Mass Shooting Reported in Bell, Florida

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: projectvxn
If you honestly think that the right to own a gun trumps another’s right to be safe from your gun, then there is something wrong here to begin with…Also, to be quite honest, the constitution says that it’s the right of people to bear arms IF THEY ARE PART OF A ‘REGULATED’ MILITIA… Not just everyone privately owning them for the heck of it. So its arguable if you really do have a right as a private citizen to bear arms, and your owning them certainly doesn't trump another's guaranteed right to "life" (ie Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)

A mental case killed people. That's what is wrong. My gun didn't kill anyone. Please don't demonize everyone for the sake of trying to make a point that sometimes, a mental case will kill other people.

If not a gun, it would have been something else and I'm sure there are even more people who will scream, "you can pry my carving knife from my cold, dead hands".

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: projectvxn
If you honestly think that the right to own a gun trumps another’s right to be safe from your gun, then there is something wrong here to begin with…Also, to be quite honest, the constitution says that it’s the right of people to bear arms IF THEY ARE PART OF A ‘REGULATED’ MILITIA… Not just everyone privately owning them for the heck of it. So its arguable if you really do have a right as a private citizen to bear arms, and your owning them certainly doesn't trump another's guaranteed right to "life" (ie Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)

A mental case killed people. That's what is wrong. My gun didn't kill anyone. Please don't demonize everyone for the sake of trying to make a point that sometimes, a mental case will kill other people.

If not a gun, it would have been something else and I'm sure there are even more people who will scream, "you can pry my carving knife from my cold, dead hands".

a reply to: GoOfYFoOt
And how's that working out for ya ?
guns do more harm than good
exactly what their designed to do
just my humble opinion.

Here is my take on these types of murder/suicides. As usual, it is one that is either not popular or just not thought about.

First of all, antidepressants often cause suicidal behavior as a side effect. Almost everybody knows this, so that is not news. But what people don't think about, as they are too busy commenting on what a monster these murderers are, is that the people who kill their family and then themselves are doing it because they have mentally reached rock bottom and feel as though if they were to kill themselves, they would be leaving their family in misery. So in their desperation they decide that the only thing they can do is kill their entire family to save them from unbearable misery. It's like a mercy killing. And given that our industrial civilization's house of cards is now starting to topple, stressed out people with access to guns are going to do horrible things like this. So do we want guns lying around for all of these desperate people to use, or should we bring in disarmament officers to get a handle on a situation that is going to get much worse? Perhaps it can be considered a type of depopulation scenario for the time being.

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: GoOfYFoOt
And how's that working out for ya?
guns do more harm than good
just my honest opinion.

Considering that TPTB have been engaged in a full-on divide and conquer campaign for decades, not too well!
But it is still a barrier that they have, so far, been unable to penetrate...

There are still enough of us, that we are able to withstand their constant bombardment, but they are tirelessly working to eradicate the current climate. And, with the crap that they are infiltrating current generations with, I fear that it is only a matter of time, before we succumb to their propaganda!

And, be sure to wipe your "opinion" so that you don't get a rash...

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

Yup, that's selfish. Basically the definition of it actually.

That's fine.

I guess you haven't heard that Francis Bacon line where "no man is an island"?

Just because Francis Bacon says it, doesn't mean its true.

Good to know you are a self proclaimed island, as you clearly care only for the world according to you...as it effects you.

I'm not an island, really. I don't know these kids. I don't know their family. I'll forget about this story in a few weeks, as will anyone else. Except the people who know these people. They will carry it with them for the rest of their lives. Because that's how people respond to situations that happen with those closest to them. But, that's not how you are going to respond. You'll forget about it in a few weeks just like me.

I'm not an island. If 6 kids that I knew were victims of a tragedy like this, I would be devastated. That's compassion and its not selfish. Just because some kids that I don't know get killed doesn't mean I have to be emotionally involved in the situation. I was never emotionally involved in anything else that happened in their lives, but I'm supposed to be emotionally involved now and if not, I'm selfish, just because you and some of your friends think so? No thanks.

This situation doesn't affect me at all in the way that you want it to affect you, as some mourning for a loss that you didn't lose- that didn't happen to you. When bad things happen in this world, they don't always happen to everyone. So, tell me, why should I not talk about gun control?

Also, thanks for being respectful. You have the entire internet, and this site, to talk about the 2nd, but you still choose to troll here, on a thread about 6 kids who were shot dead in a murder suicide. Geeeee, thanks.

I'm not the one who brought it up. But, since it was brought up, I figured I'd add my opinion. Just because you and your friends on here think I shouldn't be talking about the gun control issue as it relates to this situation, doesn't make it true. I can talk about whatever I want, whenever I want. As long as I abide by the T&C of this site. Who are you to get mad at me for exercising my free speech on a public forum?

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptoniteA mental case killed people. That's what is wrong. My gun didn't kill anyone. Please don't demonize everyone for the sake of trying to make a point that sometimes, a mental case will kill other people.

There’s nothing to guarantee that you, or anyone for that matter, won’t possibly become a “mental case” at some point in your life. It happens, and often with little warning, which is why you’ll hear the almost clichéd “he was such a quite person” stuff when something like this happens. So who then should be “cleared” to own them with no oversight?

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
Actually, a VAST majority of the guns in the US exist to PRESERVE your rights!
For without them, our lives and livelihoods, would only exist for the amusement and pleasure of our masters. And that is a FACT...

True enough, as part of a “REGULATED” militia.
Another words being part of a group that has a commanding officer, who gets together and does drills, etc… Not just so you can decide to go on a rampage against civilians and the government because either of them do something you disagree with, or you decide to exact your own form of justice of revenge on someone.

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptoniteA mental case killed people. That's what is wrong. My gun didn't kill anyone. Please don't demonize everyone for the sake of trying to make a point that sometimes, a mental case will kill other people.

There’s nothing to guarantee that you, or anyone for that matter, won’t possibly become a “mental case” at some point in your life. It happens, and often with little warning, which is why you’ll hear the almost clichéd “he was such a quite person” stuff when something like this happens. So who then should be “cleared” to own them with no oversight?

Feel free to keep and eye on me, I have no problem with that.

originally posted by: lokin
For the love of God, people!!! There are innocent children dead. Gone. What the heck is wrong with you?? Why, why, why do you do this every damn time there is a shooting?? This is NOT, repeat, NOTNOTNOT the place to argue gun control. I have never seen a bigger group of non-feeling, selfish people in one place in my entire life.I am talking about BOTH sides of the argument. Again, this is a tragedy. There are innocent children DEAD. How about if you have something to say that maybe, oh, I don't know, showed a teeny bit of compassion? I'm not singling you out smithjustinb. I just happened to have been on your comment when i lost my temper. All of you arguing gun control on this thread should be ashamed of yourselves. a reply to: smithjustinb

How many kids died in the rest of the world today?

OH THE INNOCENT CHILDREN!!!!! Cry me a river. People of all ages die all over the world every day, get over it.

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: projectvxn
If you honestly think that the right to own a gun trumps another’s right to be safe from your gun, then there is something wrong here to begin with…Also, to be quite honest, the constitution says that it’s the right of people to bear arms IF THEY ARE PART OF A ‘REGULATED’ MILITIA… Not just everyone privately owning them for the heck of it. So its arguable if you really do have a right as a private citizen to bear arms, and your owning them certainly doesn't trump another's guaranteed right to "life" (ie Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)

I was trying to avoid getting into a firearms/ 2nd amendment debate but since we're being 'quite honest' as you say in your post, the 2nd A doesn't actually say your portion in bold. It does not state nor imply one must be a part of a regulated militia in the sense you seem to ascribe. It states that " 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." In grammar, the placement of the commas is everything and the implications of this minor detail are overlooked and it makes the intention if the statement inevitably misunderstood by far too many.

Historically, and particularly in the time leading up to the French and Indian War and the American Revolution, militia has taken the meaning "a military force raised from the civilian population of a country or region, especially to supplement a regular army in an emergency, frequently as distinguished from mercenaries or professional soldiers." The distinction is because militia members are not paid soldiers, but serve as volunteers on an ad hoc basis to protect the freedom of their home and country.

Back then, well regulated meant that they were able bodied, had an appropriate weapon and we're able to respond quickly if called upon. This can be found within the Federalist Papers as well as the personal writings of George Mason, who while little known to most Americans, was one of the most important, if least heralded of our founding fathers as the author of the Bill of Rights, since most people seem to incorrectly link that document to Jefferson. But I digress... As the author of the 2nd amendment I'm inclined to accept his definition and inclination as to the meaning and intent of this particular amendment.

Were it not for the private ownership of personal weapons, then there can be no militia as defined and intended by George Mason and ratified by the 13 colonies as a prerequisite to accepting and ratifying the entirety of the US Constitution therefore, there is nothing arguable as to a private citizens right to own firearms.

Now that I'm through with the history lesson, let me be clear that along with that right comes an inherent responsibility to maintain, store and use it properly. That means you don't go shoot, kill,or injure random people or even people you know because you're angry or feel slighted or whatever your asinine rationale is for committing a crime. You don't leave loaded weapons where children can access them, you take responsibility for your firearms and treat it like the tool it is and not a toy.

You are correct that my right to bear arms does not trump someone else's rights to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to enjoy some target practice, teaching my children how to safely operate and maintain a rifle or be able to defend my home and family if it becomes a last resort necessity. I can't promise much go these days except that it's a sure bet that if someone comes into my home and puts my wife or children in harms way, then they're leaving my house on a stretcher and leaking fluids. Otherwise, neither you nor anyone else has any reason to worry about what I have locked in that safe.

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: projectvxn
If you honestly think that the right to own a gun trumps another’s right to be safe from your gun, then there is something wrong here to begin with…Also, to be quite honest, the constitution says that it’s the right of people to bear arms IF THEY ARE PART OF A ‘REGULATED’ MILITIA… Not just everyone privately owning them for the heck of it. So its arguable if you really do have a right as a private citizen to bear arms, and your owning them certainly doesn't trump another's guaranteed right to "life" (ie Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)

The 2nd Amendment clearly says "the right of the people." It does not say "the right of the people while serving in a militia." You should research the initial versions of the 2nd Amendment before it was shortened to the final version... it makes the intent of the Amendment even more obvious. A militia being important to the security of a nation, the people should bear arms to be ready if a militia needs to be formed.

The Supreme Court of the United States thinks that you are full of crap and so do I.

Goodness. Some of the responses in this thread are ridiculous and, in my opinion, made in very poor taste.

Murder-suicides aren't about GUNS or GUN CONTROL. So for those who think that it is, get a clue. Also, start ANOTHER thread to debate your views on THAT subject as this isn't the place, nor the subject.

The GUN was just a means to an end. The instrument used to commit these acts has very little to do with the decision to murder several people and then commit suicide. Rather than a gun they could have utilized things such as poisoned Kool Aid, a knife, a rope, a car...

When someone commits a plan to kill themselves, they do not normally just do it on a whim. They plan and normally really think it though because they want to succeed in order to end their suffering. Some change their minds, others it seems completely loose their minds and end up doing things like this.

This individual may have become enraged, lost their minds, started killing and THEN killed themselves, however, I am SURE there is a diagnosis of some sort of mental illness in their medical history. Next time there is a levy or measure related to mental health services on the ballot in your community, please vote YES. There truly are not enough resources out there for those people who need them.

a reply to: Answer
Care to go read that again?

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.

Not only is it to be a militia, but a “regulated” militia, and for that matter they even went so far as to state that it is to be a WELL regulated one. In other words, you are allowed to use military weapons under the strict control of a militia type command structure, not a “militia of one”.
BTW, the “first draft”:

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.

Now please show me where it states an individual’s right to own weaponry without anything stated regarding its use as part of a “well regulated militia”?

a reply to: Sparkymedic

is that the one where the Father killed his Daughter and 6 kids?

I just read that on abc. Sad.

Oh dear, this is terrible news.

I'd like to share a link to another tragic murder suicide that happened here in Australia a week or so ago, a man shot and killed his wife and 3 children, then killed himself.

Those trying to make this about gun control should take note of Australia's gun laws and how they did nothing to prevent 4 innocent people being killed..

LINK

a reply to: Thurisaz

Yes, it is. They ranged in age from 3 months old to 11 years old. Jesus, I will never understand what happens in someones mind to make them just totally snap and kill not only their own child, but their SIX young grand children as well. I work with kids and I have to admit, I have a real hard time hearing about kids being killed, especially a three month old infant.

I hope those who want to scream gun control this and that just stop and REALLY think about where they are posting their opinions at. It is inappropriate after a tragedy such as this to muck up the thread with THOSE arguments.

Maybe the mods could start removing them to prevent "thread drift?"

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: Answer
Care to go read that again?

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.

Not only is it to be a militia, but a “regulated” militia, and for that matter they even went so far as to state that it is to be a WELL regulated one. In other words, you are allowed to use military weapons under the strict control of a militia type command structure, not a “militia of one”.
BTW, the “first draft”:

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.

Now please show me where it states an individual’s right to own weaponry without anything stated regarding its use as part of a “well regulated militia”?

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. That's the end of the discussion. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is not up for debate.

Here's a piece of information that will hopefully settle your incorrect opinion on this issue:

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Every able-bodied citizen is a member of the militia and should thereby be armed in case he is needed. Only an idiot who doesn't understand the nature of a militia could interpret the 2nd Amendment any other way. When the populace is armed, the security of a free state is ensured. If that's not good enough for you, I can keep presenting the same evidence that was used by the Supreme Court.

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
There are other threads better suited for a 2nd Amendment and gun control discussion. This thread should be utilized for live updates of the situation and discussion of the specific matter at hand.

Tell that to the two mods on page one and two posting ot anti gun nonsense

Tell that to the posters on page one jumping to the

BAN GUNS

Immediately

This man was ill and and this is not a mass shooting


Its a murder suicide

The anti second is strong here luke

God save u insane people

Not when it the mods posting it

Just aweful form ats

Aweful

I see the nonsense spewing mods are hard at work even now

O well as the old saying go

Stupid is as stupid does

reply to: lovebeck