• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

NBC reporting that the Uvalde Police Department and the school district are no longer cooperating the the Texas Dept. Of Justice over the investigation.

I wonder why.
Well, there are a couple possible reasons.
1) They done fucked up
2) Gov. Abbott Administration wants to leak a narrative that screams that they done fucked up.
It's illegal in TX to possess more than five sex toys but unlimited guns? No prob...

(f) A person who possesses six or more obscene devices or identical or similar obscene articles is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same.
Yeah, it figures you'd have that knowledge at hand. :D
...
Why did the police wait for the keys?
Those of us judging them in hindsight and with even less information on what was really happening find it really difficult to imagine why they didn't behave more like first responders in NYC during the 9/11 attacks. Their job was to run towards the screams and gunshots, but they weren't really trained to do that.
Certainly with the shooter inside and a bunch of unknowns it does make things so much harder. I was surprised to find out they responded in time before he got inside the school. Granted, you can't just shoot away at someone towards a school. I have no idea what door he entered, though. And where that was specifically to where the officers were.
 
Good news everyone, the Legislature in the State of Ohio has a great idea!
article (my emphasis) said:
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WJW) – A bill that would decrease the training requirements to be armed on school property is being considered in the Ohio State Senate.

House Bill 99 would allow schools to choose whether staff can be armed within a school safety zone. It would also lessen the training requirements. The current training requirements, according to the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Thomas Hall, District 53 (R), are around 750 hours.

...

House Bill 99 would change that to 20 hours of training. The bill says an employee must complete concealed carry weapon (CCW) training. To get a concealed carry license, applicants had to get a background check from their local sheriff’s department, complete 8 hours of training with 2 hours of live training and complete an exam that included an in-person physical demonstration of competency on handgun usage and rules for safe handling and storage of a handgun.
So yeah... gonna have a teacher manage a live shooter situation on 2 hours of live training.
 
I would like to require every member of Congress to participate in just ONE active shooter training scenario like the ones my Company organized. The utter folly of this “arm the teachers” bullshit would become more than apparent, and their dry cleaning bills would be astronomical.
 
Door-Gate slammed shut as door was actually closed by teacher when active shooter alert was put out. The door apparently didn't latch or lock for whatever reason.

article said:
Considine said the teacher initially propped the door open but ran back inside to get her phone and call 911 when Ramos crashed his truck on campus.

“She came back out while on her phone, she heard someone yell, ‘He has a gun!’, she saw him jump the fence and that he had a gun, so she ran back inside,” removing the rock when she did, Considine said.
We now turn to Locked Door Gate when on-site security or janitor is now blamed for not having the door locked.

What I find interesting is just how much stuff that isn't known to be true has been pumped out to the press.
 
A radical, and disgusting proposal: Release photos of the bodies. When Emmett Till was lynched, his mother insisted on a public funeral with an open casket, so the world could see the brutality inflicted on her son. Maybe seeing the brutality of what these guns do to kids will shake some people out of complacency. After all, the anti-abortion crowd has no problem posting pictures of aborted fetuses to shock people.
That was suggested that early in the thread.

I heard this morning at least two of the Uvalde families are considering it. I don't think I could do that to my child.
 
Door-Gate slammed shut as door was actually closed by teacher when active shooter alert was put out. The door apparently didn't latch or lock for whatever reason.

article said:
Considine said the teacher initially propped the door open but ran back inside to get her phone and call 911 when Ramos crashed his truck on campus.

“She came back out while on her phone, she heard someone yell, ‘He has a gun!’, she saw him jump the fence and that he had a gun, so she ran back inside,” removing the rock when she did, Considine said.
We now turn to Locked Door Gate when on-site security or janitor is now blamed for not having the door locked.

What I find interesting is just how much stuff that isn't known to be true has been pumped out to the press.
Gun control? No, we need door control!
 
A radical, and disgusting proposal: Release photos of the bodies. When Emmett Till was lynched, his mother insisted on a public funeral with an open casket, so the world could see the brutality inflicted on her son. Maybe seeing the brutality of what these guns do to kids will shake some people out of complacency. After all, the anti-abortion crowd has no problem posting pictures of aborted fetuses to shock people.
That was suggested that early in the thread.

I heard this morning at least two of the Uvalde families are considering it. I don't think I could do that to my child.
It's NOT doing that to them. It's doing that to the memory of them. It is letting them haunt people as a ghost of the haunted's own construction reminding them every moment of every day with their memory of that destroyed body that this senseless flow of deadly weapons was established, defended, and remains so that the people who make weapons continue to make money, and that this is the result.

I personally don't need to see a dead child who has been mutilated by such to hate what killed these.

But apparently some do.
 
Door-Gate slammed shut as door was actually closed by teacher when active shooter alert was put out. The door apparently didn't latch or lock for whatever reason.

article said:
Considine said the teacher initially propped the door open but ran back inside to get her phone and call 911 when Ramos crashed his truck on campus.

“She came back out while on her phone, she heard someone yell, ‘He has a gun!’, she saw him jump the fence and that he had a gun, so she ran back inside,” removing the rock when she did, Considine said.
We now turn to Locked Door Gate when on-site security or janitor is now blamed for not having the door locked.

What I find interesting is just how much stuff that isn't known to be true has been pumped out to the press.

It is normal for misinformation to get pumped out at the beginning of any crisis. What surprises me is how much time it has taken the news media to get more accurate details pried out of the local authorities, who appear to be in full CYA mode over a horrific failure to do what they were supposed to do. Apparently, they had spent an awful lot of public money trying to convince the public that they could handle an imagined active shooter situation, but they were totally unprepared to handle a real one. Now they are doing their best to do damage control, and they are pretty bad at that, too.
 
Cenk Uygur on Twitter: "He speaks for me. Every word. In fact, I’ll be using the “Marine Standard” from now on. If we can’t ask civilians to be at least as careful as Marines are with their weapons, then they shouldn’t have them. And yes, “well-regulated” in fact means “well-regulated” in English." / Twitter
noting
LifeIndiscreet on Twitter: "This guy here.A Fellow vet said it perfectly. I couldn’t have stated it better. #guncontrol (vid link)" / Twitter
Someone describes the gun regulations from his military service. Like having to spend 2 weeks of every year demonstrating that one is proficient in using one's guns. Also not permitting soldiers to store their guns in their barracks.

BeaglesResist 🇺🇦🌻 on Twitter: "@LifeIndiscreet To underscore this excellent video and for those interested in what really happens with weapons in the military, here is a detailed thread from another former military firearms trainer. (link)" / Twitter
noting
John on Twitter: "THREAD. ..." / Twitter
THREAD. Folks, bear with me for a minute, please. I want to address a point that is often made by gun rights advocates, but which is a fallacy that civilians may not realize. In the interest of full disclosure, I served 30 years in the Army and Army Reserve, I’ve taught marksmanship in the Army and supervised firing ranges and arms storage/security, and am a gun collector who supports the 2nd Amendment in that I believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to be armed if he or she so chooses, but I also believe that this right – like all of our rights – carries with it significant responsibilities. So, my point: we often hear people say that since we trust an 18-year old soldier to carry an M-16 (the military version of the AR-15), then we should be comfortable allowing 18 year old private citizens to carry one.

But here’s what those folks are NOT telling you: 1) no brand new enlistee in the Army (or any branch of the military) is given a firearm on Day 1 of his/her service. They receive quite a bit of training in firearm safety before they ever are allowed to handle the weapon – even if they grew up around guns and know all about them. 2) When they do get to handle their M-16s for the first time, there are no bullets ANYWHERE around. After being trained in firearm safety, they are then trained on the weapon itself without ever firing a live round. They learn how to handle it, carry it safely, disassemble it, clean it, check it for functionality, and reassemble it. 3) When they finally do get to fire the weapon, they are closely, CLOSELY supervised by their sergeants and officers. In fact, when the trainees go to the trainees go to the firing range for the first time, there are almost as many sergeants on the range as there are trainees. And some of the sergeants are assigned the specific responsibility for ensuring everything is done according to Army safety regulations. 4) Once the recruits finish their training and join their units, they NEVER get to carry their firearms around. Those weapons are kept in the unit arms room under double lock and key – each weapon is locked into its storage rack and the arms room itself is locked. And the arms room is protected by an alarm system. 5) No soldier of ANY rank can simply go to the unit armorer (the sergeant responsible for the arms room) and say, “Gee, Sergeant, may I please sign out my M-16? I feel like exercising my 2nd Amendment right today by carrying my rifle around just because I can.”

No, the troops only sign out their weapons for authorized purposes, such as marksmanship training or field exercises, and when they do that, they are ALWAYS under the supervision of a sergeant – usually under the supervision of several sergeants and a few officers, to boot. So, friends, that’s the rest of that story. Those 18 year old soldiers whom we trust to carry an assault rifle are doing to under conditions so tightly regulated as to make any gun rights activist blanche in anger. The military recognizes that those weapons are so deadly that they never allow soldiers to just carry them around on the installation. Those are the facts of the matter. So the next time one of your gun rights advocating friends tries to feed you that particular line, you can refute them with the facts.
Is there anyone here with military experience? Is any of that typical?
 
I know it's not typical speaking from my hood experience.
 
Cenk Uygur on Twitter: "He speaks for me. Every word. In fact, I’ll be using the “Marine Standard” from now on. If we can’t ask civilians to be at least as careful as Marines are with their weapons, then they shouldn’t have them. And yes, “well-regulated” in fact means “well-regulated” in English." / Twitter
noting
LifeIndiscreet on Twitter: "This guy here.A Fellow vet said it perfectly. I couldn’t have stated it better. #guncontrol (vid link)" / Twitter
Someone describes the gun regulations from his military service. Like having to spend 2 weeks of every year demonstrating that one is proficient in using one's guns. Also not permitting soldiers to store their guns in their barracks.

BeaglesResist 🇺🇦🌻 on Twitter: "@LifeIndiscreet To underscore this excellent video and for those interested in what really happens with weapons in the military, here is a detailed thread from another former military firearms trainer. (link)" / Twitter
noting
John on Twitter: "THREAD. ..." / Twitter
THREAD. Folks, bear with me for a minute, please. I want to address a point that is often made by gun rights advocates, but which is a fallacy that civilians may not realize. In the interest of full disclosure, I served 30 years in the Army and Army Reserve, I’ve taught marksmanship in the Army and supervised firing ranges and arms storage/security, and am a gun collector who supports the 2nd Amendment in that I believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to be armed if he or she so chooses, but I also believe that this right – like all of our rights – carries with it significant responsibilities. So, my point: we often hear people say that since we trust an 18-year old soldier to carry an M-16 (the military version of the AR-15), then we should be comfortable allowing 18 year old private citizens to carry one.

But here’s what those folks are NOT telling you: 1) no brand new enlistee in the Army (or any branch of the military) is given a firearm on Day 1 of his/her service. They receive quite a bit of training in firearm safety before they ever are allowed to handle the weapon – even if they grew up around guns and know all about them. 2) When they do get to handle their M-16s for the first time, there are no bullets ANYWHERE around. After being trained in firearm safety, they are then trained on the weapon itself without ever firing a live round. They learn how to handle it, carry it safely, disassemble it, clean it, check it for functionality, and reassemble it. 3) When they finally do get to fire the weapon, they are closely, CLOSELY supervised by their sergeants and officers. In fact, when the trainees go to the trainees go to the firing range for the first time, there are almost as many sergeants on the range as there are trainees. And some of the sergeants are assigned the specific responsibility for ensuring everything is done according to Army safety regulations. 4) Once the recruits finish their training and join their units, they NEVER get to carry their firearms around. Those weapons are kept in the unit arms room under double lock and key – each weapon is locked into its storage rack and the arms room itself is locked. And the arms room is protected by an alarm system. 5) No soldier of ANY rank can simply go to the unit armorer (the sergeant responsible for the arms room) and say, “Gee, Sergeant, may I please sign out my M-16? I feel like exercising my 2nd Amendment right today by carrying my rifle around just because I can.”

No, the troops only sign out their weapons for authorized purposes, such as marksmanship training or field exercises, and when they do that, they are ALWAYS under the supervision of a sergeant – usually under the supervision of several sergeants and a few officers, to boot. So, friends, that’s the rest of that story. Those 18 year old soldiers whom we trust to carry an assault rifle are doing to under conditions so tightly regulated as to make any gun rights activist blanche in anger. The military recognizes that those weapons are so deadly that they never allow soldiers to just carry them around on the installation. Those are the facts of the matter. So the next time one of your gun rights advocating friends tries to feed you that particular line, you can refute them with the facts.
Is there anyone here with military experience? Is any of that typical?
This is 100% spot on.

I even had my Physical Security training certificate from the army, and was one of the folks who was responsible for the arms room secondary key safe.

Even this is not the full story.

Nobody, not even the armorer has direct access to the keys outside of when the arms room is open, and they are in attendance.

Not even the armorer can access the armory without having the first sergeant open the safe where the locked key cans are stored.

The armorer has a key to that locked can, which the first sergeant DOES NOT have.

Nobody can get into that room without working together.

The secondary key cans are also locked, in a safe controlled by the security office for the battalion behind another reinforced locked door to a room full of soldiers, and sealed with numbered seals so it is clear when they have been opened and used. The numbers are recorded and kept locked up elsewhere.

Opening the arms room and closing it is a whole secondary rigamarole.
 
Sounds like the military does not fully respect and trust the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Soldiers should be allowed to sleep with assault rifles for pillows on the very first day of training, according to the Constitution. :Sarcasm:
 
Loren, look at the kind of comparison you are making between 298 justifiable civilian homicides and mass shooting death tolls, which compared with only a fraction of the 10,380 unjustifiable civilian homicides. Laughing dog pointed this out to you, but it is worth reflecting on why your comparison was so misleading. Justified homicides in general are not a fair or reasonable amount to compare against just a fraction of unjustified homicides. They need to be compared against all unjustified homicides. We should not just be concerned with mass shootings, but with all criminal shootings. Gun control is not about just stopping mass shootings and letting all those other shootings keep on going at the same high level. It is about bringing down the amount of unjustifiable shootings of all types. This thread is about a particular mass shooting, so maybe what you need to find is some statistics on the number of justified mass civilian homicides. Can you do that?
What would the death toll be if we all carried a gun? Loren is apparently arguing that we should all carry and that we would all be safer if we did. I'd personally like to have a couple grenades as well. An M16, pistol, grenades and body armor.
 
Sounds like the military does not fully respect and trust the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Soldiers should be allowed to sleep with assault rifles for pillows on the very first day of training, according to the Constitution. :Sarcasm:
To be fair, things ARE like that in an active deployment.

It can be strange coming back, and it's something they brief us on after we returned from deployment: that we would be feeling like something was missing for a while, it is the M16, and to remember where we are whenever we realize we don't have it.

It was interesting that there were no armed exercises or times at which we had our weapons for some time after that.
 
Is there anyone here with military experience? Is any of that typical?
This is 100% spot on.

I even had my Physical Security training certificate from the army, and was one of the folks who was responsible for the arms room secondary key safe.

Even this is not the full story.

Nobody, not even the armorer has direct access to the keys outside of when the arms room is open, and they are in attendance.

Not even the armorer can access the armory without having the first sergeant open the safe where the locked key cans are stored.

The armorer has a key to that locked can, which the first sergeant DOES NOT have.

Nobody can get into that room without working together.

The secondary key cans are also locked, in a safe controlled by the security office for the battalion behind another reinforced locked door to a room full of soldiers, and sealed with numbered seals so it is clear when they have been opened and used. The numbers are recorded and kept locked up elsewhere.

Opening the arms room and closing it is a whole secondary rigamarole.
I can only imagine it is like this due to a prank Keith&Co pulled with paint ball caps or hot dogs. :D
 
And to think the Uvalde shooter wasn't at all organized. What would have been the death toll if determined gangsters had entered that school?
 
And to think the Uvalde shooter wasn't at all organized. What would have been the death toll if determined gangsters had entered that school?
We already know what that's like. We see it happen with armed religious factions in north Africa and the middle east all the time.

Usually the death toll is low, on account of them wanting more kids to sell into manual slavery, child soldiery, and sex slavery.
 
M.S. Bellows, Jr. on Twitter: "We all know the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, ..." / Twitter
We all know the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What many don't know is the Constitution's *other* militia clauses that give the 2A context:

Yes, "militia" is discussed OUTSIDE the 2A. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress power over national defense, including the army, navy – and militia. If we want to understand what the 2A means by "well-regulated militia," that's where we have to start.

First, note that the Framers didn't trust standing armies; they knew Caesar had led his troops across the Rubicon to crush the Republic, + foresaw that a too-strong standing army could topple their nascent democracy in a military coup (as we've seen countless times elsewhere).
JC was one of some ambitious generals with personal armies in the late Roman Republic, and their fighting each other destroyed that republic with the ultimate winner, Augustus Caesar, becoming a Roman Emperor.

Closer to their time was Oliver Cromwell with his army, and how he took over and made himself Lord Protector.
Accordingly, the Framers allowed for a permanent navy but a TEMPORARY army: "Congress shall have the power... To provide and maintain a Navy" (full stop), and "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

But how could the new nation defend itself on land without a standing (ie, permanent) army?

The militia.

Idea being: in 1787, armies weren't hard to create quickly: just pull cannons out of a warehouse, requisition a bunch of mules/horses, and call for volunteers.

Basically, the Constitution doesn't anticipate an institutional Army like we have today; rather, "armies" were ad hoc, short-lived creatures created in formal wartime; otherwise, national defense was left to the "militia" (ie, all able-bodied men).
While navies require expensive hardware: warships. So it's good to have some around so one does not have to rebuild them, and it doesn't cost very much to keep them docked and ready for action. Present-day armies are more like navies back then than like armies back then.
BUT.

THERE'S MORE TO IT.

By "militia," the Framers didn't mean The Proud Boys, 3%ers, and similar beer-swilling yahoos acting on their own initiative.

They meant volunteer professionals, soldiers who would be equipped, trained, regulated, + deployed BY CONGRESS just like other military units.

Here, read it for yourself. Art. I, §8, Cl. 15:

"[Congress shall have Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

AND...

Clause 16: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

So: CONGRESS is responsible for deploying, overseeing, *arming*, and *disciplining* (ie training and regulating) the militia (with the states choosing local officers and arranging for training as Congress directs).

Which, again, makes sense, bec it's basically the Army, but distributed among the States and as a side gig.

Basically, the National Guard.

So the militia isn't a bunch of slobs who grab their own guns and seize a wildlie refuge.

The militia is a volunteer but professional military force, overseen, trained, armed, and disciplined BY CONGRESS (or by the States under Congress' direction).
 
NOTICE THAT WE HAVE NOW DESCRIBED AND DEFINED "THE WELL-REGULATED MILITIA."

AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT YET.

Which is the point of this thread: that the 2A doesn't stand in isolation. It's part of a larger scheme.

After the original Constitution was adopted, pretty much the same Framers immediately wrote the Bill of Rights: ten amendments designed to clearly identify and protect certain rights.

One of them was the right to keep and bear arms.

Why?

Remember: the original Constitution lets Congress arm and discipline the militia. Some Framers feared this endangered states' rights. Southern Framers, in particular, feared Congress might disarm the state militias that existed mainly to suppress rebellion by enslaved people.

So the 2A provides that members of the militia can't be disarmed by the federal government.

Which basically is the same as saying that federal troops aren't allowed to seize the Oregon National Guard armory in Salem.

Which: fine. I can live with that.

But what the Second Amendment does not do is change any of the other militia clauses in the Constitution.

The militia is still an emergency army, subject, just like the other Army, to regulation and discipline and even *arming* by Congress.

A fair interpretation of the above is that, while Congress cannot completely disarm a state's "militia" (ie, Guard units), it can prescribe their weaponry like it does for other soldiers. It can require they be stored in armories. It can order they not be carried in public.

In short, nothing in the Second Amendment, if properly read in the context of the rest of the Constitution, prohibits Congress from passing the same sorts of stringent safety rules/gun control regulations it already enforces on Army bases.
I've seen "right to keep and bear arms" interpreted as "right to join the army".
Yes, the Heller Court disagreed with this analysis.

The Heller Court was wrong -- intentionally, insincerely, disingenuously wrong.

And since apparently precedent no longer matters, we'll overturn Heller when we can.

And in the meantime, we as citizens should still know and fight for the correct (and sane) interpretation of our laws. I'm hoping that understanding the Constitution's other militia clauses will help with that.

Thanks for reading, and be safe.
 
Back
Top Bottom