BREAKING: Five Wounded in Los Angeles Middle School Shooting

 

CNN is reporting that five people have been injured as a result of a shooting incident at a middle school in Los Angeles. One boy was shot in the head and is in critical condition, another girl was shot in the wrist. Three additional people are being treated for minor cuts and other injuries. According to authorities a female suspect is currently in custody, and a motive wasn’t immediately apparent. Police are still investigating, and the scene is currently declared safe.

More information as it becomes available.

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    A school shooting in Commiefornia? That’s unpossible! They just passed all those laws that were supposed to prevent this! What do you mean laws don’t stop criminals only punish them?

    1. avatar RocketScientist says:

      Also, we ALL know its ONLY white males who commit these atrocities, right? Article states there’s a woman in custody? This is definitely a false-flag operation. Women don’t mass-murder. California has no guns. There are no guns in school. No way a woman committed a mass shooting at a school in California. Can’t happen

      1. avatar P-dog says:

        Let’s remember, this doesn’t technically meet the FBI standards for a “mass shooting” — 4 or more people killed by a person with a gun in a public space.

        Yes, this would count as an actual school shooting. But yeah, “not supposed to happen in California!”.

        Next thing you know, she might have had a normal capacity magazine too!

        1. avatar Joseph says:

          Apparently the FBI has standards for everything except their own legal and ethical behavior.

    2. avatar little horn says:

      well someone must not have posted the “no guns” sign in a visible place, otherwise they wouldn’t have been able to do this.

      when will people ever learn? they see it fit to guard their money in banks with guns…but not your children? i don’t understand that logic.

    3. avatar Nigel the expat says:

      Isn’t this where “Realamericanpatriotdogfacewhashisname” usually chimes in and says something spectacular?

  2. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    Interesting. Another shooting on the eve of a major political story (release of the FISA memo).

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yup… The DNC swamp needs a good dose of nuclear radiation… or Sarin…

    2. avatar Michael says:

      Right out of the old playbook. This pattern is getting old…..

  3. avatar little horn says:

    god i hate reading this stuff. i just thank god for the police officers at my kids school. they are there everyday, all day.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      They did at this school as well. They even have metal detectors and do random daily searches of student’s bags.

      1. avatar Binder says:

        I think a middle school that needs metal detectors is a school where a shooting is likely to occur.

        1. avatar Joel says:

          Agreed. We had metal detectors and armed cops at the high school I went to. I won’t go into the details of the demographics, but I can say this white male knows exactly what it’s like to be in the minority group.

          We also had kids with all types of weapons. And DAILY there was some type of violence.

    2. avatar Michael says:

      as long as you remember that the cops have no duty to keep anyone safe and their mantra is all about “making it home at the end of the day” your kid should be fine….

      If a school district has determined that a school “needs” a cop present, you might want to rethink sending your kid there….

      1. avatar anonymoose says:

        OTOH, you could send them to Sandy Hook or some other place where they don’t have a an armed resource officer, and take your chances with that. I lived in boring white suburbs most of my life and we had 1 or 2 armed cops in every school.

  4. Female shooter – a student.

    School demographic is 92% Hispanic.

    L.A. Times should be blaming either the firearm or white male Republicans in 10…. 9…. 8………..

    Active article being updated: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-belmont-high-shooting-20180201-story.html

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Well if not for white republican males we could have common-sense gun control and this never would have happened.

      (do I need the /s?)

    2. avatar clst says:

      NRA shoots up another school

    3. avatar Steve B. says:

      “Unintentional discharge.” Very interesting, especially given the fact she shot of more than one round and hit multiple people… California, where if it doesn’t fit the political narrative they’ll change it to something convenient to the ignorant masses…

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Correct and besides,Surf’s up dude.

  5. avatar Calvin says:

    “The victims are a 15-year-old male, who is in critical condition with a gunshot wound to the head, and a 15-year-old female, who was shot in the wrist and is listed in fair condition. …. A girl was detained and is believed to be the shooter, said LAPD Officer Meghan Aguilar. A firearm has been recovered, she said.”

    Great, natural rights will be infringed even more because of a jr high love triangle.

  6. avatar Mark says:

    Nothing on CNN right now. Must not fit their agenda. They would prefer a grumpy old white male with an NRA hat mowing kids down.

  7. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    Anchor babies must go back.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      You first. There is no such thing as magic blood.

      1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        I don’t get it. What does that mean?

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          The proud white supremacists like Mack Bolan often like to say that anyone without all of their relatives in the US dating back to the early 1800s have to leave, because they aren’t Americans. They deny that being born in America makes you a citizen. Of course, that’s not the law, and it hasn’t been for a long, long time.
          They insist there is no such thing as “magic dirt”, so being born on American soil isn’t enough.
          And yet, at the same time, somehow believe the magical fairy blood of their ancestors multiple generations removed gives them some kind of superiority. They think their blood makes them special. They actually believe they are precious white snowflakes, because their great grandma couldn’t keep her knees together.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes JW… because clearly wanting to not reward people for criminal acts is inherently “racist”… You’ve been sipping the SJW koolaid, haven’t you?

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          pwrserge, the child born in the US has committed no criminal acts. I’m all for deporting their parents, but the kids are citizens and receive the full rights of citizenship.
          And remember, under the Mack’s plan, you and your family will be dumped in the ocean too.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Says who? As I pointed out, the 14th amendment does not apply.

        5. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Pwrserge, this is going to come as a blow to you, but, just because you say it, doesn’t make it law.
          Says who? Literally every supreme and appellant court for over 100 years, regardless of political party in power.
          Born of two US parents, you are a citizen. Born in the US, you are a citizen. It’s a simple concept.
          If you don’t like it, work to change the law, but don’t be so absurd as to deny it.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          What law JW? What case?

          There has been no law passed by congress on point. The entire concept of birthright citizenship is a fiat forced on us by activist judges misinterpreting the 14th amendment.

        7. avatar Mack Bolan says:

          Thanks for telling me what I believe Taylor. It was very enlightening and it really opened my eyes.

          Jonathan, I have no idea what the hell Taylor means when he types that garbage. I suppose it is a midwits attempt at trying to counter the historical fact that it is culture, not civics that makes a nation and a national identity.

      2. avatar Mack Bolan says:

        Again, the Jews prove your statement false.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          If there was only a solution, right?

        2. avatar Mack Bolan says:

          Nope. Just pointing out the stupidity of your argument. Which is why you have to resort to calling me a racist.

          When the debate is lost, slander is the tool of the loser.

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Wait a minute, there is no slander there. You’ve always been a proud racist. You wouldn’t change your story now, would you? I mean, your people don’t take too kindly to race traitors.

        4. avatar Mack Bolan says:

          Understanding history, human nature and the evolutionary differences between ethnic groups does not make someone racist. Commenting on these differences is observation, not hatred.

          Social Justice Warriors always project, and since you are the only one dropping terms like “darkies” and “race traitor” I think you have some soul searching to do.

        5. avatar jwtaylor says:

          I have no problem with soul-searching, but you may have a problem with reading comprehension. I didn’t say you hated any race, just that you thought whites were superior to them. Am I mistaken?
          If not, please feel free to express how you believe that blacks, Hispanics , Jews, and other races are no greater than whites and are every bit our equal.

      3. avatar pwrserge says:

        JW no other western country practices birthright citizenship. The entire idea is absurd. In any case, the entire concept is a gross mis-application of the 14th amendment. The idea that it would apply to children of illegal invaders is patently absurd.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          You think we should measure US law based other western countries? No 2nd Amendment for you then.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          No, my point is that “birthright” citizenship is a myth pushed by people who have lost the philosophical argument and now just want to ethnically cleanse the people who won’t give them power.

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          A “myth”? It’s been the law for over a 100 years. Live in the real world, not the world you want it to be, free of the pesky darkies.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Wow… JW… wow… “darkies”… You do realize that screaming “RACIST” at the top of your lungs just proves you have no argument? See my comment below for a rational argument why the 14th amendment does not apply to children of illegals. I don’t care what color you are, if you have no authorization to be in the US, you are an illegal invader and your children are not entitled to birthright citizenship. By your reading of the 14th amendment, children born to enemy troops on US soil are entitled to US citizenship.

        5. avatar jwtaylor says:

          “children born to enemy troops on US soil are entitled to US citizenship.”
          Yes, that’s not just my reading, it’s the law. Come on, how can you not get that?

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          Simple JW…

          United States v. Wong Kim Ark
          “In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

          is born in the United States
          – of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
          – whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
          – whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

          becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.”

          You will notice point #2… Permanent domicile. Illegal aliens have no legal right to be in the US and cannot have permanent domicile therein by definition.

        7. avatar jwtaylor says:

          You bring up that case but fail to mention that it is one of the founding cases for the current law. That immigration itself establishes permanent residence. It could not be any other way if the 3 criteria listed were to make any sense, which is exactly as the supreme court has interpreted it for over 100 years.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ok… JW… Cite SCotUS case law on point. I’ll wait.

        9. avatar JasonM says:

          I would support eliminating birthright citizenship as part of making citizenship more difficult and replacing it with an easier immigration for temporary work system.
          But until a change like that happens, those “anchor babies” are just as much citizens as those of us whose ancestors came over on boats centuries ago and/or followed the mammoth herds across the land bridge millennia ago.
          Also, the term “anchor babies” isn’t racist, it’s xenophobic.

        10. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ok… Please tell me more about how someone who crossed the border five minutes before giving birth meets the “permanent domicile” requirement cited above… I’ll wait.

        11. avatar jwtaylor says:

          pwrserge,
          “Ok… JW… Cite SCotUS case law on point. I’ll wait.”
          No need to wait, you posted it yourself! Dear god man did you not even read the case you were citing. It is the foundation of the birth by soil doctrine.

        12. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes, yes I did… The second point is inescapable. No permanent domicile = no citizenship. Did YOU read the case in question?

        13. avatar jwtaylor says:

          pwrserge, you just proved that you simply copy and pasted the Wikipedia reference. There are no 3 points. Those don’t exist in the majority opinion.
          They are acknowledgements by the court of the plaintiffs specific circumstance.
          You don’t know what you are talking about. Stop playing barracks lawyer. You’re embarrassing yourself.

        14. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ok JW…

          Let me cite a specific exception from the case in question.

          “born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory”

          I would argue that people entering the country illegally are “engaged in hostile occupation”. The fact that their very presence is a criminal act, I would argue, qualifies them for this specific exception under United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

          Please quit insulting your opponents and making appeals to emotion. If you’re interested in legitimately defending your point, being a jackass and crying “racist” at people just makes you look like a fool and a, and I quote, “barracks lawyer”.

        15. avatar strych9 says:

          Loathe as I am to wade into this shitshow the argument over “permanent domicile” should probably be cleared up.

          serge said “Illegal aliens have no legal right to be in the US and cannot have permanent domicile therein by definition.”

          That’s not actually true. A “permanent domicile” is defined, generally, as “…“domicile” means a legal residence which is the place where a person has fixed dwelling with an intention of making it his/her permanent home”.

          A “legal residence” is, for legal purposes: “…your permanent home or principal establishment and to where, whenever you are absent, you intend to return”

          Therefore “Domicile is a combination of two factors namely, residence and intent to remain.”

          So, regardless of immigration status, if someone has a residence which is, in and of itself legal (they’re not squatting or something) then the question of whether or not it’s a “permanent domicile” is one of their intent to remain there for the foreseeable future.

        16. avatar pwrserge says:

          strych9

          I would argue that someone in the country illegally cannot have a legal residence by definition. Their very act of being in the country without authorization is illegal, thus their residency is inherently illegal.

        17. avatar strych9 says:

          “I would argue that someone in the country illegally cannot have a legal residence by definition. Their very act of being in the country without authorization is illegal, thus their residency is inherently illegal.”

          While I understand the argument and even agree with it to a large extent immigration status and “legal residence” are, as I pointed out, separate legal issues/definitions.

          As long as the “residence” (house, apartment or whatever) meets the local jurisdiction’s definition of a “residence” it is then “legal” (a long term hotel generally doesn’t count for example). If the person(s) living there are legally ensconced in that residence (they’re current on bills and/or have a valid lease/title/deed/whatever) then the only thing that matters under the laws governing “legal residence/permanent domicile” is intent to live there for the foreseeable future.

          I’m not taking a side. I’m just pointing out the reality.

        18. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “If the person(s) living there are legally ensconced in that residence (they’re current on bills and/or have a valid lease/title/deed/whatever)”

          …and I bet the signature on a motel register legally qualifies on that account.

          AFAIK, it has been held domicile rights exist in motel rooms, even in California, that I have heard actually has pretty damn good ‘Castle Doctrine’ laws, for self-defense.

          If a contract has been offered (a motel overnight stay), and has been accepted (money changed hands, register signed) it seems to me legal residence likely has been established.

          Now, in a battered Chevy van bought for cash that afternoon…

          Maybe not so much.

      4. avatar Gralnok says:

        It’s not so much magic blood, but magic status. If your parents went through the proper paperwork for immigration and naturalized, then you are a US citizen. If your parents came illegally, then forced the American people to pay for your birth, then you should thank us for the gift of decent hospital conditions, then kindly leave.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          First off all, I’m not talking about non-citizens. I’m talking about citizens, and every child born in the US is a citizen. So the kids can stay, but the parents have to go.
          If you want to stop people from coming over for free hospital stays, then quit paying for free hospital stays. I don’t blame people coming over and taking advantage of the system that is offered to them. I blame the people who continue to elect the politicians that set up that system and fund it with dollars taken from my wallet in the first place.
          There shouldn’t be free hospital stays, free healthcare, free welfare, or any of the entitlement programs. But there are. I blame everyone who continually votes for them, not the people taking what is offered.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

          I would argue that, since their parents are fugitives from justice, the children in question are not “subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]” at the time of their birth and thus not eligible for birthright citizenship.

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Pwrserge,
          You are arguing that fugitives from justice are not subject to US law? Come on now, you’re smarter than that.
          And moreover, still, the CHILD is not a fugitive. Name the law the child has broken.
          The law is clear. Stop trying to make it into something it’s not to fit your philosophy.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          See SCotUS case on point above. To qualify their parents must have permanent domicile in the US. Something that is patently impossible for someone who has no authorization to be in the US.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          But I suppose I’m a racist because I can find clear case law on point? Huh JW?

        6. avatar jwtaylor says:

          pwrserge, brought up a point in law?
          You used the case that is used to justify the current law of citizenship by birth on US soil. Literally, you used the case that proves children born in the US to foreign parents are citizens.
          You disproved your own point in a truly spectacular fashion.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          No JW, I brought up a three point test that every child of illegal migrants fails by definition. A permanent domicile must be lawful to be permanent. Since the parents do not have permanent domicile in the United States, the 14th amendment does not apply.

        8. avatar Tom of Toms says:

          And yet, it is STILL generally accepted that the 14th amendment and the case cited by Serge make it so that being born here makes you one of us. There will have to be another Supreme Court ruling before this argument can take another, undisputable step forward.

        9. avatar pwrserge says:

          The point, Tom, is that the case in question says no such thing. Instead, it provides a nice and easy three point test that needs to be applied. I also described how, legally, children of illegal migrants fail this test. The fact that this case has been misapplied by activist judges does not change the nature of the precedent in question.

        10. avatar pwrserge says:

          I would also argue that any reading of United States v. Wong Kim Ark that ignores the domicile test is morally and legally no different than the “muh’ militia” reading of the 2nd amendment. It ignores actual text and common sense in favor of pushing an agenda.

        11. avatar Tom of Toms says:

          If it stated “resident”, there would be no argument. But it doesn’t does it? Look up common law on “domicile” and then read your state’s interpretation of the word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

        12. avatar pwrserge says:

          Every definition of domicile requires permanent residence, something that is impossible without legal authorization to do so.

          Can I claim domicile in your house when I brake in and squat there for a week while you’re away on vacation?

        13. avatar jwtaylor says:

          “A permanent domicile must be lawful to be permanent.” Strange how that was never pointed out in the case law. Weird that, for over 100 years now, that has not been the interpretation of the courts. Maybe because it’s bullshit.
          Because you just copy and pasted the Wikipedia reference and not the actual case itself and you don’t even know the points you are citing. The points you have cited are acknowledgements by the court in Wong Kim Ark’s case, NOT a litmus test.

          The majority opinion is crystal clear, born in the US are citizens.

        14. avatar Tom of Toms says:

          If you “brake”d into my house I’d be angrier at the Ford Pinto parked haphazardly in my living room.

          JWT’s is right on. That is what is generally accepted. If you don’t like it, work toward clearing the waters. I can assure you it won’t be sorted out here.

        15. avatar pwrserge says:

          Nice job ignoring the fact that the SCotUS ruling was contingent on the fact that the parents in question had a legal domicile in the United States at the time of birth.

          I could cite the full text, but since you have yet to provide any evidence to dispute my summary I’ll go back to a basic debate standard.

          “A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

        16. avatar pwrserge says:

          I’ll cite from the decision.

          “during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China”

          Note the reliance on being domiciled residents.

        17. avatar Tom of Toms says:

          And I’ll cite “all the foreign folks still in the country” as evidence that no one cares how you interpret the decision.

        18. avatar pwrserge says:

          I’ll cite a specific exception.

          “born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory”

          I would argue that illegal migrants, by virtue of their presence being a criminal, and thus hostile, act fall under this exception.

        19. avatar jwtaylor says:

          PWRSERGE, now you’ve just gone into the realm of stupidity. If the plaintiff’s parents were permanent residents, then how was it that they were not in the United States?
          What, wait? Did you miss that? The plaintiff was returning from visiting them abroad when he was denied entry based on a lack of citizenship. How could they have a permanent domicile in the US if they were not even in the US?
          The Court ruled, quite simply, that it did not matter where his parents were from, or where they are now, he was born in the US so he is a citizen.
          Granted, it is a long opinion, but worth the read. Because over and over again it’s States the simple obvious truth, born on American soil makes you a citizen. It has been that way for over a hundred years.
          Believing any different is pure delusion.

        20. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ok, JW… I am rapidly running out of patience here. I am trying very hard to be polite.

          They were permanent (and lawful) residents AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH. The fact that they changed their minds later and went home has no legal bearing on the conditions of his birth.

          The simple fact is that birthright citizenship given to children of people in the country illegally and who have no regards for our laws or customs is a mortal insult to millions of REAL immigrants who work for YEARS to get their citizenship and follow the law.

          Next you’ll be saying I’m “anti-immigrant” or some other nonsense.

          On a broader note, birthright citizenship is a morally absurd idea. A magical piece of dirt doesn’t make you an American. What you’re claiming is that one’s allegiance and legal status is dependent on which side of an imaginary line one happened to land on when their mother went into labor. Now the “blood” argument is equally suspect, but the truth, as it often does, lies somewhere in the middle.

          My sole and only objection is children of illegal immigrants, and I think I’ve made a very good legal and moral case for why this is.

        21. avatar strych9 says:

          “If you want to stop people from coming over for free hospital stays, then quit paying for free hospital stays.”

          This already happened under the ACA. The government no longer reimburses a hospital for “indigent” patients which is why you’re going to see a TON of rural and smaller hospitals reorganize or go under this year and next. But that story is a whole other kettle of fish with a lot of stupid in it.

          The problem isn’t “free” the problem is that hospitals cannot legally turn anyone away under The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act of 1986. In fact laws, in one form or another, barring this kind of discriminatory behavior go back to the 1950’s. All of them, EMTLA included, came with the caveat that the government would reimburse the hospitals for the care of truly indigent patients regardless of what bills that person had run up. Again, the reimbursement is now gone under the ACA, and again, that’s a whole other issue.

          No offense, but the suggestion here is somewhat absurd. The idea that someone is going to “pass” on US Citizenship (and chain migration for their family complete with green cards) because of a medical bill is a joke. A few grand in medical bills is nothing compared to a child with US citizenship which is basically priceless to these people.

          Not to mention these folks are not going to pay the bill anyway. They’re going to stick the hospital with the bill because the patient can’t pay it. That’s why you’re going to see some serious fuckery in the next year or two.

        22. avatar Gralnok says:

          Since the comments section is being weird, or I don’t know how it works, I’ll just reply to my comment but direct it at JW.

          What I am saying, is that anchor babies are just what they are; babies born of illegal immigrants on our soil. Trespassers, essentially. They were in the womb, they are outside it. Because of sanctuary cities and states (which should be de-funded) they are falsely labeled US citizens. I suppose the argument against me, is that this is my opinion, not fact. I dearly wish we could kick these babies out with their parents, but sadly, because of people who take a contrary stance, (you) these families become media darlings who paint them as innocent people looking to start fresh. Even if they were, they still came illegally making them criminals. Now, is this fair? No. Is the process to immigrate fraught with pitfalls and very lengthy? Yes. US citizenship should be cherished and not given freely to anyone wanting entry, but it could also be a much easier process based on merits. As it is, currently, our immigration process is broken and in dire need of reform. We cannot round every illegal up and deport them, we simply don’t have the resources to do it, nor the organization. Not to mention, bleeding hearts would be screaming their heads off. We also can’t keep letting people in as freely as we have been. The easiest solution we have, is building a wall. Walls work. They dramatically cut down on crossings. The sad part will be the very detrimental effect on the environment and on native species, especially ones that migrate, but this is necessary and I’m sure solutions will be found to minimize harm to the environment. Also, the process to hire new border patrol officers must be streamlined,

        23. avatar strych9 says:

          OK, so this is gonna be a bit long and the language a bit salty. It’s not directed at anyone specifically so don’t get all butthurt if I say something that is related to something you may have said.

          I tire of this argument. It’s fucking childish. Like 3rd grade level childish. A wall, legal battles blah blah blah.

          If you really want to change anything in terms of illegal immigration from South and Central America or in terms of drugs you need to understand a few key facts that are almost always left out of this discussion because they don’t fit into news media sound bites and, quite frankly, the people who generally are “experts” on this are actually fucking morons.

          First off, you’re never going to stop all illegal immigration. You’re not. Put that thought aside. What we can do is very seriously cut it down. A wall ain’t gonna do that. People are smart and will defeat any security we throw in their way. The same is true of drugs. Who “crosses the boarder” in a way that will be stopped by a wall? The poorest of the poor. The rest are smuggled in through legal ports of entry. Mostly trucks at this point but it changes based on how we configure our security.

          If you really want to cut down on this you have to go after the root cause of the situation which is money (and governmental problems in the countries in question, see below). If these people can’t make any money here they will generally stay where they are. That means Card Check and E-Verify with serious penalties for employers who break the rules. Self-deportation will follow. You won’t get 100% of these folks. The poorest of the poor will stay to work “under the table” landscaping jobs and the like.

          As for drugs. HA! Good luck. There’s WAY too much money to be made with this. Dumbass talking heads say “Well go after the banks!” “Designate them a terror organization!”. Ugh. Eat some more fucking paste why don’t you? Look, we’ve designated dozens of groups as terror orgs and many of them exist decades later. Hezbollah is richer now than ever. Why? Drugs, better scams, you name it. They’re smart. They adapt. You know how RF says you can’t stop the signal? Well, you fucking can’t. Eliminate drugs? LULZ! Say something like this and the adults in the room know you’re ignorant, stupid or both.

          There are three key things to understand about drugs.

          1) People want them and where there’s a market someone will supply the goods. Same as it ever was. There is nothing new under the sun. You can’t stop it. You’re literally trying to use the law to change human nature on a MASS scale. It cannot and will not work. Humans, as a general rule, seek altered states of consciousness. Drugs do that in quick and easy manner.

          2) Going after cartels is attacking a hydra. We’ve been doing it for decades with no success and we’re not going to start having it.

          3) The only way to really “go after” the cartels is a major military operation in nearly every country in South and Central America. That’s never going to happen. Even if it did new cartels would pop up as soon as we left or stopped paying attention. Again, there’s too much money to be made here.

          Further, none of this is really ever going to get fixed until South and Central America fix themselves. A proposition that is, based on the last 200 years of history, very unlikely in the foreseeable future. The Constitutions of these countries are generally prone to abuse and contain few if any property rights. Without secure property rights you cannot have a country like ours. In fact you really can’t have a stable country. This is one of the real root problems with our Southern neighbors.

          This is way more complicated than people want to admit and really there are no solutions. It’s not about “having balls” or “doing the right thing”. Those two things will help for sure but the majority of this comes down to this: As long as people can have a better life here, illegal as it may be, they’re going to do it. We can cut that down significantly by making it hard for them to have a better life but we’ll never eliminate the problem. Drugs OTOH are here to stay. There’s quite literally nothing you can do about that problem./

        24. avatar Mort says:

          Howdy,

          For pwrserge, gralnok, and anyone else who cares to answer…

          Not trying to make a point or start an argument, but I am just wondering what the varying perspectives are of folks that hold the opinion that birthright-citizenship is not valid. Curious about my case, in particular:

          I am not quite 50. I was born in Washington, D.C., and I am a first generation American citizen, at least legally. Both of my parents were immigrants. My father came from Asia: his parents escaped Mao, and he leap-frogged to Canada and then to NYC. He applied for and eventually became a US citizen, through the legal process.

          My mother came over on a boat from Europe, as a medic. She was too proud to relinquish her citizenship of Norway, so although she resided in the US for decades, and continually kept “green card” status. (She returned to Norway in the 1990s.) She was not a US citizen when I was born.

          My father may or may not have been a US citizen when I was born… I am finding that out, for curiosity’s sake; frankly, I never thought to ask, but now I would like to know. By the time I was a grade school child, he definitely was a US citizen– he’s a conservative, “English only,” right wing GOP voting American for whom Reagan was the Greatest. (Like a lot of old timers, he likes Trump, but thinks he’s a bit of a crass big mouth.)

          Myself, I am a fairly libertarian Bill of Rights loving gun-toting American, living in Arizona for decades now. At least, I thought I was– although I realize that some might have a different perspective, technically. For most of my life, it never occurred to me to look at my US Passport and even wonder….

          But, let’s wonder! What if my father was not a US citizen at the time of my birth? Does it matter that my mother was definitely not a US citizen when I was born? (Aside: It’s annoying… because my sister born in the 1980s has Norwegian citizenship also, but I do not, as children of Norwegian *women* citizens abroad were not granted citizenship until the 1980s.)

          Finally, for some background color in the mix: both of my parents met at the Brooklyn VA hospital, tending to Vietnam vets, my father as a doctor and my my mother a nurse. And that’s been our “service” since, working with vets and VA, as none of us has ever been military. Doesn’t matter to the basic question, of course– but just to be clear that we’re not necessarily a family whose sympathies lie with marching “No Borders, No Nations” signs… hardly.

          So, the big questions:

          What’s the verdict from the peanut gallery here? If my father was not a US citizen– should I be required to suspend my citizenship until I go back and perform some sort of “process,” some penance? If my father was a US citizen– does it matter that my mother was definitely not when I was born? Despite being born in Washington, D.C.– if these “technicalities” disqualify me, am I then an “anchor baby?” (…or an “anchor OFH-WG…”) If I am a faux US citizen, do I now receive “amnesty” because of my age, my deeds, or an ad-hoc review of my life? Do my parents’ deeds matter, or does it depend on their citizenship status? Do I get citizenship because I vote the “right way” for my guns? And, if the verdict is not in my favor, and I am deemed not an actual US citizen– where do I get deported to? (Some place with good gun laws, I hope….)

          Like I said, I am not trying to start an argument. Nor are these questions necessarily rhetorical– I know for certain, 100%, that I have good friends who would literally demand that such immigration technicalities be sorted out and accounted for *by every single person in the United States*. They take this issue very seriously. And I suppose I am saying, while nothing especially revelatory, that every single one of our situations and stories could be very complex and convoluted. Whether we like to admit it or not, the immigration problem is not nearly as “simple” as the loudest voices would have us believe, on either side. Sometimes it is simple: sometimes an illegal border crosser is just that (and personally, as an Arizonan, I want deportations…). But sometimes, after years of living and family entanglements and systematic bureaucracy, peoples’ circumstances can become awfully complicated and messy, whether or not they entered the US legally or illegally. Being around many Mexicans, I have known some that are 100% Americans through and through, and some that should be used to buffer the cement foundation for the upcoming wall… and then many who manage to deftly straddle the awkward line between bona fide patriot and bona fide problem.

          Love to hear some thoughts… The Truth About Citizenship. Be safe.

        25. avatar pwrserge says:

          Mort,

          I think that despite blatant slander from the left the position of most rational people on my side was quite clear. Birthright citizenship should only apply to people whose parents are in the US legally. While there are some people who insist on inherited citizenship, you will find them to be a rather tiny minority on our side of the argument.

          The main problem we have is people abusing the unconstitutional definition of birthright citizenship as it is applied today as an end-run around the legal immigration process. This is being exploited by certain political parties to create an artificial voter base and ethnically cleanse the country. This is largely a result of their socialist policies making a natural negative population growth politically untenable.

          (We can talk about why negative population growth is not necessarily a bad thing in an industrialized country and why GDP per capita is far more important an economic indicator than overall GDP.)

          As for immigration policy in general, I think it’s clear that Americans do not benefit from an endless influx of low skill and low IQ third world migrants. If Americans do not benefit, what’s the point of letting them in? I can see an argument being made for high education individuals in critical specialties (doctors, engineers, scientists, etc…) but the US can easily fix our manual labor shortage problem by massively cutting government handouts to the able-bodied. (No, kiddo, you are not “too good” to go shovel shit on a farm.) Those who do not work, shall not eat. Simple.

        26. avatar Gralnok says:

          To Mort
          A very good rhetorical question. Would you be legal, if you are past a certain age… Well, my position is yes. I originally thought not, but I think that if you are past a certain age, have been in the US for a while, have been contributing to society, then yes, you should be granted citizenship. My position was mainly a response to people having birth here then making a stink when they overstay their welcome. Anchor babies referred to actual babies and small children, but that does raise another good question. What should the certain age be? This is, admittedly, something best left to my betters.

          To strych9
          Walls work. They don’t work 100%, but they do drastically reduce crossings and, hopefully, send a clear message to any potential crosser. Don’t cross. Don’t try it. As for cartels, drugs, etcetera, yes it’s a hydra, but the alternative is complacency which results in much more crime, more gangs, more problems. It’s a never ending struggle that must be fought.

      5. avatar barnbwt says:

        Might wanna bone up on the immigration laws of the distant past before casting aspersions. Big empty country meant all were welcomed with a lot of conditions (some kind of bonded servitude being the usual one for every race of penniless vagrants, be they Irish, African, or Chinese). Tossed into the empty West, they then literally made the land their own, booting off the indigenous occupants at great personal risk and producing homesteads.

        Crossing via coyote SUV with forged documentation stolen from US citizens so as to slip into an already-thriving economy with innumerable benefits & generosity, and contribute nothing apart from cheaper wages to compete already-existing ample work forces, while agitating for policies (and freebies) directly opposed to the maintenance of the successful system they fled their native hellhole for is somewhat different.

  8. avatar Timothy Noecker says:

    “We ALL know its ONLY white males who commit these atrocities, right? Article states there’s a woman in custody? This is definitely a false-flag operation. Women don’t mass-murder. California has no guns. There are no guns in school. No way a woman committed a mass shooting at a school in California. Can’t happen”

    LMAO, LMAO, LMAO!!!!

  9. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    It must be fake news as Commiefirnia has strict gun control and supposedly it occurred in a gun free zone,hence fake news.

  10. avatar Swarf says:

    Oh, fer fuck’s sake.

  11. avatar Chris says:

    Not possible, schools are gun free zones! Even the faculty can no longer carry. This has to be fake, it’s obvious that trump is to blame.

  12. avatar michael says:

    Read the comments in the news article….

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Never.

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    Prayers for the victims…OF CALIFORNIA😩😖😟

  14. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    What the f^ck? Another school shooting?!? we must have a law……….this should not be legal……….Meanwhile, local school authorities are hiding the shooter, rumored to be an undocumented transgender dreamer, from the grasp of CBP. Local representatives of La Raza and Lambda Legal have lined up outside the school in defiance of immigration authorities arriving to retrieve the unnamed student……….The President has tweeted “we need to do something about these bad Hombres”, which was immediately denounced as anti feminist by RuPaul.

  15. avatar billy-bob says:

    Lemme guess, Juan was stepping out on Inez and she decided to get revenge by popping him and Rosalita at school, with the gun she ‘borrowed’ from mama’s sleep over friend who just happens to be an MS-13 member. Who am I kidding, it was the one Caucasian girl at this school whose parents are republicans.

  16. avatar Kendahl says:

    Either gang crap or a pissed off ex girlfriend.

  17. avatar pieslapper says:

    Why are there 15 yr olds still in middle school?

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      @ pieslapper

      Held back a grade possibly or lack of quality education,after all it occurred in Commiefornia.

    2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Middle school.
      The toughest 6 years of her life.

    3. avatar barnbwt says:

      I understand this is often done for ‘new arrivals’ that won’t be able to pass standardized tests without several years of remedial catch-up in the earlier grades. Given the location & makeup of the school, such a possibility is hardly unlikely. That’s the best case scenario, worst is plain old gang-bangery.

  18. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    I blame Arizona’s lax gun laws.

    1. avatar Gralnok says:

      Clearly, we are to blame. 😋

  19. avatar Shire-man says:

    I wonder……..was she dreaming?

  20. avatar Gralnok says:

    Just wondering, how does one survive middle school in LA? I remember middle school as a brutal period of life that was very much full of goths, beastie boys, and tons of bullshit from everyone going into puberty at once. All that was happening in a relatively open school in a good area, good teachers, no prison style fencing around the school grounds (at the time) and without a super politically correct society. How do kids in communist states, under insane teachers, with rampant crime, even survive?

    1. avatar Swarf says:

      With guns?

  21. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    BAN KALIFORNIA NOW !!! FOR THE CHILDREN—OF ILLEGAL 🚫 ALIENS !!!

  22. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Well I hope the child survives his head injuries, God bless him. Hopefully the wrist injury will not affect the girls ability to pursue her dreams. And hopefully the precious child that committed the shooting can get some real help to resolve her internal conflicts. …. Ive got go take a big “pocket dump”now.

    1. avatar Defens says:

      I do too. If the injuries are unrecoverable, he can always get a job with Gabby or Shannon as a sock puppet.

  23. avatar Tom of Toms says:

    If it stated “resident”, there would be no argument. But it doesn’t does it? Look up common law on “domicile” and then read your state’s interpretation of the word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

  24. avatar Zhang says:

    BBC has an article up on this.

    Shooter was a 12 year old girl. Well, that is indeed middle school-aged.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      So, it was the reporter, and not the shooter, who was dyslexic & held back three grades?

  25. avatar JDFowlerton says:

    I’m betting the story is going to be she brought the gun to school to show it to her friends and it “just went off.”

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Just went off five times?
      That’s only plausible if it’s owned by a police officer.

      1. avatar JDFowlerton says:

        A while ago the story was that a girl was shot in the wrist and the boy in the head and the others injuries were from something else. It didn’t say anything about how many shots were fired.

        It didn’t seem too far fetched to me that someone toying with a gun could hit themselves in the arm and the round hit the person next to them. The other injuries could have been from the panic.

  26. avatar Rimfire says:

    Bottom line here, Serge won the debate! Period. He stated his case so ell he should be Perry Mason! Fact of the matter is, JWT was dealing from his heart, and Serge was dealing with facts! After reading all the diatribe there is no question that he has the high ground. Well done Serge, although I may not always agree with your s$hit, in this case you are absolutely correct and the opposition is on quicksand. Sorry JWT, it is what it is. Win some, lose some.

  27. avatar Vorkon says:

    As of this morning, NPR is reporting that the gun, in fact, did “just go off.”

    That’s the second “just go off” we’ve gotten in a major story in the past few months, first the Kate Steinle case, and now this.

    As we all know, in modern guns that doesn’t “just happen” without gross negligence on the part of the user, so I have a feeling this narrative is being pushed for a reason. My guess is it’s probably to try to fight against the reciprocity bill, because they know their usual arguments fall flat on that subject, since they know that anyone with the intent to do harm can and will carry illegally. So now they need to try to frame it as a safety issue, in which even people who are taking the time to get a permit and learn to carry properly run the risk of their guns “just going off” and hurting people.

    Assuming this story is true, my heart goes out to the girl, who was probably just stupid and left the gun in their bag with no holster, and various pens, pencils, and other school supplies floating around on which the trigger could get caught, (not nearly as much as my heart goes out for the victims, of course, but I can still sympathize with her) but at the same time we can’t just let them twist the narrative to this purpose. It’s STILL her fault, nobody who went through the effort of getting a concealed carry permit would be so stupid, and it’s not like a 12 year old could have gotten a permit anyway. Plus, if gun-free zones weren’t a thing, people wouldn’t feel the need to hide their guns in bags filled with school supplies to snag on triggers, in the first place.

  28. avatar Joe says:

    So as more info comes out I am waiting with deep regret that it will or won’t be revealed that she was mimicking the anti-gun commercial and bring the gun she found rummaging through her parents drawers to school to turn in because she didnt feel “safe” with it in the house….. Maybe because all she hears at school and on the news(if she is so inclined) and social media feeds(more likely) is a negative portrayal of guns and gun ownership…. she dropped her backpack, the gun was jostled and something in her pack hit the trigger and several kids are injured. Another anti-gun try goes down in flames……

  29. avatar Joe says:

    Here is the ad and I can see her doing just that…..or trying to……

    https://youtu.be/QIa4NkQXm8Y

  30. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

    So, I don’t want to ask anything stupid, but how do you hit 5 people with “a negligent discharge” after “shots erupted”? Was this a volcanic backpack or or a JFK Assassination magic bullet?

    How about some facts LAPD?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email