR AS LONG AS HE/SHE REQUIRES THAT DRUG.
do the research. most if not all of the mass shooters were on, or had been on, S.S.R.I. anti depressants. stop allowing those drugs to be self administered.
Imagine if the teachers and other good people in the school could carry:
One dead bad person. A lot less dead good people.
That’s the NRA mantra and fantasy.
“If you see something, say something” only works if the authorities follow up and do something.
Justice Scalia thought we could regulate firearms “down” to those available to those available to the original framers of the 2nd Amendment. They certainly didn’t contemplate 100 cartridge semi-automatic weapons designed for killing humans in bunches back then.
Do you all think it unConstitutional to regulate magazine capacity or other aspects of what we now call assault weapons?
Uh, no he din’t, yo.
Angry little black fella makin up shit again.
You know the Framers didn’t contemplate the internet either, right?
do you think it unconstitutional to restrict your right to free speech to a soap box on the corner because the founding fathers could not envision radio, t.v. and the internet??
they could not envision mass printed newspapers, so only pamplets printed on guttenburg type press are covered by the constitution.
be careful which slippery slpoe you start down, it might lead to your own downfall
Yeah, you could have heavy artillery, warships, Puckle guns (flint Gatling guns), & explosive ordnance as a citizen so I’m sure that they didn’t want the proles to have weapons of war. Dumbass.
Strong argument indeed. Many states and municipalities have banned semi-auto assault weapons without serious court challenges. The courts tolerate reasonable restrictions. Sawed-off shotguns (arguably more valuable for home defense than an AR-15) are restricted, as are fully auto firearms.
Your argument for unfettered access to military weaponry is not with the “gun grabbers” it’s with US courts.
This is a political, not a Constitutional, fight.
from an interview with Justice Scalia…
So the angry little black fella just proved he misinterpreted Scalia.
Well done, little dumbass.
Do you think it unConstitutional to regulate magazine capacity?
Do you think it unConstitional to regulate magazine capacity?
Or do you think it’s merely a bad idea (i.e., a political argument)?
Anyone?
Shall not be infringed. Kinda says it all.
Also, your strategy is not effective.
The answer will be political and will only occur when Americans get fed up of children being murdered at the hands of crazy men with guns. And that won’t happen until they wrest control of Washington and statehouses from the NRAs cold, dead hands.
moron labe
Once again the angry little black fella proves to be a debit to his race.
TEACH and his ilk still support the murder of children.
No, Jeff, we’re against abortion on demand.
You mistakenly equate abortion with murder. Murder is illegal.
When did Teach join Planned Parenthood?
As seen elsewhere- “Has anyone blamed the shooter for the shooting yesterday?â€
He’s been arrested and charged with at least 17 premeditated murders, so yeah.