Texas Elementary School Shooting, as many as 22 dead, including Children

[P for Pancetta]

Lay it out for us, fam. Give us the roadmap.



Such as? Give us the roadmap, you keep talking about all these things that can be done but never specify any of them.



Still waiting on those alternatives, fam.



Nice timeline that conveniently starts just after the assault weapons ban ended. Yes, America is often held hostage by the tyranny of the minority on many issues - very much by design.

Welcome to America, where getting anything done is frustratingly difficult and a monumental undertaking that can often be stopped by just one person in Congress.

That's not how that works. Like I said YOU need to take responsibility for your life as an American if you want change. You don't. This is not strange, most people are cowards. But you can't demand change if you're not willing to put your skin in the game. (well I think you can with most issues but not one that has been festering for this long)

You could get involved in politics for one. Or try to educate people(many many different ways of doing this), or realize that guns are only a part of the problem and you could try to focus on the other problems that go with the issue like mental health etc. There a endless of things you can do to make a difference. You don't. You don't even try because of an apathetic outlook on your political system which you feel you have no power in, which is as much an issue as the republicans being idiots.

Also I don't have to come up with a solution because WE already did.

[wunksta]

Notice how none of these GOP are campaigning to restore gun rights to felons, those who have dishonorable discharges, or those who have domestic violence charges. Clearly they agree some people should not be allowed to own guns and there needs to be regulations. Making this into a debate over the 2nd amendment is simply political grandstanding in order to muddy the waters.

[uuuhname]

That's not how that works. Like I said YOU need to take responsibility for your life as an American if you want change. You don't. This is not strange, most people are cowards. But you can't demand change if you're not willing to put your skin in the game.

You could get involved in politics for one. Or try to educate people(many many different ways of doing this), or realize that guns are only a part of the problem and you could try to focus on the other problems that go with the issue like mental health etc. There a endless of things you can do to make a difference. You don't. You don't even try because of an apathetic outlook on your political system which you feel you have no power in, which is as much an issue as the republicans being idiots.

Also I don't have to come up with a solution because WE already did.

you really underestimate how the US government is not geared to being democratic.

[Breccia]

those who have dishonorable discharges

Wait, what? The army can take your civilian guns from you? I hadn't heard that one.

[Linkedblade]

Except those Republicans are lying, both on the facts regarding fetal personhood and whether they actually believe it to be true (they don't), and on the principle that fetal personhood is even relevant to the discussion of abortion rights.

Cause it isn't. Totally irrelevant distraction, since they can't make their case on the relevant facts.



I'd dispute that neoliberals are in any respect "on the left", other than in the USA's twistedly inaccurate Overton window.

So, you admit the Republicans obfuscate on abortion, but the left doesn't obfuscate the data and facts?

Some of the people in this thread keep repeating that Republicans don't care about kids. But Democrats control the cities where most of the violence occurs. I guess if you're in a gang you're life doesn't matter. The irony.

- - - Updated - - -

you really underestimate how the US government is not geared to being democratic.

It's not meant to be democratic

- - - Updated - - -

Wait, what? The army can take your civilian guns from you? I hadn't heard that one.

It depends on the circumstances of the discharge. But yeah.

[wunksta]

Wait, what? The army can take your civilian guns from you? I hadn't heard that one.

Yeah, it was apparently upheld in United States v. Jimenez where the police entrapped a man by giving him a bullet.

[Edge-]

That's not how that works. Like I said YOU need to take responsibility for your life as an American if you want change. You don't. This is not strange, most people are cowards. But you can't demand change if you're not willing to put your skin in the game. (well I think you can with most issues but not one that has been festering for this long)

I'm asking for suggestions! You seem to know about all these other things we could be doing about this, share the knowledge!

You could get involved in politics for one.

What makes you think I'm not? I'm fairly involved in my local/state politics actually, and have been increasingly involved over the years.

Or try to educate people(many many different ways of doing this)

What if everyone in your area is largely in-line with your views? America is weird, and folks usually don't like people from "other states" telling them what to do, so it's a matter of finding and working with these groups which...have been working for decades with little success given the structure of how the US government operates.

or realize that guns are only a part of the problem and you could try to focus on the other problems that go with the issue like mental health etc.

No, guns are the primary problem and mental health is largely just a red herring. Coincidentally, I've been a part of groups pushing for both national and state-focused health care reform including expanded mental health coverage.

There a endless of things you can do to make a difference. You don't.

No, you're just on your soapbox making all kinds of assumptions that are (largely) wrong. Also, most of these things, while things to do, haven't had a big effect again because...of the way of the US government operates.

Also I don't have to come up with a solution because WE already did.

Yeah, and many of us are pushing for those same solutions here. But it's hard yo, you have 40% of Republicans thinking that mass shootings, including the mass-murder of children, are a perfectly acceptable price to pay for our Second Amendment.

Seriously, get off your high horse, you're hilariously wrong on your projection onto others.

- - - Updated - - -

So, you admit the Republicans obfuscate on abortion, but the left doesn't obfuscate the data and facts?

Share some examples of this, then.

Some of the people in this thread keep repeating that Republicans don't care about kids.

Because that's what their actions repeatedly say.

But Democrats control the cities where most of the violence occurs. I guess if you're in a gang you're life doesn't matter. The irony.

Which is similarly a complex issue tied to more than just policies on crime, including poverty which is often a primary driver of crime. Not to mention places like Chicago which see gun violence despite their gun control, because simply going to the next county and buying a gun (which happens, often times illegally even) is easy.

[uuuhname]

It's not meant to be democratic

and that's the problem...

[P for Pancetta]

you really underestimate how the US government is not geared to being democratic.

I agree it's not at all an easy situation, but the US isn't a democracy I don't know if they teach that in your school. You're a constitutionalized republic. only theoretically a democracy because anyone can run, but we all know that that's not true.

it's one of earths most complex political issues currently because of all the factors involved. Yet the fact still remains, sitting on your ass whining on the web doesn't help anyone.

[Endus]

So, you admit the Republicans obfuscate on abortion, but the left doesn't obfuscate the data and facts?

"Both sides" deflection is just intentional dishonesty.

Are you claiming there's an equivalence to be drawn, here? Because if so, I categorically deny that, and you'll never be able to provide convincing evidence to back up that ridiculous claim.

Some of the people in this thread keep repeating that Republicans don't care about kids. But Democrats control the cities where most of the violence occurs. I guess if you're in a gang you're life doesn't matter. The irony.

Ah, so you really don't have any intent of engaging honestly, then. At least you've made it clear pretty early.

[uuuhname]

I agree it's not at all an easy situation, but the US isn't a democracy I don't know if they teach that in your school. You're a constitutionalized republic. only theoretically a democracy because anyone can run, but we all know that that's not true.

it's one of earths most complex political issues currently because of all the factors involved. Yet the fact still remains, sitting on your ass whining on the web doesn't help anyone.

I KNOW HOW THE US GOVERNMENT WORKS

that's kind of why I keep arguing that the lack of any real democracy in this country is a big fucking problem...

and cool dude tell me more about how lazy I was in 2016 when I voted for Hillary but it's my fault she doesn't understand how the electoral college works.

[Endus]

I agree it's not at all an easy situation, but the US isn't a democracy I don't know if they teach that in your school. You're a constitutionalized republic. only theoretically a democracy because anyone can run, but we all know that that's not true.

This is a counterfactual bit of bullshit that somehow just won't die.

The USA is democratic. You have public elections. That means you're a democracy. You're also a constitutional republic. None of these terms are contradictory. You're a democratic constitutional republic. You don't have to pick just one adjective. You're also a common-law state, a bicameral state, and so on.

[Breccia]

It depends on the circumstances of the discharge. But yeah.

Yeah, it was apparently upheld in United States v. Jimenez where the police entrapped a man by giving him a bullet.

Well, you learn something new every day. I mean, I guess it is technically a military trial court. I'm just surprised it splashed over, that's all.

Felons and wife beaters, well, I'm not even going to pretend to be upset about their lack of guns.

[PhaelixWW]

The officers had a legal duty to stop the shooter

Except... they don't, really, according to the Supreme Court. This has been covered before.

They acted with intent to assist the commission of the crime, by barring others from stopping the shooter.

No, there was no "intent to assist the commission of the crime" there. They acted with intent, but that intent was most definitely not to aid the shooter. As ever, you seem entirely willing to ignore (or attempt to bluster over) any fact that doesn't mesh with your preferred narrative.

[wunksta]

Felons and wife beaters, well, I'm not even going to pretend to be upset about their lack of guns.

Furthermore, some places don't even let felons vote, which seems even more egregious tbh. Florida in particular has been pretty bad about restoring voting rights after completion of a felon's sentence.

[Endus]

Except... they don't, really, according to the Supreme Court. This has been covered before.

And yet, by Uvalde police training and policy, they did. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-response-time

Again, SCOTUS can set minimum standards on things like this, default baselines, but States and municipalities can add additional requirements on top of that baseline.

If you're speaking of police in general, you might have an argument. With regards to Uvalde police, specifically, you don't, because their training required more than that minimum.

No, there was no "intent to assist the commission of the crime" there. They acted with intent, but that intent was most definitely not to aid the shooter. As ever, you seem entirely willing to ignore (or attempt to bluster over) any fact that doesn't mesh with your preferred narrative.

I feel you're vastly overestimating what "intent" means in legal terms. Their actions aided and protected the shooter, and they intended to take those actions. You keep pretending like this is an obvious mark in your column, and I flatly don't agree with that interpretation at all. And you're not actually making a case for it. I've underlined my own argument and backed it up with Texas legal codes and Uvalde ethical duties for police. You . . . haven't.

[P for Pancetta]

This is a counterfactual bit of bullshit that somehow just won't die.

The USA is democratic. You have public elections. That means you're a democracy. You're also a constitutional republic. None of these terms are contradictory. You're a democratic constitutional republic. You don't have to pick just one adjective. You're also a common-law state, a bicameral state, and so on.

Not at all mr know it all, you only get to vote a few times, every few years, for certain leaders. Just like most European countries. There are democratic aspects, but you're not a democracy. You're a constitutional republic, which inherently has democratic aspects. Also In the US not all citizen get to vote, which is a requirement of a real democracy.

[Endus]

Not at all mr know it all, you only get to vote a few times, every few years, for certain leaders.

Which is a democracy.

You literally just admitted that you're wrong.

Just like most European countries. There are democratic aspects, but you're not a democracy. You're a constitutional republic, which inherently has democratic aspects. Also In the US not all citizen get to vote, which is a requirement of a real democracy.

Having "democratic aspects" makes you democratic, a democracy. Or are you claiming that "democracy" has literally never existed, anywhere, at any time?

And no, "democracy" does not require a universal franchise for all citizens. You're making that up out of nothing.

[uuuhname]

Not at all mr know it all, you only get to vote a few times, every few years, for certain leaders. Just like most European countries. There are democratic aspects, but you're not a democracy. You're a constitutional republic, which inherently has democratic aspects. Also In the US not all citizen get to vote, which is a requirement of a real democracy.

so what do you think is the real solution here... all you're doing here is bitching at us for doing the exact same thing you're doing and offering nothing when it comes to dealing with the problem...

unless your idea is a radical restructuring of the US government then your commentary is useless.

[P for Pancetta]

Which is a democracy.

You literally just admitted that you're wrong.



Having "democratic aspects" makes you democratic, a democracy.

And no, "democracy" does not require a universal franchise for all citizens. You're making that up out of nothing.

I'm actually making that up from various definitions of the word democracy, thank you.

Fact remains US is not a democracy period.