Vegas Mandalay Bay mass shooting / Gun Control 2017 Thread

[Scrofula]

Even if we made rape and pederasty illegal, there are so many penises out there, it would be pointless.

 

[Erikmen]

It is true and it's actually worse. I held back on posting these because I thought they were too depressing after the Las Vegas shooting.

Before we can talk about gun control because it's disrespectfully politicizing a tragedy, before people run out and buy more guns, gun stock prices rise as traders buy in anticipation of a run on sales.

And apparently the stock market traders correctly anticipated that everyone wants the same accessory used by a mass murderer.

Bump Stock Prices Soar in Online Gun Marketplaces

Why Do Gun Sales In the US Spike After Mass Shootings?

Firearm and Defense Technology Stocks Spike in Aftermath of Las Vegas Shooting

I know, thanks for the links.

It’s frustrating to see tragedies, one after another. I wonder if this has anything to do with Trump - after all he divided the country and sort of empowered so many bullies, cowards like him. People are more disrespectful these days.

I understand it’s a bit extreme to think like that and politics aside, all of those terrible killings happened so often in such a short amount of time just when the entire country is so ‘mad’ so to speak. After Charlotte riots and his first speech about it! That was pretty bad, so imagine if you are one of those extreme nationalist. Especially considering Trump didn’t really take the time to express sorrow for the one who was killed.

It seems it doesn’t take too much thinking for someone to decides to kill so casually, I suppose they feel they have the right to do that. And they might take time to think how and when, especially with such an easy access to all sort of guns and ammunition. Idk, I am just thinking out loud. From outside I can’t Trump himself really caring.

 

[alasdairm]

i guess republicans only care about states right - a subject they frequently place on a pedestal - sometimes?

House Passes Disturbing Bill That Would Override Local Laws Against Concealed Carry

The House approved a bill on Wednesday that would allow gun owners with a concealed carry permit in one state to carry that weapon into another state, regardless of that state’s gun laws.

If the bill becomes law, states with very strict policies about who can carry a hidden gun in public would have to honor the policies of states with very weak requirements. It could also mean that, if you don’t meet the eligibility requirements in your own state, you could go somewhere else to get a permit and return home with the legal ability to conceal your weapon all the same.

As HuffPost reported on Wednesday, this is a particularly dangerous scenario for victims of domestic violence and stalking:

In 28 states, for example, individuals convicted of stalking are not allowed to carry in public. But, as Everytown for Gun Safety counsel Courtney Zale explained to HuffPost, under concealed carry reciprocity, a stalker in one of those states could obtain a permit from Florida, which does not prohibit stalkers and issues permits to nonresidents through the mail. He could then use that permit to carry throughout the country.

In another example, an abuser who is convicted of sexually assaulting his girlfriend cannot currently legally carry a concealed firearm in Massachusetts. But under this bill, he could obtain a permit from nearby New Hampshire - which issues permits to nonresidents and does not consider that offense prohibitory - and carry his firearm back into his home state.

(my emphasis)

making america great again?

jfc

alasdair

 

[LiquidMethod]

If this Vegas incident wasn't already suspicious. It was only the worst mass-shooting in US history and the mainstream media (minus Fox News) seem to have completely dropped any investigation into it. The press conferences given by Lombardo were hella weird imo. He looks super stressed and FBI Agent Rouse is always right there looming over him. The fact that they've made big changes to the official story is also weird.

FBI Agents: We Didn?t See Any Video Footage of Paddock Taking Guns To Mandalay Bay Suite

If FBI brass was trying to bury the alleged investigation into the Las Vegas Mandalay Bay massacre, that task just got much harder.

According to FBI sources with direct knowledge of the FBI probe of the Oct. 1 deadly shooting, federal agents have not seen any surveillance video showing alleged gunman Stephen Paddock loading up his hotel suite with rifles and ammunition.

?No one has seen that on the video we were provided by MGM,? a FBI source said. ?Vegas (PD) has looked at the same video. Paddock is on surveillance video but the guns are not. He?s not carrying bags or cases with rifles.?

How did more than 12 assault rifles get into Paddock?s hotel suite then?

FBI sources noted that there could in fact be video proof of Paddock transporting a dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition to his 32nd-floor hotel suite in Mandalay Bay but MGM Resorts International, who owns the hotel, could be hiding the video.

?They (MGM) control the surveillance video,? one FBI source said. ?I have never seen that in any other case. We (the FBI) control the physical evidence.?

 

[tathra]

The Congress shall have Power To
...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

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.

its pretty clear from the constitution that the 2nd amendment was never meant to give literally everyone access to firearms. a standing army is unconstitutional (thats right active duty military that isnt navy, you're all illegal), so the system was intended to be that the states' militias - that is, the reserves and national guards for all the states as well as their other militias - would be the nation's army, to be activated under Title 10 into federal service when necessary but for no longer than 2 years. the intent of the second amendment was tied to their reasons for not wanting a standing army, so that the federal government couldnt strip away the tools necessary for the states' militias to function and then use an established standing army to use military force against the states. the argument that "every male over 18 is part of the militia!" is bullshit because the constitution lays out that the federal government is able to declare whats necessary for a militia to be considered "well-regulated". tom, dick, and joe-bob sitting in a garage claiming to be militiamen does not make them a militia.

 

[JessFR]

And you're wrong.

A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Point one, it is clear that the first half of the sentence is explaining the need for the second half.

Point two, among the various reasons that is clear is that the second half says "the people". Not the militia or others appointed by the state.

Point three, the entire bill of rights limits the power of government to infringe peoples rights. So it's absurd to argue that the 2nd, but none of the others, actually is there to grant powers to the government that it already grants elsewhere. The states already have any power not specifically granted to the federal government. Among other places see 10th amendment. They don't need a 2nd amendment for that. The 2nd amendment exists to enumerate that the right to bear firearms is one of the inherent rights people possess. Including a reason for it that refers to the way the militias worked prior to the modern age of the national guard.

Now. All that said. I'm gonna give some other points in favor of the anti gun side.

Point one, the founders lived in a different time and could not have been expected to forsee the practical ramifications of the 2nd amendment today where firearm technology is very different, and society is very different.

Point two, it is entirely plausible that had they known, or had they been alive now, that in hindsight they might well have written the 2nd amendment differently.

However, that doesn't matter. What they might have done isn't important because no one alive today can say that with certainty.

What we can say with certainty is that the constitution as written protects the people's rights to bare arms. It is individualist, not collectivist. And I don't believe there is a legitimate alternate reading of it.

The founders did however anticipate that society would change, and that what they put in place then might not be desirable forever. Which is why there exists a method to amend the constitution and change or even outright remove the second amendment. And that is the lawful and legitimate way to change this problem if you're of a mind that this situation is in fact a problem. And personally I do actually agree that it is.

I think the 2nd amendment is outdated and needs to be changed. I'm not Antigun, but I am against the way things are today and all the problems lax gun laws are causing.

That said though. What isn't a legitimate way to fix this problem is to creatively reinterpret the constitution to mean what you'd prefer it to mean. As is how we've done it for most existing gun control. That is illegitimate, goes against the rule of law. And worst of all totally undermines the constitution as a whole.

Who's to say next we won't be saying freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet cause the founders couldn't have seen the internet coming. Or that freedom of the press didn't account for social media. We can't just interpret it however we want. That's is wrong and I'll never agree to that myself.

That said, we all know why people do this. They do it because we all know amendment the 2nd amendment isn't feasible. Because like it or not a LOT of Americans believe in what the 2nd amendment says. And many others like myself, don't agree with it but neither do we agree with what ignorant Antigun crazies would do if it didn't exist. Preferring a more sensible and evidence based approach to gun control over what most Antigun people would do knowing absolutely nothing about what they're doing.

Because of this political deadlock and because both sides have played off each other to such an extreme, we are now stuck unable to change anything cause no one will budge. And through that, everyone who dies because of how the law is now is in part the fault of both the pro and Antigun control sides. Because both have contributed to this problem by refusing to negotiate.

And because both know that both will attempt underhanded tactics whenever they think they can get away with it. Like for example pretending the 2nd amendment has a bullshit alternate interpretation.

So, what IS the answer? Sadly I don't have one. Just an be explanation of the problem. And my view is that it is both the both the pro and Antigun extremists holding everyone else hostage.

But I for one will never accept an underhanded illegitimate and unlawful solution where we pretend there's an alternate interpretation of the 2nd amendment that can't be lawfully and rationally said to exist.

The founders probably didn't intend this to be the outcome, that's true. But they didn't intend for people to reinterpret the rule of law to solve those problems either. They expected people to use the system that exists to amend the law.

If we start reinterpreting the laws we don't like to illegitimate change how they're executed, none of the protections the bill of rights provides will hold any long term validity anymore. They are all vulnerable.

And just to say it again, even if the founders didn't foresee this outcome. What matters is how the intended the bill of rights to apply, and they intended to protect the people's right to bare arms. No they didn't know the kind of arms that would result in, but that doesn't make ignoring the law the solution they'd have accepted either. They anticipated the law might need to be changed and there's a system in place for it, but as it should, it requires enormous agreement.

That's the solution, finding a way to get the population on board with a change. And the extremists on both sides have made that impossible for the foreseeable future.

But it's bullshit to suggest the 2nd amendment was meant to give the states the ability to raise a militia. It wouldn't be written like that if that were the case. The historical context in which the 2nd amendment was created doesn't support it.

And it would make it the only amendment to, in highly dubious and ambiguous language, supposedly grant a power to state government that it already has elsewhere.

Nothing deprives this right from the state government and the state government automatically has powers over anything not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution. There's no need for a 2nd amendment that meant that.

It is horseshit.

Again, its fair to say it's horseshit that arrived from an inability to foresee the future. But the founders already put in place a way to change the constitution should exactly something like this happen in future.

But the Antigun crazies don't like the fact that millions of Americans disagree with them so just like a bunch of dishonest politicians they try and pull a legal fast one over everyone and get around the law. And it's bullshit. And I for one have no tolerance for such disregard and disrespect to the constitution. And I don't have much more time for people who honestly in good faith believe that's what it means. Because if they're going to advocate on matters of constitutional law they have a responsibility to understand it better and not let their own political desires bias their interpretation.

I don't agree with the 2nd amendment the way it stands either. But I refuse to pretend it means something it clearly doesn't.

 

[tathra]

And you're wrong.

yeah, this is an issue i'll never agree with a lot of people on because both the for and against are entirely sound arguments (well, the arguments against my rationale usually arent sound, but i have seen a few here and there), but based on different interpretations of context and such, making it something that cant be resolved through debate.

Point three, the entire bill of rights limits the power of government to infringe peoples rights. So it's absurd to argue that the 2nd, but none of the others, actually is there to grant powers to the government that it already grants elsewhere.

it doesnt grant anything, but there are multiple repetitions in the amendments reiterating things already stated previously; additions to the right to vote, which should have become universal with the 14ths equal protection clause, have required 4 separate amendments; a clause about requiring due process is in both the 5th and 14th amendments. there's probably others but those are just off the top of my head.

What we can say with certainty is that the constitution as written protects the people's rights to bare arms. It is individualist, not collectivist.

thats what the courts have stated, but imo the 2nd should be amended to remove its first half, leaving simply "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." this is something gun advocates should actively be trying to do, because the courts could, at any time, change the interpretation to match mine. amending the 2nd would prevent this possibility from ever happening. at the same time, it would allow the people to decide how we, as a society, think it should be interpreted, deciding amongst ourselves whether the pros of everyone owning firearms outweigh the cons. fear that the people wont vote the way they want is the main reason i can figure why gun advocates have made no effort to protect against future tyranny in this way.

That said though. What isn't a legitimate way to fix this problem is to creatively reinterpret the constitution to mean what you'd prefer it to mean. As is how we've done it for most existing gun control. That is illegitimate, goes against the rule of law. And worst of all totally undermines the constitution as a whole.

interpreting the meaning of the constitution under today's situations while taking into account the context from which it was written is exactly what the courts, particularly SCOTUS, do though; they do this every time the question of a law's constitutionality is brought before them them.

So, what IS the answer? Sadly I don't have one. Just an be explanation of the problem. And my view is that it is both the both the pro and Antigun extremists holding everyone else hostage.

the answer is better training before people are allowed to own firearms. a fucking 2 hour training course, if even that, is obviously far from sufficient.

If we start reinterpreting the laws we don't like to illegitimate change how they're executed, none of the protections the bill of rights provides will hold any long term validity anymore. They are all vulnerable.

again, this is the purpose of the courts, interpreting the laws and the constitution. if a court's judgement is questioned, it goes to a higher court and the case is interpreted differently, and sometimes this process goes all the way up to the supreme court, whose decisions cant be appealed.

But it's bullshit to suggest the 2nd amendment was meant to give the states the ability to raise a militia. It wouldn't be written like that if that were the case. The historical context in which the 2nd amendment was created doesn't support it.

good thing i didnt make that claim. that power is essentially given by Article I Section 8 (it doesnt need to be explicitly stated, "raise armies" and "organize, train, etc, militias" is clear enough).

btw, dont take me to be anti-gun or anything. i'm a combat vet, i take my oath to defend the constitution very seriously, and i'm extremely familiar with all kinds of deadly weaponry, which is why its so damn obvious to me how broken things are and how bad the situation is.

 

[JessFR]

I'll address the rest of your post when I get more free time to do it properly, but for now I'll just address the point about the role of the courts on interpreting the law.


Their job is to interpret it with reference to the intent of the people who wrote it. If there is doubt or ambiguity they are supposed to go by what the evidence suggests was the intended meaning by the laws authors. That's is fine, that's how it's supposed to be done and there's nothing wrong with that.

What I'm saying is wrong and not fine is the intentional attempts by some to find a way for them to interpret it to mean something the author did not intend.

In this case were talking about a law written in a very different time. It has been taken and quite correct to be the case that the spirit, the intent of the rights continues to apply as technology changes. Free speech applies to the internet, free press applies to social media, etc. And the 2nd applies to modern firearms. I don't see how you can legitimately say the 2nd cuts off at the technology of the say but all the others don't.

Therefore it must be interpreted with reference to the founders intent and going forward to modern technology that didn't exist then. And the founders intent clearly was that the public had a right to bear firearms and that right should be protected by the 2nd amendment.

They aren't around to give their views on today's technology and what they would do now, but my point is that it's totally illegitimate to try and suggest the 2nd amendment is a collectivist right. They didn't mean it that way, and since they didn't, the only argument left is that it shouldn't apply to technology later than it's creation. But there's nothing to suggest that was their intention either and it's long been the case that the bill of rights has been interpreted to continue to apply to new technology. And you can't just say the 2nd doesn't but the rest do. Nor can you limit the 2nd without doing away with the others in the same action.

Which leaves no legitimate way left to interpret and execute the 2nd amendment in a collectivist fashion.

What I'm saying is that intentionally interpreting it in a way that goes against the intention of the founders is not accepting and that's not the job of the courts.

Yes,the courts job is to interpret law but they don't have unlimited freedom in how they do that. What I'm talking about is illegitimate interpretations which they don't have the right to conduct. That's what people suggest when they suggest it should be ruled collectivist. That the courts should make law themselves by interpreting the law against the known intentions of the author by intentionally misunderstanding the language.

I'll address the rest when I have a bit more time to read it properly.

 

[tathra]

Their job is to interpret it with reference to the intent of the people who wrote it. If there is doubt or ambiguity they are supposed to go by what the evidence suggests was the intended meaning by the laws authors. That's is fine, that's how it's supposed to be done and there's nothing wrong with that.

not all judges agree with this interpretation. there's some that think things should solely be interpreted under the context and times in which they were written - interpreting the 1st and 4th amendments this way would mean that cellphones and the internet would not be covered. the historical context and intent (the law's spirit) should be considered, but there are other considerations to be made as well. how laws should be interpreted is something upon which there is much disagreement. and thats not a bad thing, diversity of ideas is generally good.

What I'm saying is wrong and not fine is the intentional attempts by some to find a way for them to interpret it to mean something the author did not intend.

literally a lawyer's job description fam.

I don't see how you can legitimately say the 2nd cuts off at the technology of the say but all the others don't.

well thats good, because i didnt say that you seem to be arguing against a premise that isnt mine.

Yes,the courts job is to interpret law but they don't have unlimited freedom in how they do that. What I'm talking about is illegitimate interpretations which they don't have the right to conduct. That's what people suggest when they suggest it should be ruled collectivist. That the courts should make law themselves by interpreting the law against the known intentions of the author by intentionally misunderstanding the language.

thats why there's appeals courts and such, but here the buck ultimately stops at SCOTUS. whether you think an interpretation is legitimate or not is irrelevant; i disagree with a lot of SCOTUS's decisions, especially lately. but they're legitimate, because thats how the law works here. the really shitty part is there's a lot of unconstitutional laws in place which would be immediately voided upon challenge, but nobody seems to have the standing to challenge them, so despite being so blatantly and obviously unconstitutional, they cant be voided and thus continue to be the law. we should be able to challenge laws on the basis on their constitutionality alone. and when it comes to arguing a law's constitutionality you can bet your ass every twisted interpretation you can possibly think of is being used by both the for and against teams. because thats what lawyers do.

 

[motiv311]

Well case closed, if you really know anything about the Las Vegas shooting, like I do then you know the shooting was all about a Saudi Arabian prince and an attempted assasination and power fued between two Saudi groups. The part of the Mandalay Bay where it (mostly) went down , "Paddocks ""room", is actually a different and seperate hotel owned by Saudi nationals. s\

 

[cduggles]

[FONT=.SF UI Text][FONT=.SFUIText]In completely gross news: [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=.SF UI Text][FONT=.SFUIText][/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=.SF UI Text][FONT=.SFUIText]Las Vegas gunman's computer had child pornography and 'disturbing search history'[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=.SF UI Text][FONT=.SFUIText][/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=.SF UI Text][FONT=.SFUIText]Vegas shooter began to act 'strangely' leading up to carnage, girlfriend told investigators[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=.SF UI Text][FONT=.SFUIText][/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=.SF UI Text][FONT=.SFUIText][/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=.SF UI Text][FONT=.SFUIText]For some reason I can't copy text from second article. The first one has a very good explanatory title. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=.SF UI Text][FONT=.SFUIText][/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=.SF UI Text][FONT=.SFUIText]Total number of injured in attack: 851[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=.SF UI Text][FONT=.SFUIText][/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=.SF UI Text][FONT=.SFUIText]Shooter's brother has also been accused and now charged on 20 counts after having child pornography found in his possession.[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[LucidSDreamr]

Is it me or does it seem like the recent mass school shooting in Kentucky is getting no attention.

It's like this is the new normal, and this seems like no bug whoop because the student didn't mowdown dozens with an assault rifle.

Like if this happened 5 years ago it would've gotten much more attention

Either that or it's just president asshat dominating the news cycle with his idiocy and obstruction of Justice fbi investigation against him

 

[JahSEEuS]

Also, it's Kentucky so...

Jk probably a combination of both which is pretty sick.

 

[tathra]

Is it me or does it seem like the recent mass school shooting in Kentucky is getting no attention.

It's like this is the new normal, and this seems like no bug whoop because the student didn't mowdown dozens with an assault rifle.

Like if this happened 5 years ago it would've gotten much more attention

Either that or it's just president asshat dominating the news cycle with his idiocy and obstruction of Justice fbi investigation against him

Well theres already been 10 other school shootings this year. That's not news, that's the new normal.

 

[zephyr]

Yes it is normal. Over here a child gets killed by a runaway car ploughing into the school and in the US there are multiple school shootings and no one blinks an eyelid.

 

[JessFR]

I disagree entirely.

It's not in the news cause of the number of people killed. Its not high enough. Now I dunno maybe that shouldn't make a difference but it does. Nobody defines 2 dead as a mass shooting. Nobody in authority anyway. And the press wants to use words like "mass" shooting and "spree" shooting. They want it to have as much punch and impact as possible. They'd prefer to just wait till the next real spree shooting and really get some milage out of it.

I'll confess I hadn't heard about it until just now, but that was my assumed reason before I searched so I wasn't surprised to see only 2 dead.

Don't worry. There will be other mass shootings in the news. People still care to the extent that they ever did. You're kidding yourselves if you honestly think the media will let something they can have as much fun with as school shootings go just because people might be getting a little sick of it.

You don't milk the cash cow till it gets a little bit harder to continue. You milk it until you're sure you've gotten every last drop. And school shootings are pretty much a media Cash cow. People love controversy and outrage and consume media for it. And school shootings are excellent at producing it.

They just know that people don't truly care on a real, personal, honest and deep level about this sort of thing. They care in a competitive kind of way. So better to wait till there's something you can really use than make use of this story with only 2 dead and risk diluting the outrage.

EDIT: I'll say this though, I've written a few times about people and their pretend caring. I'll say this. I do think a lot of people do honestly and genuinely care about some school shootings, and the school shooting phenomenon. They cared about columbine. But I think the amount of genuine caring is dropping over time and morphine into the much more common pretend caring people love to do.

The biggest difference I use to determine pretend caring and real caring is I ask myself if people still remember what they were so worked up about a couple weeks after it's out of the news. If the can't even really remember it, they never really cared at all. If it's still very vivid, then it might be genuine.

How could you have really cared if you can barely remember it only weeks after people stopped reminding you? That's not real caring, it's Facebook caring. A competition where the goal is to be the person who cares the most and is outraged the most. So you can seem like the best person among your peers. It'd about being the best like any other competition.

 

[Morninggloryseed]

All of the officials who speak on behalf of the state of Nevada look alike.

 

[cduggles]

I read (and care) about the Kentucky school shooting.

I'm a bit wrapped up irl and I thought someone else would make a thread.

Perhaps, and I'm not being sarcastic sadly, we should have a mega thread about mass/school shootings.

Any thoughts?

It's so sad and depressing.

 

[JessFR]

The question about a mega thread is an interesting one to me, because it comes back to my whole idea about real caring vs political or competitive caring.

Say we started a school shooting mega thread, before it even got barely a post or so in, it would cease to be a school shooting megathread and become a school shooting THEMED gun control thread. And no doubt to promote their arguments it will soon cover any mass shooting, school or otherwise.

So in reality, the school, the children, it's all padding. What it really is, is a gun control mega thread. And hey, I'm totally on board with creating a gun control mega thread. But I'd much prefer it be called what it is. And the fact that that's what it is makes me think that perhaps people don't actually care much about the school or the victims at all. They just think they do.

They care in the way people care in that they hear about some tragic motor accident, and they talk about how horrible it is, but it's more of a social custom than anything real. They care about the concept of innocent people dying but they don't care about anyone real.

So, here's my suggestion on the subject. Don't create a school shooting megathread. Do create a gun control megathread and merge future mass shooting threads of all varieties into it. We already see the same gun control argument threads happen over and over again. So a megathread for them is perfect.

But don't pretend it's really about the school or the victims, cause it's not, it's about the politics. Because in any one of those threads the gun control politics is what makes up 99.9% of the actual content.

And since that's the case, again, it makes me think people don't really care that much. They imagine they do, but they don't. They care about the concept and about gun control. But not about the actual specifics. That's my suggestion. No to the school shooting megathread, yes to the gun control megathread.

Then when future mass shootings get their own thread, the second they become gun control threads, which is generally not even 2 replies in, merge them into the gun control megathread.

Then we can stop having separate threads titled after a mass shooting that aren't actually about that mass shooting at all. We can stop pretending threads about mass shootings are threads about mass shootings and be honest about what they are. Gun control threads.

Id be very very supportive of that idea.

This thread were on right now was originally just titled Vegas Mandalay Bay mass shooting. And in one of the first posts I said it would immediately become about nothing but gun control. And it did. And continued for many pages and was then retitled to add "and gun control thread". And I think this is the first time it's come back to anything approaching some other subject after 14 pages.

So please, don't make a school shooting megathread. That's a lie. That's not what it'll be. It'll be a gun control thread. So call it what it is.

 

[Morninggloryseed]

Even with being over 45 years old... Archie Bunker speaking on gun control is brilliant and totally relevant for today.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-lDb0Dn8OXE[/video]