What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Another Mass Shooting: It's Those Darn Video Games!

Status
Not open for further replies.
(CNN)In March 2018, then-Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed into law a piece of legislation that, among other things, raised the age at which individuals could legally buy firearms in the state to 21.


"If you look at the federal government, nothing seems to have happened there," Scott said in signing the measure, which was prompted by the murder of 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, just weeks prior. "You go elect people, you expect them to represent you, get things done."

Prior to the new law, it was illegal in Florida for anyone under the age of 21 to purchase a handgun. Following the law's passage, it became illegal for an individual in Florida to buy any firearm -- including long guns like the AR-15 -- if they were younger than 21.
Scott's statement is worth remembering now, as the country seeks to respond to the murder of 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas. Scott is now a US Senator representing Florida after defeating Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in 2018. On Monday, he had an exchange with CNN's Manu Raju over whether or not the federal government should do what he did in Florida: Raise the age to buy long guns to 21.
Here's the back and forth:
Raju: What about raising the age at the federal level? I mean, to 21.
Scott: I think that all this stuff ought to be done at the state level. Raju: What's wrong with doing it federally?
Scott: Because you can change the laws easier at the state level.
Which is, well, interesting? Because back in 2018, Scott lambasted the federal government for its inaction on guns. And now he is saying that he opposes raising the minimum age to buy long guns to 21 because that sort of stuff is better left at the state level because "you can change the laws easier at the state level."
Click to expand...

That is some elementary school level mental gymnastics on display there.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/07/politics/rick-scott-florida-federal-gun-laws/
 
Special interests are lying to the American people to block gun violence prevention legislation. The same witness who misled Congress in 2019 is back today to advocate against sensible measures that would keep Americans safe. I called out her BS.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/RepKatiePorter/status/1534603566056235008

God Bless, Katie Porter. Everyone in Congress should be like her. If people voted for people like her, even on both sides, our country would be much better. Instead we're pumping the handcart to hell.
 
Last edited:
Texas senator and well known lying sack of 5h!t Ted Cruz claims "we know from past experiences that the most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus," I know this is hard to believe, but the facts and the evidence do not back up this statement:

A 2021 JAMA Network study examined the presence of armed officers on the scene and the occurrence and severity of mass school shootings from 1980 to 2019. The data suggested no association between having an armed officer and deterrence of violence in these cases and no significant reduction in rates of injury.
Click to expand...

It's too bad the brains of GQP supporters are wired so poorly that they will just believe anything their overlords say, whereas our brains hear things that clearly make no sense and we say "I need to look into that and see if there is some evidence supporting it." And it will get worse. Instead of telling us an election was stolen and go riot at the Capitol and see if you can disrupt the proceedings, at some point soon it will be "vote fraud is occuring right now in that heavily democratic precint, and you need to go stop it, using violence if necessary." And that's when you will see the more unhinged RWNJs (which is what, 70-75% of the GQP) spraying gunfire at polling stations.
 
Last edited:
That myth was utterly destroyed and left for dead on John Oliver's Last Week Tonight.

Cruz is an idiot.
Cruz went to Harvard.
I don't think much of Harvard or Oxford (Senator Kennedy from Louisiana) much anymore seeing who they're graduating. Appears what they teach there is the "grift". Nothing productive.
 
ticapnews said:
Peloton isn't mentioned in the Constitution, Scoob
Click to expand...

Neither is an AR-15.

When the Constitution was written, these are the "arms" that people had the right to bear.

As "originalist interpretors" of the Constitution would argue, this should be an easy matter to decide.

R.cb874e9b53bb812c8cf17170192d9de6
 
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo said:
No, but well regulated is and there is nothing in Heller that prevents regulation. Katie Porter goes into detail in the video about that regulation and never once mentions banning guns.
Click to expand...

It's a slippery slope. You know it's only a matter of time before Obummer comes for my gunz!
 
rufus said:
Neither is an AR-15.

When the Constitution was written, these are the "arms" that people had the right to bear.

As "originalist interpretors" of the Constitution would argue, this should be an easy matter to decide.

R.cb874e9b53bb812c8cf17170192d9de6
Click to expand...

According to the original Constitution, Clarence Thomas is only 3/5 of a citizen and Amy Comey Barrett, Sonia Sotormayor and Elena Kagan don't count at all. But here we are.
 
Every 2A-ist who spouts off about "being the last line of defense from a tyrannical government," makes me laugh.

Really my guy? Your 30 round 5.56 is going to do what exactly against a drone strike? Your box of 1000 rounds of ammo is going to be super helpful when an F-35 sails overhead and turns your property into a crater. Good luck standing up to the "man" when you're sh*tting your literal guts out because they tainted the municipal water on you. Where was the good guy with a gun at the treatment plant last week when you needed him? They don't care about you John-boy. You, your Ram 1500, and both AR-15's you own would be a smear on the pavement the instant you went against the government.

Red Dawn isn't real.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
No, but well regulated is and there is nothing in Heller that prevents regulation. Katie Porter goes into detail in the video about that regulation and never once mentions banning guns.
Click to expand...

While the 2nd amendment needs to be repealed today and I believe confiscation of weapons of warfare is not an unreasonable step, "well regulated" in the sense of the 2nd amendment written in the 18th century, that phrase most likely meant properly or well stocked, or something along those lines. It's why I think discussions of semantics and the meaning of the 2nd amendment is pointless. In the 18th century the founders could not have envisioned firearms that would explode a person's body and fire dozens or hundreds of rounds a minute. The entire amendment serves no useful purpose in a civilized society that allegedly has standing, professional trained police forces and armies to protect us against criminals, either domestic or foreign. Whatever ANYONE THINKS it means, it needs to be repealed.
 
WeAreNDHockey said:
While the 2nd amendment needs to be repealed today and I believe confiscation of weapons of warfare is not an unreasonable step, "well regulated" in the sense of the 2nd amendment written in the 18th century, that phrase most likely meant properly or well stocked, or something along those lines. It's why I think discussions of semantics and the meaning of the 2nd amendment is pointless. In the 18th century the founders could not have envisioned firearms that would explode a person's body and fire dozens or hundreds of rounds a minute. The entire amendment serves no useful purpose in a civilized society that allegedly has standing, professional trained police forces and armies to protect us against criminals, either domestic or foreign. Whatever ANYONE THINKS it means, it needs to be repealed.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
I've always assumed it originally meant the equivalent of "well-trained". A state militia that meets at regular intervals for drills and target practice. So in other words, not just some yayhoos getting together to pop pumpkins on the back 40.
 
Relax. Biden and McConnell have everything under control.

“I’ve always had a straight relationship with the Republican leader Mitch McConnell. He’s a guy that, when he says something, he means it.”
Click to expand...
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I've always assumed it originally meant the equivalent of "well-trained". A state militia that meets at regular intervals for drills and target practice. So in other words, not just some yayhoos getting together to pop pumpkins on the back 40.
Click to expand...

Given how classist the society inevitably was at the time, I'd lean more toward something like, "well controlled," as in having a competent command and control structure where the low-class yahoos were under the command of landed aristocratic officers - it couldn't just be some yahoos getting together to pop pumpkins on the back 40. Oh wait, you already said that. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top