Shooting at First Baptist Church in Texas

[This Charming Manc]

 

[Nihilo]

Our thoughts and prayers go out to those who would deny basic human rights as a legitimate way to combat terrorism.

 

[Tambora]

Stephen Willeford.
He's a plumber with no military background.
He's the man that chased and returned fire upon the church shooter.
This man grabbed his AR-15 and ran to help without any tactical protective wear.
He ran BAREFOOT across his yard and his neighbors yard to confront the shooter.
The shooter was wearing tactical protective wear (helmet and bullet proof vest).
But Stephen Willeford managed to shoot him 3 times in the flesh ----- once in the side where his vest was slightly open and twice in the neck area.
Also shot out two of the windows of the SUV the church shooter fled in, to no avail because Stephen and another citizen (Johnny) chased him in Johnny's pickup truck and kept him in their sites until law enforcement arrived.

Thank you, Stephen and Johnny.

 

[Tambora]

What a terribly insensitive thing to say to the families of the victims.

 

[Tambora]

Our thoughts and prayers go out to those who would deny basic human rights as a legitimate way to combat terrorism.

Amen.

 

[Gary K]

The second amendment was because of the threat posed by the British and then to a much much lesser degree the native Americans (although I personally would argue that point) but after this the 2nd amendment should have been amended again to only include the army and state sheriff's etc, not everyone. However, from then things have gotten increasingly worse all because the government didn't act sooner. Now you have a situation where 85+ people a day are murdered by guns in the US, compared to >0.01 person a day in the UK, all because of the US governments poor decision making skills and the lack of educational standards.

You have a misconception about the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms was given by the founding fathers because they understood how a government can run amok and threaten the liberty of its citizens. They gave the citizens of the US that right because they knew the time would come when the citizens would have to overthrow their own government to keep their liberties.

Here is Thomas Jefferson's take on it: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

What follows is the context of that sentence. It is a letter written by Jefferson on November 13, 1787 to a man named William Stephens Smith.

—I am now to acknoledge the receipt of your favors of October the 4th, 8th, & 26th. In the last you apologise for your letters of introduction to [361] Americans coming here. It is so far from needing apology on your part, that it calls for thanks on mine. I endeavor to shew civilities to all the Americans who come here, & will give me opportunities of doing it: and it is a matter of comfort to know from a good quarter what they are, & how far I may go in my attentions to them. Can you send me Woodmason’s bills for the two copying presses for the M. de la Fayette, & the M. de Chastellux? The latter makes one article in a considerable account, of old standing, and which I cannot present for want of this article.—I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: & very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: & what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? [362] Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.—You ask me if any thing transpires here on the subject of S. America? Not a word. I know that there are combustible materials there, and that they wait the torch only. But this country probably [363] will join the extinguishers.—The want of facts worth communicating to you has occasioned me to give a little loose to dissertation. We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform.

If you wonder where I came up with this, I have all of Thomas Jefferson's writings in ebook form.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You have a misconception about the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms was given by the founding fathers because they understood how a government can run amok and threaten the liberty of its citizens. They gave the citizens of the US that right because they knew the time would come when the citizens would have to overthrow their own government to keep their liberties.

Here is Thomas Jefferson's take on it: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

What follows is the context of that sentence. It is a letter written by Jefferson on November 13, 1787 to a man named William Stephens Smith.



If you wonder where I came up with this, I have all of Thomas Jefferson's writings in ebook form.

Cool, I usually visit the official Library of Congress, via the internet of course.

They can be found there, too.

 

[Gary K]

Cool, I usually visit the official Library of Congress, via the internet of course.

They can be found there, too.

There is a four volume set available for download from the Gutenberg Project. There is also a 12 volume set available from The Online Library of Liberty for download too. Reading them offline is sometimes pretty handy.

Both of these sources are really good, but the OLL is very good for political writings from early liberals like John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Alexis de Toqueville, the founding fathers of the US, Frederick Bastiat, etc.... The have a lot of authors available there. If you're interested at all in reading on economics from the Libertarian perspective Mises.org has a lot of free books available too. They have authors like Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, etc.... There's a wealth of free books available there, and they also have quite a few very reasonably priced books too--in the $4-5 range.

 

[patrick jane]

 

[fool]

This is a not a good case for gun control.
This is a bad case for gun control, because it shows that the laws we have aren't being enforced. The Air Force apparently forgot to tell the system about his incarceration and the protection order?

 

[kmoney]

This is a not a good case for gun control.
This is a bad case for gun control, because it shows that the laws we have aren't being enforced. The Air Force apparently forgot to tell the system about his incarceration and the protection order?

I agree. This is the best case scenario for the NRA because they can point to someone with a gun fighting back and also an existing law that wasn't properly enforced.

 

[kmoney]

I'm sure they will look into it further.

But regardless, all the blame is on the shooter himself, not any gun laws.

It's the same as legally owning a vehicle or not.
What would that matter if someone runs down a crowd with a vehicle?

Sometimes folks with vehicles use them inappropriately, but most don't.
Sometimes folks with guns use them inappropriately, but most don't.

You're not safe anywhere from someone that turns nuts.
Best to be carrying protection at all times because you just never know when someone will turn bonkers.

How closely do you want to follow the car analogy? Because we regulate vehicles in a couple ways that we don't for guns. There is mandatory training to get a license to drive and then cars must be inspected and registered on a regular basis. Would you support similar initiatives for guns?

 

[Tambora]

How closely do you want to follow the car analogy? Because we regulate vehicles in a couple ways that we don't for guns. There is mandatory training to get a license to drive and then cars must be inspected and registered on a regular basis. Would you support similar initiatives for guns?

Well I guess we need to make more restrictions of who can drive a vehicle since folks are still getting run down by them despite all the current training and inspection we have in place.
Obviously we just don't have enough to stop nuts from using a vehicle inappropriately.
If we just had more restrictions, that would stop the nuts.

 

[Tambora]

I think this might be a good time to remind folks that the NRA does not sell guns.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Well I guess we need to make more restrictions of who can drive a vehicle since folks are still getting run down by them despite all the current training and inspection we have in place.
Obviously we just don't have enough to stop nuts from using a vehicle inappropriately.
If we just had more restrictions, that would stop the nuts.

So object to driving licences, tests, insurance requirements, restrictions and road laws?

or do you think they are useful?

 

[Tambora]

So object to driving licences, tests, insurance requirements, restrictions and road laws?

or do you think they are useful?

We have all that now and it's obviously not enough to stop nuts from using vehicles to run down crowds of people.
We need to keep adding more laws and restrictions and tests and requirements, or else nuts are going to keep right on using vehicles to run down crowds of people.

 

[Ktoyou]

On tne news tonight it is confirmed he had mental illness, and this is the problem, we do not screen properly for mental illness. Banning guns is not the answer, but keeping the mentally ill from obtaining guns is what we need to do and it is doable.

 

[Ktoyou]

I agree. This is the best case scenario for the NRA because they can point to someone with a gun fighting back and also an existing law that wasn't properly enforced.

I agree, yet in my old age, I have become more realistic about a need to have more control to keep guns out of the wrong hands. The NRA is too insistent it is all or nothing, and I am afraid it may end up being nothing.

We need to come together and develop a compromise.

 

[patrick jane]

On tne news tonight it is confirmed he had mental illness, and this is the problem, we do not screen properly for mental illness. Banning guns is not the answer, but keeping the mentally ill from obtaining guns is what we need to do and it is doable.

What kinds of mental illness?

 

[This Charming Manc]

There is a limited amount a reasonable administration can do.

The laws regarding vehicles are designed to stop sane people doing dangerous and daft things, and they are usually quite good at that.

They cant stop some intent of breaking all laws from using the car as a weapon.

Gun laws that don't take most guns out of circulation do similar they will limit the damage sane people may do to each other but are little protection against a determined psychopath.

We have all that now and it's obviously not enough to stop nuts from using vehicles to run down crowds of people.
We need to keep adding more laws and restrictions and tests and requirements, or else nuts are going to keep right on using vehicles to run down crowds of people.