Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Multiple people shot at 4th of July parade in Illinois


susieice
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Does chi town have the death penalty?

No, i asked them when I called today, because if a state does have th death penalty you can put your name in drawling and if picked you could witness the execution, and I would fly to Chicago to witness the Scum bags death. Each execution has an audience made up family members and witnesses, and witnesse fill out a form saying the guy did not suffer or what ever 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 minute ago, the13bats said:

Aw, dont insult eddie munster like that, just imagine that cat in gen pop of fed grey bar hotel chi town might have the death pen afterall.

Someone in there likely lost family at his hands.

Btw, did he say why he did it?

Watch the Video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:w00t::tsu::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Watch the Video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:w00t::tsu::lol:

I did it didnt say why

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2022 at 10:07 PM, psyche101 said:

 

So because people die of disease, children are acceptable collateral damage for 2A? 

No. And Yes.

We should try to prevent deaths, especially children, but accepting reality means understanding that you'll have to accept some loss. And it's Adulting to understand that you're issue may not be the most important in the room. Or even in the top ten. And often we have to accept that, and move forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2022 at 10:30 PM, DieChecker said:

No. And Yes.

We should try to prevent deaths, especially children, but accepting reality means understanding that you'll have to accept some loss. And it's Adulting to understand that you're issue may not be the most important in the room. Or even in the top ten. And often we have to accept that, and move forward.

What is a more important issue than ending school shootings?

Adulting is taking responsibility for those we care for. That's not happening. School shootings are being brushed aside as if any petty crime. The victim's elevate necessity and priority. 

There is no moral way to accept school shootings as an unpreventable loss. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, psyche101 said:

There is no moral way to accept school shootings as an unpreventable loss. 

So, it appears, all our Representatives and Appointed government officials are basically going to do just that. Are you saying Everone in government, from Joe Biden down, is immoral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

So, it appears, all our Representatives and Appointed government officials are basically going to do just that. Are you saying Everone in government, from Joe Biden down, is immoral?

If you're saying what I think you are, it sure sounds like it. I'm just not seeing it in what I'm aware of. 

What are the exact words you are extracting that conclusion from? What I have read is absolutely nothing like accepting children as collateral damage 

This isn’t about taking away anyone’s rights.  It’s about protecting children.  It’s about protecting families.  It’s about protecting whole communities.  It’s about protecting our freedoms to go to school, to a grocery store, and to a church without being shot and killed.

For God’s sake, how much more carnage are we willing to accept?  How many more innocent American lives must be taken before we say “enough”?  Enough.

Not to mention how he echoes the common sense line I've been saying from day one. Guns are a privilege.

At the same time, the Second Amendment, like all other rights, is not absolute.  It was Jus- — it was Justice Scalia who wrote, and I quote, “Like most rights, the right…” — Second Amendment — the rights granted by the Second Amendment are “not unlimited.”  Not unlimited.  It never has been. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/06/02/remarks-by-president-biden-on-gun-violence-in-america/

That makes him a better President than his predecessors. That makes him human, and that makes him a man. Voices like this are America's way out of turmoil. It seems the average American is more interested in retaining weapons even though they only seem to use them to shoot themselves in the foot. 

Sorry mate, but the above shows why Biden is indeed fit to be president. It would serve Americans well to learn from their president instead of thinking they are smarter and can do better. Quite clearly they are not, and cannot. Arrogance is part of the demise of modern America. 

If Biden can regulate guns successfully, he will go down in history as a pivotal power who actually made America great again. He has a better grasp on 2A than any gun proponent alive IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So, it appears, all our Representatives and Appointed government officials are basically going to do just that. Are you saying Everone in government, from Joe Biden down, is immoral?

If he won’t, I will.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

If you're saying what I think you are, it sure sounds like it. I'm just not seeing it in what I'm aware of. 

What are the exact words you are extracting that conclusion from? What I have read is absolutely nothing like accepting children as collateral damage 

This isn’t about taking away anyone’s rights.  It’s about protecting children.  It’s about protecting families.  It’s about protecting whole communities.  It’s about protecting our freedoms to go to school, to a grocery store, and to a church without being shot and killed.

For God’s sake, how much more carnage are we willing to accept?  How many more innocent American lives must be taken before we say “enough”?  Enough.

Not to mention how he echoes the common sense line I've been saying from day one. Guns are a privilege.

At the same time, the Second Amendment, like all other rights, is not absolute.  It was Jus- — it was Justice Scalia who wrote, and I quote, “Like most rights, the right…” — Second Amendment — the rights granted by the Second Amendment are “not unlimited.”  Not unlimited.  It never has been. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/06/02/remarks-by-president-biden-on-gun-violence-in-america/

That makes him a better President than his predecessors. That makes him human, and that makes him a man. Voices like this are America's way out of turmoil. It seems the average American is more interested in retaining weapons even though they only seem to use them to shoot themselves in the foot. 

Sorry mate, but the above shows why Biden is indeed fit to be president. It would serve Americans well to learn from their president instead of thinking they are smarter and can do better. Quite clearly they are not, and cannot. Arrogance is part of the demise of modern America. 

If Biden can regulate guns successfully, he will go down in history as a pivotal power who actually made America great again. He has a better grasp on 2A than any gun proponent alive IMHO.

I'm just saying if... "accepting children as collateral damage" includes inaction, then everyone is guilty. As none of our government officials is actively trying to prevent children shooting deaths. 

If you're implying people Actively accepting children being shot. I can't believe anyone is doing that. 

I'd lump "doing nothing" right in with  accepting accidents are going to happen.

What, in your opinion, has Biden done to actively prevent school shootings? Read your link again... He's done nothing other then talk. No actual actions taken.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I'm just saying if... "accepting children as collateral damage" includes inaction, then everyone is guilty. As none of our government officials is actively trying to prevent children shooting deaths. 

If you're implying people Actively accepting children being shot. I can't believe anyone is doing that. 

I'd lump "doing nothing" right in with  accepting accidents are going to happen.

What, in your opinion, has Biden done to actively prevent school shootings? Read your link again... He's done nothing other then talk. No actual actions taken.

In my opinion what he has done is speak about the issue. 

Attitudes need to change. That's the most important thing. Whilst people see guns as a right, and punishment, there's not going to be any improvement, or even thought to improve. His attitude is above the many. Change often brings fear, the brave forge through to a better world. 

And hasn't he just signed a bill tightening existing restrictions? Seems to be getting quite some attention. 

I'll you what he is not doing. Putting out weak excuses to maintain the status quo. That's noteworthy by itself. 

If he could enact regulations, he would become a notable historical figure. He moved fast on Covid, ended a failure of a war. The feather of gun regulations could make him one of the most disliked, yet best president the country's has ever seen. These decisions will be seen favourably in history for making American great again. I wish him well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

 

Yes, we’re all on drugs here. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

In my opinion what he has done is speak about the issue. 

Attitudes need to change. That's the most important thing. Whilst people see guns as a right, and punishment, there's not going to be any improvement, or even thought to improve. His attitude is above the many. Change often brings fear, the brave forge through to a better world. 

Yeah, but words are often just words. Actions speak louder then words.

I'd tend to agree though, that it's "conservatives", on the far right mostly, who want zero abortion, prayers in schools, unrestricted guns, no socialized healthcare, etc..., who are against such regulations. Like with the far left "Woke", they are a minority within their own party. BUT, they are the squeekiest wheels, so get the most press.

Quote

And hasn't he just signed a bill tightening existing restrictions? Seems to be getting quite some attention. 

He did, but it was more of a token increase in regulation and funding. If almost a billion dollars can be called "token".

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/25/politics/biden-signs-gun-bill/index.html

Quote

It includes $750 million to help states implement and run crisis intervention programs. The money can be used to implement and manage red flag programs -- which through court orders can temporarily prevent individuals in crisis from accessing firearms -- and for other crisis intervention programs like mental health courts, drug courts and veterans courts.

This bill closes a years-old loophole in domestic violence law -- the "boyfriend loophole" -- which barred individuals who have been convicted of domestic violence crimes against spouses, partners with whom they shared children or partners with whom they cohabitated from having guns. Old statutes didn't include intimate partners who may not live together, be married or share children.

Now the law will bar from having a gun anyone who is convicted of a domestic violence crime against someone they have a "continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature." The law isn't retroactive. It will, however, allow those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes to restore their gun rights after five years if they haven't committed other crimes.
The bill encourages states to include juvenile records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System with grants as well as implements a new protocol for checking those records.

The bill goes after individuals who sell guns as primary sources of income but have previously evaded registering as federally licensed firearms dealers. It also increases funding for mental health programs and school security.

So, I like the school funding and mental health, but in the way they are mentioned, I suspect the amount is relatively low.

Quote

I'll you what he is not doing. Putting out weak excuses to maintain the status quo. That's noteworthy by itself. 

He seriously though could do a lot more if he chose to, but because it would create a lot of wheel squeeking, he chooses not to. 

Quote

If he could enact regulations, he would become a notable historical figure. He moved fast on Covid, ended a failure of a war. The feather of gun regulations could make him one of the most disliked, yet best president the country's has ever seen. These decisions will be seen favourably in history for making American great again. I wish him well.

He could, and has been asked to, use executive powers, but he has chosen to go the long way through the Congress. Which, IMHO, actually is the better way to go. But notbas fast, and if the Republicans take over the House, or Senate, as part of Congress, he'll likely get nothing done on guns in the next four years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Yeah, but words are often just words. Actions speak louder then words.

Well he has signed a bill, and the words aren't easy to speak as they draw a great deal of resentment. That's important I think. 

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I'd tend to agree though, that it's "conservatives", on the far right mostly, who want zero abortion, prayers in schools, unrestricted guns, no socialized healthcare, etc..., who are against such regulations. Like with the far left "Woke", they are a minority within their own party. BUT, they are the squeekiest wheels, so get the most press.

They do, it's just a crying shame that people read the press and some authorities act on it. You're completely right, both ends of the spectrum don't really represent those in the middle. Some overlapping points but largely quite out of step. 

I agree that there's a lot of people being squeezed in the middle from both ends and it seems very wrong. But how can that change? Anger seems to be resulting instead of much else.

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

He did, but it was more of a token increase in regulation and funding. If almost a billion dollars can be called "token".

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/25/politics/biden-signs-gun-bill/index.html

So, I like the school funding and mental health, but in the way they are mentioned, I suspect the amount is relatively low.

The media is calling it the most impactful gun law in 30 years. Would you agree or is that an exaggeration? 

I hope they are not low, but the main thing is a start. It's easier to increase funding than initate it. 

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

He seriously though could do a lot more if he chose to, but because it would create a lot of wheel squeeking, he chooses not to. 

He could, and has been asked to, use executive powers, but he has chosen to go the long way through the Congress. Which, IMHO, actually is the better way to go. But notbas fast, and if the Republicans take over the House, or Senate, as part of Congress, he'll likely get nothing done on guns in the next four years.

I'd say the second paragraph answers the first? 

I agree it would have to be slow. It's not just the protection issue that is keeping people armed, it's the propoganda that it is needed. I've only spoken to one US poster that ever used a gun for protection. 

It's a cultural shock. A change in a way of life. The only sensible approach is incremental. I hope Republicans don't thwart this progress, it's an ambitious proposal but very worthwhile. The end result is a better place to live. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Well he has signed a bill, and the words aren't easy to speak as they draw a great deal of resentment. That's important I think. 

I'll give him that. He did talk about it, and did go to Texas to see the victims. So they're taking this more serious then the whole Southern Border thing, where neither Biden, Pelosi, or Harris have actually gone down there to honestly see what's up there.

Quote

They do, it's just a crying shame that people read the press and some authorities act on it. You're completely right, both ends of the spectrum don't really represent those in the middle. Some overlapping points but largely quite out of step. 

I agree that there's a lot of people being squeezed in the middle from both ends and it seems very wrong. But how can that change? Anger seems to be resulting instead of much else.

The anger has gotten out of hand to the point I'm not sure what's going to happen. My hope is that we have a productive Centrist next two years. Followed by a more Centrist Republican President, who does the actual nation's business and not just plays footy on Twitter. Or, even another four years of a Centrist Biden wouldn't be horrible.

But we can't just play to the far right and left. Especially the President shouldn't play to the far left, or right.

These last two years Biden has played to the far left to mid left, but not really to the Center.

He's lost a lot of the independent voters because of that.

Quote

The media is calling it the most impactful gun law in 30 years. Would you agree or is that an exaggeration?

It's almost the only legislation in 30 years. So, as far as that goes, yeah it's significant, but still just a token effort. They hit the lowest hanging fruit, as it were.

Quote

I hope they are not low, but the main thing is a start. It's easier to increase funding than initate it.

They did say millions, and across the entire US, and for many, many programs. So, I'd call it very little. If it was 10 billion plus, I'd call that a significant increase and actually enough to get things done.

Quote

I'd say the second paragraph answers the first?

But I think this Administration doesn't have the guts at this point.

Quote

I agree it would have to be slow. It's not just the protection issue that is keeping people armed, it's the propoganda that it is needed. I've only spoken to one US poster that ever used a gun for protection. 

It's a cultural shock. A change in a way of life. The only sensible approach is incremental. I hope Republicans don't thwart this progress, it's an ambitious proposal but very worthwhile. The end result is a better place to live. 

Well this latest law did have 15, or 17(?), Republicans voting for it. And it passed the Senate with no great struggle. 

So, there is hope of bipartisanship in this, I think. But perhaps not enough if the chamber flips from Democrat, to Republican, control. Since it likely would be a far right sympathizer who'd be elected Speaker of the House.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.