Multiple Fatalities in El Paso, Texas Mall Shooting

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Probably the whole area was a posted "NO GUN ZONE", which most law abiding citizens will honor, but criminals will not.

That makes that entire area a TARGET RANGE for evil people to make into a slaughter house.

...with little or no fear of being shot in the back by a righteous man with a gun.

He has been disarmed, by the Snowflakes.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

1 hour ago, admin said:

Everyone in America, myself included, is devastated by the news of this latest attack in El Paso. Sadly, after each of these tragedies the Senate does nothing. That has got to change.

Congress needs to pass laws clarifying "constitutional carry", the right of ever citizen to be armed at all times, everywhere ... which is a NATURAL right, and a constitutionally protected right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, and perverted everywhere since the American Civil War.

There are many more righteous men than evil men.

Unfortunately .... they are effectively disarmed, and in fighting for righteousness, have been emasculated.

[JW Insider]

The Second Amendment states:

"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."

The first thing we can do is reword the phrase based on its meaning within the constitution.

"[Because] a well regulated Militia is necessary for the security [protection] of a free State [Nation?], no laws will be made that would infringe the right of the people to own and carry guns [and other such weapons if appropriate to a well-regulated militia to protect a free State]."

In that original context it appears to mean (at a minimum) that a nation needs an army of people who know how to use firearms in order to protect from potential invasion by outside enemies (or even internal tyranny). Rather than just conscripting a bunch of people at the last minute to then train them how to use weapons, wouldn't it be better to never constrict the use of firearms and allow their free ownership and use by people who will train themselves through hunting and/or target practice? That seems to be the general idea.

This, of course, then turns to a discussion of the purpose and scope of such a militia. Is it a particular state's militia, or does the term "State" refer to a National militia? (as the word in used in the phrase "separation of Church and State")

Then, of course, it will be necessary to determine whether the scope of such weapons ownership should also include anyone and everyone among "the people," whether or not they are willing and capable of supporting a State [National?] militia.

Based on when the amendment was added, we are aware of the types of weapons that were considered appropriate at that time for supporting a militia. Whether or not additional types of weapons should be included is another matter for discussion. Tanks, cannons, machine guns, nerve gas, agent orange, grenades, rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles, smallpox-infected blankets, and nuclear warheads are all weapons that have become deemed appropriate for the security of the State, at one time or another. 

We can tell from the wording, that one of the basic meanings was probably that the United States would need an army that might need to be called in a hurry and made up, therefore, from the militias of various communities. Because of this need to keep an prepared national army, there would not be laws that restricted the ownership of weapons -- at least weapons like muskets, pistols, rifles, and cannons. One could easily extrapolate the idea from this that just because people sometimes purposely kill each other with such military weapons, and just because men, women and children are sometimes killed accidentally during the act of cleaning guns, hunting, target practice, etc., -- that these should not become reasons to change the current laws that allowed "the people" in general from owning and using such weapons.

Technically, a lawyer even back when the 2nd Amendment was added, could make a case that "the people" were still being given the right to bear arms, even if the types of those arms were limited. A lawyer could also make the case that specific persons could be limited from bearing arms, as long as the people in general were not infringed. A lawyer could even make a case that it only referred to "the people" who were ready, capable and willing to join a standing militia, whenever called.

But it doesn't matter what the original U.S. constitutional amendment meant. The constitution is not the Bible. It can be amended over and over again. Amendments can be clarified, expanded, constricted, or removed altogether.

[Guest Indiana]

Suspected shooter attended Collin College

Suspected shooter Patrick Crusius attended Collin College in McKinney, Texas, from 2017-2019, according to a statement from District President Dr. Neil Matkin.

"We are saddened and horrified by the news of the shooting today in El Paso, Texas. A student by the name of Patrick Crusius attended Collin College from fall 2017 through spring 2019," Matkin said in the statement.

"Collin College is prepared to cooperate fully with state and federal authorities in their investigation of this senseless tragedy. We join the governor and all Texans in expressing our heartfelt concern for the victims of the shooting and their loved ones."

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/el-paso-tx-shooting-live-updates/index.html

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

On 8/3/2019 at 8:14 PM, JW Insider said:

But it doesn't matter what the original U.S. constitutional amendment meant.

I disagree with that ... it is incredibly important!

So incredibly important!

The fact that it has been perverted by political correctness is why the bad guys roam at will.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

On 8/3/2019 at 8:14 PM, JW Insider said:

A lawyer could even make a case that it only referred to "the people" who were ready, capable and willing to join a standing militia, whenever called.

Lawyers can make cases when there is NOTHING based on reality.  Occasionally they win when the judge or jury are terminally ignorant, or are predisposed to judge in their favor, irregardless of the facts.

That's why Lawyers do "Judge Shopping", and with Juries, reject potential jurors that have any vestige of common sense.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The fact that it has been perverted by political correctness is why the bad guys roam at will.

First of all, understand that I have nothing against gun ownership. I have nothing against hunting, animal control, target practice, or even self-defense with whatever weapon is appropriate to the defense of my family. I don't own a gun, and probably never will, because I think the likelihood of needing one in this particular time period in the United States is very low. Also, I am not trained in their use, and could just as easily produce a tragedy under the same stressful circumstances that might require one. Trained police often kill innocents. Part of this is the fact that a person who has a gun tends to think he needs it more often than people who don't have guns. 

That said, I have a constitutionally supported reason when I say it doesn't matter what the constitution says or even exactly what it meant when it was written. That's because even if we understand it perfectly, a nation is free to change it. This is what amendments are in the first place. Some nations have done well to completely change their constitution. Rip up the old one and start over. You already understand well that our constitution was written by and for landowners. Many parts of it were also written specifically to permanently remove and reduce the perceived political power of poor whites, poor blacks, poor native Americans, etc.

So when I say it doesn't matter, I mean that it can lawfully be updated according to its own constitutionally provided processes. This is good when parts of it appear obsolete or unjust. It's not likley that ALL of it will ever be seen that way, but the State has such power, if done in a careful way acceptable to "the people." (And "the people" include many more voices than were intended in the first ratification of amendments using the term.)

We can know the mind of some of the framers by reading the Federalist Papers, and reading the comments and explanations of their actions when serving in office. The strength of the Federal government in the US itself is quite different now than what was originally intended.

One might be afraid of what stupid people will do when they realize they have the power to change the constitution, but it's not written in stone. Checks and balances were added to keep a government as conservative and stable as possible, avoiding wholesale disruption, but it's as fluid as "the people" will allow under those constraints.

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

WE have the exact same understanding on that issue.

... and except to learn how to diagram sentences, which has served me well my whole life,  I did not even pay attention in English Classes.

[Space Merchant]

@James Thomas Rook Jr. And yet you have the government, the powers that be who seek to make things even worse, the real masterminds behind various things of their own design. I myself isn't someone for guns despite holding one once that was unloaded a very long time ago, but I have met people who had used and trained with them, especially, for instance, Steven Gern, he is a former US marine.

That being said, the focus is in question if For Government Control and Not For Government Control concerning guns, and due to the march for our lives event when such questions are addressed concerning such, it exposes the fact that even the people do not know what they are fighting for and or are deeply confused, for example, the ban of bump stocks has not changed the situation of gun control and gun violence throughout the US, as is with the confusion of those, at said event who are in favor of banning assault rifles, but are somehow okay with handguns, for it is said over 80% of mass shootings are carried out by someone with handguns vs. that of assault rifles, regardless it comes down to not the weapon, but the person who is holding that weapon who commits to cause harm.

I also remember someone pointed out that the US should do what the Chinese are doing concerning guns, making it as difficult as possible to get a license to carry, but since the US is in the state that it is, with guns all over the place, it comes down to people wanting to stand their ground and defend, but there are those who commit to hate and chaos that makes it harder for the good guy with the gun to actually take action.

I get a lot of heat for speaking against lies against the police, for I am even called a police sympathizer, but the truth is the truth, not all policemen are evil, but today's world say otherwise. The head of police does can only counsel the people within the force, actions done by members of the force can either be good willed or ill willed, but it does not define all of them.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

The right to bear arms, as is necessary, for personal and family and associates self defense is as basic and natural as the right to eat food, and drink water, and breath air. It is a NATURAL right, like the right of an unborn baby to live, or a person to speak freely, or associate with whomsoever he or she wishes.

Whether the governments of Earth protect these rights, ignore these rights or restrict or eliminate the exercise of any of these rights is a whole other subject.

We HAVE these NATURAL rights .... if we can manage them, and sometimes, if necessary fight for them, and win ... we can then exercise these rights.

The RIGHT to bear arms existed BEFORE the United States Constitution sought to protect what already existed, by saying that those rights shall NOT be infringed.

EVERY LIVING THING ON THIS EARTH HAS, AND ALWAYS HAS HAD, THE NATURAL RIGHT TO TRY AND PROTECT IT'S OWN LIFE, BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE .... If they can manage to do do so.

 

[Space Merchant]

4 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The right to bear arms, as is necessary, for personal and family and associates self defense is as basic and natural as the right to eat food, and drink water, and breath air. It is a NATURAL right, like the right of an unborn baby to live, or a person to speak freely, or associate with whomsoever he or she wishes.

But you have the powers that be who say otherwise and push a narrative to draw forth fear, which can and has been disarming, even harming those who seek to protect themselves, and their families, even if you do everything by the book. Then you have those who take up influence to cause harm to those who are deemed enemies, i.e. the Patriots to Antifa, Antifa to the Patriots.

Although a right, at the end of the day, you have no power to defend, but rather, what the Government and those in said power who says what you can truly defend and whom to trust [them] with your firearms.

6 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Whether the governments of Earth protect these rights, ignore these rights or restrict or eliminate the exercise of any of these rights is a whole other subject.

It isn't about ignoring, it is more about control. Government has their hands everywhere, in the schools, the banks, the churches, the stores and shops, etc. They do the same with whatever it is you use to defend yourself.

7 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The RIGHT to bear arms existed BEFORE the United States Constitution sought to protect what already existed, by saying that those rights shall NOT be infringed.

But it seems the game that is on the table has changed, especially with the situation the United States is in now.

8 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

EVERY LIVING THING ON THIS EARTH HAS, AND ALWAYS HAS HAD, THE NATURAL RIGHT TO TRY AND PROTECT IT'S OWN LIFE, BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE .... If they can manage to do do so.

But above all else in the world run by so called kingdoms and empires, the government has their hands everywhere. You are lucky enough to escape the grasp for a moment, only to be reeled back in for another big wave.

What people fail to realize is the power they have on everything that stands tall, and everyone who roams cities and towns. We already have radiation forced upon us untested, causing people to speak up, likewise, the situation is similar with guns.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I was expecting an answer like " Yeah, how about that?"