Parents of Michigan high school shooter Ethan Crumbley will go to trial, judges rule

Nice talking points....guns in that era were notoriously bad and ammo was hard to get. Jefferson had a semi auto weapon, you funny guy.

 

Sure he would. He would have loved to see black people running around with AK47s, the guy was about to buy all his slaves guns when he decided to buy a ton of books instead.

 

You're conflicting 18th Century prejudice, with fear of tyranny.

 

not a real semi auto which is why i put it in quotes, a semi auto uses the recoil to load another round into the chamber and then it takes another pull of the trigger to fire it. This was a repeating weapon where you push the side of the magazine tube to load the next ball into the chamber and pull the trigger again. The point is that this weapons rate of fire is about 20 times faster then a musket vs the rate of fire of a semi auto hand gun and a semi auto AR-15 is identical. Again your line of thinking has been debunked 100s of times

https://www.nramuseum.org/guns/the-...oni-air-rifle-as-used-by-lewis-and-clark.aspx

 

You are conflicting history with your opinions.

 

So what? As I said, guns of that time were notoriously unreliable, hard to shoot, costly and hardly a product Paul Pilgrim bought at the local Walmart.

 

No, my opinion has nothing to do with it. Whatever Madison's feelings about his slaves may have been, it's clear the founders GREATEST fear was that this new nation they had fought for would be taken over by a tyrant. They would have fully supported the opinion's of the Supreme Court in their "Heller" and "Bruen" decisions.

 

Dude, the 2nd was about militias not some tyrant. They had to keep the slave states militias intact or they would not have ratified. Guns were not about the King or some tyrant, they were about keeping the slaves from killing their masters aka Haiti.

 

Nope, Heller an Bruen make it clear that the founders believed a well armed citizenry was the key to manning a militia necessary to putting down an attempted tyrannical take over.

 

What about the school being derelict in protecting the kids. I think some administrators should be held criminally liable. And politicians who refuse to protect the schools should have mobs with pitchforks and torches at their door.

What kind of piece of **** school just lets someone come in and murder kids. We're supposed to trust these buffones with our safety? Every single time a school shooting happens they fail but we're supposed to give up our guns because these idiots fail over and over and over and over again?

Why does the school get off the hook it's a government agency. And they just let someone waltz in there and murder people.

I bet you pennies to dollars that they shoot the crap out of someone trying to steal gold out of fort Knox.

But I think the school's letting this happen is all a scam to try and force people to accept gun control.

 

Actually reliability was not an issue, they where very simplistic weapons. But the lethality of the weapons back then vs now is not even close. Weapons where MUCH more deadly back then. Getting shot anywhere with a musket ball is almost guaranteed death, unless they could amputate and cauterize the limb.. the chance of survival by any shot usually ended in death regardless if you got hit in the vital organs or just shot in the shoulder. Anti biotics where not invented until 1928.. so even with the advancements in weapons.. the advancements in our medical field makes the guns back then much more deadly..

Not a history buff I take it? Its not your fault, the public schools are run by a bunch of liberals..

Here is some quotes from the founding fathers about guns..

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

 

Not this bs again. the discredited carl bogus and Thom Hartmann mendacity that the purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the federal government (which in the time the second was enacted had no desire to do this) was to allow southern states to arm slave patrols. Yet, as well known liberal legal scholar Akhil Amar noted, some of the most anti slave states had similar second amendment provisions in their constitutions and pushed for the bill of rights. Gun banners try to discredit the individual right guaranteed by the second by this bullshit about slave militias just as the radical left tries to pretend the constitution has no validity because some of the founders owned slaves

 

Look up the morons who floated this "slave patrol" bullshit. a third rate law professor named BOGUS at a fourth rate law school and a second string talk show host who wished he had the balls and popularity of Rachel Maddow

 

I don't know your kids, so I have no idea. These parents knew THEIRS. Everything they did (or failed to do) is in the link. The quoted part is just one example. Forum rules don't allow me to quote the entire article... or even a large part of it. In your case, I am concerned only about the fact that you weren't interested enough to read the entire article.

 

Yes. The Supreme Court LEGISLATED by making up nonsensical historical and linguistic arguments that they justified as referring to the 2nd A, but do not. I sent the link because it's not the topic of this thread. Up to you if you want to make informed opinions or not.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/

That's one of the threads.

Or you can just save some time by arguing what EVERY gun advocate ended up arguing in those threads. Which basically boils down to "the Supreme Court is always right." Attempting to argue against REAL historical and linguistic facts will not get you very far anyway, as they have all learned.

 

I read the entire article. None of it stood out as I’m going to go murder my class mates. Maybe the drawing but I bet many kids draw like that and never do what this kid did, but that drawing would have disturbed me. The ammo research would never have bugged me because like I say, he can’t even buy it. It’s like a kid that looks at guns on line. He can’t buy them so who cares?

 

If school authorities were derelict, they will also face charges. And, if they do, any school authorities in this forum should pay attention. This thread is about the irresponsible parents.

Feel free to open a thread about school authorities, if you think you have a case to make.

 

Exactly!!! Which brings us to the MAIN point I was trying to make. All the arguments about handling shootings by addressing "mental issues", in the real world, couldn't be more blatantly weak. In reality, a student researching ammo, or drawing a semi-automatic gun and writing things like "Blood Everywhere" or "The thoughts won't stop, help me." would not stand out to people like you or raise any flags. Which gives credence to the position that the only thing that would REALLY work is proper gun control legislation.

 

What is “proper gun control legislation”?

 

What gun control would have prevented this?

 

Not sure what you are trying to say here. The rate of fire of a semi auto hand gun and a semi auto AR-15 is identical because they are both semi-automatic guns but it looks like you might be trying to compare a semi-auto to full auto ratio to the 20X faster ratio.

 

Gun control is not about preventing this or any other shooting that has already happened. It's about preventing as many instances of gun violence to happen in the future as it is possible to prevent. Clearly a "mental issues" approach would not prevent many, given that people like you wouldn't see any red flags.

 

That’s not a valid response.

 

Which is a red herring, because “people like” aren’t the trained professionals that need to be implemented into a system whose job it would be to monitor such things.

 

You keep posting this not matter how many times we've shown you that it's crap