Sigh...

[For Sure]

Guess not

[KEZHEAD]

My heart is broken
Please stop…..

[jethro]

But… look at the countries who have gun control. They lowered the numbers of killings by guns… but google mass killings in those countries. In the UK, over a hundred people have been killed and over 1600 hurt by bombs, since their gun control. 22 were killed at an Ariana Grande concert just a few years ago… by a bomb. Dozens were hurt. Guys drove a van across a packed full bridge of people, and killed people, then got out and started stabbing people to death with knives… until they were taken down and killed by guns. The list goes on.
I just don’t know why guns is ALL that anybody ever talks about when these things happen. Why are we not talking about what drove this person to wanting to kill people. What/who failed him in this world. I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t have tighter gun control in this country. I’m arguing that gun control is not going to help people with their mental health problems. Let’s say we take all guns away today… does it stop people from thinking evil thoughts and planning evil things to do to people? No, it won’t. If this kid didn’t have guns as an option… would’ve found another way.
I’ll say it again… we shouldn’t be looking to our government for a fix to these issues. Governments are a lie. Both sides of the government… left and right. They’re no different than organized religion. Making money off of false promises and pushing agendas to control people. We need to look at ourselves and how we raise the next generation on how to treat one another.

[el_pablo65]

I don't know a solution but I certainly don't think an eighteen year old HS dropout should be able to buy a couple of assault rifles. Not sure why anyone in the private sector has a need for an assault rifle and 400 rounds. The only practical reason to own these things is to do a lot of killing.

An interesting take, and not one I expect to gain any traction, is to charge this kid's family with accessory to these murders. Make that example and maybe his mom would know about his gun purchases. Hell, where does an 18 year old drop out get this kind of money. Two AR rifles and 400 rounds has to be $800 or more, you'd think.

[Rabbit]

I don't know a solution but I certainly don't think an eighteen year old HS dropout should be able to buy a couple of assault rifles. Not sure why anyone in the private sector has a need for an assault rifle and 400 rounds. The only practical reason to own these things is to do a lot of killing.

An interesting take, and not one I expect to gain any traction, is to charge this kid's family with accessory to these murders. Make that example and maybe his mom would know about his gun purchases. Hell, where does an 18 year old drop out get this kind of money. Two AR rifles and 400 rounds has to be $800 or more, you'd think.

Probably closer to 1600. Who’s truck was he driving? Lots of questions.

[deadscott]

That list is rediculous. Wake the fuck up America!

[Jack O. Hartz]

The Onion hits it out of the park

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=r ... zlPNGMvbSG

[Rabbit]

The Onion hits it out of the park

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=r ... zlPNGMvbSG

????

[KEZHEAD]

The Onion hits it out of the park

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=r ... zlPNGMvbSG

????

+1

[FaceOnMars]

I don't think term limits work. They haven't worked on the state level. It's just a big game of musical chairs with plenty of potential office-holders willing to cater to big interests just waiting for their turn. The fact is, IMO, you have to limit the $$$ in campaigns, and that includes getting rid of issue-based PACs. And I mean severely limit the total amount of money allowed to be spent on any candidate's campaign and complete and full public disclosure of all campaign contributors.

Yes, it'd be a start to move the dial in the right direction; however, at this stage of the game, are not "all bets off" in terms of what politicians are willing to do to retain power? In such a climate, is it any surprise a stand-up representative such as Stephanie Murhpy won't seek re-election after serving on the Jan 6th committee?

I can't imagine the threats she and all other members of the committee have received against themselves and their families.

I suspect there exists a similar dynamic at the local level to a lesser extent ... where $$$ in campaigns aren't as much of an issue.

I'm afraid we've crossed the rubicon.

I think it would do a whole lot more than just move the dial. In fact, I think it would cause an almost immediate sea change in the right direction. The problem isn't that it wouldn't be enough or that it's too late for it to make a major difference. It would make a huge difference if it happened. The problem is that it's not going to happen, not for a very long time. If ever. That's why, unfortunately, you're likely right that we've crossed the Rubicon.

You might be right about it making a huge difference, just not sure how quickly it'd take to actually affect real change. Citizen's United is affecting both sides of the aisle; and even if one side isn't overtly "evil", it is nonetheless beholden to special interests in order to retain power; rendering them almost next to useless when they are needed most.

[Jack O. Hartz]

https://preview.redd.it/cdorlyczbe391.g ... cf0c535065

[hoffmanmr]

Yes, it'd be a start to move the dial in the right direction; however, at this stage of the game, are not "all bets off" in terms of what politicians are willing to do to retain power? In such a climate, is it any surprise a stand-up representative such as Stephanie Murhpy won't seek re-election after serving on the Jan 6th committee?

I can't imagine the threats she and all other members of the committee have received against themselves and their families.

I suspect there exists a similar dynamic at the local level to a lesser extent ... where $$$ in campaigns aren't as much of an issue.

I'm afraid we've crossed the rubicon.

I think it would do a whole lot more than just move the dial. In fact, I think it would cause an almost immediate sea change in the right direction. The problem isn't that it wouldn't be enough or that it's too late for it to make a major difference. It would make a huge difference if it happened. The problem is that it's not going to happen, not for a very long time. If ever. That's why, unfortunately, you're likely right that we've crossed the Rubicon.

You might be right about it making a huge difference, just not sure how quickly it'd take to actually affect real change. Citizen's United is affecting both sides of the aisle; and even if one side isn't overtly "evil", it is nonetheless beholden to special interests in order to retain power; rendering them almost next to useless when they are needed most.

That's why Citizens United needs to be overturned. If it isn't, we're sunk.