Because nobody died.Anyone paying attention knows that if there is a shooting that might be classified as a mass public shooting.....the story lasts in the news cycle depending in a large part on who the shooter actually is....in this case, this story dissappeared immediately.....the two shooters are two black guys with criminal records....
These two criminals are not mass public shooters....mass public shooters target innocent people in pubic places to murder them, without any other crime involved...these two crimninals...are criminals with long histories of crime...
As I pointed out at the time, none of Maryland’s restrictive gun control laws prevented the shooting from taking place, so it seemed like an odd flex on the part of the anti-gunners. In fact, the first suspect arrested and charged in the shooting is just 17-years-old, so he wasn’t legally allowed to possess a gun to begin with.
Now authorities have released more information about the second suspect, who’s still at large and on the run. According to federal officials, 18-year-old Jovon Terrell Williams was already a wanted man when he allegedly opened fire at Morgan State, with the feds charging him with a variety of criminal offenses over the summer.
Second suspect in Morgan State shooting sought in separate gun and drug conspiracy
A second suspect in the Morgan State University shooting that left five people injured earlier this month was already being sought by the U.S. Marshals for gun and drug conspiracy charges.news.yahoo.com
I would love to own a M-14. All it would take would be for the government to make them civilian legal would be to have a pin welded into the hole in the receiver where the selector switch goes. The Government used to allow AK-47s to be sent home by troops in Vietnam as war souvenirs as long as rods were welded into the barrel to demilitarize them.
No you idiot. The M-16 was designed first as a supplement for the M-14, then replaced it in general usage. The AR-15 was always designed as a civilian rifle. Yes, it had many parts in common with a M-16, but the CIVILIAN M-1A has many parts in common with the MILITARY M-14. It's funny, people like you have no problems with the M1A despite the fact that it is far more lethal than the AR-15.
That's funny I saw shotguns in the hands of MPs all the time when I was in during Vietnam. In Basic Training, I was taught to shoot a shotgun among a large number of other COMMON weapons. From what I've seen shotguns were very common in infantry units in Vietnam. They were far more effective at close range than M-16s. I never saw combat, but my preferred weapon at the time was an M-79, I had a choice of buckshot, flechette, HE, smoke and HEAT rounds for it. If I couldn't swing an M-79, I'd settle for an M-60 despite the weight. From talking to people who actually used the M-16 in combat, I had zero faith in the stopping power of the 5.56 NATO round. When I owned a Colt AR-15 Sporter 2, I kept my magazines loaded with hollow point rounds to increase stopping power.
Most of them - knowing only what the DNC talking points tell them - have no idea it exists.
The ME shooter passed an ATF background investigation and was cleared to buy a suppressor.
Where. give me one example of than your 'bushmaster' image you pulled off the interwebs. Show me one example of mass public marketing or even marketing to 2A supporters that promotes mass shootings or a culture that is anti-gov't or anti federal gun control laws.
Point being made is that the AR platform was was marketed prior to the 90's as semi auto rifles that fell within the guidelines of federal regulations because the 2A allows for the people to be armed.
And the gov't has. You can't walk in and just buy a gun without a background check... can you? Are guns on the shelf to just pick up, buy, and walk out. No, they are behind the counter, like sudafed and other meds, only for a consumer to ask an associate to handle and see.
You hate here, then find a country that has a white glove past and has no history of throwing stones at anyone.... good luck with that.
Irrelevant.
Your hate of American history is irrelevant to the convo.
And why is that... "Shall not be infringed".
Using the wrong word, which is my bad, doesn't invalidate my point, and you understand it as well. But what's the worse evil, debating using bias and opinion verses facts. You're a college grad, you should know this.
A lot sensible gun owners are okay with sensible laws. Including myself. The problem is you illogically place gun owners, all of them, into the same bath waters as the "gun nuts". I'm okay with background checks. I think gun owners should go through some training, but also in understanding operation and the legalities that come with the responsibility. I'm for proper storage in certain circumstance.
Yes it does. You can go on youtube and find many videos inside the U.S. and outside the U.S. of armed citizens stopping crimes.
Ignoring the point I'm making doesn't make it go away.
Nope, I want the government to be able to do it's job, and that means if it takes a month for you go get approved for your "compensation", so be it.
Uh, guy, you told me to give you an example of the gun industry marketing to crazies... I gave you one.
Um, the guy is nuts? His dick is probably tiny, too... but I'm not that curious.
History is history. If you want to feel good about history, then you aren't reading history, you are reading propaganda. The Founders were assholes, and if they had lost, life wouldn't have been horrible. We'd be CANADIANS if they had lost. We'd have ended slavery without a civil war or Jim Crow, and we'd have socialized medicine.
Well Regulated Militia.
You didn't have a point, Stupid. The fact you have to go back 100 years to find someone pulling off a school massacre without a gun should tell you that guns have made that sort of thing a lot easier.
I have no idea where that image came from. It could be a banner on a website for gun enthusiasts. You show me mass marketing outside the gun industry? Show my on piece of marketing that is creating a "crazy gun culture". You make the claim, you should be able to back it up.
Just like this guy?
No, they fight because the 2A is a right
Seriously, you're stating that a response is "childlike" as you throw out the "He probably has a tiny dick" comment.
You're right history is history. There is a lot to dislike about American history. But you're absolute disdain for everything American begs the question, why are you still here?
By the people. I posted a link that had historical relevance that the founding fathers didn't like to have "standing" armies. So the people were to be armed. Those people comprised of the militias when needed. However, they didn't want them to be a "standing" army to be controlled by the Federal Gov't. In the same link I provided, two states constitutions provided context that the people were to be armed. But if you can't follow the link to read it, I'll post it hear for your reading and viewing pleasure.
Similarly, as another example, Massachusetts’s Declaration of Rights from 1780 provided:
Not all of them are quiet. But the left doesn't like them and if they speak too loudly they are then tiny dick crazy gun people as you would point out.
I'm not sure the NRA is "terrorizing" anyone. The Supreme court has been doing just fine in defining what is constitutional and what is not constitutional.
Then do the same for Alcohol, which will kill a lot more Americans than gun will this year... But those deaths don't matter do they? And why don't they, because people on the left and the right like their booze. And if history has anything to say about it, we tried prohibition. DIdn't work out to well. Oh, and we do have laws on drinking, DUIs etc., But people still drive illegally and will kill others or themselves medically. But, again, this is not a politically divisive tool to garner votes. But when one of these parties figures out how many votes they can get, they will make it an issue.
Do you honestly think the US gov't would resort to destroying it's own infrastructure and even potentially Nukes?
But they will think twice against armed citizens, which, you don't seem to get or understand. So the gov't can go to hell, and as long as the Gov't keeps JoeB safe and secure in his little apartment and gives him bread and water to eat while taking away the liberties and rights, you're okay with that? Just don't go running to a crazy gun owner who's protecting your rights when and if shit hits the fan.
Koresh and that community fucking hit the off button on themselves.
Duly noted... again. But, I know you are but what am I....
And you ignore the point. Take guns away, and people are still evil. Right?
You know damned well where it came from. Don't be dishonest.
No, I don't watch videos by gun crazies, because honestly, Ive said the best argument for gun control is to let the gun crazies talk.
Nope, it was about militias.
That's downplaying it, isn't it. Genocide and slavery are not "minor trifles".
Exept the Alcohol industry is responsible. They work very hard to not sell to minors, they promote responsible use, every commericial has a tagline of "Drink Responsibly".
I suspect if the government saw a group as a big enough threat, they'd do exactly that.
No, they wouldn't. You think an 18 year old kid who has been indoctirnated to do what his superiors tell him is going to question orders?
You can't be this dense. It's not possible.I did. Lower population density.
Gary actually has a higher murder rate than Chicago. So is Indianapolis.
Indianapolis’ homicide rate greater than Chicago’s
At 10.6 homicides per 100,000 residents, Indianapolis’ rate of intentional murder is greater than that of Chicago and several other large, regional U.S. cities.fox59.com
But the real problem- again- is businesses in Indiana openly flaunting Illinois laws. Like this guy.
View attachment 851575
Driving from IL to IN to get to a wedding in Michigan, I saw billboard signs for this jackass every. On the way back through Indiana... same route. Not one sign for this guy. Amazing.
