210 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
"Well the FBI acting on

"Well the FBI acting on helpful tips from the public were able to stop such things from happening before."

Ask yourself if this makes them an infallible force for predicting the future, and you might see why your statement is moronically stupid, and utterly irrelevant. Hard to shoot people when you don't have guns Billy.

"I could site the cases here in the USA alone that were foiled because the FBI were investigating. "

You're going to place the cases on a marked area of ground?

"All of them in the Florida office should be fired!"

For not violating his 2nd amendment rights when he'd committed no crimes? You lefty liberal you....

" It was not like the warning signs weren`t there the cops went to his house 39 times the neighbors called the cops he was thrown out of at least 3 schools."

His guns were legal under the law, he'd broken no law, are you really this ingorant?

"Do I have to list more warnings signs to you."

You can't arrest people based on "warning signs" you cretin. Or the FBI would be on their way to your trailer right now.

"Social media postings detail his dislikes, "

Is it against the law to dislike things now?

"So misunderstanding me as usual here I`m not saying that the authorities should have violated his rights but they should have put a tail on him just like they do and did to other criminals. "

No one is misunderstanding you Billy, you just haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about. He wasn't a criminal, he'd broken no law, his guns were legal, being expelled from school is not a crime Billy.

"They should have been watching him. they completely failed an look what took place here."

So you want the FBI to tail every antisocial nutjob with guns? I hope you won't be complaining when they start tailing you.You really must be on a windup. No one can be this ill-informed of the laws of his own country surely.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Sheldon - You can't arrest

Sheldon - You can't arrest people based on "warning signs" you cretin. Or the FBI would be on their way to your trailer right now.

Sprayed coffee out of my mouth when I read that. Too funny!

Sky Pilot's picture
faith in God fo...,

faith in God fo...,

Here's a link to the Florida State Constitution's Bill of Rights. Did any of the potential killer's behaviors warrant a federal investigation?

mickron88's picture
congrats won the

congrats won the most disagree person here in AR..

so....kneel down and pray that we will believe on all of your post, prayer works right?maybe we'll be all convince,you'll never know until you try it..come on..

Daniel Wilson's picture
This is exactly what I'm

This is exactly what I'm saying,. READ THE FRIGGING CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!! you know like the words and what they mean kind of reading,. Yeah grown up big boy reading.....and maybe FIG you will get it. It's not hard and don't be ashamed to read it 2 or three times. At least it will be more than the asshole we have for a president has read it....

bigbill's picture
If gun owners in this great

If gun owners in this great land were in violation of the constitution and then the second amendment the supreme court long ago would have taken away the right to own arms. Since the supreme court allows it i won`t and don`t find any fault in gun ownership .And i`m from new York. Which is a liberal swamp itself. a cesspool of Progressive liberalism.

mykcob4's picture

1) There is no such thing as a Liberal Progressive cesspool.
2) Over the years Supreme Court Justices have been and are political and don't necessarily conform to the law. Examples: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch, Rehnquist.
3) There is NOTHING in the Constitution that guarantees firearm ownership. Certainly nothing that prevents gun control and legislation!

bigbill's picture
how about judges that are

how about judges that are liberal like Kagin Sotomaier Kennedy Gingsburg and the tell me just study how they decided cases and ruled you would have to admit since they were picked chosen by liberal democrats like Obama they also weren`t political? What gets in your craw is that the supreme court chosen by president trump has the majority of conservatives over liberals that is the major thing here isn`t it. And what worries you the most is that president trump may pick more conservative justices really tilting the balance of power. that`s your whole complaint here isn`t it ATHEIST Demon.

mykcob4's picture

1) Ginsburg was chosen by Reagan, you idiot!
2) Atheists cannot be demons by definition, you moron!
3) Justices that have been selected by Dems have historically voted neutral and in compliance with the Constitution. The fucking activist conservative justices usurped the Constitution by doing things like recognizing corporations as individuals clearly a violation of the Constitution.
4) McConnell blocking Garland who is a fucking republican was unconstitutional!

You are TROLLING yet again FIG and have tried to HIJACK yet another thread. You are ignorant, uneducated, brainwashed, and just plain fucking dumb. You have NO morals, NO ethics, NO sense of decency, and are a hypocrite!

LogicFTW's picture
You are dreaming if you do

You are dreaming if you do not think at least some court justices are in the pockets of gun lobbies and gun manufacturers.

Just look at US military spending, the US spends almost as much on military as the rest of the world combined. Weapons of all sorts is one of the largest exports the US has!

Sheldon's picture
You mean gun owners like the

You mean gun owners like the one who just murdered 17 school children? You see Billy,, you are implying everyone has and must retain this right, but simultaneously claiming the authorities ought to have stepped in and removed that right after the fact. Sadly nothing you have posted suggest you have the intelligence or cognitive capacity to see how moronic this contradiction is.

"i won`t and don`t find any fault in gun ownership"

Until inevitably those gun owners, use those guns to commit crime. Then you insist the authorities should have violated those rights. Again the sheer stupidity of the contradiction is mind boggling.

Do you think the man who committed these murders was a progressive Liberal? Is it likely he voted for people, or joined initiatives for gun control? Does any of this make you wonder if your diatribes against political groups you view as pernicious might be less risible or even moronic if we weren't in a thread discussing yet another mass murder committed by an ordinary citizen with a grievance using their legally owned guns?

Sheldon's picture
Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the

Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), federal law bans convicted felons from possessing firearms or ammunition. (The U.S.C. is a compilation of congressional laws organized by topic and subtopic: Title 18 defines federal crimes and criminal procedure, and Chapter 44 (Sections 921-931) covers firearms.) It sounds straightforward enough, but when you unpack how that federal law works and factor in the complexities added by state laws and high court rulings, a much more complicated picture begins to emerge.

According to Section 922(g)(9), no one "who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" may own or possess a gun. This rule covers all felonies, but does not apply to state misdemeanors that carry less than a two-year sentence. It also exempts several kinds of felonious white-collar crime, as well as felony convictions handed down in foreign countries. It also bans guns for (among others) fugitives, illegal users of controlled substances, mental defectives, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged soldiers, renounced citizens, subjects of certain court orders and persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. Violating these statutes can net you 10 years of imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine.

So the murderer in the case under discussion possessed his guns legally, and the law enforcement agencies could do nothing, yet Billy wants to know why he wasn't under 24 hr surveillance. For what one wonders? It sounds to me like he is advocating gun control?

Sky Pilot's picture


I know that some people think that there's only one Constitution but each of the 50 States has its own as well, each with its Bill of Rights.

In the case of Florida its Bill of Rights says this about the citizens' right to bear arms =

"Article 1
SECTION 8. Right to bear arms.—
(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, “purchase” means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and “handgun” means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
(c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.
(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.
History.—Am. C.S. for S.J.R. 43, 1989; adopted 1990."

Now did you see the LOOPHOLE?

According to the Florida Constitution the three day wait period only applies to handguns. So a person should be able to walk into the nearest gun shop (you can Google them under Florida gun shops) and plop down $530-$800 plus taxes and walk out with a new 30 shot Rutger AR-556 rifle and ammo in less than 5 minutes. I'm sure there's more to it than that but the Florida State Constitution allows it to be that easy.

When discussing gun issues remember that the Federal Constitution allows people to possess guns across the country. The States can impose police oversight but they can not bar possession in whole. Not all States have the Right to Bear arms in their State Constitutions but they can't bar people from possessing guns, which is a Federal right.

For instance, The California State Constitution does not have a section that says that people have the right to bear arms.

Illinois, on the other hand, says that individuals have the right to bear arms subject only to the police power.
"Article 1
Section 22 = SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)"

So people in Illinois (and even in Chicago) can possess guns per the State Constitution unless the anti-freedom clan restricts it through the use of police power.

Now if the dummy who wrote the 2nd Amendment had been as clear as the guy who wrote the right to bear arms in Illinois had been we wouldn't be having this discussion.

mykcob4's picture
State constitutions are

State constitutions are invalid if they violate the Constitution of the USA!

Sky Pilot's picture


State constitutions can expand rights and sometimes they even limit rights that are not specifically defined in the Federal Constitution.

Here's a gem from the California State Constitution =
"Article 1 Section 24 = SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution."

BTW, Here's Article 1 Section 23 of the Texas Constitution = "Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS; REGULATION OF WEARING OF ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

Notice that way it's written even felons should have the right to bear arms because they are citizens. Depriving them of that right is a violation of the State Constitution.

mykcob4's picture
It doesn't matter Diotrephes.

It doesn't matter Diotrephes.
The states cannot pass a law that supersedes the U.S. Constitution.

LogicFTW's picture


The right to keep and bear arms actually seems incredibly vague to me. It is not precise at all.

Even within these states that use this wording is open to huge interpretation. What is an arms? Is a bomb an "arms"? Am I allowed to have and keep a gigaton fusion bomb in my home as long as I say I will use it to defend myself or the state? How about a dart gun that contains an extremely virulent ebola virus that is highly contagious, kills anyone it comes in contact with, but I so happen to have the antidote to?

There are laws in place all over that say things like you can not have certain types of weapons for any reason. Or severely restricting the ability to buy various types of weapons.

State/county/city constitutions can and do override national ones all the time, does not make them legal, typically the US government instead just allows it to happen in certain cases. US supreme court says abortion is legal, there are plenty of states through laws and wording that make it for all intent and purposes illegal.

US law says marijuana is illegal for any use, yet a majority of states allow at least medical sales of marijuana. And it seems likely it won't be long before the majority of states sell pot recreationally as well.

Sky Pilot's picture


You're right. The Federal Constitution nor any State Constitution defines "arms" in the sections that govern the right to bear arms. But it's generally assumed to be a device that's operated by one person and that fires a projective through an attached barrel using gun power. Such a device is usually referred to as a pistol, revolver, gun, or rifle.

Now while you can own a fully automatic machine gun you will probably end up in hot water if you blasted a burglar with it. A .357 revolver will be a better option in that case.

LogicFTW's picture
It requires a ton of

It requires a ton of expensive permitting and a friendly state/county/local sheriff to buy a fully automatic machine gun. Also almost no one sells them, except used ones that are grandfathered in that allows them to circumvent laws.

I certainly hope someone with the permits to own a fully automatic machine would get in trouble for using it to "blast" a burglar. Because it would instantly show everyone you are not responsible with a machine gun. Obviously a scenario that almost never comes up as who keeps a machine gun handy and ready to go to blast an unarmed person on their property?

While there are numerous states/counties/cities that have "make my day" type laws, people can still get charged for using excessive lethal force for killing an unarmed person. (Burglary is unarmed and without forced entry but still uninvited, and usually with intent to steal.) 99% of burglars that get caught would be very happy to leave the premise as soon as discovered, certainly with a gun or a massive machine gun pointed at them, to open fire w/o even giving the person a chance to leave the grounds or surrender and wait for authorities points to someone just looking for an excuse to try and legally kill someone.

Plenty of cases with rulings going either direction with this sort of thing. Unfortunately racial difference seems to play a large role in the final rulings on this.

Sky Pilot's picture


"Plenty of cases with rulings going either direction with this sort of thing. Unfortunately racial difference seems to play a large role in the final rulings on this."

The reason why there might be a double standard on this in some areas is because the cops and DAs don't want black people to get away with shooting people who barge into their houses at night. After all, that's a favorite tactic of thug cops when they go on the hunt for bad guys. So if a posse of cops show up at a house and kick the door in the resident might think that it's a burglar and shoot at them. If the system routinely lets black people off when they open fire in such cases it would put a crimp in the thug cops behavior and they won't allow that.

Every single issue in America has racial roots.

LogicFTW's picture
One would hope the cops shout

One would hope the cops shout "police" and "warrant" before they bust down the door, and have uniforms and painted police car out front.

Ofcourse if it is "thug" cops conducting an illegal break in, and they have guns, I hope the people inside can defend themselves from evidence planting and find a law office to do pro bono work for them to get these thug cops kicked off the police force and face jail time. The home owner having a gun and firing back will just make it easier for the cops to plant evidence and build a case painting the home owner as the bad guy.

Dave Matson's picture
I hate to say it but this is

I hate to say it but this is going to be like a broken record going 'round and 'round.

howejm3's picture
Studies show increased gun

Studies show increased gun ownership and decreased gun violence. As tragic as these events are, they are still rare and becoming more rare.

Do you think if this boy believed that he would have to give an account of his life to a Holy God that he would do this?

mykcob4's picture
Bullshit jesus Follower!

Bullshit jesus Follower!
Increased gun ownership produces more gun violence.

"DONOHUE: The basic finding was that the net effect of allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns was an increase in violent crime, which essentially rose to about a 15 percent increase after 10 years of existence of the right-to-carry law."

In fact, every actual credible research I found stated that more gun ownership resulted in more gun violence!

Sushisnake's picture
Well that would be why

@Jesus Follower

"Studies show increased gun ownership and decreased gun violence. As tragic as these events are, they are still rare and becoming more rare"

Well that would be why everyone but the US has lethal mass shootings all the time, especially Australia! No...hang's the gun mad US that has the lethal mass shootings, nobody else.

" Do you think if this boy believed that he would have to give an account of his life to a Holy God that he would do this?"

Didn't stop Timothy McVeigh

Sheldon's picture
"Studies show increased gun

"Studies show increased gun ownership and decreased gun violence."

No they don't, care to show a citation for this research? I'm guessing a republican think tank or the NRA.

"As tragic as these events are, they are still rare and becoming more rare."

Nonsense, America has some of the most liberal gun laws in the free world, and the highest level of religiosity, they have a massively higher instance of gun violence, and crime when compared with other western democracies that have more secular governments, and more strict gun laws.

"Do you think if this boy believed that he would have to give an account of his life to a Holy God that he would do this?"

Yes, this is a demonstrable fact.

"Those societies today that are the most religious — where faith in God is strong and religious participation is high — tend to have the highest violent crime rates, while those societies in which faith and church attendance are the weakest — the most secular societies — tend to have the lowest."

There are many such studies.

David Killens's picture
@ jesus Follower

@ jesus Follower

"Do you think if this boy believed that he would have to give an account of his life to a Holy God that he would do this?"

Many religious fanatics rationalize how they commit mass murder in the name of their religion. They truly believe that if they kill the "infidels" or "Catholics" ( just two examples) they are guaranteed a free pass to the pearly gates.

IMO more murders are committed in the name of religion than by any other group or reason.

howejm3's picture
@David Killens: Many

@David Killens: Many religious fanatics rationalize how they commit mass murder in the name of their religion.

Atheism -> there is no God to whom I'm accountable -> I can do whatever I want without fear of eternal torment.

Stalin, imo the most successful atheist yet.

How does following atheism preclude mass murder?

Wouldn't "love your enemy" be more effective?

CyberLN's picture
JF, you wrote, “How does

JF, you wrote, “How does following atheism preclude mass murder?”

Well, you see, you made a pretty common error there. No one “followns” atheism. It is not something that even can be followed. Atheism is one thing and one thing only: a lack of belief in god(s).

David Killens's picture
@ jesus follower "Stalin, imo

@ jesus follower "Stalin, imo the most successful atheist yet."

Dragging out that failed argument is quite pathetic. How about Cromwell, Bin Laden, or all the popes who energized and blessed the crusades?

Following atheism does not preclude murder, but it does remove a lot of motives for such horrors.

And I do not need some old book written by murderous savages from two thousands of years ago telling me to do anything. I figured out on my own that forgiveness and love should be practiced at all times.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.