468
Comments (55)
sorted by:
15
Ex-libtard 15 points ago +15 / -0

I don't support red flag laws.

8
scyenceFiction 8 points ago +8 / -0

Most don't. But...

NY is a "red flag" state, with one of the most overreaching set of conditions. Under NY law, his previous mental health evaluation should have been disqualifying. On top of that, the rifle he used was also illegal under the SAFE Act.

There is a point to be made here. Gun control laws don't work. Get rid of them.

6
Donttreadonme16 6 points ago +6 / -0

The point they will make is “the laws we have aren’t enough! We need more!”

Stop playing along with their logic. This guy was clearly “known to authorities” on purpose just to push red flag laws.

5
scyenceFiction 5 points ago +5 / -0

Thank you for proving a point. Next challenge to NY's unconstitutional gun laws is that they're "capricious and arbitrary" and must be entirely struck. The purpose stated in each is to reduce violent crime- which would force the state to prove that they do, in defense.

They don't, and official FBI and NYSP statistics show that violent crime, including where a gun was used, increased in every year except 2014 after SAFE was passed. That's how you beat libtard "logic".

4
Saxmaster 4 points ago +4 / -0

The point of the laws isn't to produce a better outcome, it's to give the government more laws to selectively enforce.

8
acasper 8 points ago +8 / -0

Also prescribed SSRIs and groomed in Discord.

4
MikeObamasVeineyCock 4 points ago +4 / -0

Most mass shooters take SSRIs.

3
impera 3 points ago +3 / -0

'allowed to buy gun despite that'

I'd bet money that there are groups of government employees who look for those with mental health red flags.. and who intervene explicitly to make sure they get access to firearms. Who better to keep as an exploitable expendable idiot that you can burn once to make a big ruckus in coordination with coincidentally-preprepared gun control bills.

2
ThisIsHowItStarts 2 points ago +2 / -0

But then they wouldn’t fit the narrative, when they needed to make the phone call, and put that funny noise in his ear to make him go do what he did. It’s all psyop

2
Ampman69 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fbi put him on the payroll and handed him the guns.

2
HungrySanta 2 points ago +2 / -0

"Shall not be infringed", as with every freedom, comes with a cost.

This guy most likely wouldn't have done it if he hadn't been encouraged to do it by some shadowy political forces, pretty much guaranteed.

Our country is under attack. Until we accept it and act like it, nothing we do will improve these problems because they aren't organic.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
3
Kael 3 points ago +3 / -0

Making a law to ensure people don’t get guns is why this happened. You’re falling for the trap. It’s not an organic action. It’s entire point of existing is to make you feel the way you are feeling, and give up your rights.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
2
Kael 2 points ago +2 / -0

Experts agree, posting on patriots.win is an overt sign of mental health issues. You have mental health issues. You posted on Patriots.win. You will no longer be able to purchase guns.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
1
Kael 1 point ago +1 / -0

Look at COViD. Think doctors won’t be partisan and make shit up? Masks? Lol. You must be new.

1
Kael 1 point ago +1 / -0

People who want to commit murder don’t care about laws. Obviously. This should be pretty straightforward.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
TheMadManDidItAgain 1 point ago +1 / -0

Strawman.

The topic is guns... not drugs. Can't you stay on topic?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Fundles 1 point ago +1 / -0

If others were armed he wouldnt have even tried.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Fundles 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well this one surrendered and is still alive. Either way the threat can be neutralized if the population has the ability to defend themselves.

1
TheMadManDidItAgain 1 point ago +1 / -0

This could have been prevented.

Nah. It's possible that maybe that individual sale of that individual firearm on that individual day at that individual location to that individual person could have been prevented... regardless, the dude was going to get a firearm, regardless of what laws are in the books. Do you honestly think the kid would be like "welp, looks like I can't purchase a gun to carry this out... it was a nice try."

To think this could have been prevented shows how well propaganda works.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
TheMadManDidItAgain 1 point ago +1 / -0

Drugs is a different topic, it has it's own issues and situations. For example, there's nothing in the Constitution about drugs, but there is something in the Constitution about firearms.

Why try to discuss drugs when the issue you bring up is guns?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
TheMadManDidItAgain 2 points ago +2 / -0

would reduce the probability that they commit mass shootings

It would reduce it 0.0%. It might even increase it. I have no proof of that, just a thought. Think about it... suppose somebody is considered 'paranoid' and wants to purchase a gun to help protect them and their family. If they were denied purchase of a gun, don't you think that would exacerbate their situation and make them feel more justified for shooting people up, specifically those who are trying to prevent them from purchasing a firearm? In other words, it will make a 'high risk individual' feel more justified to commit this crime.

Or the person who has full intentions on doing the crime... it won't stop them at all, they'll just get a weapon through other means... friend, family, theft, on the street... it's not like it's hard to do. It may even give them more time to plot... give them more time for their crazy to come out and figure out how to take out even more people.

Owning a firearm is a natural Right, meaning we are born with it. It's not contingent on anything else. The only exception is if you have violated somebody else's natural Rights, then you lose this as a natural Right.

You are also trying to conflate issues, and ignore valid reasons. You are trying to say "prevent a high risk individual from buying a gun legally" while also indicating that you cannot use the Constitution as a reason against this. I mean... that IS the reason against what you are saying.

I'll play your game of analogy... it's like saying "Give me one reason why it's bad to eat McDonalds everyday... oh, and you can't use health as a reason."

Either you believe in natural Rights, or you don't. The Constitution does not grant us Rights, and it seems like you are coming from it at that angle. The Constitution actually LIMITS the government on what it can do. The Constitution doesn't give us our Rights (we are created with them)... but it prevents the government from abusing humanity. Yet, you're advocating for that.

I hope you have an awakening on how evil what your are suggesting actually is.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
TheMadManDidItAgain 1 point ago +1 / -0

Mass shootings are extremely rare here as well. We also have about 6x the population here.

I would say that putting more restrictions on guns definitely makes it harder for somebody to get a gun... whether they have mental issues or not. It makes it harder for everybody.

Do you think there needs to be a mental evaluation to determine if the person is safe to own a gun? Who carries out that mental evaluation? What conditions are needed to determine if somebody cannot own a firearm? What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
fazaman 1 point ago +1 / -0

So, all the left needs to do to strip someone of their gun rights is to come up with some excuse to order mental health evaluations?

They'll just declare that conservatism is a mental disorder. Never underestimate a leftists ability to 'interpret' a law.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
TheMadManDidItAgain 1 point ago +1 / -0

Do you honestly think that if this kid was denied a gun purchase, that would have prevented this? Do you think he would be like "Looks like I gave it the ol' college try!" and just give up?

Please don't tell me you're this naïve. The kid would have gotten a gun, regardless of what laws were in place. CLEARLY he showed he had no respect for the law by killing several people...

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
TheMadManDidItAgain 1 point ago +1 / -0

If, if, if, if, if.... lots of "ifs" there. And, again, going to the drug argument, but this time, you are switching to drug traffickers instead of people using drugs.

Let me explain a difference between drugs and guns which I hope you understand makes these two issues incompatible. What is the purpose of illicit drugs? The purpose is to get high, or to sell to make money to other people who will either sell them or use them to get high. Then end goal of a drug is to be consumed to get somebody high. The entire purpose of drugs is a degenerative behavior and provides no benefit to the user of the drug other than getting high. Using drugs does not help maintain a civil society... on the contrary, it contributes to the breakdown of the civil society.

Guns, on the other hand, have several uses such as hunting, or for protection. The food is used to feed your family, or for feeding the neighbors and/or community. The gun can be used to protect you from harmful animals, or from harmful people. And with a populous as armed as we are, protects us from a tyrannical government from suspending Rights enshrined in the Constitution. And when a government fails to protect us and if we ever get invaded, then there is no Country that will be able to send troops in to take over because we are so armed, we'd be able to take out these invaders (much better than most people think).

Fundamentally having access to drugs provides no benefit to a society. Having access to guns helps maintain a civil society, among other obvious benefits.

This is why the Constitution has the 2nd amendment. It's not just so people can hunt and have target practice...

You are not thinking clearly on this... you're letting the MSM and public propaganda help shape your thoughts. Take a step back. Analyze what you're saying. You have to go beyond the surface level here. Your thinking of "if it was harder for that high risk person to not get a gun, then this would have been avoided" is elementary. The feds already knew about him and didn't stop him. Perhaps if people weren't so concerned with trying to justify Communism, then his radicalization would have been recognized earlier... but with how much the left, teachers, MSM, democrats sympathize and push communism (or socialist) ideas, the more they think it's normal.

It's not normal.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
TheMadManDidItAgain 1 point ago +1 / -0

When you talk about "some drugs have beneficial uses," that is taking the very rare case... it's an outlier. You know damn well the discussion is about illicit drugs such as heroin, crack, etc... Also, the drugs you speak of are legal to use with a prescription. Your example here is like taking the Westboro Baptist Church and trying to use that as proof that all Christians hate gay people. It's an outlier. Or its like when people have to qualify something like "Men are stronger than women... well, I'm not talking about ALL men are stronger than ALL women, there are some women stronger than men, but in general..." It's pointless. You are grasping for straws because your arguments are just making no logical sense... You're all over the place.

Interestingly, however, mass shootings are very rare, but they are publicized to seem that they happen often.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Semmelweis 1 point ago +1 / -0

In for a penny, in for a pound, shall not be infringed.

We bring up Waukesha in response to this as in lack of coverage in comparison, but also don't need a gun to rack up a body count. If anything, I want to be given the option to at least attempt to shoot back in either scenario, which a security officer did but didn't penetrate the body armor on the Buffalo shooting.

I do think there's lots of room for improvement on how our country deals with mental health issues though.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
OGPatriotKing 1 point ago +3 / -2

The people on this forum don't want any sort of background check for owning a weapon .

The people on this forum have become as hardline as the left they claim to hate.

1
Fundles 1 point ago +1 / -0

Shall not be infringed. He hit a soft target. Wouldnt have happened if there were armed civilians shopping.