RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Close to home for me: the Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, FL

Nice thoughtful post Cap

Except that... as you pointed out yourself, these high school kids, COULDN'T have possibly organized simultaneous protests in cities nationwide. They WOULDN'T know how to organize boycotts of companies that give discounts to NRA cardholders. These high school kids were hijacked by groups like MoveOn.org and Center For American Progress, and just coincidentally are using precisely the tactics of targeting and isolation that these far Left groups HAVE A LONG HISTORY of doing!
If I was a kid in a high school that was shot up, I would dismiss it for what it is, an isolated incident like Sandy Hook or Columbine that is a once-in-a-decade event. They don't have a reason to be angry or outraged because it is such an incredibly rare event, that will obviously never happen again at their high school. Were "assault rifles" used at Sandy Hook or Columbine? NO! They used more conventional weapons. So that makes it an even more rare event.

I seriously question whether their voiced outrage is even real. At that age, my attention would quickly have moved to something else. If you polled 200 students, most are no doubt disturbed by the event, but not "angry" and lashing out at the NRA and politicians like these wind-up-toy leftist-indoctrinated and coached handful of kids. Who are, as Ann Coulter described the 9-11 widows 15 years ago, perfect front faces for the Left, that can scold the public, but to challenge what they say and attempt a dialogue is to unforgiveably challenge and confront the grieved. They are front-faces we are not allowed to challenge or engage in dialogue.

There are PLENTY of other people to blame, and "assault rifles" only incidentally qualifies for blame. For example:
1) The school ( forget the exact name for the program) is one of many schools nationwide that has vastly reduced the criminal incidents they report to the police. To make the school look better and not as violent as it truly is, and also (liberal championed) to reduce the number of statistical incidents of minority crime in high schools. Laura Ingraham discussed this in several of her programs (don't look to CNN or MSNBC to report it).
2) Incidents where Broward police came to the shooter's home for violent attacks, and didn't follow up or write full reports on the incidents.
3) Incidents of the shooter (Cruz) making threats online of wanting to shoot up a school were reported TWICE to the FBI and not followed up on. Nor did FBI notify the local Broward Sheriff's Department.
3) BECAUSE OF 1) and 2) above, AND 3) NOT REPORTING, Cruz was able to purchase guns, including an assault rifle. Because of not reporting, local police never got any heads up, even after Cruz already had possession of these weapons, even after he was known to have them and continued making threats.

Further:
4) The on-location school security guard stood outside even after the shooting began, even knowing Cruz was firing on kids in the building. Even after several other sheriffs arrived, they "secured the building" waiting outside, while Cruz continued shooting students. It really burns me that the jerk "retired" with a full pension a few days later, for NOT doing his job.
5) The Broward Sheriff's office did its damnedest to cover up what actually happened for as long as they could. And even after exposed, the head Broward Sheriff responsible (surprise!) BLAMED THE NRA AND ASSAULT WEAPONS LAWS, instead of accepting the blame that obviously rests on him. And incredibly, still has a job!

THAT is where blame lies, not with "assault weapons". There is a clear massive valley of cracks this case fell through, and the ball was dropped at every stage. It's not about assault rifles, if these people had simply done their jobs, Cruz would have had a red flag that would have prevented him from having ANY weapon, not just an assault rifle.

And the fact that these kids, spokes-front-faces for the Left don't account at all for these facts, lays exposed their falseness. This is not legitimate outrage, it is a stage platform for the Left's anti-gun agenda.
I frankly don't know how anyone can't see that. The fact that the shithead Broward County cops, and the FBI, and Stoneman Douglas school administrators sat on their hands and just let it happen tells me law enforcement can't be trusted to protect any of us. Quite the opposite of the Left's talking points, it encourages me to go out and buy several weapons to protect myself and my family.

ILLINOIS TOWN BANS ASSAULT RIFLES AND HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES

With fines of $1,000 a day for people who don't turn in their guns. Just like Australia, who many gun control advocates cite as the model they want to follow.

The same day 3 major banks (VISA, WELLS FARGO and PNC Bank) ban the use of their credit cards to purchase guns. Taking their marching orders from the New York Times.

Anyone want to tell me again this ISN'T the goal of gun rights advocates, rather than just the fronted "reasonable" compromises that leave the Second Amendment intact?

Add to that airlines and so forth that suddenly no longer accept NRA member-card discounts that they have for 50 years. Those are airlines I won't be flying on.

I don't think it is. I'm for gun control but it falls into the stuff most people actually support. Furthermore I come from a liberal state and know guns are not going away.

So you would agree then that it is unreasonable to ban "assault" guns in Deerfield, IL, and to intimidate residents into giving up their guns by fining them $1,000 a day?

If they did that where I live, I might burn down city hall. Under the circumstances, I would certainly cheer if someone else did.
I don't own guns, but that is an infuriating abuse of power, and state intimidation, that prevents citizens from owning guns to protect themselves, both from criminals, and from an authoritarian state that would impose such laws.

A few weeks ago, Tucker Carlson showed footage from an anti-gun protest rally in New York state, where Governor Cuomo and other local political officials were there with heavily armed security details, who had automatic weapons, and magazine clips that exceeded what the state law allows for the little people.

And again, all the rhetoric at rallies, all the laws passed by the Democrat/Left, push not just for restricting certain guns, but as stepping stones toward a complete ban. And again, only for regular people, while the elites hold a different standard for themselves. The Left likes to ram their own ideological controls on the rest of us in a way akin to that of Lenin, Stalin or Mao. Whether it's smoking, or what sodas we can drink, what foods we can eat, restrictions on (conservative) free speech they shout down and often physically attack as "hate speech". How much more so if the people they would oppress are disarmed of their guns?

It's a ban on owning certain types of guns though, not all guns. Wasn't Trump proposing pretty much that back when he was also saying the politicians shouldn't fear the NRA. Couldn't imagine all the conservatives that would have shit their pants if Obama had said that. And arson is a pretty serious threat. You might want to think really hard about talking about burning things down.

A ban on certain guns that represent only 2% of guns purchased, that weren't even used in the school shootings that solicited the ban: Columbine, Sandy Hook and the others on the list I linked of school shootings worldwide.
The REAL issues are:
1) mental illness
2) background checks not up to standards required by law
3) the school not reporting previous crimes by Cruz and other students (and similarly at other schools nationwide) to artificially reduce numbers of black and hispanic crimes, and to make their schools look safer than they truly are, police not acting or reporting prior crimes by Cruz, and FBI not acting or reporting prior crimes by Cruz.
4) with failure of 2) and 3) above, Cruz was able to buy guns
5) more broadly, handguns, not "assault rifles" are used in the overwhelming majority of crimes, so banning assault rifles won't make the slightest dent in crime, as the 1980's ban proved over a 10-year period, as the Justice Department's statistics prove.
6) 78% of guns used in crimes are not purchased or obtained through gun retailers, or subject to background checks. They are borrowed, stolen, traded for drugs, or purchased illegally on the black market.

And my comment about city hall was very hypothetical, meant to express a level of outrage at such a level of state over-reach, not that I would actually do it. When Madonna burns down the White House, or all these celebrity liberals kill President Trump as they've verbalized, get back to me. They mean it more than I do.

Police currently have an APB manhunt for some 29-year-old guy named Travis Reinking in the Memphis, Tennessee area, who shot 4 people in a Waffle House. He is reportedly still armed with a hunting rifle and a handgun. Neither of which are an assault weapon.

There's at least half aa dozen other school or business shootings done in the last two months or so. And none of those were done with "assault rifles" either. So the legislation, while feel-good for the Left, is arguably having no actual effect of gun crime.

Except for the true purpose, which is to form a beach-head toward the ban of ALL guns. Which even then would have no effect on actual crime.
Only about 25% of U.S. citizens own guns.
Even with the most stringent of background checks, gun restrictions would have virtually no effect on gun crime.

Because as said above, 78% of guns used in crimes are borrowed from friends, borrowed from family (with or without permission), are traded for drugs, or purchased on the black market. So what does gun legislation actually do, it disarms and restricts the honest people who go through the retail process, and NOTHING to the ones who actually commit crimes.

At 7:30 AM this morning, there was another shooting at Santa Fe High school in Santa Fe, Texas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_High_School_shooting

10 killed, 10 wounded, this is the largest school shooting since the Parkland, FL shooting, and the 4th this year. As of this writing, the motive for the shooting is still not disclosed, and perhaps not known yet. I think we can safely guess the kid was pissed off about something.
But the two weapons used belonged to the kid's father, and were legally purchased through a background check. So again, the laws passed on assault weapons in the wake of the Parkland shooting are irrelevant, and there was no negligence in the gun purchasing process.

The kid from Parkland High school, David Hogg, really pisses me off with how he blames the NRA and pushes through Facebook and other media for boycotts of the NRA and various other businesses who give NRA discounts. He's a Leftist-funded mouthpiece for the gun-ban agenda, and what he advocates against the NRA and others has no relevance to any of these shootings. "Never let a crisis go to waste", I guess.

Not to mention the two weapons were a revolver and a shotgun, i.e., "hunting guns"

This one cracked me up.


Handguns account for about 80% of all shootings (although I saw a lot of stats that left 25 to 30% of guns in statisstics as "unidentified gun type" that could throw a wrench in those stats).

Back around 1995, the ex husband of my stepsister (a very violent guy) killed his new girlfriend with a hammer. In her parents' home, after they'd broken up. He'll be in a penitentiary the rest of his life.

And as I've cited before, auto vehicular deaths are about double the number of gun deaths. Maybe we can ban those too.

.

Man, over 4 years later, and this case is still moving through the process.
Ever so slowly.


And...


WOMAN SAYS SHE CAN'T SERVE ON JURY BECAUSE SHE HAS TO SEE HER SUGAR DADDY DAILY


Once again proving that truth is stranger than fiction. Or at least as strange.
I can picture the two sons in school with the other kids: "Hey isn't your birthday on July 2nd... ?"
And the husband at this point has to be aware of the sugar daddy too. There's a million stories in the big city.

I find it amazing that a lawyer could argue it is "prejudicial" to simply have jurors see what is objectively the crime scene.

.




A moment for the victims themselves, all too often forgotten.







My local congressman, Rep. Ted "Doucebag" Deutch (R-FL, district 22)...

...has exploited this issue for his personal gain, wrapped himself in the diversion issue of gun control, and posed in photos with some of the more vocal-leftist students who pose as "survivors" but suffered no actual injuries, including David Hogg and some feminazi butch lesbian.
But Rep. Deutch, I'm elated to say, has already announced he will not be running for re-election. Because like so many Biden-era Democrats, the polls show he/they have no chance of being re-elected because their policies (for which he was a zealous partisan and rubber stamp) have done so much damage to the country. He announced he'll be leaving to head some Jewish organization after his term ends in Jan 2023.