Donald Trump appears to blame mass shootings on 'broken homes' and 'bad behaviour' at school

Long before we were born, it was well known that there is a strong correlation between children coming from broken homes, and those children growing up with very bad life outcomes, including drug abuse and criminality.

In our folly, western society is now not only doing nearly enough to strengthen the family as the foundation of society, but actively undermining it.

How stupid does someone have to be not to see the clear correlation between this tragic trend, and the resulting social ills?
Well we have that over here Bob. But we dont have mass shootings. So it isnt that is it ?
 
Yep.

Anyone.

August 5 2019
President Donald Trump responded to the El Paso and Dayton mass shootings by insisting Monday that “mental illness pulls the trigger not the gun,” but shortly after taking office he quietly rolled back an Obama-era regulation that would have made it harder for people with mental illness to buy guns.

Trump did so without any fanfare. In fact, the news that Trump had signed the bill was at the bottom of a White House email that alerted the media to other legislation signed by the president.


And it came after the House and Senate, both of which were Republican-controlled at the time, passed a bill, H.J. Res 40, which revoked the Obama-era regulation. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Sam Johnson, a Texas Republican who retired at the end of 2018.

"It has been the NRA’s long-standing position that those who have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others should not have access to firearms and should be admitted for treatment," it said.

But two years ago, the NRA insisted the Obama rule infringed on Second Amendment rights to buy guns, even though the regulation specifically targeted people who were diagnosed with mental illness.

Everyone.

One of the omnipresent responses after every new mass shooting is conservative claims that what we need is even more guns in even more places. The circumstances of each shooting don't matter a bit, and the "more guns" response is wheeled out even before the first bodies have gone cold.

But when lawmakers have reconvened in Austin in the months after a mass shooting, those same leaders tend to fall silent on any restrictive measures when it comes to guns. In the last two legislative sessions, Texas legislators have loosened gun laws, most notably by passing permitless carry in 2021, less than two years after mass shootings in El Paso and Odessa took the lives of 30 people.
They dont give a shit.
 
That was not always the case. The fact is when feminism started getting powerful as the women entered the workforce it kept wages down and the taxes rose. Two income couples at that time though made out. eventually it became like one and a half incomes and then to surviving. Single parents rose in a huge way from the early 1970's. Also, what is not talked about is that White Males were put last on the list for employment after high school as quotas were enforced. That is never broached by the pundits. Good jobs were denied to White Males for a period of years.
We have all of this. No shootings.
Try harder.
 
That was not always the case. The fact is when feminism started getting powerful as the women entered the workforce it kept wages down and the taxes rose. Two income couples at that time though made out. eventually it became like one and a half incomes and then to surviving.

Single parents rose in a huge way from the early 1970's. Also, what is not talked about is that White Males were put last on the list for employment after high school as quotas were enforced. That is never broached by the pundits. Good jobs were denied to White Males for a period of years.

Manufacturing left the country since the 1970s. Sounds like you can't compete and you're a victim.

 
Sure, SHOOTING?
Guess what weapon does that?

Is it fire?
Is it water?
Is it a car?
Is it a motorcycle?
Is it a boat?
Why do you believe we should leave our children unprotected but spend billions to protect politicians, banks, jewelry stores, etc? How does that make sense?

Decades ago one of my clients was a Florida Supreme Court Justice. I, or most anyone else could just walk into the Florida Supreme Court Building, walk up to his floor, walk-in his office and his secretary would greet me and his secretary would let him know I was there and to go on in. Could I do that today?

There are thousands of other examples. High school security was non-existant when I graduated in 1963. Nothing has changed. Please share with us how that makes any sense other than Liberals using the death of children to push for the repeal of the second amendment. Does that make any sense whatsoever?
 
Yep.

Anyone.

August 5 2019
President Donald Trump responded to the El Paso and Dayton mass shootings by insisting Monday that “mental illness pulls the trigger not the gun,” but shortly after taking office he quietly rolled back an Obama-era regulation that would have made it harder for people with mental illness to buy guns.

Trump did so without any fanfare. In fact, the news that Trump had signed the bill was at the bottom of a White House email that alerted the media to other legislation signed by the president.


And it came after the House and Senate, both of which were Republican-controlled at the time, passed a bill, H.J. Res 40, which revoked the Obama-era regulation. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Sam Johnson, a Texas Republican who retired at the end of 2018.

"It has been the NRA’s long-standing position that those who have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others should not have access to firearms and should be admitted for treatment," it said.

But two years ago, the NRA insisted the Obama rule infringed on Second Amendment rights to buy guns, even though the regulation specifically targeted people who were diagnosed with mental illness.

Everyone.

One of the omnipresent responses after every new mass shooting is conservative claims that what we need is even more guns in even more places. The circumstances of each shooting don't matter a bit, and the "more guns" response is wheeled out even before the first bodies have gone cold.

But when lawmakers have reconvened in Austin in the months after a mass shooting, those same leaders tend to fall silent on any restrictive measures when it comes to guns. In the last two legislative sessions, Texas legislators have loosened gun laws, most notably by passing permitless carry in 2021, less than two years after mass shootings in El Paso and Odessa took the lives of 30 people.
Specifically, how many spree or mass shootings would have been stopped by this action? Zero, zip, nada!

"The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database."

Had the school in Texas been a hard target, had metal detectors, limited access points, and an armed security officer on duty, how many kids would have been slaughtered?
 

You would think tht he had a bit more to offer than that..I suppose that he was just reading the room. \A gathering of ghouls is unlikely to want to hear hrd truths.

Hey Donny, we have broken homes and bad behaviour over here as well. Think again dopey.
If you’d bother to read what Trump actually said, maybe (if you weren’t such a dolt) you wouldn’t be so quick to accept the politicized commentary about what he “appears” to have said. You are a real troll, taint.
 
Why do you believe we should leave our children unprotected but spend billions to protect politicians, banks, jewelry stores, etc? How does that make sense?

Decades ago one of my clients was a Florida Supreme Court Justice. I, or most anyone else could just walk into the Florida Supreme Court Building, walk up to his floor, walk-in his office and his secretary would greet me and his secretary would let him know I was there and to go on in. Could I do that today?

There are thousands of other examples. High school security was non-existant when I graduated in 1963. Nothing has changed. Please share with us how that makes any sense other than Liberals using the death of children to push for the repeal of the second amendment. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

 
Why do you believe we should leave our children unprotected but spend billions to protect politicians, banks, jewelry stores, etc? How does that make sense?
It doesn't.
So, why did republicans cut their budget?

February 19 2019
Republican state representatives in Iowa on Tuesday advanced legislation that seeks to mandate funding and budget cuts for schools .

March 11 2019
The Trump administration is looking to decrease the Education Department’s funding by $7.1 billion compared to what it was given last year, as part of next year’s proposed budget.

The budget proposal suggests eliminating 29 programs, including after-school and summer programs for students in high-poverty areas, among other things.

February 20 2022
Today, House Republicans announced their amendments to Governor Northam’s proposed budget for the 2022 session. Unlike the historic budget proposed by Governor Northam, the House budget plan decimates funding for public schools and will leave our students behind.

n their first effort to gut public school funding, House Republicans siphoned $150 million away from local school divisions to fund their “laboratory school” legislation, which is nothing but a poorly disguised vehicle for charter schools.

Next, they cut millions of dollars in funding for early childhood education, stripping our children of much-needed support—setting them up for failure. This is a major blow to children across the commonwealth and it will have lasting negative impacts.

Finally, in perhaps the most alarming and least surprising blow to public education, House Republicans slashed funding for long-overdue raises for our hard-working teachers. Virginia has consistently ranked as the worst, or one of the worst, states in the nation for teacher pay, and House Republicans have chosen to turn a blind eye at a time when teachers are overwhelmed and leaving the profession at alarming rates


Decades ago one of my clients was a Florida Supreme Court Justice. I, or most anyone else could just walk into the Florida Supreme Court Building, walk up to his floor, walk-in his office and his secretary would greet me and his secretary would let him know I was there and to go on in. Could I do that today?
NO.
There are thousands of other examples. High school security was non-existant when I graduated in 1963. Nothing has changed. Please share with us how that makes any sense other than Liberals using the death of children to push for the repeal of the second amendment. Does that make any sense whatsoever?
It doesn't....................if only it wasn't republican BS.
"Repeal the 2nd amendment"?

That's impossible, but that doesn't prevent nut jobs from regurgitating the lie, especially now.
No politicians could repeal ANY amendment today, nor pass one.
 
President Donald Trump responded to the El Paso and Dayton mass shootings by insisting Monday that “mental illness pulls the trigger not the gun,” but shortly after taking office he quietly rolled back an Obama-era regulation that would have made it harder for people with mental illness to buy guns.

There is a long history of tyrannical societies using ersatz claims of “mental illness” as an excuse to target dissidents for denial of basic rights. The old Союз Советских Социалистических Республик was particularly notorious for it. They even invented a specific, diagnosed mental illness, which they called “вялотеку́щая шизофрени́я”, or “sluggish schizophrenia”, specifically to pin on political dissidents.

At times, Democraps have not been exactly shy about trying to define as “mentally ill” those that they saw as a threat to their own agenda. I have a memory of the corrupt bitch Dianne Feinstein expressing the position, for example, that under the various “red flag laws” that have been proposed, that all war veterans should be targeted for denial of their Second Amendment rights. And under the Obama-era abuses, we've heard stories of those being denied their Second Amendment rights for such things as seeking treatment for insomnia or depression or other mild issue, or even for having difficulty managing their finances.


To be sure, there are people who are truly mentally ill, to the degree and in the manner that they pose a genuine threat to themselves and to others; and we need to deal with them in a serious way. But the use of “mental illness” as a general excuse for targeting individuals for denial of basic rights is wide-open for abuse, and we have already seen serious abuses of it in this country.
 
Last edited:
Why didn’t Obama and Bush and why hasn’t Biden?

School shootings have been an issue way before Biden or Trump, so let be clear none of them have done much and let remember Biden was a Senator and VP before being a President ( Biden took four years off ), so let stop with the nonsense and we all have failed here in the States…
I blame Jimmy (the peanut) Carter for his liberal compassion on releasing the mentally ill from asylums so they could spend time with their family, thinking that would rehabilitate them. Yes, Ronald Reagan closed down the mental institutes because no one was occupying them, thus he saved billions of dollars in doing so. But it goes back to Jimmy and his liberal compassion, which always kills people.
 
Trump called out the dead children's names with a gong after each one. He mispronounced their names... And then he went dancing.

7y2jnnaya8291.gif
 
It doesn't....................if only it wasn't republican BS.
"Repeal the 2nd amendment"?

That's impossible, but that doesn't prevent nut jobs from regurgitating the lie, especially now.
No politicians could repeal ANY amendment today, nor pass one.

That is not a flaw in the Constitution; it is by wise design.

These standards set in the Constitution are intended not to be easily altered; but only changed if there is a clear enough, and popularly-accepted enough need to do so.

It's been a while since I heard such claims, but a few years ago, I was hearing claims that up to 90% of the American people supported some claimed gun control rule. That was a lie, of course. If it was true, then that would certainly be enough support to get politicians to put into motion the process of amending the Constitution to allow that rule, and give such an effort a very high chance of success.

But while that lie continued to be repeated, that 90% of Americans supported the policy being proposed, not one politician made any effort to initiate the process of amending the Constitution to allow it. Not one. Why is that? I say it is because they know damn well that the claimed support for that policy was a lie, that there was nowhere near the claimed support, and that any politician who had an obvious hand in trying to put forth or support any such amendment would be out of a job, out of a career, at the very next election cycle.


The bottom line is this: The Constitution is the highest law in this nation, and the principles established therein can only be changed by a process that is, by wise design, neither easy nor trivial. It takes a very strong degree of support to amend the Constitution, to enact a policy previously prohibited by it.

You're crying because you want to enact policies that you know damn well are blatantly unconstitutional, and you know damn well that you do not have anywhere near the support that it would take to enact such policies legitimately.
 

Forum List

Back
Top