VA Beach Munc Cntr Shooting: 11 Killed by Emp

[westwall]

The anti-gun pointless gun laws would have failed...again.......he used two .45 caliber guns...which he reloaded repeatedly during the attack.......

He bought them after going through background checks...which means he would pass a universal background check for a private sale.....

They were pistols...not an AR-15, so a stupid "Assault Rifle" ban would not have stopped the attack.....

He bought one gun in 2016, and the other gun in 2018......so stupid waiting periods would not have done anything to stop the attack.....

He displayed no mental issues until recently, so stupid Red Flag Laws would not have kept this from happening....


Anti-gunners......can't get dumber than an anti-gunner....

Gun control laws have zero to do with preventing crime, but EVERYTHING to do with concentrating power in the hands of the very billionaires who fund the anti gun efforts.

They realize you can't truly be the slave they want, when you can defend yourself.

Most of the world functions perfectly well with gun control

The US has five times the murder rate of those countries that restrict firearms

Big deal. Take a look at Europe as a whole, so that the populations are similar and guess what. Europe's violent crime rates are higher than ours, and gun deaths are similar. You cherry pick and think that supports your argument. All it does is show you to be a weak minded silly person incapable of thinking for yourself.

 

[rightwinger]

Another good guy with a gun....until he's not.

Good guys with guns far outnumber bad guys. Assholes, like you, demand the good guys be disarmed.

YOU, are the problem little asshat.

I am pro-2nd Amendment....you fail....again.

No, you are not. You are anti 2nd Amendment. The only failure here, is you.

Wrong.

To support the Second Amendment is to support its case law, as determined by the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Indeed, to oppose Second Amendment jurisprudence – as you and most others on right do – is to be anti-Second Amendment.

Bullshit. What does "shall NOT be infringed" mean? Political hacks make case law all of the time. And it is usually shit, geared to benefit whichever wealthy patron has bought the judge.

Shall not be infringed has never meant you can buy any weapon you desire

 

[westwall]

C'mon mr. village idiot. Laughing emojis is the best you can do? Typical moron.

 

[westwall]

Good guys with guns far outnumber bad guys. Assholes, like you, demand the good guys be disarmed.

YOU, are the problem little asshat.

I am pro-2nd Amendment....you fail....again.

No, you are not. You are anti 2nd Amendment. The only failure here, is you.

Wrong.

To support the Second Amendment is to support its case law, as determined by the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Indeed, to oppose Second Amendment jurisprudence – as you and most others on right do – is to be anti-Second Amendment.

Bullshit. What does "shall NOT be infringed" mean? Political hacks make case law all of the time. And it is usually shit, geared to benefit whichever wealthy patron has bought the judge.

Shall not be infringed has never meant you can buy any weapon you desire

It did back then. The very first artillery unit in the US was a PRIVATE organization. The privateers that kept the British run ragged were armed with CANNON. Cannon that they bought themselves.

As usual you are poorly informed about history.

 

[rightwinger]

The anti-gun pointless gun laws would have failed...again.......he used two .45 caliber guns...which he reloaded repeatedly during the attack.......

He bought them after going through background checks...which means he would pass a universal background check for a private sale.....

They were pistols...not an AR-15, so a stupid "Assault Rifle" ban would not have stopped the attack.....

He bought one gun in 2016, and the other gun in 2018......so stupid waiting periods would not have done anything to stop the attack.....

He displayed no mental issues until recently, so stupid Red Flag Laws would not have kept this from happening....


Anti-gunners......can't get dumber than an anti-gunner....

Gun control laws have zero to do with preventing crime, but EVERYTHING to do with concentrating power in the hands of the very billionaires who fund the anti gun efforts.

They realize you can't truly be the slave they want, when you can defend yourself.

Most of the world functions perfectly well with gun control

The US has five times the murder rate of those countries that restrict firearms

Big deal. Take a look at Europe as a whole, so that the populations are similar and guess what. Europe's violent crime rates are higher than ours, and gun deaths are similar. You cherry pick and think that supports your argument. All it does is show you to be a weak minded silly person incapable of thinking for yourself.

Thank God for our Second Amendment

 

[westwall]

The anti-gun pointless gun laws would have failed...again.......he used two .45 caliber guns...which he reloaded repeatedly during the attack.......

He bought them after going through background checks...which means he would pass a universal background check for a private sale.....

They were pistols...not an AR-15, so a stupid "Assault Rifle" ban would not have stopped the attack.....

He bought one gun in 2016, and the other gun in 2018......so stupid waiting periods would not have done anything to stop the attack.....

He displayed no mental issues until recently, so stupid Red Flag Laws would not have kept this from happening....


Anti-gunners......can't get dumber than an anti-gunner....

Gun control laws have zero to do with preventing crime, but EVERYTHING to do with concentrating power in the hands of the very billionaires who fund the anti gun efforts.

They realize you can't truly be the slave they want, when you can defend yourself.

Most of the world functions perfectly well with gun control

The US has five times the murder rate of those countries that restrict firearms

Big deal. Take a look at Europe as a whole, so that the populations are similar and guess what. Europe's violent crime rates are higher than ours, and gun deaths are similar. You cherry pick and think that supports your argument. All it does is show you to be a weak minded silly person incapable of thinking for yourself.

Thank God for our Second Amendment

Yeah, now total them all up and you will see it is the same, actually trending better for the USA. And, the violent crime rates throughout Europe are exploding. Same gun laws as you wish, and the gun crime rates are exploding. Why?

 

[2aguy]

Good guys with guns far outnumber bad guys. Assholes, like you, demand the good guys be disarmed.

YOU, are the problem little asshat.

I am pro-2nd Amendment....you fail....again.

No, you are not. You are anti 2nd Amendment. The only failure here, is you.

Wrong.

To support the Second Amendment is to support its case law, as determined by the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Indeed, to oppose Second Amendment jurisprudence – as you and most others on right do – is to be anti-Second Amendment.

Bullshit. What does "shall NOT be infringed" mean? Political hacks make case law all of the time. And it is usually shit, geared to benefit whichever wealthy patron has bought the judge.

Shall not be infringed has never meant you can buy any weapon you desire

It was ruled on by the Supreme Court...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf



Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[Auld Phart]

Actually, if one of them had one, then maybe they could have protected themselves...

Stupid reply. More guns is not the answer. Americans cannot be trusted with owning guns.

hmmm

600,000,000 firearms in the hands of the civilian populace...

30,000 deaths a year, give or take.

sounds to me like a large majority of Americans can be trusted.

30 thousand deaths? How pathetic are you?

no?

How many deaths are caused by firearms annually, in your estimation?

30 thousand in one country!!! And you think this is not insane?

3/5s of which are suicides.

in a country with approximately 600,000,000 firearms.


no

 

[2aguy]

Good guys with guns far outnumber bad guys. Assholes, like you, demand the good guys be disarmed.

YOU, are the problem little asshat.

I am pro-2nd Amendment....you fail....again.

No, you are not. You are anti 2nd Amendment. The only failure here, is you.

Wrong.

To support the Second Amendment is to support its case law, as determined by the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Indeed, to oppose Second Amendment jurisprudence – as you and most others on right do – is to be anti-Second Amendment.

Bullshit. What does "shall NOT be infringed" mean? Political hacks make case law all of the time. And it is usually shit, geared to benefit whichever wealthy patron has bought the judge.

Shall not be infringed has never meant you can buy any weapon you desire

Also....Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, stated that the AR-15, by name....is a Constitutionally protected weapon...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Another good guy with a gun....until he's not.

Good guys with guns far outnumber bad guys. Assholes, like you, demand the good guys be disarmed.

YOU, are the problem little asshat.

I am pro-2nd Amendment....you fail....again.

No, you are not. You are anti 2nd Amendment. The only failure here, is you.

Wrong.

To support the Second Amendment is to support its case law, as determined by the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Indeed, to oppose Second Amendment jurisprudence – as you and most others on right do – is to be anti-Second Amendment.

Bullshit. What does "shall NOT be infringed" mean? Political hacks make case law all of the time. And it is usually shit, geared to benefit whichever wealthy patron has bought the judge.

Wrong.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Again, to support and defend the Second Amendment is to support and defend its jurisprudence; the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And most on the right oppose Second Amendment case law, and as a consequence oppose the Second Amendment.

 

[westwall]

Good guys with guns far outnumber bad guys. Assholes, like you, demand the good guys be disarmed.

YOU, are the problem little asshat.

I am pro-2nd Amendment....you fail....again.

No, you are not. You are anti 2nd Amendment. The only failure here, is you.

Wrong.

To support the Second Amendment is to support its case law, as determined by the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Indeed, to oppose Second Amendment jurisprudence – as you and most others on right do – is to be anti-Second Amendment.

Bullshit. What does "shall NOT be infringed" mean? Political hacks make case law all of the time. And it is usually shit, geared to benefit whichever wealthy patron has bought the judge.

Wrong.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Again, to support and defend the Second Amendment is to support and defend its jurisprudence; the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And most on the right oppose Second Amendment case law, and as a consequence oppose the Second Amendment.

You are a one trick pony, and your pony is falling behind silly boy. The RIGHT to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. That is what the Amendment reads. The fact that activist judges have chosen to misinterpret the RIGHT doesn't make their jurisprudence correct, it just means we have to get OUR activist judges in to revers those bad rulings.

Funny how that works isn't it.


Here is a ruling that will no doubt make you rend your hair...The ruling is based on the fact that they couldn't come up with a MILITARY use for a sawed off shotgun. So, according to MULTIPLE rulings, the only weapons that are protected by the 2nd Amendment are those that HAVE A MILITARY purpose.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it....mr. "jursiprudence"!

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Good guys with guns far outnumber bad guys. Assholes, like you, demand the good guys be disarmed.

YOU, are the problem little asshat.

I am pro-2nd Amendment....you fail....again.

No, you are not. You are anti 2nd Amendment. The only failure here, is you.

Wrong.

To support the Second Amendment is to support its case law, as determined by the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Indeed, to oppose Second Amendment jurisprudence – as you and most others on right do – is to be anti-Second Amendment.

Bullshit. What does "shall NOT be infringed" mean? Political hacks make case law all of the time. And it is usually shit, geared to benefit whichever wealthy patron has bought the judge.

Wrong.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Again, to support and defend the Second Amendment is to support and defend its jurisprudence; the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And most on the right oppose Second Amendment case law, and as a consequence oppose the Second Amendment.

That does not say what you pretend it says. It does NOT support bans nor elimination of rights nor firearms.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am pro-2nd Amendment....you fail....again.

No, you are not. You are anti 2nd Amendment. The only failure here, is you.

Wrong.

To support the Second Amendment is to support its case law, as determined by the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Indeed, to oppose Second Amendment jurisprudence – as you and most others on right do – is to be anti-Second Amendment.

Bullshit. What does "shall NOT be infringed" mean? Political hacks make case law all of the time. And it is usually shit, geared to benefit whichever wealthy patron has bought the judge.

Wrong.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Again, to support and defend the Second Amendment is to support and defend its jurisprudence; the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And most on the right oppose Second Amendment case law, and as a consequence oppose the Second Amendment.

You are a one trick pony, and your pony is falling behind silly boy. The RIGHT to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. That is what the Amendment reads. The fact that activist judges have chosen to misinterpret the RIGHT doesn't make their jurisprudence correct, it just means we have to get OUR activist judges in to revers those bad rulings.

Funny how that works isn't it.


Here is a ruling that will no doubt make you rend your hair...The ruling is based on the fact that they couldn't come up with a MILITARY use for a sawed off shotgun. So, according to MULTIPLE rulings, the only weapons that are protected by the 2nd Amendment are those that HAVE A MILITARY purpose.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it....mr. "jursiprudence"!

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Yup all the blather about banning 'military" style weapons hits the 39 ruling. They are SECIFICALLY protected by the 2nd Amendment by COURT PRECEDENCE, Clayton's loved phrase.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Outlawing large capacity magazines might have cut down on the deaths.

So you agree - no 'common sense' gun control law would have prevented this shooting. Thanks.

That aisde...
Your response is irrational and unsupportable -- the shooter was the only person with a gun in a gun-free zone.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Police have said the suspect was armed with a .45-caliber handgun. Cervera said Saturday that more weapons were found at the scene and at his home, but declined to elaborate.

Craddock, 40, was a professional engineer who had graduated from Denbigh High School in nearby Newport News in 1996 and joined the Army National Guard, according to a newspaper clip from the time. He received basic military training and advanced individual training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. He later graduated from Old Dominion University with a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering. Before going to work in Virginia Beach, he worked for a private engineering firm in Hampton Roads.

Craddock appears to have had no felony record, which would have made him eligible to purchase firearms

Officials ID Virginia Beach gunman as city employee

What "common sense" gun control laws would have prevented this shooting?
How is it possible for this shooting take place in a gun free zone?

Outlawing large capacity magazines might have cut down on the deaths.

He could have killed just as many people with a pump action shotgun....he could have killed way more people if he had used a rental truck, the muslim in France, using a rental truck killed 86 people and wounded 435......

Trucks are deadlier than pistols....

Let's stick to the point, Guy. A pump action shotgun is slower, and the police would have been able to stop him before as many had been killed,.

The police showed up -10 minutes- after he started shooting.
I;d ask you how many times a person can empty and reload a pump-action shotgun in 10 minutes, but you could not give an educated answer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We have all of those things in Europe but we dont have mass shootings. What we dont have is easy access to killing machines.Its not complicated.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Looks like the whites win..
62 out of 110 mass shootings were initiated by White shooters

That's 56.3%
So, per capita, whites are under-represented in mass shootings.
Good to know.

 

[Geaux4it]

I call it acceptable risk to live in America. Think about it, 99.99% of us live and work elsewhere

-Geaux

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually not.
The shooter had a protracted gun battle with several police officers – the notion is naïve nonsense.

You are apparently unaware that the police are under a different RoE than someone trapped in a n office building shooting in self-defense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong.
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Yeah?
So?