Jeb Bush’s ‘Stuff Happens’ Comment on Shooting is Even Worse in Full Context

jeb-bush-scienceWe need to be honest about the fact that this country probably can’t survive another Bush in the White House. While George H.W. Bush wasn’t all that terrible, his two sons (Jeb and George) are absolute morons. Putting aside the disaster that was the George W. Bush presidency, even from an image standpoint he made Americans look like bumbling idiots. This is a man who somehow managed to screw up reading speeches straight from the teleprompter. 


Now we have Jeb Bush running for president, a man once called “the smarter Bush.” Over time, I think it’s become clear that even the “smarter Bush” is still infuriatingly stupid.

Take for instance his asinine comment regarding the tragic school shooting in Oregon at the hands of another psychopath who had easy access to guns, thanks in large part to the NRA and the Republican party making sure guns are easier to get than a driver’s license.

“I had this challenge as governor. Look stuff happens, there’s always a crisis and the impulse is always to do something and it’s not always the right thing to do,” Bush said.

Now, so far I’ve seen most of the media focusing on the “stuff happens” aspect of his comment, playing it up like he just gave the shooting a shrug of the shoulders as if he didn’t care. In context, that isn’t how he reacted. Jeb Bush is an idiot – not a monster.

But the truth is, in context his quote is much worse than what most of the media is focusing on. Jeb Bush just told us that we shouldn’t do anything to address horrific acts of violence because, well, you can’t prevent them all – so why even try.

If you recall, this is a similar attitude Marco Rubio had during the second GOP presidential debate when he discussed climate change. During that debate Rubio insisted that, since the United States can’t reverse climate change on its on, then we shouldn’t even bother trying to do anything.

While the subjects about which both men were talking are clearly different, the idiocy displayed by both is basically identical. As Donald Trump might say – they’re losers.

Why try if you won’t always succeed.

But what Bush’s comments really reflect is how devoid of reality many Republicans are when it comes to gun violence in this country. Sure, if mass shootings in the United States were a once every 2-3 years event, he might have a point – but they’re not. Not only that, but school shootings are becoming more common. To say nothing about the insane amount of gun violence that plagues this country every single day.


Let me be clear about this: Gun violence is not a singular “crisis” – it’s an everyday occurrence in the United States.

Republicans often say guns aren’t the problem, it’s mental illness. The reality is, it’s both. As much as Republicans love to downplay guns, while mostly focusing on the mental health aspect that pushes someone to commit a mass shooting, they’re not doing a damn thing to prevent mentally unstable people from being able to purchase a gun.

Then again, the truth is, Republicans and the NRA don’t want to prevent these shootings. Hell, mass shootings and gun violence are great for gun sales. What’s the go-to rhetoric for these gun fanatics?

If there were more guns, this wouldn’t have happened. 

Yet, no matter how many guns saturate this country, we continue to lead the modern world in gun violence.

Jeb Bush and all of these gun nuts should answer these two questions:

  • How many guns do we need in this country before we eliminate gun violence?
  • How many mass shootings need to happen, and how frequently, before Republicans will finally admit that we need to do something about them?

Judging by history, I’m sure the answers they would give wouldn’t make one bit of sense.

Hit me up on Twitter or Facebook and let me know what you think.



Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Sheila

    Mass shootings are probably great for private schools too. Make public schools so scary that parents will send them to private school = win/win.

    • AmyHerrmann

      Are private schools somehow exempt?

      • Jim Bean

        Private schools are exempt from the Left-wing interference that prevents public schools from taking reasonable precautions to protect students.

        Even after all the advanced warning provided by other shootings, this school was totally unprepared. Didn’t even have Tasers.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        yeah, like outlawing guns on campus. That is a great place to start. You are just one more idiot who thinks adding more weaponry somehow makes a place safer from racist gun nuts going on a shooting rampage. You are typical of the do nothing / know nothing GOP of today.

      • Charles Vincent

        Schools are gun free zones dip shit. They are already outlawed on campus.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Good. As it should be. I wonder what “well regulated militia” he was a part of, because I would like to talk to his CO. If he was just another racist stockpiling guns, he should have been locked up a long time ago, just like every other nitwit repube who is stockpiling guns and ammo. These people are not right in the head, and it is become more and more obvious that the amount of guns you own, is inversely proportional to mental stability and intellect.

      • Charles Vincent

        Again you use contextomy to prop up a fallacious argument concerning well regulated in the second amendment. Furthermore you demonstrate your lack of understanding on how the English language works by making that assertion.

        “I suppose you think you could stop somebody though….pfft…fucking idiot”
        Whether or not I could or could not stop someone is irrelevant. what is relevant is that I wouldn’t hesitate to try stopping it. Secondly I choose to be part of the solution where as you are choosing to be part of the problem. This is plainly by your denial that your preferred method of making innocent people defenseless is clearly a failure by any rational standard.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Your “solution” is exactly part of our current problem because you don’t understand or care about the 2nd and 3rd order effects of your “solution” nor do you understand the NRA and GOP has twisted the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. Any rational person would advocate our laws and their enforcement conform to other developed nations. But, nobody ever thought you were rational. Show me exactly where the 2nd amendment refers to guns as a means personal self defense. And please, no court rulings dominated by Bush/Reagan appointees funded by the NRA…..

      • Charles Vincent

        Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
        Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.
        But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in
        Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
        James Madison, Federalist # 46

        US V Cruickshank

        “The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful
        purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it
        in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
        second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as
        has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by
        Congress.”

        Chief Justice Joseph Story
        Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890–91
        1833

        § 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be
        doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the
        subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country
        against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections,
        and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against
        sound policy for a free people to keep up large military
        establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both
        from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended,
        and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious
        and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government,
        or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the
        citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered,
        as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers
        a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary
        power of rulers; and will generally, even if these
        are successful in the first instance, enable the people to
        resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth
        would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated
        militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised,
        that among the American people there is a growing
        indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a
        strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid
        of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people
        duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see.
        There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may
        lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually
        undermine all the protection intended by this clause
        of our national bill of rights.

        § 1891. A similar provision in favour of protestants (for
        to them it is confined) is to be found in the bill of rights
        of 1688, it being declared, “that the subjects, which are
        protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to
        their condition, and as allowed by law.” But under various
        pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed;
        and it is at present in England more nominal than
        real, as a defensive privilege.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        There is a lot about a “well regulated militia” in there, which was the intent. This was in lieu of a standing Army. I’m glad you pointed this out. So now that we have a massive standing Army and massive military spending, all of this that you cut and pasted is obsolete because the context no longer applies to the United States.

        Also, to cut and paste from YOUR cut and paste:
        It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

        What you are espousing with this cut and paste is that we should not have a large standing Army / military. Which we do!!! We spend more on our military than the next what combined??? This is why the 2nd amendment WAS THERE IN THE 1ST PLACE. IT WAS IN PLACE OF A LARGE STANDING ARMY. WE NOW HAVE THE LARGEST STANDING ARMY AND MILITARY ON THE PLANET, BY FAR!!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT CONTEXT???

        To continue, if these “Militia” members and their weapons are not regulated anymore, meaning standardized, inventoried (preferably monthly like we do in the Army) and if there is no chain of command, the intent of the 2nd Amendment is currently not in play today.

        What is your Chain of Command for your local militia? Who is on the blame line in your town? How often are your weapons and ammo accounted for and inventoried and who does it? How often do you have formations in your militia? Who are all of your members? If you have no answers to any of these questions, you are not abiding by the intent of the 2nd amendment.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well regulated means training and organization in context of the militia retard.

        What is your Chain of Command for your local militia?

        I am not in a militia but it should be painfully obvious to you that the chain of command in a militia is the same as in the regular military.

        Who is on the blame line in your town?

        See answer number one above.

        How often are your weapons and ammo accounted for and inventoried and who does it?
        Not in a militia so therefore no one need to keep track of anything I do.

        How often do you have formations in your militia?
        Read the militia act it clears that up for you.

        Who are all of your members?
        Again Not in a militia nor do I need to be the second amendment is an individual right unconnected to service in the militia.

        If you have no answers to any of these questions, you are not abiding by the intent of the 2nd amendment.
        False dichotomy I don’t need to know nor does anyone else in order to exercise their second amendment rights.

      • Charles Vincent

        “BTW, what is “fallacious” about “a well regulated militia”? What were the founding father’s definition of a “WELL REGULATED MILITIA”.”

        Regulate means to train and discipline according to a standard. In this case it means to train militia members in the use of military tactics and how to operate as a military unit and to familiarize them with how to operate with other militia and regular armed forces units.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        how often are our gun millions of private gun owners trained and disciplined according to a standard, or in the use of military tactics or as a military unit? Who is doing the training? I certainly haven’t witnessed any organized training of millions of gun owners in military tactics or how to operate as a military unit, like you have pointed out. Thank you.

      • Charles Vincent

        This may come as a surprise but militias do train and there are militias operating all over the US. The standard is one or two times a year according to the militia act. Most of the militias I am aware of have ex military people in them that teach tactics, or they use US army training manuals to teach the tactics.
        Furthermore they used to teach firearms safety/marksmanship in schools and schools at one time had marksmanship teams as a sport, the boy scouts also taught firearms use and safety as well as archery.

        http://mic.com/articles/24118/the-best-gun-control-is-teaching-gun-safety-in-schools

        http://clashdaily.com/2012/12/back-in-the-1950s-and-even-later-many-high-schools-had-shooting-ranges-students-even-brought-their-own-rifles-to-school-what-changed-in-society-that-we-could-trust-such-activities-then-but-not-now/

        “I certainly haven’t witnessed any organized training of millions of gun
        owners in military tactics or how to operate as a military unit, like
        you have pointed out.”

        So because you haven’t seen them they don’t exist?

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        I agree, those that meet are constitutionally protected. The rest are not. And children are not old enough to be in a Militia, so they are not constitutionally protected. 17-45 years, right?

        Either way, who trains the trainers and what is their standard? Not everyone who served in the military has done it well and not everyone is/was combat arms or well versed in handling a weapon on a daily basis or familiar with real TTPs. I just hope these militia members aren’t some of the kooks who grew up watching Rambo, thinking it was real, and read Soldier of Fortune magazine. They might be part of the problem with today’s paranoid society.

      • Charles Vincent

        Originally it was 16 to 60. You are still missing the point that with out people being able to own firearms there would be no militia.

        The power of the sword, say the minority…, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.
        Ten he Coxe Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

        Tench Coxe was also put in charge of creating the firearms industry, by James Madison I believe.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        300 million privately owned weapons in the hands of a population who are untrained, undisciplined, no knowledge of TTPs, no accountability, no routine mental checks, background checks, etc. We spend more than the next nine largest countries / military spenders COMBINED. You want your cake and you want to eat it despite the founders intentions. 80-90 deaths per day by gun (4x more than any other developed nation and 10x more than most).

        We have the most weapons, the largest military, the loosest gun laws, and we have the highest death rate by gun with mass shootings a regular occurrence. A double tap to multiple 6 year old’s faces or bullets sprayed into a crowded theater does nothing to sway a gun nut into rethinking things just a bit, because you know….the Nazis, Mao, Stalin…… Mass shootings just mean the NRA has to pay politicians a bit more that year to keep fighting so another gun nut can have the means and opportunity to shoot more kids in the face. All you are doing is affording the next Christopher Mercer, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, etc to legally buy multiple weapons and give them a chance to target practice on children, and you really don’t care. I understand you, but this doesn’t happen, at this rate, with zero response, in any other country.

        We are done here.

      • Charles Vincent

        First paragraph is a hasty generalization, combined with bogus facts.

        The Nazis Mao and Stalin all instituted gun control to silence dissent, Mao killed something like 40 million people, Stalin killed something like 80 million people, and the nazis killed 11 million Jews whom wer disarmed by Nazi gun control, here we have gun free zones yet 92 percent of mass shooting are committed in gun free zones. Moreover something like 80 percent of those shooters passed the federally mandated back ground checks and the ones that didn’t stole them from someone.

        Yet your prescription is the punish 100 million people for what less than 1% of them do, that’s like having three kids and one of them break the rules and instead of punishing the rule breaker you punish the two that did nothing wrong.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        What is the “punishment” again? There is no punishment in following the intent of the Bill of Rights.

        And just becaue there weren’t other guns in the immediate area, doesn’t mean the place was “gun free” zone. Fact, many gun owner leave their houses every day while not carrying a gun, which are by definition, now gun free zones. Gun free zones is a fallacy brought to you by the NRA. The fact you are focusing on that terminology just shows you are a follower. Think for yourself.

      • Charles Vincent

        restricting the rights of people who did nothing wrong us flatly unconstitutional. Moreover the 5th amendment prevents sweeping legislation; “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
        crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in
        cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
        actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
        subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
        limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
        against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
        due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
        without just compensation.”

        Here is the important part “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
        due process of law…”
        The point here is you can’t take an individuals rights away without due process of law period, congress passing legislation isn’t due process. And you most certainly don’t get to say that my rights are based on what someone else does, or that my rights can be restricted when someone breaks the law.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Those “rights” you speak of are not “rights” in any other 1st world countries.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well for starters we are in America not some other country.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        You are right, it is the 1st world country with the most gun violence by far.

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually no its not Honduras is and guess what citizens there aren’t allowed to own firearms.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Honduras is a 1st world country? It is clearly a developing nation…..swing and a miss.

      • Charles Vincent

        Violence is violence and I don’t recall saying it was a first world country. But on a side note Mexico is an OEDC country and their homicide rate is 23.4 where as the US is 5.4. so More than 4 times higher.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        You said, “Well for starters we are in America not some other country.”

        I said, “You are right, it is the 1st world country with the most gun violence by far”

        I’m talking developed nations, which I assume you realize the US is and not some developing/emerging nation.

        HTH

      • Charles Vincent

        I don’t care whether its a first world country. Violence is violence whether you’re in a 1st world country or a 3rd world country.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Gun free zones is a fallacy brought to you by the NRA”

        The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) is a federal United States law that prohibits any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25) GFZA 1990

        Penalty

        18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(4) establishes the penalty for violating GFSZA:

        Whoever violates the Act shall be fined not more than $5,000,
        imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph shall not run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law.
        A conviction under the GFSZA will cause an individual to become a
        “prohibited person” under the Gun Control Act of 1968. This will bar them from legally owning firearms for the rest of their life.

        and

        The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 (GFSA) was part of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (IASA). The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 also amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.[1]
        In 1994, Congress introduced the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, which encouraged each state receiving federal funds for education to follow suit and introduce their own laws, now known as zero tolerance laws.[2] President Bill Clinton signed the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 into law on March 31, 1994.[1]
        The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 requires each state receiving federal funds to have a state law in effect requiring local educational agencies to expel, for at least one year, any student who is determined to have brought a weapon to school. The one-year expulsion is mandatory, except when a chief administering officer of such local education agency may
        modify it on a case-by-case basis.[2] In addition, schools are directed to develop policies requiring referral to the criminal justice or juvenile delinquency system for any student who brings a firearm or weapon to school. GFZA 1994

        These are federal laws chief not a fallacy of the NRA.

      • Charles Vincent

        And homicide which is what theses mass shooters are doing is also against the law.
        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-51

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        And two more college campus shootings yesterday, Oct 9. A well armed society is a violent society. If only there were just more guns around those campuses then nobody would ever get shot, right?

      • Charles Vincent
      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        BTW, no generalizations there. Those are facts and statistics you may not like, but those are definitely not hasty generalizations.

      • Charles Vincent

        Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.

        This first sentence in your reply “300 million privately owned weapons in the hands of a population who are untrained, undisciplined, no knowledge of TTPs, no accountability, no routine mental checks, background checks, etc.”

        That my friend is a hasty generalization sorry

        Equivocation; the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.

        .” 80-90 deaths per day by gun (4x more than any other developed nation and 10x more than most).”

        This is equivocation because we were talking about murder. your number includes suicides. Moreover there are psychological studies that show if one method is unavailable(firearms) the person will choose a different method.

        In fact if you only look at homicide by firearms the number is about 30. if you drill down into that data the majority are criminal on criminal(gang related) murders leaving a very small amount of murders where someone innocent is the victim.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Again, that is not a hasty generalization. Those are facts. Sorry you don’t like those facts

      • Charles Vincent

        AH denial is bittersweet. And your reading comprehension has slipped back to its previous low level.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Again, sorry you don’t like facts. I expect no less though.

      • Charles Vincent

        They aren’t facts though. You rolled suicide into a topic about homicide that’s a logical fallacy

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        80 to 90 deaths per day, by gun. You are welcome.

      • Charles Vincent

        Still including suicides with homicides. we are talking about mass shootings which is homicide not suicide. but by all means keep equivocating and lying about things.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Yep, including them all. 80-90 per day by gun. This doesn’t happen anywhere else.

      • Charles Vincent

        And you’re still wrong. Japan has a higher suicide rate than the US and they don’t have guns so your point is again wrong and factually inconsistent

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        HAhaahaaa…… go away man…..HAHAHAHAAHAHAH

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s about as likely as you not lying about things to win an argument

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s about as likely as it would be for you to stop lying and using all manner of logical fallacy arguments

      • Charles Vincent

        argument from repetition and still conflated

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Thank you again for reaffirming that gun nuts always jump to Nazis, Mao, etc when none of that makes any sense whatsoever to a rational person. Thank you. Those have zero bearing on this topic in the United States. We are a very different country, but there is no explaining this to you. I get it.

      • Charles Vincent

        Umm you’re the one that brought them up. I only replied to you concerning them.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        I brought them up because this is what your type always does….it’s just silly. Thank you for pointing that out.

      • Charles Vincent

        Then don’t lie and try shifting the blame to me when it was you that interjected them into the conversation.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Stop crying man….I just pointed out that you conspiracy types always seem to bring up Nazis, Mao, Stalin etc. as some kind of reason to avoid any kind of relook at the nation’s gun laws. It’s a silly diversion.

      • Charles Vincent

        They are a good reason to avoid gun control to the tune of ~150 million people dead and lying about me bringing it up shows how desperate you are to prop up the fallacious argument you are making.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Any idea why sawed off shotguns are illegal?

        “United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

        If the 2nd was meant to facilitate your own personal self defense and defense of your home, these would be legal.

      • Charles Vincent

        Yet now current military does employ them odd how tactics changed isn’t it.

        “If the 2nd was meant to facilitate your own personal self defense and defense of your home, these would be legal.”
        They are legal read the laws the barrel need to be 18″ or longer. then read the dc v heller and dc v palmer decisions that clarify. then understand that US v Miller voided the NFA ban on automatic weapons since automatic weapons play a big role in military/militia operations.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Again, thank you for pointing out that these weapons are STRICTLY FOR MILITARY AND MILITIA OPERATIONS.

        I find it odd how you don’t acknowledge this is all for military purposes, and not intended to apply to anyone else and certainly not for household use.

        I do love how you keep proving my point here. Thank you

      • Charles Vincent

        Wow you’re even stupider than I originally thought… The people are the military and the militia retard. Once again the second amendment is an individual right of the people.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Yes, they are when they are CURRENTLY serving in the Military or a “well regulated militia.” So are you referring to “militia” in terms of its original meaning or the redefinitions of 1903, or 1916, 1930, or some other right wing extremist web site definition? And no, not all Americans are always serving in the Military and/or “well regulated militia”, retard….. But again, there is no reasoning with right wing extremists. You rarely understand words.

        Just curious, are you saying “a well regulated militia” is synonymous anyone who wants a gun can have it? If that is what you read as “well regulated”, what is an “unregulated militia”? That is what we currently have, unregulated gun ownership with virtually no checks, certainly no psychological evaluations, no periodic updates, no mandatory insurance, no reevaluations, etc. There is certainly no “regulating” or monitoring going on here unless you count the parents who “should have seen it coming”. And why is the US definition at odds with every other country’s definition of “militia”?

        And do you think it’s necessary to have the standing military that we have and spend trillions on, if we have 300 million privately owned weapons? If so, why you disagree with the founding fathers as they believed a standing army was a danger to liberty.

      • Charles Vincent

        resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, – who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” —George Mason, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
        “[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” —Zacharia Johnson, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
        “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” —James Madison, Federalist No. 46
        “If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia in the same body ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.” —Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        hahaahaaaa….when you can’t answer and don’t understand, just copy and past sections of the Federalist papers….sure….buh bye

      • Charles Vincent

        Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit is is? The first two are from the Virginia ratification convention. Moreover pasting what they actually said directly refutes your argument. It removes your potential arguments about that isn’t what they said or that i am making it up which is the case with you and others. So take you ball and toddle on off with your lying sack of shit ass.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Again thank you, no need for the Army according to what you copied and pasted. Call your congressman now and have the Armed Forces disbanded because you have us covered because you have a gun. This way we can save trillions.

        “If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.” —Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29

      • Charles Vincent

        reductio ad absurdum

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        “To render an army unnecessary will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.”

        The sole purpose for the 2nd Amendment according to Alexander Hamilton. Preventing the existence of an Army. These are the things you keep quoting.

      • Charles Vincent

        The army was created from two companies of the continental army in 1796.

        The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.
        On October 21, 1787.
        Tench Coxe
        He also wrote as an anti federalist who wrote under the pseudonym a Pennsylvanian.
        The point being that they didn’t want to not have a regular Corp of troops they just wanted them to be small in numbers.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        “To render an army unnecessary will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.”

        The sole purpose for the 2nd Amendment according to Alexander Hamilton. Preventing the existence of an Army.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        BTW, what was the size of our standing Army when the Bill of Rights was ratified? How much did we spend on national defense then? What is the size of our Military today and how much do we spend? That is the context that this all should be framed.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well I think it was Madison that postulated the proper size of a standing army as 1/10 of the total population. The continental army was disbanded in 1783 after the treaty of Paris.
        “Most of the Continental Army was disbanded in 1783
        after the Treaty of Paris ended the war. The 1st and 2nd Regiments went
        on to form the nucleus of the Legion of the United States in 1792 under
        General Anthony Wayne.”
        This core went on to form the US army In 1796.

        “That is the context that this all should be framed.”
        No it isn’t please read federalist number 8
        “Thus we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the old world. [Speaking of standing
        armies.]
        Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 8

        The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an overmatch for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of
        jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights.
        The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people.
        Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 8

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        BTW dipshit, this wasn’t a “gun free zone” Dope…

        https://twitter.com/Green_Footballs/status/650320079796568064

        But I’m sure you knew that. SMH

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually according to federal code any educational facility is a gun free zone by the 1990 gfza or the 1994 act you are a complete moron for suggesting otherwise. Moreover it is plain that these gun free zones do not work, one only needs to look at any school shooting to see that since all schools are gun free zones by federal law. but keep living in denial you’re quite adept at it.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        obviously you lack the ability to read anything other than right wing rags. You are another prime example of Garbage In, Garbage Out. Continue searching for things that support your skewed view and you will be the next school shooter.

      • Charles Vincent

        Sorry you are an incompetent moron.

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

      • Jim Bean

        Despite all the previous similar instances, this school was completely unequipped to protect these students. You believe the ‘racist gun nuts’ caused their unpreparedness?

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Just shut up Jim ,you blithering idiot. I know where you stand. I hope your family has to endure a death like these families have endured. Then maybe we can find a solution because then and only then would you actually listen. You don’t listen and you don’t care about this.

      • FD Brian

        there was a man who did conceal carry that day and he said their are others that do regularly, but they didn’t engage out of fear that the swat team would shoot them instead.

      • Jim Bean

        True. And very, very, wise under the circumstances since they were in another building a considerable distance away. Had the gunman coincidentally chosen the room as that man, the outcome would have been different. I am absolutely that if I were in that circumstance, I would try to take out the gunman rather than do nothing in the hopes he decides for some reason to spare me. What the passengers on flight 93 did is a strong indicator of what people will do when the only two choices are fight or die.

      • Sheila

        Private schools can set their own rules for the most part, at least those that are religiously affiliated.

  • Jo Clark

    The mental health aspect has a huge problem though. Too many people aren’t very mentally healthy, but they don’t meet any standards necessary to force them into treatment, etc. Like this Oregon shooter, so he was an introvert and loved guns and hated religion and had some interests in white supremacy. Nowhere in there is there cause to say he’s mentally ill, and he remains a ‘good guy’ until he’s not.

    I don’t know how we get by this part of it.

    • Annette Hamm

      last tuesday I got a top of the range Honda from earning $16020 this last four weeks and also ten-k last-month . this is definitely the coolest work I have ever done . Without any question it’s the most financially rewarding Ive had . I started this 4 months ago & practicaIIy straight away began to bring home over $97 p/h .Visit weblink to start immediately.
      …bs.
      ➤➤➤➤ http://GoogleExtraPayingTopJobsTickEmploymentProjects/Get/Start/Today… ✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱

  • Creeayshun Sighuntist

    Ret. Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens said it very well in 2014. We need to CLARIFY the 2nd Amendment and add 5 simple words:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms WHEN SERVING IN THE MILITIA shall not be infringed.”

    THAT was the intent of our founding fathers, regardless of what the right wing zealots and NRA idiots lobbied for, and the radicals of the SCOTUS ruled in 2008. It’s no surprise ‘that’ court was stacked with ridiculous GOP hacks appointed by Reagan and Bush. These 5 words would certainly clear some things up for us and bring a measure of sanity to our discourse on this topic.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html

    • Leticia Agarwal

      Last tuesday I got a top of the McLaren F1 from earning $16020 this last four weeks and also 15-k last-month . this is definitely the coolest work I have ever done . Without any question it’s the most financially rewarding Ive had . I started this 4 months ago & practicaIIy straight away began to bring home over $97 p/h .Visit weblink to start immediately.
      ..xd..
      ➤➤➤➤ http://GoogleSuperPayingTopJobsSetEmploymentProjects/Get/Start/Today… ✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱

    • Jim Bean

      Here’s some actual American history to compare with Left-wing revisionist history.

      “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
      — George Mason, co-author, 2nd Amendment, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

      “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
      — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

      “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
      — Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

      “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
      — Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

      ” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
      — George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        Jefferson also thought a standing Army was an “instrument of oppression”. So, get rid of the Army and and the rest of the US Military, then you can continue to quote Jefferson in context.

        Jefferson in a letter to Thomas Cooper, 1814, “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

        So Jim, do you agree that we should not have a standing military? Because that was the ONLY reason for the 2nd Amendment was written. Or are you hoping to taking something else out of context?

        If the founding fathers embraced a standing military at the outset of this nation, there would be zero need for the 2nd amendment.

      • Jim Bean

        You are telling me the Second Amendment was written to provide the legal authority of an already sovereign USA to have a military to protect itself. That’s insane. The constitution is not an international agreement. Who, outside the USA, do you think fell under the governance of the Constitution? Who, outside the USA, was thinking, “Gee! This means we are legally prohibited from going into the USA and taking the guns away from their military, so we better not do it? Or else they’ll . . . . . .or else they’ll . . . . .?” They’ll what? Take them to court, perhaps?

        We need a standing military to protect the nation against foreign aggression and protect our Constitutional rights and we do not need any piece of paper to establish that. We need an armed public to protect against there forming a malicious government that would trample individual liberties and DO (obviously) need that piece of paper to help us remember that.

        I know that seems ridiculous to those who, living in the insulated confines of the USA, have become complacent and do not understand that America was once controlled by a different government. However, those who seek out knowledge on a world scale realize that governments fall into the hands of brutal, oppressive, power hungry people all the time.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        LOL….what in world are you babbling about? You are literally all over the place here. Go away douche. You make no sense.

      • Jim Bean

        I’m not going to go away. However, I’m ready to accept that you lack even the most basic of complex reasoning skills as evidenced by the fact that you were unable to understand that your argument was completely illogical, and leave you alone.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
        — Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

        This is obsolete today for these people therefore, this statement is not applicable:
        Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
        Fugitives from justice;
        Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
        Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;
        Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
        Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
        Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
        Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
        Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

      • Jim Bean

        Those are not ‘free men’. Those are men whose freedoms have been restricted by honorable men as the result of behaviors contrary to the standards of honorable men.

      • Creeayshun Sighuntist

        they are free men Jim. Sorry to burst your bubble. It doesn’t say “honorable men”. Again, go away.

  • ohpaleasegivemeabreak

    I keep saying this over and over.

    The republicans see something that is flawed so they concentrate – first and always – on destroying it if there is any money in it for them.

    They see a flaw and say “It must be destroyed”.

    Like the ACA – they hate it and find flaws with it to prove their hatred so they want it 100% destroyed and a return to people dying of preventable disease because that leaves more money for their rich benefactors so they get paid more to be the republican recipients of rich people’s money. They do the bidding of the rich and learned that making the rich richer will make their campaign finances richer and therefore they will have more power even if they are 100% useless and completely disinterested in doing anything except collecting more of that money. Legislating? What is that? It’s only important if there is a political gain in it.

    They always use the tack of ‘it’s impossible to make it perfect so destroy destroy destroy”.

    Doing nothing is just as destructive as the loosening of gun laws that the republicans always push after a horrific thing like this because it instills fear and they smell profits from fear because they know how well it works for the kind who vote for and believe in their lies and chicanery.

  • Ava

    Regarding the “metal illness is what drives people to crime” standpoint it’s important to note some things along with that: 1) People who actually live with metal illnesses are far more likely to be the victim of violence than a perpetrator. 2) America, statistically, over diagnoses more mental health issues than any other place in the world. (Which is why so many children who throw tantrums get told they have bi-polar disorder.) 3) When a white kid commits an act of violence the media tends to use mental illness (whether existent or not) to validate and explain his actions. You hear terms like “lone wolf” “shy” “troubled kid” “mentally unsound” “well liked” and “wasted potential” thrown around a lot, but if a man by darker skin were to commit a mass shooting the only word you’d hear the media say is “terrorist.”

    • Jim Bean

      Another thing liberals don’t understand is that people with mental illness aren’t, as a result, stupid. They don’t understand that indiscreetly connecting mental health issues with the exercise of second amendment rights will discourage millions from seeking treatment for mental health issues resulting in even more unhinged, but well armed, people among us.

  • Jim Bean

    Isn’t ‘stuff happens’ the excuse Liberals made to defend the Democrats responsible for Benghazi?