Campus shooting at Michigan State University

[Rocket]

It’s so pathetic when RWNJ’s such as yourself blame “slavery and lynching” on Democrats. Last I checked, when the country was founded there were no political parties here. And of course it’s sooooo easy to ignore what has happened when political realignment has occurred from time to time. We know which major party and it’s adherents glorifies the Confederacy today.

Try to blame? It's a fact. The Repub party was formed to end slavery, and they did. Dems are still angry about that.

Realignment is a myth perpetrated by the Dems, so they can blame their opponents for the stuff they themselves did. [which they still do continually]. Just 1 senator and 3 congressmen switched parties. That's just under 1% of Congress.

And yes, the same party that enslaved blacks back then is doing whatever it takes to keep them poor now. True evil.

Many want Confederate statues to stand to serve as a reminder to Dems of their own past. Dems of course are forever white washing their own past, and want to remove them.

[Richard]

Quick question, was this shooting another false flag attack against the republicans? I just want to know how thick the tin foil hat is today before engaging.

Be careful Rocket, Richard thinks that diminishing ones opinion because it is different than yours spawns evil. This post might qualify as pretty evil.

Lol it does not matter what anybody thinks while you keep making it personal,your gripe is with the constitution,I did not write it.

Its amazing how many have zero issues with using these school shootings as a platform for gun control,just like using a challenge teenager as a prop for climate change.

Nobody gave a crap about those children when 15 per day were dying from cell phone distracted driving.

Those children were an acceptable loss so everybody else could retain the right to use there cell phone while driving.

Nobody advocated for cell phone blocking devices to be installed to save children’s lives.

Nobody demanded to not let felons have cell phones in case they may use them while committing a crime in the future.

It is evil because it is not actually based on saving innocent lives all it is about is useing children as props in order to spread a narratives ,just as evil as the shooters themselves.

So it is okay for innocent people to die,just as long as you get to decide how they will.

It would have been easy to save those lives because cell phones are not protected under the constitution,so when you had the chance to save lives,you said screw em I ain’t giving up my cell phone.

[Henry Whalley]

The world looks at us like we are insane?

tldr

[Rocket]

Apparently the shooter left some kind of note, stating that he felt mistreated by people and businesses?

And so he goes into a school and shoots people there, like 1/2 of which were Chinese foreign students?

Does he think he'll have it better in Hell?

[Henry Whalley]

This is unbelievable A lone gunman walked into MSU's Berkey Hall and MSU Union Hall and open fire on anyone. Three people are dead 5 are injured.

It's OK. Just ask Rocket and Richard. It's all perfectly Constitutional. It's all been approved by the party of Lincoln. Not to worry...

[southen]

There has been a distracted driving law regarding cell phones in Michigan since 2010 you dolt. You’ll talk endlessly about anything but actual gun violence.

[Richard]

There has been a distracted driving law regarding cell phones in Michigan since 2010 you dolt. You’ll talk endlessly about anything but actual gun violence.

And that’s why you can copy and paste every single one of these threads,because the little teenagers cannot have an adult discussion.

Like I said,I did not write the constitution,as much as you little commies want to rip it up so you can control everybody,as long as you live in this country it governs you,so bend the knee to it little one because in case if you are a little slow,you ain’t changing it.

The sooner you realize that and start approaching things in a civilized manner instead of repeating your comrads talking points ad nausea,everything stays the same,as you grow up into adulthood and outgrow your internet balls you will learn.

Go into the hoods and collect the guns,but you are scared to do that,just as you would be scared to call anybody in real life that you meet on the street a dolt,that’s why things will stay the same all the tough little internet warriors could not figure their way out of a wet paper bag let alone address things like causes of violence.

You issues are not with me,take it up with the constitution,but then that would require actually doing something besides talking game in the internet.

You guys have been trying to destroy this country sense day one,pesky little bugger that constitution is it not? That’s some really slow learners 200 years later and still pissing into the wind.

You do not want to talk about gun violence,you want to dictate to others on how that conversation goes,I guess you cannot help it because you have a lifetime of brainwashing and people telling you that you are special when you are not,but maybe when you grow up a little bit,you will start to understand these things,hell you may even discover, by mistake most likely,that you can even think for yourself.

There are over 450 million guns in this country that they know about,you do not even have the slightest clue about gun violence let alone be in a position to be discussing it.

To bad you missed the 60s where there was actual out of control violence,inner city schools were operating under the constant strain of violence that makes today’s events look petty in comparison,it’s just the colors that have changed,nobody cared before.

Now you have discovered there is violence in the world,shocking I tell ya ?

We used to go to school with guns in our cars and trucks,,nobody shot schools up,but it is the guns. Because that is what they tell you,and being weak forces you to just follow what they say.

Maybe if you little wannabe commies were not using violence so much while you push your narratives,there would not be so much violence.

Some of the most brilliant minds in the world cannot figure it out,but here is lil ol you with all of the answers dictating to others the solution and if they do not lockstep into place,you call them a dolt.

ya,sure we will get right on that.

HUD really screwed it up for you guys,kinda tough without the projects to keep people trapped and surrounded by the daily violence where many innocent women and children were dying on a daily basis,not that anybody cared,but now the new cause is the bad scary guns even to the point where people are running around calling them things that they are not,just to enhance the scary factor,interesting enough they were not scary until they found their way out of the projects and into the burbs.

Black Panthers used to patrol the neighborhoods with long guns in full display,those days they did not need a reason to beat up a black man,but yet they allowed them to openly carry long guns in the streets because they had that constitutional right to do so.

They had a tough time with every other right that they were guaranteed as an American citizen under the constitution,so you can see how protected that right has been,that should be your first clue.

And now they are wiser and getting the hell out of the blue dodge and all of the oppression that brings so they can enjoy the rest of those rights that they have had or were supposed to have all along.

Not following the constitution as written has kept generations oppressed and now you want to change it and go back to picking and choosing who and what it applies to ?

There is no discussion about guns,the discussion is about the right to bear arms,the guns just happens to be the choice of arms and technology has advanced them from muskets to what they are today,but the right to bear them in any form has not changed.

Thats why it is easy to stand up on a soap box and yell guns guns guns,because you know going into it if is a lost cause and you are not going to change anything or risk being called a failure.

Its just pretending to do something without actually having the ability to do anything,so you do not have to address the real issues.

[ABetterDetroit]

Like I said,I did not write the constitution,as much as you little commies want to rip it up so you can control everybody,as long as you live in this country it governs you,so bend the knee to it little one because in case if you are a little slow,you ain’t changing it.

.

Oh it will change. ‘What arms you have the right to bear’ has President that has been changed before more than once, and will change again. Just a matter of when a really massive lose of life event and it will change again. Just a matter of time the way things are headed.

Your big problem is these are the kinds of weapons the founding fathers were thinking. Not AR15s or Glocks. You couldn’t be more wrong as usual on the change part Dick. It will come.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8DP3ssCfLY

Quite a bit less deadly to elementary students in a classroom.

[Richard]

Today you can buy a slave on the open market in Libya,a real one,slavery has been abolished for over 100 years but it still exists,you can change all you want but you will not change anything.

Genocide is illegal but it is happening everyday.

Now you are getting into intent,the basis of every legal argument when laws are written.

When the founding fathers wrote -The right to bear arms - was the intent to only bear arms of the day or was the intent when using that choice of words was that it did not matter what type of “arms” because the word “arms” covers any weapon.

The founding fathers were well aware of advancements in firearms,they had already seen it,so they did not specify “the right to bear muskets” they used the word “arms “ because what they were writing was going to be carried on for generations to come,advancements in weaponry would follow,so they used the catch all phrase of “arms”

In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Again, the meaning does not exude military weapons.
Since the word “arms” means the same thing today as it did centuries ago it’s only logical the authors of the Second Amendment meant the same thing. And unlike the English Bill of Rights, there are no limitations placed on the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...2nd-amendment/

You wrote “ my big problem is these are the kinds of weapons the founding father were thinking,not AR15 or Glocks “

It does not matter by definition of the word “arms” ,which can actually be traced back before even the founding fathers implemented it.

arm

3 of 5

noun [[2)

often attributive

1

a: a means [[such as a weapon) of offense or defenseespecially : FIREARM



b: a combat branch [[as of an army)


c: an organized branch of national defense [[such as the navy)



If you hear references on the news to "the arms race" or "arms exports," you know the subject is guns, bombs, bullets, and other weapons and ammunition. Any country with an army has some quantity of arms that can be used for self defense or military actions. In 1300, it was armes, "weapons of a warrior," from the Latin arma, "weapons," and also "tools of war."

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/arms

bear arms

• to carry weapons
• to serve in the armed forces
• to have a coat of arms
  
  
• https://www.dictionary.com/browse/arms

Even though you guys call weapons assault rifles which by definition an assault rifle has the ability to go from fully automatic to semiautomatic and nobody has actually used a fully automatic capable assault rifle in any school shooting by definition an actual assault rifle would qualify under the definition of arms as a tool of war all the way back to the 1300s.

Just because something looks like it is a weapon of war,it does not classify it as one.

.45 caliber pistols were used as sidearms in wartime.
Bow and arrow was used in war times
Swords
knifes
spears
moltive cocktail was a weapon of war

In a world that was at war for centuries,anything that can be used to kill or maim was a weapon of war.

Not for nothing but if somebody is that motivated to shoot up a classroom,without a firearm,they can destroy an entire class room and everybody in it by using common household products.

So you fight this battle to remove firearms or restrict their accessibility but that will never remove the intent from a highly motivated individual looking to do harm.

They will find another way and there are a lot more ways where a lot more deaths can occur faster then with a firearm.

When it gets to that point,the system has already failed and the actual firearm is the end result,removing the firearm is not going to change the end result.

It just makes people think they are doing something when they are not.

I do not think anybody can argue that these ones doing the shootings are not screwed up in the head,but that requires dealing with mental health care,that cost money,it does not cost anything to oppose guns.

There has been changed though,nobody has been able to buy a fully automatic weapon sense 1986,those things you guys call weapons of war,they can trade them through private party though.

A fully automatic AR15 shoots 700-900 rounds per minute and it takes 5 seconds to empty a 30 round magazine.

That would be $60 -$90 every 5 seconds, it’s not even practical to use an “assault “ weapon in a school shooting and you would definitely be reading reports of thousands of shell casings found after the shooting.

So can we start by at least being honest in a discussion when it actually comes to choice of weapon?

Do not be fooled by the movies where you see them shooting fully automatic for 10 minutes without reloading,I would be less nervous about being confronted with a fully automatic weapon verses a semi automatic because they cannot control accuracy and they have to stop and reload every five seconds,which gives windows of opportunity.

[Gistok]

Richard try spending some of your Google time NOT trying to re-teach what many of the forumer's learned in grade school, but try becoming more acquainted with logical fallacies, which many forumer's learned at University. It would cut down on your mega-posts, and free up a lot of time for everyone.

And just think of the strain on your heart these tits-for-tats is having.

[Zacha341]

Looks like soft-justice played a part here

Anthony McRae had guns charge, mental health problems...

https://www.bridgemi.com/talent-educ...ealth-problems

From article [bold and red added by me]:

The gunman who killed three students and injured five others at Michigan State University on Monday had a history of mental health challenges, run-ins with police and guns charges, according to court records and family and neighbor accounts.

Police say Anthony Dwayne McRae, 43, of Lansing shot and killed himself as he was confronted by officers early Tuesday, about 5 miles from the campus he terrorized.

His death came more than three years after he was arrested on gun charges that, had they been penalized to the maximum degree, could have prevented him from legally owning guns.

McRae was charged with a felony punishable by up to five years in prison in district court but later pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of misdemeanor punishable by up to two years in circuit court.

McRae previously pleaded guilty to gun-related charge

From freep article [bold and red added by me]:

https://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...e/69902563007/

He was charged with a violation of concealed carry law and possessing a loaded weapon in a vehicle. He pleaded guilty to the weapon-in-a-vehicle charge, while prosecutors dropped the second count, according to court records.

In a statement, Dewane noted he was originally charged with a felony and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.

"Mr. McRae would have been barred from legally purchasing, owning, or possessing a firearm if he would have been convicted of the [concealed weapons] charge," Dewane told the Free Press.

[Zacha341]

Well stated. Further, I love how bureaucrats and authoritarians [we know what's best for you] love to draw-up, and dictate laws upon individuals and communities [for the sake/ safety of the us oppressed groups mind you]. Knowing they will NOT be impacted on ANY level. They will yet for a while longer enjoy their their protection and safety.

The left and the right are both responsible for this. Neither side truly cares about solving violence in schools. Both have had their time in power and both have failed to confront the problem. The right is controlled by gun lobbyists who think gun rights are more important than peoples right to live. The left won't truly get rid of guns because they need an "enemy" to continue their fight for more power.

[Henry Whalley]

...I love how bureaucrats and authoritarians [we know what's best for you] love to draw-up, and dictate laws...

OK, I asked DetroitSoldier and I'm asking you, tell me whom to vote for. Who will address the problem of daily mass murders?

[Henry Whalley]

Looks like soft-justice played a part here

tldr

[Zacha341]

None exists right now in my opinion -- not one not constricted to politics and special interests. Those who are true thinkers are not allowed.

Do you have a suggestion of such a person? Not bound?

It would help if we applied some of the laws we currently have on the books.

OK, I asked DetroitSoldier and I'm asking you, tell me whom to vote for. Who will address the problem of daily mass murders?

[Zacha341]

As was your option. I'm not here often anymore to micro-battle . Nope.

tldr

[Henry Whalley]

[QUOTE=ABetterDetroit;631811You couldn’t be more wrong as usual on the change part Dick. It will come.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, Dick is in the brainwashed cohort that failed our children. The younger generation who suffered most from Dick's failure will bend the arc of history toward sanity.

P.S. Agreed, the Founders' original intent was that people could have muskets, swords, clubs, etc. IIRC under English Common Law knives were prohibited because they could be concealed.

[Henry Whalley]

...try becoming more acquainted with logical fallacies, which many forumer's learned at University...

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

[401don]

Today you can buy a slave on the open market in Libya,a real one,slavery has been abolished for over 100 years but it still exists,you can change all you want but you will not change anything.

Genocide is illegal but it is happening everyday.

Now you are getting into intent,the basis of every legal argument when laws are written.

When the founding fathers wrote -The right to bear arms - was the intent to only bear arms of the day or was the intent when using that choice of words was that it did not matter what type of “arms” because the word “arms” covers any weapon.

The founding fathers were well aware of advancements in firearms,they had already seen it,so they did not specify “the right to bear muskets” they used the word “arms “ because what they were writing was going to be carried on for generations to come,advancements in weaponry would follow,so they used the catch all phrase of “arms”

In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Again, the meaning does not exude military weapons.
Since the word “arms” means the same thing today as it did centuries ago it’s only logical the authors of the Second Amendment meant the same thing. And unlike the English Bill of Rights, there are no limitations placed on the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...2nd-amendment/

You wrote “ my big problem is these are the kinds of weapons the founding father were thinking,not AR15 or Glocks “

It does not matter by definition of the word “arms” ,which can actually be traced back before even the founding fathers implemented it.

arm

3 of 5

noun [[2)

often attributive

1

a: a means [[such as a weapon) of offense or defenseespecially : FIREARM



b: a combat branch [[as of an army)


c: an organized branch of national defense [[such as the navy)



If you hear references on the news to "the arms race" or "arms exports," you know the subject is guns, bombs, bullets, and other weapons and ammunition. Any country with an army has some quantity of arms that can be used for self defense or military actions. In 1300, it was armes, "weapons of a warrior," from the Latin arma, "weapons," and also "tools of war."

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/arms

bear arms

• to carry weapons
• to serve in the armed forces
• to have a coat of arms
  
  
• https://www.dictionary.com/browse/arms

Even though you guys call weapons assault rifles which by definition an assault rifle has the ability to go from fully automatic to semiautomatic and nobody has actually used a fully automatic capable assault rifle in any school shooting by definition an actual assault rifle would qualify under the definition of arms as a tool of war all the way back to the 1300s.

Just because something looks like it is a weapon of war,it does not classify it as one.

.45 caliber pistols were used as sidearms in wartime.
Bow and arrow was used in war times
Swords
knifes
spears
moltive cocktail was a weapon of war

In a world that was at war for centuries,anything that can be used to kill or maim was a weapon of war.

Not for nothing but if somebody is that motivated to shoot up a classroom,without a firearm,they can destroy an entire class room and everybody in it by using common household products.

So you fight this battle to remove firearms or restrict their accessibility but that will never remove the intent from a highly motivated individual looking to do harm.

They will find another way and there are a lot more ways where a lot more deaths can occur faster then with a firearm.

When it gets to that point,the system has already failed and the actual firearm is the end result,removing the firearm is not going to change the end result.

It just makes people think they are doing something when they are not.

I do not think anybody can argue that these ones doing the shootings are not screwed up in the head,but that requires dealing with mental health care,that cost money,it does not cost anything to oppose guns.

There has been changed though,nobody has been able to buy a fully automatic weapon sense 1986,those things you guys call weapons of war,they can trade them through private party though.

A fully automatic AR15 shoots 700-900 rounds per minute and it takes 5 seconds to empty a 30 round magazine.

That would be $60 -$90 every 5 seconds, it’s not even practical to use an “assault “ weapon in a school shooting and you would definitely be reading reports of thousands of shell casings found after the shooting.

So can we start by at least being honest in a discussion when it actually comes to choice of weapon?

Do not be fooled by the movies where you see them shooting fully automatic for 10 minutes without reloading,I would be less nervous about being confronted with a fully automatic weapon verses a semi automatic because they cannot control accuracy and they have to stop and reload every five seconds,which gives windows of opportunity.

Nukes for everyone! The founding fathers said so.

[jcole]

When millions pay with their lives, we shouldn't forget what caused it, and then try to repeat it as soon as possible. That's just plain stupid.

The Socialist left is responsible for most of the suffering and death in history. Slavery? lynchings? Yeah, that's your team, the Democrats.

100 million + deaths under Stalin, Mao, Poi Pot? Yep, the Left again, in the guise of Socialism and Communism.

Hunger, disease, civil unrest, poverty, refugee crisis under Chavez/Maduro in Venezuela? Yep, your team again.

Similar thing in Greece? Again, your team.

Homeless / drug crisis in California? Your team.

Yet you want the rest of us to forget all the lessons learned in blood and let you guys do it again?

Sick.

Only if your idea of history is about 125 yrs old...

[Meddle]

Out of 70 posts, maybe a dozen are on topic.

[oladub]

Its amazing how many have zero issues with using these school shootings as a platform for gun control, just like using a challenge teenager as a prop for climate change.

Nobody gave a crap about those children when 15 per day were dying from cell phone distracted driving.

Those children were an acceptable loss so everybody else could retain the right to use there cell phone while driving.

Nobody advocated for cell phone blocking devices to be installed to save children’s lives.

I don't know if the '15' number is correct but I'd like to add to Richard's point. I once collected the numbers of students and faculty murdered in public and private K-12 schools and found that going back to include include Columbine and Sandy Hook, American students were less likely to be shot inside of their schools than outside.

There is a media fascination with mass shootings although they are a small percentage of total shootings. We can count on Democratic roiling if there is a mass shooting in a mostly white school but they are much quieter about what goes on every weekend in major Democratic run US cities. This Chicago website has tidy and thorough coverage of murders in Chicago which is probably similar to Detroit, Baltimore's etc.. To begin with, most murders are gun related. In the first 6 days of this week, 6 were shot and killed, 27 were wounded and 33 were shot in Chicago. Every one of these 60 murders was gun related. For the year so far, 93% of the murder victims in Chicago have been killed with firearms. As of 2/2, 36 were black, 18 were Hispanic and 1 was white.

To address the murder rate, we have to first understand the numbers. Who is shooting who, where, and why? There is the temptation to ascribe high murder rates to black Americans but I notice that MA,its largest city being Boston, have black populations of 9.3% and 24% respectably yet MA has the fifth lowest murder statistics of the fifty states; almost as low as Canada's. Boston and MA are notoriously Democratic. Therin lies some hope. If other major cities and perhaps states could model MA, perhaps some of these gun numbers would go down.

[Zacha341]

Indeed. Millions of deaths at the behest of forced authoritarian systems compressed into THAT short span of time. Not thousands of years ago.

That factor alone is disturbing.

With little excuse of being forgotten.

Only if your idea of history is about 125 yrs old...

[Richard]

Richard try spending some of your Google time NOT trying to re-teach what many of the forumer's learned in grade school, but try becoming more acquainted with logical fallacies, which many forumer's learned at University. It would cut down on your mega-posts, and free up a lot of time for everyone.

And just think of the strain on your heart these tits-for-tats is having.

Apparently not when they are constantly repeating the narrative every rifle is an assault weapon.

Now you believe everything taught in The education system is fact ?

Lots of highly educated people do not know much of anything outside of their field of study,if somebody has a liberal arts degree they are also taught about weapons and civics ?

The same educated ones that votes in presidential elections that did not have a clue on how presidents are elected,and now you think they can navigate the complexities of overruling the constitution?

What I post is like anything else you can choose to take it how you like,or not,it’s a free country for most of us not looking to dictate how others may think or speak.

So quit yer whining,if you are looking to be coddled,that’s not me.

[Zacha341]

Detroit scholarship provider shifts efforts to comforting students after MSU shooting

https://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...y/69912611007/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/care...ng/ar-AA17BIMP